|
|
 دعونا بكل موضوعية نتحدث عن اختصاصات محكمة الجنايات الدولية ICC
|
How the Court Works
States Parties or the United Nations Security Council may refer situations of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court to the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor evaluates the available information and commences an investigation unless he determines there is no reasonable basis to proceed.
The Prosecutor may also begin an investigation on his own initiative. In doing so, he receives and analyzes information submitted by a variety of reliable sources. If the Prosecutor concludes there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he asks a Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize an investigation
The Prosecutor’s investigations cover all facts and evidence relevant to an assessment of criminal responsibility. The Prosecutor investigates incriminating and exonerating circumstance equally and fully respects the rights of the accused.
During the duration of an investigation, each situation is assigned to a Pre-Trial Chamber. The Pre-Trial Chamber is responsible for the judicial aspects of proceedings. Among its functions, the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, may issue a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear if there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. Once a wanted person has been surrendered to or voluntarily appears before the Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber holds a hearing to confirm the charges that will be the basis of the trial.
Following the confirmation of charges, a case is assigned to a Trial Chamber of three judges. The Trial Chamber is responsible for conducting fair and expeditious proceedings with full respect for the rights of the accused. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has the right to conduct the defence in person or through counsel of his or her choosing. Victims may also participate in proceedings directly or through their legal representatives.
Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Trial Chamber issues its decision, acquitting or convicting the accused. If the accused is convicted, the Trial Chamber issues a sentence for a specified term of up to thirty years or, when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, life imprisonment. The Trial Chamber may also order reparations to victims.
Throughout the Pre-Trial and Trial phases, the accused, the Prosecutor or a concerned State may appeal decisions of the Chambers as specified by the Statute. Following the decision of the Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor or the accused may appeal the decision or sentence as provided in the Statute. Legal representatives of victims, the convicted person or bona fide owners of adversely-affected property may appeal reparations orders. All appeals are decided by the Appeals Chamber of five judges.
While the ICC claims to consider only "genocide," "war crimes," and "crimes against humanity," the
definitions of those terms has been left so vague as to be open to virtually any interpretation. Dr. Wilkins gave LifeSite permission to publish his latest just-completed paper on the ICC wherein he warns, "Despite the best intentions of the Court founders, the Rome Statute transfers a vast amount of decision making authority from previously sovereign nations to an international court that will be remote (and unable to be controlled by or accountable) to the diverse peoples and cultures of the world."
"Under the Court's universal and complementary jurisdiction, the Court can and probably will attempt to change social norms in sometimes troublesome areas not admitting of a single, world-wide solution," writes Dr. Wilkins. "The International Criminal Court could well become the mechanism by which the Western innovation of judicially (rather than legislatively) crafted social policy - and its accompanying consequences - are exported to the rest of the world. Of all revolutions through the centuries, this is the quietest. Of all the attempts made over the years to foist one group's will on everyone else, this is the most subtle and simultaneously the most far-reaching - the world-wide constitutional convention no one knew about,"
نقلا عن http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/feb/020212.html
Frequently asked questions
Why is an International Criminal Court necessary?
What are the key features of the ICC?
When did the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court enter into force?
Doesn’t “complementarity” mean that the International Criminal Court can never prosecute if a country holds its own trial?
Who can initiate proceedings?
Can the ICC be used to try crimes committed before the Rome Treaty entered into force?
Why is the Court not exercising its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression?
Can the ICC deal with terrorist acts within its existing jurisdiction?
How is the ICC different from the ad hoc Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia?
How is the ICC different from the International Court of Justice?
Where is the International Criminal Court located?
How many people work for the ICC?
How to apply for jobs at the ICC?
راجعوا http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/faq.html
(عدل بواسطة الطيب شيقوق on 02-27-2007, 09:47 PM)
(عدل بواسطة الطيب شيقوق on 02-27-2007, 10:02 PM)
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: دعونا بكل موضوعية نتحدث عن اختصاصات محكمة الجنايات الدولية ICC (Re: الطيب شيقوق)
|
9. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
New York, 15 December 1997
Entry into force: 23 May 2001, in accordance with article 22 which reads as follows: "1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2. For each State ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 2. For each State ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.".
Registration: 23 May 2001, No. 37517.
Status: Signatories: 58 ,Parties: 149.
Text: United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2149, p. 256; depositary notification C.N.801.2001.TREATIES-9 of 12 October 2001 [proposal for corrections to the original of the Convention (authentic Chinese text)] and C.N.16.2002.TREATIES-1 of 10 January 2002 [rectification of the original text of the Convention (Chinese authentic text)]; C.N.310.2002.TREATIES-14 of 4 April 2002 [proposal of a correction to the original of the Convention (Spanish authentic text)] and C.N.416.2002.TREATIES-16 of 3 May 2002 [rectification of the original of the Convention (Spanish authentic text)]; C.N.1161.2005.TREATIES-15 of 15 Novemberl 2005 [proposal of a correction to the original of the Convention (Spanish authentic text)].
Note: The Convention was adopted by resolution A/RES/52/164 of the General Assembly on 15 December 1997. In accordance with its article 21(1), the Convention will be open for signature by all States on 12 January 1998 until 31 December 1999 at United Nations Headquarters.
PARTICIPANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participant Signature Ratification, Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Accession (a), Succession (d)
Afghanistan 24 Sep 2003 a
Albania 22 Jan 2002 a
Algeria 17 Dec 1998 8 Nov 2001
Andorra 23 Sep 2004 a
Argentina 2 Sep 1998 25 Sep 2003
Armenia 16 Mar 2004 a
Australia 9 Aug 2002 a
Austria 9 Feb 1998 6 Sep 2000
Azerbaijan 2 Apr 2001 a
Bahrain 21 Sep 2004 a
Bangladesh 20 May 2005 a
Barbados 18 Sep 2002 a
Belarus 20 Sep 1999 1 Oct 2001
Belgium 12 Jan 1998 20 May 2005
Belize 14 Nov 2001 a
Benin 31 Jul 2003 a
Bolivia 22 Jan 2002 a
Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 Aug 2003 a
Botswana 8 Sep 2000 a
Brazil 12 Mar 1999 23 Aug 2002
Brunei Darussalam 14 Mar 2002 a
Bulgaria 12 Feb 2002 a
Burkina Faso 1 Oct 2003 a
Burundi 4 Mar 1998
Cambodia 31 Jul 2006 a
Cameroon 21 Mar 2005 a
Canada 12 Jan 1998 3 Apr 2002
Cape Verde 10 May 2002 a
Chile 10 Nov 2001 a
China1 13 Nov 2001 a
Colombia 14 Sep 2004 a
Comoros 1 Oct 1998 25 Sep 2003
Costa Rica 16 Jan 1998 20 Sep 2001
Côte d'Ivoire 25 Sep 1998 13 Mar 2002
Croatia 2 Jun 2005 a
Cuba 15 Nov 2001 a
Cyprus 26 Mar 1998 24 Jan 2001
Czech Republic 29 Jul 1998 6 Sep 2000
Denmark2 23 Dec 1999 31 Aug 2001
Djibouti 1 Jun 2004 a
Dominica 24 Sep 2004 a
Egypt 14 Dec 1999 9 Aug 2005
El Salvador 15 May 2003 a
Equatorial Guinea 7 Feb 2003 a
Estonia 27 Dec 1999 10 Apr 2002
Ethiopia 16 Apr 2003 a
Finland 23 Jan 1998 28 May 2002 A
France 12 Jan 1998 19 Aug 1999
Gabon 10 Mar 2005 a
Georgia 18 Feb 2004 a
Germany 26 Jan 1998 23 Apr 2003
Ghana 6 Sep 2002 a
Greece 2 Feb 1998 27 May 2003
Grenada 13 Dec 2001 a
Guatemala 12 Feb 2002 a
Guinea 7 Sep 2000 a
Honduras 25 Mar 2003 a
Hungary 21 Dec 1999 13 Nov 2001
Iceland 28 Sep 1998 15 Apr 2002
India 17 Sep 1999 22 Sep 1999
Indonesia 29 Jun 2006 a
Ireland 29 May 1998 30 Jun 2005
Israel 29 Jan 1999 10 Feb 2003
Italy 4 Mar 1998 16 Apr 2003
Jamaica 9 Aug 2005 a
Japan 17 Apr 1998 16 Nov 2001 A
Kazakhstan 6 Nov 2002 a
Kenya 16 Nov 2001 a
Kiribati 15 Sep 2005 a
Kuwait 19 Apr 2004 a
Kyrgyzstan 1 May 2001 a
Lao People's Democratic Republic 22 Aug 2002 a
Latvia 25 Nov 2002 a
Lesotho 12 Nov 2001 a
Liberia 5 Mar 2003 a
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 22 Sep 2000 a
Liechtenstein 26 Nov 2002 a
Lithuania 8 Jun 1998 17 Mar 2004
Luxembourg 6 Feb 1998 6 Feb 2004
Madagascar 1 Oct 1999 24 Sep 2003
Malawi 11 Aug 2003 a
Malaysia 24 Sep 2003 a
Maldives 7 Sep 2000 a
Mali 28 Mar 2002 a
Malta 11 Nov 2001 a
Marshall Islands 27 Jan 2003 a
Mauritania 30 Apr 2003 a
Mauritius 24 Jan 2003 a
Mexico 20 Jan 2003 a
Micronesia (Federated States of) 23 Sep 2002 a
Moldova 10 Oct 2002 a
Monaco 25 Nov 1998 6 Sep 2001
Mongolia 7 Sep 2000 a
Montenegro3 23 Oct 2006 d
Mozambique 14 Jan 2003 a
Myanmar 12 Nov 2001 a
Nauru 2 Aug 2005 a
Nepal 24 Sep 1999
Netherlands4 12 Mar 1998 7 Feb 2002 A
New Zealand5 4 Nov 2002 a
Nicaragua 17 Jan 2003 a
Niger 26 Oct 2004 a
Norway 31 Jul 1998 20 Sep 1999
Pakistan 13 Aug 2002 a
Palau 14 Nov 2001 a
Panama 3 Sep 1998 5 Mar 1999
Papua New Guinea 30 Sep 2003 a
Paraguay 22 Sep 2004 a
Peru 10 Nov 2001 a
Philippines 23 Sep 1998 7 Jan 2004
Poland 14 Jun 1999 3 Feb 2004
Portugal 30 Dec 1999 10 Nov 2001
Republic of Korea 3 Dec 1999 17 Feb 2004
Romania 30 Apr 1998 29 Jul 2004
Russian Federation 12 Jan 1998 8 May 2001
Rwanda 13 May 2002 a
Saint Kitts and Nevis 16 Nov 2001 a
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 15 Sep 2005 a
San Marino 12 Mar 2002 a
Sao Tome and Principe 12 Apr 2006 a
Senegal 27 Oct 2003 a
Serbia 31 Jul 2003 a
Seychelles 22 Aug 2003 a
Sierra Leone 26 Sep 2003 a
Slovakia 28 Jul 1998 8 Dec 2000
Slovenia 30 Oct 1998 25 Sep 2003
South Africa 21 Dec 1999 1 May 2003
Spain 1 May 1998 30 Apr 1999
Sri Lanka 12 Jan 1998 23 Mar 1999
Sudan 7 Oct 1999 8 Sep 2000
Swaziland 4 Apr 2003 a
Sweden 12 Feb 1998 6 Sep 2001
Switzerland 23 Sep 2003 a
Tajikistan 29 Jul 2002 a
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 16 Dec 1998 30 Aug 2004
Togo 21 Aug 1998 10 Mar 2003
Tonga 9 Dec 2002 a
Trinidad and Tobago 2 Apr 2001 a
Tunisia 22 Apr 2005 a
Turkey 20 May 1999 30 May 2002
Turkmenistan 18 Feb 1999 25 Jun 1999
Uganda 11 Jun 1999 5 Nov 2003
Ukraine 26 Mar 2002 a
United Arab Emirates 23 Sep 2005 a
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 12 Jan 1998 7 Mar 2001
United Republic of Tanzania 22 Jan 2003 a
United States of America 12 Jan 1998 26 Jun 2002
Uruguay 23 Nov 1998 10 Nov 2001
Uzbekistan 23 Feb 1998 30 Nov 1998
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 23 Sep 1998 23 Sep 2003
Yemen 23 Apr 2001 a
DECLARATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.)
