Skip to main content

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 1 2.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
New York, 7 March 1966
.
ENTRY INTO FORCE 4 January 1969, in accordance with article 19. 1
REGISTRATION: 12 March 1969, No. 9464.
STATUS: Signatories: 86. Parties: 175.
TEXT: United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 195.
Note: The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 2106 (XX)
2 of 21
December 1965.

.
Participant
3 Signature Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Afghanistan ………………. 6 Jul 1983 a
Albania …………………….. 11 May 1994 a
Algeria …………………….. 9 Dec 1966 14 Feb 1972
Andorra ……………………. 5 Aug 2002 22 Sep 2006
Antigua and Barbuda …. 25 Oct 1988 d
Argentina ………………….. 13 Jul 1967 2 Oct 1968
Armenia……………………. 23 Jun 1993 a
Australia …………………… 13 Oct 1966 30 Sep 1975
Austria ……………………… 22 Jul 1969 9 May 1972
Azerbaijan ………………… 16 Aug 1996 a
Bahamas …………………… 5 Aug 1975 d
Bahrain …………………….. 27 Mar 1990 a
Bangladesh ……………….. 11 Jun 1979 a
Barbados ………………….. 8 Nov 1972 a
Belarus …………………….. 7 Mar 1966 8 Apr 1969
Belgium ……………………. 17 Aug 1967 7 Aug 1975
Belize ………………………. 6 Sep 2000 14 Nov 2001
Benin ……………………….. 2 Feb 1967 30 Nov 2001
Bhutan ……………………… 26 Mar 1973
Bolivia (Plurinational
State of) ………………. 7 Jun 1966 22 Sep 1970
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
4 ……….. 16 Jul 1993 d
Botswana ………………….. 20 Feb 1974 a
Brazil ……………………….. 7 Mar 1966 27 Mar 1968
Bulgaria ……………………. 1 Jun 1966 8 Aug 1966
Burkina Faso …………….. 18 Jul 1974 a
Burundi ……………………. 1 Feb 1967 27 Oct 1977
Cambodia …………………. 12 Apr 1966 28 Nov 1983
Cameroon …………………. 12 Dec 1966 24 Jun 1971
Canada …………………….. 24 Aug 1966 14 Oct 1970
Cape Verde ……………….. 3 Oct 1979 a
Central African
Republic ……………… 7 Mar 1966 16 Mar 1971 Participant
3 Signature Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Chad ………………………… 17 Aug 1977 a
Chile ………………………… 3 Oct 1966 20 Oct 1971
China
5,6,7 …………………… 29 Dec 1981 a
Colombia ………………….. 23 Mar 1967 2 Sep 1981
Comoros …………………… 22 Sep 2000 27 Sep 2004
Congo ………………………. 11 Jul 1988 a
Costa Rica ………………… 14 Mar 1966 16 Jan 1967
Côte d’Ivoire ……………… 4 Jan 1973 a
Croatia
4 ……………………. 12 Oct 1992 d
Cuba ………………………… 7 Jun 1966 15 Feb 1972
Cyprus ……………………… 12 Dec 1966 21 Apr 1967
Czech Republic
8 ………… 22 Feb 1993 d
Democratic Republic of
the Congo ……………. 21 Apr 1976 a
Denmark
9 …………………. 21 Jun 1966 9 Dec 1971
Djibouti ……………………. 14 Jun 2006 30 Sep 2011
Dominican Republic ….. 25 May 1983 a
Ecuador ……………………. 22 Sep 1966 a
Egypt ……………………….. 28 Sep 1966 1 May 1967
El Salvador ……………….. 30 Nov 1979 a
Equatorial Guinea ……… 8 Oct 2002 a
Eritrea ……………………… 31 Jul 2001 a
Estonia …………………….. 21 Oct 1991 a
Ethiopia ……………………. 23 Jun 1976 a
Fiji …………………………… 11 Jan 1973 d
Finland …………………….. 6 Oct 1966 14 Jul 1970
France ……………………… 28 Jul 1971 a
Gabon ………………………. 20 Sep 1966 29 Feb 1980
Gambia …………………….. 29 Dec 1978 a
Georgia ……………………. 2 Jun 1999 a
Germany
10 ………………… 10 Feb 1967 16 May 1969
Ghana ………………………. 8 Sep 1966 8 Sep 1966
Greece ……………………… 7 Mar 1966 18 Jun 1970
Grenada ……………………. 17 Dec 1981