Algeria
Reservation:
Reservation of Algeria
The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that in order for a dispute to be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties to the dispute shall be required in each case.
Belgium
Declaration regarding article 11:
1. In exceptional circumstances, the Government of Belgium reserves the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance in respect of any offence set forth in article 2 which it considers to be a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives.
2. In cases where the preceding paragraph is applicable, Belgium recalls that it is bound by the general legal principle aut dedere aut judicare, pursuant to the rules governing the competence of its courts.
Bahrain
Reservation:
The Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by Paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Convention.
Brazil
Reservation:
".....the Federative Republic of Brazil declares, pursuant to article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted in New York on the 15th December 1997, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, of the said Convention.
Canada
Declaration:
"Canada declares that it considers the application of article 2 (3) (c) of the Terrorist Bombing Convention to be limited to acts committed in furthering a conspiracy of two or more persons to commit a specific criminal offence contemplated in paragraph 1 or 2 of article 2 of that Convention."
China
Reservation:
"... China accedes to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, done at New York on 15 December 1997, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Convention."
Colombia
Declaration:
By virtue of article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Colombia declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article.
Furthermore, by virtue of article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Colombia states that it establishes its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law in relation to paragraph 2 of the same article.
Cuba
Reservation and declaration:
Reservation
The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 20, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article, concerning the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties, inasmuch as it considers that such disputes must be settled through amicable negotiation. In consequence, it declares that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Declaration
The Republic of Cuba declares that none of the provisions contained in article 19, paragraph 2, shall constitute an encouragement or condonation of the threat or use of force in international relations, which must under all circumstances be governed strictly by the principles of international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
Cuba also considers that relations between States must be based strictly on the provisions contained in resolution 2625 (XXV) of the United Nations General Assembly.
In addition, the exercise of State terrorism has historically been a fundamental concern for Cuba, which considers that the complete eradication thereof through mutual respect, friendship and cooperation between States, full respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, self-determination and non-interference in internal affairs must constitute a priority of the international community.
Cuba is therefore firmly of the opinion that the undue use of the armed forces of one State for the purpose of aggression against another cannot be condoned under the present Convention, whose purpose is precisely to combat, in accordance with the principles of the international law, one of the most noxious forms of crime faced by the modern world.
To condone acts of aggression would amount, in fact, to condoning violations of international law and of the Charter and provoking conflicts with unforeseeable consequences that would undermine the necessary cohesion of the international community in the fight against the scourges that truly afflict it.
The Republic of Cuba also interprets the provisions of the present Convention as applying with full rigour to activities carried out by armed forces of one State against another State in cases in which no armed conflict exists between the two.
Egypt6
Upon signature :
Reservations:
"1. Article 6, paragraph 5:
The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it is bound by Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Convention insofar as the domestic laws of States Parties do not contradict the relevant rules and principles of international law.
2. Article 19, paragraph 2:
The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it is bound by Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention insofar as the military forces of the State, in the exercise of their duties do not violate the rules and principles of international law."
Upon ratification :
1. The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it shall be bound by article 6, paragraph 5, of the Convention to the extent that the national legislation of States Parties is not incompatible with the relevant norms and principles of international law.
2. The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it shall be bound by article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention to the extent that the armed forces of a State, in the exercise of their duties, do not violate the norms and principles of international law.
El Salvador
Declaration:
... with regard to article 20, paragraph 2, the Republic of El Salvador declares that it does not consider itsel f bound by paragraph 1 of the said article because it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Ethiopia
Reservation pursuant to article 20 (2):
"The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia does not consider itself bound by the aforementioned provision of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention would be submitted to arbitration or to the Court only with the prior consent of all the parties concerned."
Germany
Upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:
Declaration:
The Federal Republic of Germany understands article 1 para. 4 of [the said Convention] in the sense that the term "military forces of a state" includes their national contingents operating as part of the United Nations forces. Furthermore, the Federal Republic of Germany also understands that, for the purposes of this Convention, the term "military forces of a state" also covers police forces.
India
Reservation:
"In accordance with Article 20 (2), the Government of the Republic of India hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 20 (1) of the Convention.".
Indonesia
Declaration:
"The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the provisions of Article 6 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings will have to be implemented in strict compliance with the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States."
Reservation:
"The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 20 and takes the position that dispute relating to the interpretation and application on the Convention which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in Paragraph (1) of the said Article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all the Parties to the dispute."
Kuwait
Reservation and declaration:
".....the reservation to its paragraph (a) of article (20) and the declaration of non-compliance to its provisions."
Israel
" ... with the following declarations:
The Government of the State of Israel understands Article 1, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, in the sense that the term "military forces of a State" includes police and security forces operating pursuant to the internal law of the State of Israel.
...
The Government of the State of Israel understands that the term "international humanitarian law"referred to in Article 19, of the Convention has the same substantive meaning as the term "the laws of war"( "jus in bello"). This body of laws does not include the provisions of the protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 to which the State of Israel is not a Party.
The Government of the State of Israel understands that under Article 1 paragraph 4 and Article 19 the Convention does not apply to civilians who direct or organize the official activities of military forces of a state.
Pursuant to Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the State of Israel does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Convention."
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Reservation:
"In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 20 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1, article 20 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary."
Malaysia
Declarations:
"1. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase "Military forces of a State" in Article 1 (4) of the Convention to include the national contingents of Malaysia operating as part of United Nations forces.
2. .....
3. The Government of Malaysia understands Article 8 (1) of the Convention to include the right of the competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.
4. (a) Pursuant to Article 20 (2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 20 (1) of the Convention; and
(b) the Government of Malaysia reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 20 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."
Moldova
Declarations:
... with the following declarations and reservation
1. .....
2. The Republic of Moldova declares its understanding that the provisions of article 12 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings should be implemented in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for the commission of offenses falling within the scope of the Convention, without prejudice to the effectiveness of the international cooperation on the questions of extradition and legal assistance.
3. Pursuant to article 20, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Moldova declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Mozambique
Declaration:
"... with the following declaration in accordance with its article 20, paragraph 2:
"The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 20 paragraph 1 of the Convention.
In this connection, the Republic of Mozambique states that, in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice".
Furthermore, the Republic of Mozambique declare that:
"The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, may not and will not extradite Mozambique citizens.
Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts".
Myanmar
Reservation:
"The Government of the Union of Myanmar, having considered the Convention aforesaid, hereby declares that it accedes to the same with reservation on Article 20 (1) and does not consider itself bound by the provision set forth in the said Article."
Netherlands
Declaration:
"The Kingdom of the Netherlands understands Article 8, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to include the right of the competent judicial authorities to decide not to prosecute a person alleged to have committed such an offence, if, in the opinion of the competent judicial authorities grave considerations of procedural law indicate that effective prosecution will be impossible."
Pakistan7
Declaration:
"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that nothing in this Convention shall be applicable to struggles, including armed struggle, for the realization of right of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination, in accordance with the rules of international law. This interpretation is consistent with Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 which provides that an agreement or treaty concluded in conflict with an existing jus cogen or preemptory norm of international law is void and, the right of self-determination is universally recognized as a jus cogen."
Portugal
Upon signature:
Declaration:
"For the purposes of article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Portugal declares that the extradiction of Portuguese nationals from its territory will be authorized only if the following conditions, as stated in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, are met:
a) In case of terrorism and organised criminality; and
b) For purposes of criminal proceedings and, being so, subject to a guarantee given by the state seeking the extradition that the concerned person will be surrended to Portugal to serve the sentence or mesure imposed on him or her, unless such person does not consent thereto by means of expressed declaration.
For purposes of enforcement of a sentence in Portugal, the procedures referred to in the declaration made by Portugal to the European Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons shall be complied with."
Russian Federation
Upon signature:
Declaration:
The position of the Russian Federation is that the provisions of article 12 of the Convention should be implemented in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for the commission of offences falling within the scope of the Convention, without detriment to the effectiveness of international cooperation on the questions of extradition and legal assistance.
Upon ratification:
Declarations:
.....
2) "The position of the Russian Federation is that the provisions of article 12 of the Convention should be implemented in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for the commission of offenses falling within the scope of the Convention, without detriment to the effectiveness of international cooperation on the questions of extradition and legal assistance".
Spain
29 February 2000
Declaration:
According to article 23 of the Organization of Justice Act 6/1985 of 1 July, terrorism is a crime that is universally prosecutable and over which the Spanish courts have international jurisdiction under any circumstances; accordingly, article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention is deemed to have been satisfied and there is no need to establish a special jurisdiction upon ratification of the Convention.
Sudan
Declaration concerning article 19, paragraph 2:
This paragraph shall not create any additional obligation to the Government of the Republic of the Sudan. It does not affect and does not diminish the responsibility of the Government of the Republic of the Sudan to maintain by all legitimate means order and law or re-establish it in the country or to defend its national unity or territorial integrity.
This paragraph does not affect the principle of non-interference in internal affairs of states, directly or indirectly, as it is set out in the United Nations Charter and relative provisions of international law.
Reservation to article 20, paragraph 1:
The Republic of the Sudan does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 20, in pursuance to paragraph 2 of the same article.
Tunisia
Reservation:
By agreeing to accede to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997, [the Republic of Tunisia] declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 20 (1) and affirms that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the said Convention may only be submitted to the International Court of Justice with its prior consent."
Turkey
Upon signature:
Declarations:
"The Republic of Turkey declares that articles 9 and 12 should not be interpreted in such a way that offenders of these crimes are neither tried nor prosecuted. Furthermore mutual legal assistance and extradition are two different concepts and the conditions for rejecting a request for extradition should not be valid for mutual legal assistance.
The Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that the term international humanitarian law referred to in article 19 of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings shall be interpreted as comprising the relevant international rules excluding the provisions of additional Protocols to Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, to which Turkey is not a Party. The first part of the second paragraph of the said article should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a state as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby as creating new obligations for Turkey.
Reservation:
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of article (20) of the [Convention] the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article (20) of the said Convention."
Upon ratification:
"[W]ith the stated reservations...[:]
1) The Republic of Turkey declares that Articles (9) and (12) should not be interpreted in such a way that offenders of these crimes are neither tried nor prosecuted.
2) The Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that the term international humanitarian law referred to in Article (19) of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings shall be interpreted as comprising the relevant international rules excluding the provisions of Additional Protocols to Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, to which Turkey is not a Party. The first part of the second paragraph of the said article should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a state as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby as creating new obligations for Turkey.
3) Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article (20) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article (20) of the said Convention."
Ukraine
Reservation:
The provisions of article 19, paragraph 2, do not preclude Ukraine from exercising its jurisdiction over the members of military forces of a state and their prosecution, should their actions be illegal. The Convention will be applied to the extent that such activities are not governed by other rules of international law.
United Arab Emirates
Reservation and declaration:
....subject to a reservation with respect to paragraph 1 of article 20 thereof, which relates to the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties, in consequence of which the United Arab Emirates does not consider itself bound by that paragraph concerning arbitration.
Moreover, the Government of the United Arab Emirates will determine its jurisdiction over the offences in the cases provided for in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention and will notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations to that effect in accordance with paragraph 3 of that article.
United States of America
Reservation:
"(a) pursuant to article 20 (2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 20 (1) of the Convention; and
(b) the United States of America reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the procedure in Article 20 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."
Understandings:
"(1) EXCLUSION FROM COVERAGE OF TERM "ARMED CONFLICT". The United States of America understands that the term "armed conflict"in Article 19 (2) of the Convention does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.
(2) MEANING OF TERM "INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW". The United States of America understands that the term "international humanitarian law"in Article 19 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning as the law of war.
(3) EXCLUSION FROM COVERAGE OF ACTIVITIES BY MILITARY FORCES. The United States understands that, under Article 19 and Article 1 (4), the Convention does not apply to:
(A) the military fores of a state in the exercise of their official duties;
(B) civilians who direct or organize the official activities of military forces of a state; or
(C) civilians acting in support of the official activities of the military forces of a state, if the civilians are under the formal command, control, and responsibility of those forces. "
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Reservation:
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, pursuant to the provisions of article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, formulates an express reservation regarding the stipulation in paragraph 1 of that article. Accordingly, it does not consider itself bound to resort to arbitration as a means of dispute settlement, and does not recognize the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Objections
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made
upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.)
Austria
14 April 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.
The Government of Austria considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention (...) are under no circumstance justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The Government of Austria recalls that according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Austria therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria ans the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. "
Australia
25 July 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Australia has examined the Declaration made by the Government of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997. The Government of Australia considers the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The Government of Australia further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ... are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of Australia recalls that, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Australia and Pakistan."
Canada
18 July 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Canada has examined the Declaration made by Pakistan at the time of its accession to the Convention and considers that the Declaration is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.
The Government of Canada considers the Declaration to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of Canada considers that the above Declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and Pakistan".
26 April 2006
With regard to the reservation made by Belgium upon accession:
"The Government of Canada considers the Reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ".....adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature."
The Government of Canada therefore objects to the Reservation relating to Article 2 made by the Government of Belgium upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings which it considers as contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and Belgium.
The Government of Canada notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted."
Denmark
18 March 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention (...) are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19 C of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become party, as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Denmark and Pakistan."
Finland
17 June 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Finland further considers the declaration to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings wherever and by whomever carried out.
The declaration is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its declaration."
France
3 February 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of the French Republic has considered the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 15 December 1997, that 'nothing in this Convention shall be applicable to struggles, including armed struggle, for the realization of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination, in accordance with international law'. The aim of the Convention is to suppress all terrorist bombings, and article 5 states that 'each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary ( ... ) to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ( ... ) are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature'. The Government of the French Republic considers that the above declaration constitutes a reservation, to which it objects".
15 August 2006
With regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 15 December 1997. Pursuant to that reservation, the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it is bound by article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention only insofar as the military forces of the State, in the exercise of their duties, do not violate the rules and principles of international law. However, the relevant portion of article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention states that: "the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention".
The Government of the French Republic considers that the effect of the reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is to bring within the scope of the Convention activities undertaken by a State's armed forces which do not belong there because they are covered by other provisions of international law. As a result, the reservation substantially alters the meaning and scope of article 19, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Government of the French Republic objects to the reservation, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Egypt.
Germany
23 April 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the "declaration" to the International Convention of the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature."
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Pakistan."
3 November 2004
With regard to the declaration made by Malaysia upon accession:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the declaration relating to the Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 8 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia introduces a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to clearly identify in which way the Government of Malaysia intends to change the obligations arising from the Convention.
Therefore the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany hereby objects to this declaration which is considered to be a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Malaysia."
18 May 2006
With regard to the declaration made by Belgium upon ratification:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings with respect to its Article 11. With this reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium expresses that it reserves the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance in respect of any offence which it considers to be politically motivated. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, this reservation seeks to limit the Convention's scope of application in a way that is incompatible with the objective and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium."
11 August 2006
With regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon ratification:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration, described as a reservation, relating to article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
In this declaration the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt expresses the opinion that the activities of the armed forces of a State in the exercise of their duties, inasmuch as they are not consistent with the rules and principles of international humanitarian law, are governed by the Convention. However, according to article 19, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, as well as the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention, so that the declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt aims to broaden the scope of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is only entitled to make such a declaration unilaterally for its own armed forces, and it interprets the declaration as having binding effect only on armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt. In the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, such a unilateral declaration cannot apply to the armed forces of other States Parties without their express consent. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore declares that it does not consent to the Egyptian declaration as so interpreted with regard to any armed forces other than those of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and in particular does not recognize any applicability of the Convention to the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany also emphasizes that the declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt has no effect whatsoever on the Federal Republic of Germany's obligations as State Party to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, or on the Convention's applicability to armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings as entering into force between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Arab Republic of Egypt subject to a unilateral declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, which relates exclusively to the obligations of the Arab Republic of Egypt and to the armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt."
India
3 April 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of the Republic of India have examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997.
The Government of the Republic of India consider that the Declaration made by Pakistan is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and it is, therefore, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.
The Government of India consider the Declaration to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ... are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of their political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of India consider that the above Declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
The Government of India recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of India therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between India and Pakistan."
Ireland
23 June 2006
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Ireland have examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings according to which the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers that nothing in this Convention shall be applicable to struggles, including armed struggles, for the realisation of the right of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination.
The Government of Ireland are of the view that this declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Ireland are also of the view that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely suppressing terrorist bombings, wherever and by whomever carried out.
The Government of Ireland further consider the declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The Government of Ireland recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.
The Government of Ireland therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Convention enters into force between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservation."
Israel
28 May 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Permanent Mission of the State of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the declaration of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997.
"The Government of the State of Israel considers that declaration to be, in fact, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as expressed in Article 5 thereof.
The Government of the State of Israel recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of the State of Israel therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan."
Italy
3 June 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Italy has examined the "declaration" to the International Convention of the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of Italy considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the term of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The Government of Italy therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and Pakistan."
18 May 2006
With regard to the declaration made by Belgium upon ratification:
"The Government of Italy has examined the reservation to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of Belgium upon the accession to that Convention. The Government of Italy considers the reservation by Belgium as intended to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis, which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where it takes place and of who carries it out. The Government of Italy recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Italy therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Italy. The Convention enters into force between Belgium and Italy without the Government of Belgium benefiting from its reservation. "
14 August 2006
With regard to the reservations made by Egypt upon ratification:
"The Government of Italy has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism Bombings, according to which 1) The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it shall be bound by article 6, paragraph 5, of the Convention to the extent that national legislation of States Parties is not incompatible with relevant norms and principles of international law. 2) The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it shall be bound by article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention to the extent that the armed forces of a State, in article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention to the extent that the armed forces of a State, in the exercise of their duties, do not violate the norms and principles of international law.
The Government of Italy considers the reservations to be contrary to the terms of article 5 of the Convention, according to which the States Parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Italy wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Italy therefore objects to the reservations made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Italy. The Convention enters into force between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Italy without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservations."
Japan
4 August 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
".....[The Permanent Mission of Japan] has the honour to make the following declaration on behalf of the Government of Japan.
When depositing its Instrument of Accession, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan made a declaration which reads as follows:
"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that nothing in this Convention shall be applicable to struggles, including armed struggle, for the realization of right of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination, in accordance with the rules of international law. This interpretation is consistent with Article53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 which provides that an agreement or treaty concluded in conflict with an existing jus cogen or preemptory norm of international law is void and, the right of self-determination is universally recognized as a jus cogen."