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 2 Participant
3 Signature Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Guatemala ………………… 8 Sep 1967 18 Jan 1983
Guinea ……………………… 24 Mar 1966 14 Mar 1977
Guinea-Bissau …………… 12 Sep 2000 1 Nov 2010
Guyana …………………….. 11 Dec 1968 15 Feb 1977
Haiti ………………………… 30 Oct 1972 19 Dec 1972
Holy See …………………… 21 Nov 1966 1 May 1969
Honduras ………………….. 10 Oct 2002 a
Hungary……………………. 15 Sep 1966 4 May 1967
Iceland ……………………… 14 Nov 1966 13 Mar 1967
India ………………………… 2 Mar 1967 3 Dec 1968
Indonesia ………………….. 25 Jun 1999 a
Iran (Islamic Republic
of) ………………………. 8 Mar 1967 29 Aug 1968
Iraq ………………………….. 18 Feb 1969 14 Jan 1970
Ireland ……………………… 21 Mar 1968 29 Dec 2000
Israel ………………………… 7 Mar 1966 3 Jan 1979
Italy …………………………. 13 Mar 1968 5 Jan 1976
Jamaica …………………….. 14 Aug 1966 4 Jun 1971
Japan ……………………….. 15 Dec 1995 a
Jordan ………………………. 30 May 1974 a
Kazakhstan ……………….. 26 Aug 1998 a
Kenya ………………………. 13 Sep 2001 a
Kuwait ……………………… 15 Oct 1968 a
Kyrgyzstan ……………….. 5 Sep 1997 a
Lao People’s
Democratic
Republic ……………… 22 Feb 1974 a
Latvia ………………………. 14 Apr 1992 a
Lebanon……………………. 12 Nov 1971 a
Lesotho …………………….. 4 Nov 1971 a
Liberia ……………………… 5 Nov 1976 a
Libya ……………………….. 3 Jul 1968 a
Liechtenstein …………….. 1 Mar 2000 a
Lithuania ………………….. 8 Jun 1998 10 Dec 1998
Luxembourg ……………… 12 Dec 1967 1 May 1978
Madagascar ………………. 18 Dec 1967 7 Feb 1969
Malawi …………………….. 11 Jun 1996 a
Maldives …………………… 24 Apr 1984 a
Mali …………………………. 16 Jul 1974 a
Malta ……………………….. 5 Sep 1968 27 May 1971
Mauritania ………………… 21 Dec 1966 13 Dec 1988
Mauritius ………………….. 30 May 1972 a
Mexico …………………….. 1 Nov 1966 20 Feb 1975
Monaco ……………………. 27 Sep 1995 a
Mongolia ………………….. 3 May 1966 6 Aug 1969 Participant 3 Signature Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Montenegro
11 ……………. 23 Oct 2006 d
Morocco …………………… 18 Sep 1967 18 Dec 1970
Mozambique …………….. 18 Apr 1983 a
Namibia
12 …………………. 11 Nov 1982 a
Nauru ………………………. 12 Nov 2001
Nepal ……………………….. 30 Jan 1971 a
Netherlands ………………. 24 Oct 1966 10 Dec 1971
New Zealand
13 ………….. 25 Oct 1966 22 Nov 1972
Nicaragua …………………. 15 Feb 1978 a
Niger ……………………….. 14 Mar 1966 27 Apr 1967
Nigeria …………………….. 16 Oct 1967 a
Norway ……………………. 21 Nov 1966 6 Aug 1970
Oman ……………………….. 2 Jan 2003 a
Pakistan ……………………. 19 Sep 1966 21 Sep 1966
Palau ……………………….. 20 Sep 2011
Panama …………………….. 8 Dec 1966 16 Aug 1967
Papua New Guinea …….. 27 Jan 1982 a
Paraguay ………………….. 13 Sep 2000 18 Aug 2003
Peru …………………………. 22 Jul 1966 29 Sep 1971
Philippines ……………….. 7 Mar 1966 15 Sep 1967
Poland ……………………… 7 Mar 1966 5 Dec 1968
Portugal
6…………………… 24 Aug 1982 a
Qatar ……………………….. 22 Jul 1976 a
Republic of Korea ……… 8 Aug 1978 5 Dec 1978
Republic of Moldova …. 26 Jan 1993 a
Romania …………………… 15 Sep 1970 a
Russian Federation …….. 7 Mar 1966 4 Feb 1969
Rwanda ……………………. 16 Apr 1975 a
San Marino ……………….. 11 Dec 2001 12 Mar 2002
Sao Tome and Principe . 6 Sep 2000
Saudi Arabia …………….. 23 Sep 1997 a
Senegal …………………….. 22 Jul 1968 19 Apr 1972
Serbia
4 ……………………… 12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles ………………… 7 Mar 1978 a
Sierra Leone ……………… 17 Nov 1966 2 Aug 1967
Slovakia
8 ………………….. 28 May 1993 d
Slovenia4 ………………….. 6 Jul 1992 d
Solomon Islands ………… 17 Mar 1982 d
Somalia ……………………. 26 Jan 1967 26 Aug 1975
South Africa ……………… 3 Oct 1994 10 Dec 1998
Spain ……………………….. 13 Sep 1968 a
Sri Lanka ………………….. 18 Feb 1982 a
St. Kitts and Nevis …….. 13 Oct 2006 a
St. Lucia …………………… 14 Feb 1990 d

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 3 Participant
3 Signature Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines …………… 9 Nov 1981 a
Sudan ………………………. 21 Mar 1977 a
Suriname ………………….. 15 Mar 1984 d
Swaziland …………………. 7 Apr 1969 a
Sweden …………………….. 5 May 1966 6 Dec 1971
Switzerland ………………. 29 Nov 1994 a
Syrian Arab Republic …. 21 Apr 1969 a
Tajikistan ………………….. 11 Jan 1995 a
Thailand …………………… 28 Jan 2003 a
The former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
4 ………….. 18 Jan 1994 d
Timor-Leste ………………. 16 Apr 2003 a
Togo ………………………… 1 Sep 1972 a
Tonga ………………………. 16 Feb 1972 a
Trinidad and Tobago ….. 9 Jun 1967 4 Oct 1973
Tunisia …………………….. 12 Apr 1966 13 Jan 1967
Turkey ……………………… 13 Oct 1972 16 Sep 2002
Turkmenistan ……………. 29 Sep 1994 a Participant
3 Signature Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Uganda …………………….. 21 Nov 1980 a
Ukraine ……………………. 7 Mar 1966 7 Mar 1969
United Arab Emirates … 20 Jun 1974 a
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
5,14 . 11 Oct 1966 7 Mar 1969
United Republic of
Tanzania ……………… 27 Oct 1972 a
United States of
America ………………. 28 Sep 1966 21 Oct 1994
Uruguay …………………… 21 Feb 1967 30 Aug 1968
Uzbekistan ……………….. 28 Sep 1995 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of) …………. 21 Apr 1967 10 Oct 1967
Viet Nam ………………….. 9 Jun 1982 a
Yemen
15 …………………… 18 Oct 1972 a
Zambia …………………….. 11 Oct 1968 4 Feb 1972
Zimbabwe ………………… 13 May 1991 a
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession or
succession.
For objections thereto and declarations recognizing the competence of the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination, see hereinafter.)