In this connection, the Government of Japan draws attention to the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The Government of Japan considers that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks to exclude struggles, including armed struggle, for the realization of right of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination from the application of the Convention and that such declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Japan therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
Netherlands
20 February 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Pakistan."
2 November 2004
With regard to the declaration made by Malaysia upon accession:
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration relating to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 8 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia is formulating a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to identify the changes to the obligations arising from the Convention that it is intended to introduce. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers that a reservation formulated in this way is likely to contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
For these reasons, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby objects to this declaration which it considers to be a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia."
14 August 2006
With regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon ratification:
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration relating to article 19, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
In the view of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands this declaration made by the Government of Egypt seeks to extend the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis to include the armed forces of a State to the extent that they fail to meet the test that they 'do not violate the rules and principles of international law'. Otherwise such activities would be excluded from the application of the Convention by virtue of article 19, paragraph 2.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the Government of Egypt is entitled to make such a declaration, only to the extent that Egypt will apply the terms of the Convention in circumstances going beyond those required by the Convention to their own armed forces. The declaration of the Government of Egypt will have no effect in respect of the obligations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the Convention or in respect to the application of the Convention to the armed forces of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
This statement shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Arab Republic of Egypt."
New Zealand
12 August 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government f New Zealand has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997.
The Government of New Zealand considers the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.
The Government of New Zealand further considers the declaration to be contrary to the terms of article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention...are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of New Zealand recalls that, according to article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of New Zealand therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between New Zealand and Pakistan."
Norway
5 September 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Norway has examined the declaration made by the Government of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
The Government of Norway considers the declaration to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent wit their grave nature.
The Government of Norway recalls that, according to customary international law, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of Pakistan to the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Pakistan."
Spain
23 January 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has considered the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in respect of the International Convention for the Prevention of Terrorist Bombings (New York, 15 December 1997) at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers this declaration to constitute a de facto reservation the aim of which is to limit unilaterally the scope of the Convention. This is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is the repression of terrorist bombings, by whomever and wherever they may be carried out.
In particular, the declaration by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is incompatible with the spirit of article 5 of the Convention, which establishes the obligation for all States Parties to adopt "such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention [ ... ] are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature."
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain wishes to point out that, under customary international law, as codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of treaties are not permitted.
Consequently, the Government of Spain objects to the aforementioned declaration by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Prevention of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the aforementioned Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
19 May 2006
With regard to the declaration made by Belgium upon ratification:
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium to article 11 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings upon ratifying that Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers, in particular, that the reservation by Belgium is incompatible with article 5 of the Convention, whereby States parties undertake to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or others of similar nature.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under the customary-law provision enshrined in article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned are not permitted.
Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium to article 11 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Belgium.
11 August 2006
With regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation to article 19, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings presented by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that Egypt's reservation relates to an essential component of the Convention, having an impact not only on article 19, paragraph 2, but also on the clause establishing the scope of the Convention's implementation, because its effect is to alter the law applicable to actions of a State's armed forces which violate international law. As a result, this is a reservation which runs counter to the interests safeguarded by the Convention, and to the Convention's object and purpose.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain wishes to recall that, according to the provision of international law codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are prohibited.
Consequently, the Kingdom of Spain objects to Egypt's reservation to article 19, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Sweden
3 June 2003
With regard to the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification:
"The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Turkey to article 19 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, whereby Turkey intends to exclude the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions from the term international humanitarian law. It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the majority of the provisions of those Additional Protocols constitute customary international law, by which Turkey is bound.
In the absence of further clarification, Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by Turkey to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Turkey and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Turkey benefiting from its reservation."
4 June 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon acceding to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (the Convention).
The Government of Sweden recalls that the name assigned to a statement, whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified,, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by Pakistan to the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation.
The Government of Sweden notes that the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation. This reservation does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the Convention and it raises serious doubts as to the commitment of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention (...) are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of Sweden would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Pakistan and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation".
30 January 2004
With regard to the declaration made by Israel upon ratification:
"The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by Israel regarding article 19 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, whereby Israel intends to exclude the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions from the term international humanitarian law.
The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by Israel in substance constitutes a reservation.
It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the majority of the provisions of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions constitute customary international law, by which Israel is bound. In the absence of further clarification, Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by Israel to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Israel and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Israel benefiting from this reservation."
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
28 March 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the Declaration made by the Government of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom consider the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The Government of the United Kingdom further consider the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention...are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, hnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of the United Kingdom recall that, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom and Pakistan."
15 May 2006
With regard to the declaration made by Belgium upon ratification:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the reservation relating to Article 11 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of Belgium at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The Government of the United Kingdom note that the effect of the said reservation is to disapply the provisions of Article 11 in "exceptional circumstances". In light of the grave nature of the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom consider that the provisions of Article 11 should apply in all circumstances.
The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium."
3 August 2006
With regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon ratification:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the declaration, described as a reservation, relating to article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The declaration appears to purport to extend the scope of application of the Convention to include the armed forces of a State to the extent that they fail to meet the test that they 'do not violate the rules and principles of international law'. Such activities would otherwise be excluded from the application of the Convention by virtue of article 19, paragraph 2. It is the opinion of the United Kingdom that the Government of Egypt is entitled to make such a declaration only insofar as the declaration constitutes a unilateral declaration by the Government of Egypt that Egypt will apply the terms of the Convention in circumstances going beyond those required by the Convention to their own armed forces on a unilateral basis. The United Kingdom consider this to be the effect of the declaration made by Egypt.
However, in the view of the United Kingdom, Egypt cannot by a unilateral declaration extend the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Convention beyond those set out in the Convention without the express consent of the United Kingdom. For the avoidance of any doubt, the United Kingdom wish to make clear that it does not so consent. Moreover, the United Kingdom do not consider the declaration made by the Government of Egypt to have any effect in respect of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Convention or in respect of the application of the Convention to the armed forces of the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom thus regard the Convention as entering into force between the United Kingdom and Egypt subject to a unilateral declaration made by the Government of Egypt, which applies only to the obligations of Egypt under the Convention and only in respect of the armed forces of Egypt."
United States of America
5 June 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
"The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis. The declaration is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely, the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.
The Government of the United States also considers the declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, which provides: "Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ... are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature."
The Government of the United States notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the United States therefore objects to the declaration made by the Government of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Pakistan."
22 May 2006
With regard to the declaration made by Belgium upon ratification :
"The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the Declaration made by Belgium to Article 11 of the Convention, to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United States understands that the intent of the Government of Belgium may have been narrower than apparent from its Declaration in that the Government of Belgium would expect its Declaration to apply only in exceptional circumstances where it believes that, because of the political nature of the offense, an alleged offender may not receive a fair trial. The United States believes the Declaration is unnecessary because of the safeguards already provided for under Articles 12, 14, and 19 (2) of the Convention. However, given the broad wording of the Declaration and because the Government of the United States considers Article 11 to be a critical provision in the Convention, the United States is constrained to file this objection. This objection does not preclude entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Belgium."
16 August 2006
With regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon ratification:
"The Government of the United States of America has examined the declaration, described as a reservation, relating to article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The declaration appears to purport to extend the scope of application of the Convention to include the armed forces of a State, to the extent that those forces fail to meet the test that they 'do not violate the rules and principles of international law'. Such activities would otherwise be excluded from the application of the Convention by virtue of article 19, paragraph 2. It is the opinion of the United States that the Government of Egypt is entitled to make such a declaration only insofar as the declaration constitutes a unilateral declaration by the Government of Egypt that Egypt will apply the terms of the Convention in circumstances going beyond those required by the Convention to its own armed forces on a unilateral basis. The United States considers this to be the effect of the declaration made by Egypt. However, in the view of the United States, Egypt cannot by a unilateral declaration extend the obligations of the United States or any country other than Egypt under the Convention beyond those obligations set out in the Convention without the express consent of the United States or other countries. To avoid any doubt, the United States wishes to make clear that it does not consent to Egypt's declaration. Moreover, the United States does not consider the declaration made by the Government of Egypt to have any effect in respect of the obligations of the United States under the Convention or in respect of the application of the Convention to the armed forces of the United States. The United States thus regards the Convention as entering into force between the United States and Egypt subject to a unilateral declaration made by the Government of Egypt, which applies only to the obligations of Egypt under the Convention and only in respect of the armed forces of Egypt."
Notifications under article 6 (3)
(Unless otherwise indicated, the notifications were made upon ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession.)
Andorra
In accordance with article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Andorra establishes its competence regarding the offences described in article 2, for all the cases covered by article 6, paragraph 2, b), c) and d).
Australia
18 October 2002
"... in accordance with article 6 (3) of the Convention, Australia has chosen to establish jurisdiction in all the circumstances provided for by Article 6 (2), and has provided for such jurisdiction in domestic legislation which took effect on 8 September 2002."
Bolivia
... by virtue of the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Bolivia states that it establishes its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law in respect of offences committed in the situations and conditions provided for under article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Brazil
... the Federative Republic of Brazil declares that, in accordance with the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3, of the said Convention, it will exercise jurisdiction over the offences within the meaning of article 2, in the cases set forth in article 6, paragraph 2, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (e) of the Convention."
Chile
In accordance with article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Government of Chile declares that, in accordance with article 6, paragraph 8, of the Courts Organization Code of the Republic of Chile, crimes and ordinary offences committed outside the territory of the Republic which are covered in treaties concluded with other Powers remain under Chilean jurisdiction.
Cyprus
"In accordance with article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Republic of Cyprus establishes its jurisdiction over the offences specified in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 6, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.
Denmark
"Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Denmark provides the following information on Danish criminal jurisdiction:
Rules on Danish criminal jurisdiction are laid down in Section 6 to 12 in the Danish Criminal Code. The provisions have the following wording:
Section 6
Acts committed
1) within the territory of the Danish state; or
2) on board a Danish ship or aircraft, being outside the territory recognized by international law as belonging to any state; or
3) on board a Danish ship or aircraft, being within the territory recognized by international law as belonging to a foreign state, if committed by persons employed on the ship or aircraft or by passengers travelling on board the ship or aircraft, shall be subject to Danish criminal jurisdiction.