A
FGHANISTAN
Reservation:
While acceding to the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention since according to this article, in the event of
disagreement between two or several States Parties to the
Convention on the interpretation and implementation of
provisions of the Convention, the matters could be
referred to the International Court of Justice upon the
request of only one side.
The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, therefore,
states that should any disagreement emerge on the
interpretation and implementation of the Convention, the
matter will be referred to the International Court of
Justice only if all concerned parties agree with that
procedure.
Declaration:
Furthermore, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
states that the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination have a discriminatory nature
against some states and therefore are not in conformity
with the principle of universality of international treaties.
A NTIGUA AND BARBUDA
Declaration:
“The Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda entrenches
and guarantees to every person in Antigua and Barbuda
the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual
irrespective of race or place of origin. The Constitution
prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event
of the violation of any of these rights, whether by the state
or by a private individual. Acceptance of the Convention
by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda does not
imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the
constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations
to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in
the Constitution.
The Government of Antigua and Barbuda interprets
article 4 of the Convention as requiring a Party to enact
measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b)
and (c) of that article only where it is considered that the
need arises to enact such legislation.”

A
USTRALIA
“The Government of Australia … declares that
Australia is not at present in a position specifically to treat
as offences all the matters covered by article 4 (a) of the
Convention. Acts of the kind there mentioned are
punishable only to the extent provided by the existing
criminal law dealing with such matters as the maintenance

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 4 of public order, public mischief, assault, riot, criminal
libel, conspiracy and attempts. It is the intention of the
Australian Government, at the first suitable moment, to
seek from Parliament legislation specifically
implementing the terms of article 4 (a).”

A
USTRIA
“Article 4 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
provides that the measures specifically described in sub-
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be undertaken with due
regard to the principles embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set
forth in article 5 of the Convention. The Republic of
Austria therefore considers that through such measures
the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
may not be jeopardized. These rights are laid down in
articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; they were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of
the United Nations when it adopted articles 19 and 21 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and are referred to in article 5 (d) (viii) and (ix) of the
present Convention.”

B
AHAMAS
“Firstly the Government of the Commonwealth of the
Bahamas wishes to state its understanding of article 4 of
the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination. It interprets article 4 as
requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further
legislative measures in the fields covered by
subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far
as it may consider with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration set out in article 5
of the Convention (in particular to freedom of opinion and
expression and the right of freedom of peaceful assembly
and association) that some legislative addition to, or
variation of existing law and practice in these fields is
necessary for the attainment of the ends specified in
article 4. Lastly, the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of the Bahamas entrenches and guarantees to every person
in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his
race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes
judicial process to be observed in the event of the
violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by
a private individual. Acceptance of this Convention by
the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not imply the
acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional
limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce
judicial process beyond these prescribed under the
Constitution.”

B
AHRAIN 16
Reservations:
“With reference to article 22 of the Convention, the
Government of the State of Bahrain declares that, for the
submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the
express consent of all the parties to the dispute is required
in each case.”
“Moreover, the accession by the State of Bahrain to
the said Convention shall in no way constitute recognition
of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any
relations of any kind therewith.”

B
ARBADOS
“The Constitution of Barbados entrenches and
guarantees to every person in Barbados the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes
judicial processes to be observed in the event of the
violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by
a private individual. Accession to the Convention does
not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the
constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations
to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in
the Constitution.
The Government of Barbados interprets article 4 of the
said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to
enact measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs
(a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered
that the need arises to enact such legislation.”

B
ELARUS 17
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic states that
the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with
the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention should be open to participation by all
interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.

B
ELGIUM
In order to meet the requirements of article 4 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, the Kingdom of Belgium will
take care to adapt its legislation to the obligations it has
assumed in becoming a party to the said Convention.
The Kingdom of Belgium nevertheless wishes to
emphasize the importance which it attaches to the fact
that article 4 of the Convention provides that the measures
laid down in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) should be
adopted with due regard to the principles embodied in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights
expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention. The
Kingdom of Belgium therefore considers that the
obligations imposed by article 4 must be reconciled with
the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Those rights are proclaimed in articles 19 and 20 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have been
reaffirmed in articles 19 and 21 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They have also
been stated in article 5, subparagraph (d) (viii) and (ix) of
the said Convention.
The Kingdom of Belgium also wishes to emphasize
the importance which it attaches to respect for the rights
set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, especially in
articles 10 and 11 dealing respectively with freedom of
opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly
and association.

B
ULGARIA 18
The Government of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria
considers that the provisions of article 17, paragraph 1,
and article 18, paragraph 1, of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the effect of which is to prevent sovereign
States from becoming Parties to the Convention, are of a
discriminatory nature. The Convention, in accordance
with the principle of the sovereign equality of States,
should be open for accession by all States without any
discrimination whatsoever.

C
HINA 19
Reservation:

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 5 The People’s Republic of China has reservations on
the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and will not
be bound by it. (The reservation was circulated by the
Secretary-General on 13 January 1982.)
Declaration:
The signing and ratification of the said Convention by
the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are illegal
and null and void.

C
UBA
Upon signature:
The Government of the Republic of Cuba will make
such reservations as it may deem appropriate if and when
the Convention is ratified.
Upon ratification:
Reservation:
The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of
Cuba does not accept the provision in article 22 of the
Convention to the effect that disputes between two or
more States Parties shall be referred to the International
Court of Justice, since it considers that such disputes
should be settled exclusively by the procedures expressly
provided for in the Convention or by negotiation through
the diplomatic channel between the disputants.
Statement:
This Convention, intended to eliminate all forms of
racial discrimination, should not, as it expressly does in
articles 17 and 18, exclude States not Members of the
United Nations, members of the specialized agencies or
Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice
from making an effective contribution under the
Convention, since these articles constitute in themselves a
form of discrimination that is at variance with the
principles set out in the Convention; the Revolutionary
Government of the Republic of Cuba accordingly ratifies
the Convention, but with the qualification just indicated.

C
ZECH REPUBLIC 8
D
ENMARK 9
E
GYPT 16,20
“The United Arab Republic does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention,
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to
the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of
Justice for decision, and it states that, in each individual
case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is
necessary for referring the dispute to the International
Court of Justice.”

E
QUATORIAL GUINEA
Reservation:
The Republic of Equatorial Guinea does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision. The Republic
of Equatorial Guinea considers that, in each individual
case, the consent of all parties is necessary for referring
the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

F
IJI 21
F
RANCE 22
With regard to article 4, France wishes to make it clear
that it interprets the reference made therein to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and to the rights set forth in article 5 of the Convention as
releasing the States Parties from the obligation to enact
anti-discrimination legislation which is incompatible with
the freedoms of opinion and expression and of peaceful
assembly and association guaranteed by those texts.
With regard to article 6, France declares that the
question of remedy through tribunals is, as far as France
is concerned, governed by the rules of ordinary law.
With regard to article 15, France’s accession to the
Convention may not be interpreted as implying any
change in its position regarding the resolution mentioned
in that provision.

G
UYANA
“The Government of the Republic of Guyana do not
interpret the provisions of this Convention as imposing
upon them any obligation going beyond the limits set by
the Constitution of Guyana or imposing upon them any
obligation requiring the introduction of judicial processes
going beyond those provided under the same
Constitution.”

H
UNGARY 23
“The Hungarian People’s Republic considers that the
provisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and of article 18,
paragraph 1, of the Convention, barring accession to the
Convention by all States, are of a discriminating nature
and contrary to international law. The Hungarian People’s
Republic maintains its general position that multilateral
treaties of a universal character should, in conformity
with the principles of sovereign equality of States, be
open for accession by all States without any
discrimination whatever.”

I
NDIA 24
“The Government of India declare that for reference of
any dispute to the International Court of Justice for
decision in terms of Article 22 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the consent of all parties to the dispute is
necessary in each individual case.”

I
NDONESIA
Reservation:
“The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does
not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 22
and takes the position that disputes relating to the
interpretation and application of the [Convention] which
cannot be settled through the channel provided for in the
said article, may be referred to the International Court of
Justice only with the consent of all the parties to the
dispute.”

I
RAQ 16
Upon signature:
“The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Iraq hereby declares that signature for and on behalf of
the Republic of Iraq of the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations
on 21 December 1965, as well as approval by the Arab
States of the said Convention and entry into it by their
respective governments, shall in no way signify
recognition of Israel or lead to entry by the Arab States
into such dealings with Israel as may be regulated by the
said Convention.
“Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Iraq
does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article
twenty-two of the Convention afore-mentioned and

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 6 affirms its reservation that it does not accept the
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice provided for in the said article.”
Upon ratification:
1. The acceptance and ratification of the
Convention by Iraq shall in no way signify recognition of
Israel or be conducive to entry by Iraq into such dealings
with Israel as are regulated by the Convention;
2. Iraq does not accept the provisions of article 22
of the Convention, concerning the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The
Republic of Iraq does not consider itself to be bound by
the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and deems
it necessary that in all cases the approval of all parties to
the dispute be secured before the case is referred to the
International Court of Justice.
I
RELAND
Reservation/Interpetative declaration:
“Article 4 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
provides that the measures specifically described in sub-
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be undertaken with due
regard to the principles embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set
forth in Article 5 of the Convention. Ireland threfore
considers that through such measures, the right to
freedom of opinion and expression and the right to
peaceful assembly and association may not be
jeopardised. These rights are laid down in Articles 19 and
20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; they
were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the
United Nations when it adopted Articles 19 and 21 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
are referred to in Article 5 (d)(viii) and (ix) of the present
Convention.”

I
SRAEL
“The State of Israel does not consider itself bound by
the provisions of article 22 of the said Convention.”

I
TALY
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon
ratification:
(a) The positive measures, provided for in article 4
of the Convention and specifically described in sub-
paragraphs (a) and (b) of that article, designed to eradicate
all incitement to, or acts of, discrimination, are to be
interpreted, as that article provides, “with due regard to
the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article
5” of the Convention. Consequently, the obligations
deriving from the aforementioned article 4 are not to
jeopardize the right to freedom of opinion and expression
and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association which are laid down in articles 19 and 20 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were
reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the United
Nations when it adopted articles 19 and 21 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
are referred to in articles 5 (d) (viii) and (ix) of the
Convention. In fact, the Italian Government, in
conformity with the obligations resulting from Articles 55
(c) and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations, remains
faithful to the principle laid down in article 29 (2) of the
Universal Declaration, which provides that “in the
exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of
meeting the just requirements of morality, public order
and the general welfare in a democratic society.” (b) Effective remedies against acts of racial
discrimination which violate his individual rights and
fundamental freedoms will be assured to everyone, in
conformity with article 6 ofthe Convention, by the
ordinary courts within the framework of their respective
jurisdiction. Claims for reparation for any damage
suffered as a result of acts of racial discrimination must be
brought against the persons responsible for the malicious
or criminal acts which caused such damage.

J
AMAICA
“The Constitution of Jamaica entrenches and
guarantees to every person in Jamaica the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his
race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes
judicial processes to be observed in the event of the
violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by
a private individual. Ratification of the Convention by
Jamaica does not imply the acceptance of obligations
going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance
of any obligation to introduce judicial processes beyond
those prescribed under the Constitution.”