Section 7
(1) Acts committed outside the territory of the Danish state by a Danish national or by a person resident in the Danish state shall also be subject to Danish criminal jurisdiction in the following circumstances, namely;
1) where the act was committed outside the territory recognized by international law as belonging to any state, provided acts of the kind in question are punishable with a sentence more severe than imprisonment for four months; or
2) where the act was committed within the territory of a foreign state, provided that it is also punishable under the law in force in that territory.
(2) The provisions in Subsection (1) above shall similarly apply to acts committed by a person who is a national of, or who is resident in Finland, Iceland, Norway or Sweden, and who is present in Denmark.
Section 8
The following acts committed outside the territory of the Danish state, shall also come within Danish criminal jurisdiction, irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator.
1) where the act violates the independence, security, Constitution of public authorities of the Danish state, official duties toward the state or such interests, the legal protection of which depends on a personal connection with the Danish state; or
2) where the act violates an obligation which the perpetrator is required by law to observe abroad or prejudices the performance of an official duty incumbent on him with regard to a Danish ship or aircraft; or
3) where an act committed outside the territory recognized by international law as belonging to any state violates a Danish national or a person resident in the Danish state, provided acts of the kind in question are punishable with a sentence more severe than imprisonment for four months; or
4) where the act comes within the provisions of Section 183 a of this Act. The prosecution may also include breaches of Sections 237 and 244-248 of this Act, when committed in conjunction with the breach of Section 183 a; or
5) where the act is covered by an international convention in pursuance of which Denmark is under an obligation to start legal proceedings; or
6) where transfer of the accused for legal proceedings in another country is rejected, and the act, provided it is committed within the territory recognized by international law as belonging to a foreign state, is punishable according to the law of this state, and provided that according to Danish law the act is punishable with a sentence more severe than one year of imprisonment.
Section 9
Where the punishable nature of an act depends on or is influenced by an actual or intended consequence, the act shall also be deemed to have been committed where the consequence has taken effect or has been intended to take effect.
Section 10
(1) Where prosecution takes place in this country under the foregoing provisions, the decision concerning the punishment or other legal consequences of the act shall be made under Danish law.
(2) In the circumstances referred to in Section 7 of this Act, if the act was committed within the territory recognized by international law as belonging to a foreign state, the punishment may not be more severe than that provided for by the law of that state.
Section 10 a
(1) A person who has been convicted by a criminal court in the state where the act was committed or who has received a sentence which is covered by the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, or by the Act governing the Transfer of Legal Proceedings to another country, shall not be prosecuted in this country for the same act, if,
1) he is finally acquitted; or
2) the penalty imposed has been served, is being served or has been remitted according to the law of the state in which the court is situated; or
3) he is convicted, but no penalty is imposed.
(2) The provisions contained in Subsection (1) above shall not apply to
a) acts which fall within Section 6 (1) of this Act; or b) the acts referred to in Section 8 (1) 1) above, unless the prosecution in the state in which the court was situated was at the request of the Danish Prosecuting Authority.
Section 10 b
Where any person is prosecuted and punishment has already been imposed on him for the same act in another country, the penalty imposed in this country shall be reduced according to the extent to which the foreign punishment has been served.
Section 11
If a Danish national or a person resident in the Danish state has been punished in a foreign country for an act which under Danish law may entail loss or forfeiture of an office or profession or of any other right, such a deprivation may be sought in a public action in this country.
Section 12
The application of the provisions of Section 6-8 of this Act shall be subject to the applicable rules of international law."
El Salvador
With regard to article 6, paragraph 3, the Government of the Republic of El Salvador, gives notification that it has established its jurisdiction under its domestic law in respect of the offences committed in the situations and under the conditions mentioned in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention;...
Estonia
".....pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia declares that in its domestic law it shall apply the jurisdiction set forth in article 6 paragraph 2 over offences set forth in article 2."
Finland
"Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Finland establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 6, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4."
Hungary
"The Government of the Republic of Hungary declares that, in relation to Article 6, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Hungary, pursuant to its Criminal Code, has jurisdiction over the crimes set out in Article 2 of the Convention in the cases provided for in Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Convention."
Iceland
Declaration:
"Pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Iceland declares that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention."
Israel
Pursuant to Article 6 paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Government of the State of Israel hereby notifies the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it has established jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 2 in all the cases detailed in Article 6 paragraph 2.
Jamaica
".....Jamaica has established jurisdiction over the offences set forth in Article 2, with respect to the jurisdiction stated in Article 6 (2) (d) which states:
'A State Party may establish jurisdiction over any such offence when:
...(d) The offence is committed in an attempt to compel that State to do or abstain from doing any act;'..."
Latvia
"In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, opened for signature at New York on the 12th day of January 1998, the Republic of Latvia declares that it has established jurisdiction in all cases listed in Article 6, paragraph 2."
Lithuania
".....the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania establishes the jurisdiction for the offences provided in Article 2 of the Convention in all cases described in paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the said Convention."
Malaysia
"In accordance with Article 6 (3) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it has established jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic laws over the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in Article 6 (1) and 6 (2)."
Mexico
24 February 2003
.....in accordance with article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Mexico exercises jurisdiction over the offences defined in the Convention where:
(a) They are committed against Mexicans in the territory of another State party, provided that the accused is in Mexico and has not been tried in the country in which the offence was committed. Where it is a question of offences defined in the Convention but committed in the territory of a non-party State, the offence shall also be defined as such in the place where it was committed (art. 6, para. 2 (a));
(b) They are committed in Mexican embassies and on diplomatic or consular premises (art. 6, para. 2 (b));
(c) They are committed abroad but produce effects or are claimed to produce effects in the national territory (art. 6, para. (d)).
Moldova
Pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Moldova establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in cases provided for in article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Monaco
The Principality declares that, in accordance with the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, it establishes its jurisdiction over the acts recognized as offences within the meaning of article 2 of the Convention, in the cases set forth in article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.
Paraguay
..., by virtue of the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3, of the aforementioned Convention, the Republic of Paraguay has established its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic legislation, under article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Portugal
16 January 2002
"Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Portugal declares that in accordance with article 5 (1) (a) of the Penal Code, Portuguese courts will have jurisdiction against the crimes of terrorism and of terrorist organisations, set forth respectively in article 300 and 301 of the same Code, wherever the place they have been committed, thus covering, in connection with the said crimes, the cases set forth in article 6 (2) of the Convention."
Republic of Korea
7 July 2004
Pursuant to Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings,
The Republic of Korea provides the following information on its criminal jurisdiction. Principles on the criminal jurisdiction are set out in the Chapter I of Part I of the Korean Penal Code. The provisions have the following wording:
Article 2 (Domestic Crimes) This Code shall apply to anyone, whether Korean or alien, who commits a crime within the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.
Article 3 (Crimes by Koreans outside Korea)
This Code shall apply to a Korean national who commits a crime outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.
Article 4 (Crimes by Aliens on board Korean Vessel, etc., outside Korea)
This Code shall apply to an alien who commits a crime on board a Korean vessel or a Korean aircraft outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.
Article 5 (Crimes by Aliens outside Korea)
This Code shall apply to an alien who commits any of the following crimes outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea:
1. Crimes concerning insurrection;
2. Crimes concerning treason;
3. Crimes concerning the national flag;
4. Crimes concerning currency;
5. Crimes concerning securities, postage and revenue stamps;
6. Crimes specified in Articles 225 through 230 among crimes concerning documents; and
7. Crimes specified in Article 238 among crimes concerning seal.
Article 6 (Foreign Crimes against the Republic of Korea and Koreans outside Korea)
This Code shall apply to an alien who commits a crime, other than those specified in the preceding Article, against the Republic of Korea or its national outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea, unless such act does not constitute a crime, or it is exempt from prosecution or execution of punishment under the lex loci delictus.
Article 8 (Application of General Provisions)
The provisions of the preceding Articles shall also apply to such crimes as are provided by other statutes unless provided otherwise by such statutes.
Romania
"In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Romania declares that it has established its jurisdiction for the offenses set forth in Article 2, in all cases stipulated by Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, in conformity with relevant provisions of its domestic law."
Russian Federation
"The Russian Federation declares that in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 6 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (hereinafter - the Convention) it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in cases envisaged in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 6 of the Convention."
Sudan
The Republic of the Sudan declares hereby that it has established its jurisdiction over crimes set out in article 2 of the Convention in accordance with situations and conditions as stipulated in article 6, paragraph 2.
Sweden
5 November 2002
"Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Sweden provides the following information on Swedish criminal jurisdiction. Rules on Swedish criminal jurisdiction are laid down in Chapter 2 Section 1-5 in the Swedish Penal Code. The provisions have the following wording:
Section 1
Crimes committed in this Realm shall be adjudged in accordance with Swedish law and by a Swedish court. The same applies when it is uncertain where the crime was committed but grounds exist for assuming that it was committed within the Realm.
Section 2
Crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court when the crime has been committed:
1. By a Swedish citizen or an alien domiciled in Sweden,
2. By an alien not domiciled in Sweden who, after having committed the crime, has become a Swedish citizen or has acquired domicile in the Realm or who is a Danish, Finnish, Icelandic or Norwegian citizen and is present in the Realm, or
3. By any other alien, who is present in the Realm, and the crime under Swedish law can result in imprisonment for more than six months.
The first paragraph shall not apply if the act is not subject to criminal responsibility under the law of the place where it was committed or if it was committed within an area not belonging to any state and, under Swedish law, the punishment for the act cannot be more severe than a fine.
In cases mentioned in this Section, a sanction may not be imposed which is more severe than the most severe punishment provided for the crime under the law in the place where it was committed.
Section 3
Even in cases other than those listed in Section 2, crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court:
1. if the crime was committed on board a Swedish vessel or aircraft, or was committed in the course of duty by the officer in charge or by a member of its crew,
2. if the crime was committed by a member of the armed force in an area in which a detachment of the armed forces was present, or if it was committed by some other person in such an area and the detachment was present for a purpose other than exercise,
3. if the crime was committed in the course of duty outside the Realm by a person employed in a foreign contingent of the Swedish armed forces,
3a. if the crime was committed in the course of duty outside the Realm by a policeman, custom officer or official employed at the coast guard, who performs boundless assignments according to an international agreement that Sweden has ratified,
4. if the crime committed was a crime against the Swedish nation, a Swedish municipal uthority or other assembly, or against a Swedish public institution,
5. If the crime was committed in an area not belonging to any state and was directed against a Swedish citizen, a Swedish association or private institution, or against an alien domiciled in Sweden,
6. if the crime is hijacking, maritime or aircraft sabotage, airport sabotage, counterfeiting currency, an attempt to commit such crimes, a crime against international law, unlawful dealings with chemical weapons, unlawful dealings with mines or false or careless statement before an international court, or
7. if the least severe punishment prescribed for the crime in Swedish law is imprisonment for four years or more.