J
APAN
Reservation:
“In applying the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of article 4 of the [said Convention] Japan fulfills the
obligations under those provisions to the extent that
fulfillment of the obligations is compatible with the
guarantee of the rights to freedom of assembly,
association and expression and other rights under the
Constitution of Japan, noting the phrase `with due regard
to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in
article 5 of this Convention’ referred to in article 4.”

K
UWAIT 16
“In acceding to the said Convention, the Government
of the State of Kuwait takes the view that its accession
does not in any way imply recognition of Israel, nor does
it oblige it to apply the provisions of the Convention in
respect of the said country.
“The Government of the State of Kuwait does not
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any
party to the dispute, to be referred to the International
Court of Justice for decision, and it states that, in each
individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute
is necessary for referring the dispute to the International
Court of Justice.”

L
EBANON
The Republic of Lebanon does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention,
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any party to the
dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice
for decision, and it states that, in each individual case, the
consent of all States parties to such a dispute is necessary
for referring the dispute to the International Court of
Justice.

L
IBYA 16
“(a) The Kingdom of Libya does not
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 7 application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision, and it states
that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to
such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the
International Court of Justice.
“(b) It is understood that the accession to
this Convention does not mean in any way a recognition
of Israel by the Government of the Kingdom of Libya.
Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the
Kingdom of Libya and Israel.”

M
ADAGASCAR
The Government of the Malagasy Republic does not
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision, and states that,
in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a
dispute is necessary for referral of the dispute to the
International Court.

M
ALTA
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon
ratifica- tion :
“The Government of Malta wishes to state its
understanding of certain articles in the Convention.
“It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the
Convention to adopt further measures in the fields
covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article
should it consider, with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights set forth in article 5 of the Convention, that
the need arises to enact ‘ ad hoc ’ legislation, in addition
to or variation of existing law and practice to bring to an
end any act of racial discrimination.
“Further, the Government of Malta interprets the
requirements in article 6 concerning `reparation or
satisfaction’ as being fulfilled if one or other of these
forms of redress is made available and interprets
`satisfaction’ as including any form of redress effective to
bring the discriminatory conduct to an end.”

M
ONACO
Reservation regarding article 2, paragraph 1:
Monaco reserves the right to apply its own legal
provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the
labour market of the Principality.
Reservation regarding article 4:
Monaco interprets the reference in that article to the
principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and to the rights enumerated in article 5 of the Convention
as releasing States Parties from the obligation to
promulgate repressive laws which are incompatible with
freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of
peaceful assembly and association, which are guaranteed
by those instruments.

M
ONGOLIA 25
The Mongolian People’s Republic states that the
provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and it holds that, in accordance
with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination should be open to participation by all interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.

M
OROCCO
The Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention,
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to
the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of
Justice for decision. The Kingdom of Morocco states
that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to
such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the
International Court of Justice.

M
OZAMBIQUE
Reservation:
“The People’s Republic of Mozambique does not
consider to be bound by the provision of article 22 and
wishes to restate that for the submission of any dispute to
the International Court of Justice for decision in terms of
the said article, the consent of all parties to such a dispute
is necessary in each individual case.”

N
EPAL
“The Constitution of Nepal contains provisions for the
protection of individual rights, including the right to
freedom of speech and expression, the right to form
unions and associations not motivated by party politics
and the right to freedom of professing his/her own
religion; and nothing in the Convention shall be deemed
to require or to authorize legislation or other action by
Nepal incompatible with the provisions of the
Constitution of Nepal.
“His Majesty’s Government interprets article 4 of the
said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to
adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by
sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only insofar
as His Majesty’s Government may consider, with due
regard to the principles embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, that some legislative
addition to, or variation of, existing law and practice in
those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end
specified in the earlier part of article 4. His Majesty’s
Government interprets the requirement in article 6
concerning `reparation or satisfaction’ as being fulfilled if
one or other of these forms of redress is made available;
and further interprets `satisfaction’ as including any form
of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to
an end.
“His Majesty’s Government does not consider itself
bound by the provision of article 22 of the Convention
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to
the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of
Justice for decision.”

P
APUA NEW GUINEA 19
Reservation:
“The Government of Papua New Guinea interprets
article 4 of the Convention as requiring a party to the
Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the
areas covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that
article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to
the principles contained in the Universal Declaration set
out in Article 5 of the Convention that some legislative
addition to, or variation of existing law and practice, is
necessary to give effect to the provisions of article 4. In
addition, the Constitution of Papua New Guinea
guarantees certain fundamental rights and freedoms to all

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 8 persons irrespective of their race or place of origin. The
Constitution also provides for judicial protection of these
rights and freedoms. Acceptance of this Convention does
not therefore indicate the acceptance of obligations by the
Government of Papua New Guinea which go beyond
those provided by the Constitution, nor does it indicate
the acceptance of any obligation to introduce judicial
process beyond that provided by the Constitution”. (The
reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on
22 February 1982.)

P
OLAND 26
The Polish People’s Republic considers that the
provisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and article18,
paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which
make it impossible for many States to become parties to
the said Convention, are of a discriminatory nature and
are incompatible with the object and purpose of that
Convention.
The Polish People’s Republic considers that, in
accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of
States, the said Convention should be open for
participation by all States without any discrimination or
restrictions whatsoever.

R
EPUBLIC OF KOREA
5 March 1997
“The Government of the Republic of Korea recognizes
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea claiming
to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Korea of
any of the rights set forth in the said Convention.”

R
OMANIA 27

The Council of State of the Socialist Republic of
Romania declares that the provisions of articles 17 and 18
of the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination are not in accordance
with the principle that multilateral treaties, the aims and
objectives of which concern the world community as a
whole, should be open to participation by all States.

R
USSIAN FEDERATION 17
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics states that the
provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with
the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention should be open to participation by all
interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.

R
WANDA 28
S
AUDI ARABIA
Reservations:
[The Government of Saudi Arabia declares that it will] implement the provisions [of the above Convention],
providing these do not conflict with the precepts of the
Islamic Shariah .
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by
the provisions of article (22) of this Convention, since it
considers that any dispute should be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the approval of
the States Parties to the dispute.

S
LOVAKIA 8
S
PAIN 29
S
WITZERLAND
Reservation concerning article 4:
Switzerland reserves the right to take the legislative
measures necessary for the implementation of article 4,
taking due account of freedom of opinion and freedom of
association, provided for inter alia in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Reservation concerning article 2, paragraph 1 (a):
Switzerland reserves the right to apply its legal
provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the
Swiss market.

S
YRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 16
1. The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to
this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of
Israel or entry into a relationship with it regarding any
matter regulated by the said Convention.
2. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the Parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision. The Syrian
Arab Republic states that, in each individual case, the
consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for
referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

T
HAILAND
Interpretative declaration :
“General Interpretative Declaration
The Kingdom of Thailand does not interpret and apply
the provisions of this Convention as imposing upon the
Kingdom of Thailand any obligation beyond the confines
of the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom of
Thailand. In addition, such interpretation and application
shall be limited to or consistent with the obligations under
other international human rights instruments to which the
Kingdom of Thailand is party.
Reservations
1. The Kingdom of Thailand interprets Article 4 of
the Convention as requiring a party to the Convention to
adopt measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs
(a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered
that the need arises to enact such legislation.
2. The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of Article 22 of the
Convention.”

T
ONGA 30
Reservation:
“To the extent, […], that any law relating to land in
Tonga which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land
by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the
obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), […], the
Kingdom of Tonga reserves the right not to apply the
Convention to Tonga.
Declaration:
“Secondly, the Kingdom of Tonga wishes to state its
understanding of certain articles in the Convention. It
interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention
to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered
by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so
far as it may consider with due regard to the principles

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 9 embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion
and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association) that some legislative addition
to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields
is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the
earlier part of article 4. Further, the Kingdom of Tonga
interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning
`reparation or satisfaction’ as being fulfilled if one or
other of these forms of redress is made available and
interprets `satisfaction’ as including any form of redress
effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In
addition it interprets article 20 and the other related
provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if
a reservation is not accepted the State making the
reservation does not become a Party to the Convention.
“Lastly, the Kingdom of Tonga maintains its position
in regard to article 15. In its view this article is
discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the
receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while
making no comparable provision for States without such
territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish
arocedure applicable to the dependent territories of States
whether or not those States have become parties to the
Convention. His Majesty’s Government have decided that
the Kingdom of Tonga should accede to the Convention,
these objections notwithstanding because of the
importance they attach to the Convention as a whole.”

T
URKEY
Declarations and reservation:
“The Republic of Turkey declares that it will
implement the provisions of this Convention only to the
States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations.
The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention
is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory
where the Constitution and the legal and administrative
order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.
The Republic of Turkey does not consider itself bound
by Article 22 of this Convention. The explicit consent of
the Republic of Turkey is necessary in each individual
case before any dispute to which the Republic of Turkey
is party concerning the interpretation or application of this
Convention may be referred to the International Court of
Justice.”

U
KRAINE 17
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic states that the
provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with
the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention should be open to participation by all
interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.

U
NITED ARAB EMIRATES 16
“The accession of the United Arab Emirates to this
Convention shall in no way amount to recognition of nor
the establishment of any treaty relations with Israel.”

U
NITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND
Upon signature:
Subject to the following reservation and interpretative
statements:
“First, in the present circumstances deriving from the
usurpation of power in Rhodesia by the illegal régime, the United Kingdom must sign subject to a reservation of the
right not to apply the Convention to Rhodesia unless and
until the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General
of the United Nations that it is in a position to ensure that
the obligations imposed by the Convention in respect of
that territory can be fully implemented.
“Secondly, the United Kingdom wishes to state its
under- standing of certain articles in the Convention. It
interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention
to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered
by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so
far as it may consider with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion
and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association) that some legislative addition
to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields
is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the
earlier part of article 4. Further, the United Kingdom
interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning
`reparation or satisfaction’ as being fulfilled if one or
other of these forms of redress is made available and
interprets `satisfaction’ as including any form of redress
effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In
addition it interprets article 20 and the other related
provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if
a reservation is not accepted the State making the
reservation does not become a Party to the Convention.
“Lastly, the United Kingdom maintains its position in
regard to article 15. In its view this article is
discriminatory in that it establishes arocedure for the
receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while
making no comparable provision for States without such
territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish a
procedure applicable to the dependent territories of States
whether or not those States have become parties to the
Convention. Her Majesty’s Government have decided
that the United Kingdom should sign the Convention,
these objections notwithstanding, because of the
importance they attach to the Convention as a whole.”
Upon ratification:
“First, the reservation and interpretative statements
made by the United Kingdom at the time of signature of
the Convention are maintained.
“Secondly, the United Kingdom does not regard the
Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, 1962 and 1968, or their
application, as involving any racial discrimination within
the meaning of paragraph 1 of article 1, or any other
provision of the Convention, and fully reserves its right to
continue to apply those Acts.
“Lastly, to the extent if any, that any law relating to
election in Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in
article 5 (c), that any law relating to land in Fiji which
prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the
indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations
referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school system of
Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in articles 2,
3 or 5 (e) (v), the United Kingdom reserves the right not
to apply the Convention to Fiji.”