Section 3 a
Besides the cases described in Sections 1-3, crimes shall be adjudged according to Swedish law by a Swedish court in accordance with the provisions of the Act on International Collaboration concerning Proceedings in Criminal matters.
Section 4
A crime is deemed to have been committed where the criminal act was perpetrated and also where the crime was completed or in the case of an attempt, where the intended crime would have been completed.
Section 5
Prosecution for a crime committed within the Realm on a foreign vessel or aircraft by an alien, who was the officer in charge or member of its crew or otherwise travelled in it, against another alien or a foreign interest shall not be instituted without the authority of the Government or a person designated by the Government.
1. on a Swedish vessel or aircraft or by the officer in charge or some member of its crew in the course of duty,
2. by a member of the armed forces in an area in which a detachment of the armed forces was present,
3. in the course of duty outside the Realm by a person employed by a foreign contingent of the Swedish armed forces,
4. In the course of duty outside the Realm by a policeman, custom officer or official employed at the coast guard, who performs boundless assignments according to an international agreement that Sweden has ratified,
5. In Denmark, Finland, Iceland or Norway or on a vessel or aircraft in regular commerce between places situated in Sweden or one of the said states, or
6. By a Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Icelandic or Norwegian citizen against a Swedish interest."
Switzerland
Pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Switzerland establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 6, paragraph 2.
Ukraine
21 May 2002
"Ukraine excercises its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in cases provided for in paragraph 2 article 6 of the Convention."
Uruguay
Notifies, by virtue of article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, that the authorities of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay exercise jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2, to which reference is made in article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to article 6, paragraph 2, subparagraphs (a) and (b), that jurisdiction is established in article 10 of the Penal Code (Act 9.155 of 4 December 1933) and, with regard to article 6, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e), in article 4 of the Aeronautical Code (Decree-Law 14.305 of 29 November 1974).
Uzbekistan
15 May 2000
The Republic of Uzbekistan has established its jurisdiction over the crimes set out in article 2 under all the conditions stipulated in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Moreover, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, having regard for article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, declares that it has established jurisdiction under its domestic law over the offences committed in the situations and under the conditions envisaged in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
NOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. On 13 November 2001, the Government of China notified the Secretary-General of the following:
In accordance with the provisions of Article 153 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and Article 138 of the Basic Law of Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, the Government of the People's Republic of China decides that the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings shall apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. With a territorial exclusion in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For the Kingdom in Europe.
Subsequently, on 8 February 2005, the Government of the Netherlands informed the Secretary-General that the Convention will apply to Aruba with the following declaration:
"The Kingdom of the Netherlands understands Article 8, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to include the right of the competent judicial authorities to decide not to prosecute a person alleged to have committed such an offence, if, in the opinion of the competent judicial authorities grave considerations of procedural law indicate that effective prosecution will be impossible."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. With a territorial exclusion with resepct to Tokelau to the effect that: ".....consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, this accession shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultations with that territory."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Secretary-General received a communciation with regard to the declaration made by the Government of Egypt upon ratification from the following Government on the date indicated hereinafter:
Canada (14 September 2006) :
"The Government of Canada has examined the declaration, described as a reservation, relating to article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The declaration appears to extend the scope of the application of the Convention to include the armed forces of a State, in the exercise of their duties, to the extent that those armed forces violate the rules and principles of international law. Such activities would otherwise be excluded from the application of the Convention by virtue of article 19, paragraph 2.
The Government of Canada considers the effect of the declaration to be a unilateral extension of the terms of the Convention by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to apply only to the armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt in circumstances going beyond those required by the Convention. The Arab Republic of Egypt cannot by unilateral declaration extend the obligations of Canada under the Convention beyond those set out in the Convention. Canada does not consider the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to have any effect in respect of the obligations of Canada under the Convention or in respect of the application of the Convention to the armed forces of Canada.
The Government of Canada thus regards the Convention as entering into force between Canada and the Arab Republic of Egypt subject to a unilateral declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, which applies only to the obligations of the Arab Republic of Egypt under the Convention and only in respect of the armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt."
Russian Federation (14 November 2006):
The Russian Side has considered the reservation to Article 19 (2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the Convention.
The objective of this reservation is to extend the scope of application of the Convention and to cover armed forces of the States Parties, if they violate "norms and principles of international law"in the exercise of their official duties.
The Russian side regards this reservation of Egypt as unilateral obligation of Egypt to apply the Convention to its own armed forces if they in the exercise of their official duties go beyond the scope of the norms and principles of international law.
The Russian side proceeds from the understanding that Egypt does not have right to unilaterally impose additional obligations on other Parties to the Convention without their explicit consent through formulating its reservation.
The Russian side does not recognize the extension of the Convention to include activities of armed forces of the States Parties except for Egypt, which according to Article 19 (2) are explicitly excluded from the scope of application of the Convention. Thus the Convention applies in relations between the Russian Federation and the Arab Republic of Egypt with the reservation of Egypt, which stipulates only obligations of Egypt and is applicable to its armed forces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The Secretary-General received communciations with regard to the declaration made by the Government of Pakistan upon accession, from the following Governments on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Republic of Moldova (6 october 2003):
"The Government of the Republic of Moldova has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997.
The Government of the Republic of Moldova considers that the declaration is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention...are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature".
The Government of the Republic of Moldova recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Republic of Moldova therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Moldova and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation."
Russian Federation (22 September 2003):
The Russian Federation has considered the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, of 1997.
The Russian Federation takes the position that every State which has agreed to the binding nature of the provisions of the Convention must adopt such measures as may be necessary, pursuant to article 5, to ensure that criminal acts which, in accordance with article 2, are within the scope of the Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The Russian Federation notes that the realization of the right of peoples to self- determination must not conflict with other fundamental principles of international law, such as the principle of the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, the principle of the territorial integrity of States, and the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Russian Federation believes that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. In the view of the Russian Federation, the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan may jeopardize the fulfilment of the provisions of the Convention in relations between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other States Parties and thereby impede cooperation in combating acts of terrorist bombing. It is in the common interest of States to develop and strengthen cooperation in formulating and adopting effective practical measures to prevent terrorist acts and punish the perpetrators.
The Russian Federation, once again declaring its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustified, regardless of their motives and in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever they are perpetrated, calls upon the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to reconsider its position and withdraw the declaration.
Poland (3 February 2004):
"The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 15 December 1997 is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The Government of the Republic of Poland further considers the declaration to be contrary to the terms of article 5 of the Convention, according to which each State Party commits itself to 'adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention (...) are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature'.
The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
This objection shall not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Poland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
Ireland (23 June 2006):
"The Government of Ireland have examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings according to which the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers that nothing in this Convention shall be applicable to struggles, including armed struggles, for the realisation of the right of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination.
The Government of Ireland are of the view that this declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Ireland are also of the view that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely suppressing terrorist bombings, wherever and by whomever carried out.
The Government of Ireland further consider the declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The Government of Ireland recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.
The Government of Ireland therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Convention enters into force between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservation."
راجع http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbib...erXVIII/treaty10.asp
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: دعونا بكل موضوعية نتحدث عن اختصاصات محكمة الجنايات الدولية ICC (Re: saif addawla)
|
اخي الاستاذ سيف الدين حمدنا الله ( ارجو ان اكون محقا) لك عميق مودتى ومساحتك المهنية والاجتماعية في مسقط لم توفق حتى الان في الحصول على من يملؤها .
ولكل مقام مقال يا سيد الناس .
اليكم اعزائي اختصاصات محكمة الجنيايات الدولية لتقديركم وليس لتقديري
Jurisdiction
Once a State becomes a party to the Statute, it accepts the Court's jurisdiction with respect to crimes under the Statute. For the Court to exercise its jurisdiction, the territorial State (the State on whose territory the situation which is being investigated has taken or is taking place), or the State of nationality (the State whose nationality is possessed by the person who is being investigated) must be a party to the Statute.
National Court
The ICC will not replace national courts, but will be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The Court will only investigate and prosecute if a State is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute. This will be determined by the judges. Unjustified delays in proceedings as well as proceedings which are merely intended to shield persons from criminal responsibility will not render a case inadmissible before the ICC.
Subject Matter
The Court's jurisdiction will be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. It will therefore have jurisdiction with respect to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, all of which are fully defined in the Statute and further elaborated by the Elements of Crimes.
Even though the Court has jurisdiction over aggression, it will not exercise such jurisdiction until the crime has been further defined and conditions under which the Court will exercise its jurisdiction have been agreed upon. The First Session of the Assembly of States Parties created a subcommittee of its Bureau to continue work on the crime of aggression. The subcommittee will be chaired by Allieu Ibrahim Kanu of Sierra Leone, and is expected to report and make proposals to the Assembly during its meeting in February 2003. Once agreement is reached, the Statute will be amended accordingly and the Court will be in a position to exercise its jurisdiction.
Personnel
The Court only has jurisdiction over natural persons aged 18 and above. Official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility.
Commanders and superiors will also be held liable for criminal offences committed by forces under their effective command and control or effective authority and control.
Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes either when the situation is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party or by the Security Council, or when the Prosecutor decides to initiate an investigation his or her own decision and on the basis of information received. However, in this last case, the Prosecutor must seek the authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber before proceeding with the investigation.
When the situation is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction in all cases and no preconditions are applicable.
However, in the two other cases, when the Prosecutor decides to initiate an investigation on his or her own decision with the authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber, or when the situation is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party, strict preconditions shall be met before the Court can exercise its jurisdiction.
Indeed, in those two cases, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only if either the State on the territory of which the suspected crime occurred (State of territoriality), or the State of which the person suspected of having committed the crime is a national (State of nationality of the suspected person), is a State Party to the Statute.
If neither of these two States is a State Party to the Statute, the Court will not be in a position to investigate the suspected crimes, except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court by declaration lodged with the Registrar. Such a declaration may be made for all suspected crimes committed after 1 July 2002 (taking into consideration that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court are not subject to any statute of limitations).