U
NITED STATES OF AMERICA
Upon signature:
“The Constitution of the United States contains
provisions for the protection of individual rights, such as
the right of free speech, and nothing in the Convention
shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or
other action by the United States of America incompatible
with the provisions of the Constitution of the United
States of America.”
Upon ratification:
“I. The Senate’s advice and consent is
subject to the following reservations:

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 10 (1) That the Constitution and laws of the
United States contain extensive protections of individual
freedom of speech, expression and association.
Accordingly, the United States does not accept any
obligation under this Convention, in particular under
articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the
adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the
extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws
of the United States.
(2) That the Constitution and laws of the
United States establish extensive protections against
discrimination, reaching significant areas of non-
governmental activity. Individual privacy and freedom
from governmental interference in private conduct,
however, are also recognized as among the fundamental
values which shape our free and democratic society. The
United States understands that the identification of the
rights protected under the Convention by reference in
article 1 to fields of `public life’ reflects a similar
distinction between spheres of public conduct that are
customarily the subject of governmental regulation, and
spheres of private conduct that are not. To the extent,
however, that the Convention calls for a broader
regulation of private conduct, the United States does not
accept any obligation under this Convention to enact
legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of
article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article
3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as
mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
(3) That with reference to article 22 of the
Convention, before any dispute to which the United States
is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice under this article, the
specific consent of the United States is required in each
case.
II. The Senate’s advice and consent is
subject to the following understanding, which shall apply
to the obligations of the United States under this
Convention:
That the United States understands that this
Convention shall be implemented by the Federal
Government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction
over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the
state and local governments. To the extent that state and
local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters,
the Federal Government shall, as necessary, take
appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of this
Convention.
III. The Senate’s advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration: That the United States declares that the provisions of
the Convention are not self-executing.”

V
IET NAM 19
Declaration:
(1) The Government of the Socialist Republic of
Viet Nam declares that the provisions of article 17 (1) and
of article 18 (1) of the Convention whereby a number of
States are deprived of the opportunity of becoming Parties
to the said Convention are of a discriminatory nature and
it considers that, in accordance with the principle of the
sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be
open to participation by all States without discrimination
or restriction of any kind.
Reservation:
(2) The Government of the Socialist Republic of
Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by the provisions
of article 22 of the Convention and holds that, for any
dispute with regard to the interpretation or application of
the Convention to be brought before the International
Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute is
necessary. (The reservation was circulated by the
Secretary-General on 10 August 1982.)

Y
EMEN 15,16
“The accession of the People’s Democratic Republic of
Yemen to this Convention shall in no way signify
recognition of Israel or entry into a relationship with it
regarding any matter regulated by the said Convention.
“The People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen does
not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 22
of the Convention, under which any dispute between two
or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision, and states that,
in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a
dispute is necessary for referral of the dispute to the
International Court of Justice.
“The People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen states
that the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, and Article
18, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination whereby a number of
States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties
to the Convention is of a discriminatory nature, and holds
that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign
equality of States, the Convention should be opened to
participation by all interested States without
discrimination or restriction of any kind.”

Objections
(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made
upon ratification, accession or succession.)

A
USTRALIA
8 August 1989
“In accordance with article 20 (2), Australia objects to
[the reservations made by Yemen] which it considers
impermissible as being incompatible with the object and
purpose of the Convention.”

A
USTRIA
19 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi
Arabia upon accession: “Austria is of the view that a reservation by which a
State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a
general and unspecified manner creates doubts as to the
commitment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its
obligations under the Convention, essential for the
fulfilment of its objection and purpose. According to
paragraph 2 of article 20 a reservation incompatible with
the object and purpose of this Convention shall not be
permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to
which they have chosen to become Parties are prepared to
undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply
with their obligations under the treaties.
Austria is further of the view that a general reservation
of the kind made by the Government of the Kingdom of

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 11 Saudi Arabia, which does not clearly specify the
provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the
extent of the derogation therefrom, contributes to
undermining the basis of international treaty law.
According to international law a reservation is
inadmissible to the extent as its application negatively
affects the compliance by a State with its obligations
under the Convention essential for the fulfilment of its
object and purpose.
Therefore, Austria cannot consider the reservation
made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
as admissible unless the Government of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, by providing additional information or
through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservation
is compatible with the provisions essential for the
implementation of the object and purpose of the
Convention.
This view by Austria would not preclude the entry into
force in its entirety of the Convention between the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Austria.”

B
ELARUS
29 December 1983
The ratification of the above-mentioned International
Convention by the so-called “Government of Democratic
Kampuchea”-the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique of hangmen
overthrown by the Kampuchean people – is completely
unlawful and has no legal force. There is only one State
of Kampuchea in the world-The People’s Republic of
Kampuchea, recognized by a large number of countries.
All power in this State is entirely in the hands of its only
lawful Government, the Government of the People’s
Republic of Kampuchea, which has the exclusive right to
act in the name of Kampuchea in the international arena,
including the right to ratify international agreements
prepared within the United Nations.
The farce involving the ratification of the above-
mentioned International Convention by a clique
representing no one mocks the norms of law and morality
and blasphemes the memory of millions of Kampuchean
victims of the genocide committed by the Pol Pot-Ieng
Sary régime.

B
ELGIUM
8 August l989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
These reservations are incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Convention and consequently are not
permitted pursuant to article 20, paragraph 2, of the
Convention.

C
ANADA
10 August 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“The effect of these reservations would be to allow
racial discrimination in respect of certain of the rights
enumerated in Article 5. Since the objective of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, as stated in its Preamble, is to
eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and
manifestations, the Government of Canada believes that
the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic are
incompatible with the object and purpose of the
International Convention. Moreover, the Government of
Canada believes that the principle of non-discrimination
is generally accepted and recognized in international law
and therefore is binding on all states.”
C
YPRUS
5 August 2003
With regard to the reservation made by Turkey upon
ratification:
“…..the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has
examined the declaration made by the Government of the
Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (New
York, 7 March 1966) on 16 September 2002 in respect of
the implementation of the provisions of the Convention
only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic
relations.
In the view of the Government of the Republic of
Cyprus, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This
reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in
respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in
the Convention. The Government of the Republic of
Cyprus therefore objects to the reservation made by the
Government of the Republic of Turkey.
This reservation or the objection to it shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between
the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.”

C
ZECH REPUBLIC 8
D
ENMARK
10 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliance with
the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the
Convention, to prohibit and to eliminate racial
discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of
everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or
national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law,
notably in the enjoyment of the rights enumerated in the
article.
The reservations made by the Government of Yemen
are incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention and the reservations are consequently
impermissible according to article 20, paragraph 2 of the
Convention. In accordance with article 20, paragraph 1 of
the Convention the Government of Denmark therefore
formally objects to these reservations. This objection
does not have the effect of preventing the Convention
from entering into force between Denmark and Yemen,
and the reservations cannot alter or modify in any respect,
the obligations arising from the Convention.”

E
THIOPIA
25 January 1984
“The Provisional Military Government of Socialist
Ethiopia should like to reiterate that the Government of
the People’s Republic of Kampuchea is the sole legitimate
representative of the People of Kampuchea and as such it
alone has the authority to act on behalf of Kampuchea.
The Provisional Military Government of Socialist
Ethiopia, therefore, considers the ratification of the so-
called `Government of Democratic Kampuchea’ to be null
and void.”

F
INLAND
7 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“The Government of Finland formally, and in
accordance with article 20 (2) of the Convention, objects
to the reservations made by Yemen to the above
provisions.

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 12 In the first place, the reservations concern matters
which are of fundamental importance in the Convention.
The first paragraph of article 5 clearly brings this out.
According to it, the Parties have undertaken to guarantee
the rights listed in that article “In compliance with
fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the
Convention”. Clearly, provisions prohibiting racial
discrimination in the granting of such fundamental
political rights and civil liberties as the right to participate
in public life, to marry and choose a spouse, to inherit and
to enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion are
central in a convention against racial discrimination.
Therefore, the reservations are incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention, as specified in
paragraph 20 (2) thereof and in article 19 (c) of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Moreover, it is the view of the Government of Finland
that it would be unthinkable that merely by making a
reservation to the said provisions, a State could achieve
the liberty to start discriminatory practices on the grounds
of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin in regard to
such fundamental political rights and civil liberties as the
right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, the
right of marriage and choice of spouse, the right of
inheritance and the freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. Any racial discrimination in respect of those
fundamental rights and liberties is clearly against the
general principles of human rights law as reflected in the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the practice
of States and international organizations. By making a
reservation atate cannot contract out from universally
binding human rights standards.
For the above reasons, the Government of Finland
notes that the reservations made by Yemen are devoid of
legal effect. However, the Government of Finland does
not consider that this fact is an obstacle to the entry into
force of the Convention in respect of Yemen.”
6 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi
Arabia upon accession:
“The Government of Finland is of the view that this
general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of
Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention
and would recall that according to paragraph 2 of article
20 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention shall not be
permitted. The Government of Finland would also like to
recall that according to the said paragraph a reservation
shall be considered incompatible or inhibitive if at least
two thirds of the States Parties to the Convention object to
it. 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 Finland is further of the view that
general reservations of the kind made by Saudi Arabia,
which do not clearly specify the provisions of the
Convention to which they apply and the extent of the
derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the
basisof international treaty law.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the
aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of
Saudi Arabia to the [Convention].

F
RANCE
15 May 1984
The Government of the French Republic, which does
not recognize the coalition government of Democratic
Cambodia, declares that the instrument of ratification by
the coalition government of Democratic Cambodia of the
[International] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature at
New York on 7 March 1966, is without effect.
20 September 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
France considers that the reservations made by the
Yemen Arab Republic to the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are
not valid as being incompatible with the object and
purpose of the Convention.
Such objection is not an obstacle to the entry into
force of the said Convention between France and the
Yemen Arab Republic.
25 April 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Thailand upon
accession:
The Government of the Republic of France has
examined the interpretative declaration made by the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand upon accession
to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966. The Government
of the Republic of France considers that, by making the
interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the
Convention subject to respect for the Constitution and
legislation of the Kingdom of Thailand, the Government
of the Kingdom of Thailand is making a reservation of
such a general and indeterminate scope that it is not
possible to ascertain which changes to obligations under
the Convention it is intended to introduce. Consequently,
the Government of France considers that this reservation
as formulated could make the provisions of the
Convention completely ineffective. For these reasons, the
Government objects to this interpretative declaration,
which it considers to be a reservation likely toe
incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention.

G
ERMANY 3
8 August 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“These reservations relate to the basic obligations of
States Parties to the Convention to prohibit and eliminate
racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the
right of everyone to equality before the law and include
the enjoyment of such fundamental political and civil
rights as the right to take part in the conduct of public life,
the right to marriage and choice of spouse, the right to
inherit and the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion. As a result, the reservations made by
Yemen are incompatible with the object and purpose of
the Convention within the meaning of article 20,
paragraph 2 thereof.”
3 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi
Arabia upon accession:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
is of the view that this reservation may raise doubts as to
the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and
purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
would like to recall that, according to paragraph 2 of
article 20 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be
permitted.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
therefore objects to the said reservation.
The objection does not preclude the entry