Thus, if nationals of States Parties to the Statute are victims of suspected crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court in the territory of a State which is not a Party to the Statute committed by persons who are not nationals of a State Party, the Court wouldn't be in a position to investigate except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the jurisdiction of the Court, or if the situation is referred to the Court by the Security Council.
راجعوا الموقع الاتي :-
http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/jurisdiction.html
(عدل بواسطة الطيب شيقوق on 02-27-2007, 09:57 PM)
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: دعونا بكل موضوعية نتحدث عن اختصاصات محكمة الجنايات الدولية ICC (Re: خالد المحرب)
|
الطويل والقصير فيكم
ود المحرب انا قصدت اسلم الناس معطيات قانونية مسلم بها فلكل واحد الحق في الباسها الثوب الذي يناسبه .
انا ما عدت اطمئن لسلامة تمسك اى سوداني بمبادئة السياسية بعد الاحباط الذي اصابنا من غازي سليمان وغيره
فإن كنت جبهويا اسلاميا فانت كاذب
وان كنت ديموقراطيا فانت كاذب
وان كنت تنتمي لحزب سياسي فانت ايضا هكذا
ولهذا اثرت ان اكون بعيدا عن مساحات النفاق وعلىّ ان اكتب حسب قناعاتي المهنية
لك مودتي
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The significance of the ICCC 's today step (Re: Hassan Omer)
|
اخي حسن عمر
شكرا لتعاونكم واهتمامكم
السؤال المحوري الان هو هل ينعقد الاختصاص في الحالة السودانية هذه الى محكمة الجنايات الدولية؟
اذا ما كانت الاجابة بالايجاب عندئذ يمكن الانتقال الى الموقع الذي اشرت اليه وذلك لان الحديث عن طبيعة اجراءات المحكمة ومن له الحق في المطالبة بالتعويض ، قبل البت في موضوع الاختصاص ، يكون سابقا لاوانه.
لك عميق مودتي
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: دعونا بكل موضوعية نتحدث عن اختصاصات محكمة الجنايات الدولية ICC (Re: الطيب شيقوق)
|
سلامات يا استاذ الطيب شيقوق..
اختصاصات محكمة الجنايات الدولية من هنا:
http://www.humanrightslebanon.org/qadaya/Qadaya4.doc
Quote: المحكمة الجنائية الدولية واختصاصها
يقتصر اختصاص المحكمة على اشد الجرائم خطورة موضع اهتمام المجتمع الدولي باسره كالجرائم التالية:
1. جريمة الابادة الجماعية:
تعني اي فعل يرتكب بقصد اهلاك جماعة قومية او اثنية او عرقية او دينية اهلاكاً كلياً او جزئياً (دون الاخذ بعين الاعتبار الجماعات الاجتماعية والسياسية)، اي قتل افراد الجماعة، الحاق ضرر جسدي او عقلي بهم، اخضاعهم عمداً لاحوال معيشية مزرية، فرض تدابير لمنع الانجاب، او نقل الاطفال لجماعات اخرى.
2. الجرائم ضد الانسانية:
تعني اي فعل ارتكب ضمن اطار هجوم واسع النطاق موجه ضد اية مجموعة من السكان المدنيين كالقتل عمداً، الابادة، الاسترقاق، الابعاد القسري للسكان، السجن والحرمان الشديد من الحرية البدنية، التعذيب، الاغتصاب او الاستعباد الجنسي، او الاكراه على البغاء، او الحمل القسري، او التعقيم القسري، او اي شكل من اشكال العنف الجنسي، اضطهاد اية جماعة لاسباب سياسية او عرقية او قومية او اثنية او ثقافية او دينية او متعلقة بنوع الجنس، الاختفاء القسري للاشخاص، جريمة الفصل العنصري...
3. جرائم الحرب:
تعني الانتهاكات الجسيمة لاتفاقيات جنيف المؤرخة في 12 آب 1949 اي: التعذيب او المعاملة اللانسانية بما في ذلك التجارب البيولوجية، القيام عمداً باحداث معاناة شديدة او اصابات خطيرة بالجسم او الصحة، تدمير الممتلكات والاستيلاء عليها، ارغام اسير حرب للخدمة في صفوف معادية، حرمانه المحاكمة العادلة، الابعاد او النقل او الحبس غير المشروع، اخذ الرهائن، توجيه هجمات ضد السكان، او منشآت مدنية، تعمد شن هجمات ضد الموظفين او المنشآت الانسانية، قصف المدن والقرى المجردة من الاهداف العسكرية، قتل او جرح مقاتل القى سلاحه او استسلم مختاراً، تعمد توجيه الهجمات ضد المباني المختصة للاغراض الدينية او التعليمية او الخيرية او المستشفيات واماكن تجمع المرضى والجرحى... تجنيد الاطفال دون الخامسة عشرة من العمر الزامياً او طوعياً للمشاركة في الحروب...
4. جريمة العدوان:
لم ينجح المؤتمر في استخلاص تعريف لها. اما تعريف القانون الدولي وحسب قرار الجمعية العامة للامم المتحدة في 14/12/1974 فهو التالي:
"العدوان هو استعمال دولة ما، القوة المسلحة ضد دولة اخرى ضد السيادة وسلامة الارض والحرية السياسية او باية طريقة اخرى".
من الملفت الى ان بعضاً من مواد النظام الاساسي من معاهدة روما، قد نص على وجوب ادخال قضاة الى المحكمة ذات خبرة كافية في القانون الدولي كالقانون الانساني الدولي وقانون حقوق الانسان بالاضافة الى خبرة قانونية في مجال العنف ضد النساء والاطفال واختصاصيين في جرائم العنف الجنسي، بالاضافة الى منع عقوبة الاعدام.
كما انها ودفاعاً عن المرأة، اعتبرت ان الاغتصاب، وكافة انواع العنف الجنسي تشكل جرائم ضد الانسانية وجرائم حرب. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute. Is it obliged to cooperate with the ICC (Re: الطيب شيقوق)
|
?
UN Security Council Resolution 1593, which referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC, requires the government of Sudan to cooperate with the court even though it is not a state party to the Rome Statute. State cooperation is essential for the ICC to function. Because the ICC lacks the ability to enforce its own orders, it relies on state cooperation in order to conduct investigations or make arrests.
If Sudan refuses to cooperate, the prosecutor should go to the Security Council for assistance. Resolution 1593 requires the prosecutor to report to the Security Council on the progress of his work in Darfur at least every six months. The next mandatory report will take place in June 2007. The prosecutor should use this opportunity to raise any concerns related to Sudan’s cooperation with its investigations. He may also seek to report to the Security Council at an earlier time. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has the ability to enforce Resolution 1593 and oblige Khartoum to cooperate if it is unwilling to do so voluntarily
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute. Is it obliged to cooperate with the ICC (Re: الطيب شيقوق)
|
Yes, although Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC document it is till under the court juristiction by virtue of the UN Resolution with regard to Darfur under Article 7 of the UN Charter. Sudan is a member of the United Nations and signatory to its Charter. The ICC investigation to Darfur case is based on the UN security coucil request. Sudan need to cooperate or else face the UN possible sanctions.
The significance of Darfur trials ,to many International Relations scholars and lawers is its importance as a presedence and a test to the ability of the court to extend its jurisdiction even to those countires that are not signatories to the Court Document.It is also a test for the ability of the UN of using this new international tool, and to the new international reinterpretation of the concept of Sovereignity, and the new international principle of the Resposiblity To Protect.
http://www.iciss.ca/menu-en.asp
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute. Is it obliged to cooperate with the ICC (Re: Hassan Omer)
|
| Quote: Yes, although Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC document it is till under the court juristiction by virtue of the UN Resolution with regard to Darfur under Article 7 of the UN Charter |
My legal view point ,Mr. Omer, is that if Sudan does not cooperate with the Court this doesn`t mean it is still under the court jurisdiction .To me submission to the court jurisdictiin depends upon whether it is signotary or not .
I believe non-cooperation would stimulate the Security Council to resort to Article 7 of the UN Charter in which case a use of force ,not for submitting the sudan to the court , but for taking whatever action the Security Council deems fit against the state and the accused as well
The first action for the Securty council to do is to, successfully ,issue a resolution under Article 7 as there no such resolution till now
All the best
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute. Is it obliged to cooperate with the ICC (Re: الطيب شيقوق)
|
CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Regards
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute. Is it obliged to cooperate with the ICC (Re: الطيب شيقوق)
|
ٍنقلا عن سودانايل
خبراء قانونيون سودانيون يحذرون من رفض الخرطوم خطوات المحكمة الجنائية
آخرون استبعدوا أن تؤدي قراراتها لأي عقوبات على السودان
كمال الجزولي
الخرطوم : «الشرق الاوسط»
حذر خبراء سودانيون في القانون الدولي من مخاطر رفض السودان لخطوات المحكمة الجنائية الدولية، وقالوا ان الرفض يضع السودان في مواجهة مع المجتمع الدولي خاصة مجلس الامن الدولي، فيما استبعد خبراء آخرون ان تفضي قرارات المحكمة لأية عقوبات على السودان باعتبار انها تستهدف أفراداً متهمين.
وقال المحامي كمال الجزولي الخبير في القانون الدولي لـ«الشرق الاوسط» ان السودان طالما وقع على نظام روما 1998 الذي انشئت بموجبه المحكمة الدولية فانه ملزم بقرارات المحكمة رغم انه لم يصادق على قانون المحكمة حتى الان»، وأضاف «ولكن التوقيع يلزمك بعدم القيام بأية اعمال مخالفة الى حين المصادقة».
واضاف الجزولي وهو معارض لحكومة الرئيس البشير «وفي كل الاحوال طالما ان السودان موقع على ميثاق الامم المتحدة فانه ملزم بقراراتها وقضية جرائم الحرب في دارفور احيلت الى محكمة لاهاي من قبل مجلس الامن الدولي».
وقال ان الرفض يعرض السودان «اولا الى تدابير دولية لا ترقى الى مستوى العمل المسلح، وتنحصر في العقوبات الاقتصادية وحظر التنقل والحركة، وإذا لم تجد هذه التدابير فانه يتم الانتقال الى الخطة التالية وهي استخدام القوة العسكرية».
وقال خبير القانون الدولي الدكتور أمين مكي مدني ان المدعي العام الدولي سيقوم بتوجيه اعلان التهم لأشخاص محددين لبدء اعلامهم كمطلوبين أمام المحكمة، وأضاف ان المحكمة ليست لديها شرطة للقبض على المطلوبين لكنها تعتمد بالأساس على تعاون الدول الأعضاء وان قراراتها نابعة من قرار مجلس الأمن الدولي الذي يلزم عضويته بانفاذ قرارات المحكمة.
وتوقع ان يحدث رفض الحكومة اشكالات تتعلق بالعلاقات الدولية، وقال ان الأمر قد يفضي الى حظر سفر المطلوبين الى بعض الدول، ولكنه استبعد ان تقود قرارات المحكمة الى عقوبات تطال الدولة لأن الأمر برأيه يتعلق بأفراد متهمين في القضية.
من جانبه، قال المدير التنفيذي للمجموعة السودانية لحقوق الانسان «منظمة مجتمع مدني» عز الدين عثمان في تصريحات، ان المدعي العام للمحكمة سيقوم بدءاً بتقديم طلب لدائرة ما قبل المحاكمة يضمن فيه أدلة ومعلومات وأسماء لمتهمين في القضية، وقال «يمكن اعلانهم للحضور او القاء القبض عليهم»، مبيناً ان اجراءات المحكمة الدولية «تختلف عن المحاكم الوطنية وأنها تعتمد على تعاون الدول».
وحذر من ان رفض الحكومة التعامل مع المحكمة الدولية لا يمنعها من استصدار أحكام غيابية على المتهمين حال ثبوت تورطهم في القضايا قيد النظر، وأضاف عثمان ان الحكومة السودانية يمكنها ان تقدم دفوعات حول مقبولية الاتهامات.
لكم اطيب المنى
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute. Is it obliged to cooperate with the ICC (Re: الطيب شيقوق)
|
JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Date: 9/23/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Johan D. van der Vyver
In 1994, when the International Law Commission submitted its Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC) to the United Nations Organization, the United States Senate came out in full support of such a tribunal, stating that an international criminal court with jurisdiction over international crimes "would greatly strengthen the rule of law," that such a court "would serve the interests of the United States and of the world community," and that the United States delegation "should make every effort to advance this proposal at the United Nations."1
However, it soon emerged that American support for the ICC was conditional upon exempting U.S. citizens from the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues and leader of the American delegation in Rome, David Scheffer, in an interview with the Washington Post said it quite bluntly: "Any arrangement by which a UN-sponsored tribunal could assert jurisdiction to prosecute Americans would be political poison in Congress."2
Having been confronted by the choice between American exceptionalism and the principle of equal justice for all, the Rome Conference was constrained by the elementary dictates of criminal justice to opt for the latter. This created conflict with the U.S. government. John Bolton, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, leaves one in no doubt as to the current strategy of the U.S. toward the ICC. Writing in The National Interest, he proclaimed:
[W]hether the ICC survives and flourishes depends in a large measure on the United States. We should therefore ignore it in our official posture, and attempt to isolate it through our diplomacy, in order to prevent it from acquiring any further legitimacy or resources.3
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was formally established on July 1, 2002. There are currently 92 States Parties. The judges have been elected, the Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutor have assumed office, the Registrar has been appointed, the budget for the first year of operation has been approved, and everything is ready to go. At the third session of the Assembly of States Parties in September 2003, Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo announced that he will soon be seeking authorization from a Pre-Trial Division of the ICC to proceed proprio motu with investigations of alleged crimes committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Jurisdiction and Its Exercise
The ICC has been afforded jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined in the ICC Statute (aggression may be added to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC in seven years time). The exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC may be triggered by the Security Council of the United Nations, a State Party, or the Prosecutor acting proprio motu.
The Security Council refers "a situation" to the ICC, leaving it up to the Prosecutor to decide in full autonomy whether to bring charges emanating from that situation, who to prosecute, and for what crime(s). No further conditions have been laid down for the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC in cases of Security Council referrals. However, the Security Council cannot confer powers on the ICC that the ICC does not have by virtue of its Statute. The ICC can, for example, only prosecute persons over the age of 18 years, it only has jurisdiction in respect of crimes committed after July 1, 2002, it cannot exercise jurisdiction while a State with a special interest in the matter is willing and able to investigate the alleged crime and, if appropriate, bring the perpetrator to justice. The Security Council cannot instruct the ICC to deviate from any of these restrictions. Referral of a situation to the ICC by the Security Council occurs in virtue of the Council's Chapter VII powers. The Security Council can therefore only refer a situation to the ICC if it has decided that the situation constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. That decision, as well as the referral itself, can be vetoed by any of the Permanent Members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America).
A State Party, likewise, only refers a situation to the ICC. In cases of State Party referrals, there is a further constraint: the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction in the matter if the State of which the perpetrator is a national (the national State) or the State on whose territory the crime was allegedly committed (the territorial State) has either ratified the ICC Statute, or has on an ad hoc basis agreed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC in the particular case under investigation.
Investigations conducted by the Prosecutor proprio motu are also only feasible if the national State or the territorial State have either through ratification of the ICC Statute or a special declaration agreed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. But here, a further constraint applies: the decision of the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation must be approved by a three-judge Pre-Trial Division of the ICC.
Iraq has not ratified the ICC Statute. Nor has the United States. War crimes that may have been committed by American or Iraqi nationals in Iraq can therefore not be prosecuted in the ICC unless the Security Council would refer the situation to the ICC. A Security Council referral can be vetoed by the United States. Prosecutions for war crimes that may have been committed by Australian, British or Polish troops can, on the other hand, derive from a State Party referral or emerge from a proprio motu investigation of the Prosecutor. Australia ratified the ICC Statute on July 1, 2002, the U.K. did so on October 4, 2001, and Poland became a State Party on November 12, 2001. The competence of the Prosecutor to proceed with a proprio motu investigation against any of those troops is, as noted above, subject to judicial control.
Afghanistan ratified the ICC Statute on February 10, 2003. Prosecution in the ICC for war crimes committed in Afghanistan pursuant to a State Party referral or deriving from a proprio motu investigation of the Prosecutor would only be possible if the alleged crime was committed after that date. This time constraint does not apply to prosecution triggered by a Security Council referral, but such referrals are subject to the veto powers of any one of the Permanent Members.
The Democratic Republic of Congo ratified the ICC Statute on April 11, 2002. A Pre-trial Division of the ICC can authorize the investigations currently being contemplated by the Prosecutor, but only in respect of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity committed in that country after the date of ratification.
ICC and U.S. Nationals
There is only one instance where a crime committed by an American national can be prosecuted in the ICC without the consent of the American Government: if the crime was committed in a State other than the United States and that other State is either a State Party of the ICC Statute or has agreed on an ad hoc basis to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC in that particular case. But even then, if a status of forces agreement is operative between the United States and the territorial State, preference must be given to surrendering the perpetrator to the United States to be tried in the U.S. If there is an extradition treaty in place between the United States (as a non-party State) and the territorial State (being a State Party or having agreed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC), the territorial State is given a (judicial) discretion to either extradite the perpetrator to the United States to stand trial or to surrender the perpetrator for trial in the ICC. In the exercise of this discretion, the territorial State is mandated to take into consideration the respective dates of the request for extradition and the request for surrender, the fact that the perpetrator is an American citizen, and the nationality of the victim(s) of the crime.
Whenever the ICC seeks to exercise jurisdiction, any State (not only States Parties) can bring an application before a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC protesting the admissibility of the case in the ICC on any of the following grounds:
The case is being investigated by that State;
The perpetrator is being prosecuted in that State for the crime under investigation;
The case has been investigated by that State and it has been decided not to prosecute the person concerned (there was no probable cause);
The person concerned has already been prosecuted by that State for the crime under investigation;
The case is not of sufficient gravity to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC.
Any of these grounds will exclude the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC unless it has been proved that the State lodging the objection was either unwilling or unable to genuinely conduct the investigation or trial. Unwillingness is defined in the ICC Statute to denote a sham investigation or trial conducted with the intention of actually not wanting to bring the person to justice (the investigation or prosecution was conducted with intent to safeguard the person concerned from prosecution in the ICC). Inability is confined to a total or partial collapse of the criminal justice system of the State concerned. It is inconceivable that inability will ever apply to the United States, and it is highly unlikely that prosecuting authorities of the United States will conduct sham investigations or trials.
In the one circumstance alluded to above in which an American citizen can be brought to trial in the ICC without the prior consent of the United States, the United States can therefore preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC by conducting a bona fide investigation into the alleged crime. If following the investigation it is decided not to proceed with a prosecution due to the absence of probable cause, then so be it! The ICC must in terms of its own Statute abide by that decision of the national prosecuting authorities.
Those supportive of the current U.S. approach argue that the ICC Statute, by applying to non-party States, violates a basic principle of international law. That is not the case. The ICC Statute makes a clear distinction between (a) the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC, and (b) the duty of States to cooperate with the Court. The latter duty is, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, founded on State consent: no State can be obligated to cooperate with the ICC without its consent.
As far as (a) is concerned: States are not prosecuted in the ICC. Nor are the crimes within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC creations of the ICC Statute. They are, as a matter of ius cogens, crimes under customary international law. It is perhaps important to note that the definitions of crimes and their inclusion in the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC were approved at the Rome Conference by general agreement - with one exception: inclusion of the war crime relating to resettlement of a population in occupied territories prompted the negative vote of Israel. For the rest, abstentions and negative votes founded on the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the ICC were not based on what went into the ICC Statute, but on what was not included (notably international drug trafficking and the threat or use of nuclear weapons).
All that was done in Rome, therefore, was to create a tribunal to bring perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole to justice in cases where national States with a special interest in the matter are either unwilling or unable to do the same. The ICC jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes is founded, except in the case of Security Council referrals, on the universally recognized jurisdictional principles of territoriality and active personality.
The exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC is furthermore subject to the principle of complementarity; that is, the first right and duty to bring perpetrators of the crimes concerned to justice vest in national criminal justice systems. The ICC only serves as a stop-gap for cases where the national State is either unwilling or unable to prosecute the very serious crimes that come within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court.
Please see:
http://www.law.case.edu/war-crimes-research-portal/inst...nt_analysis.asp?id=5
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
الطيب شيقوق
saif addawla
خالد المحرب
Yasir Elsharif
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست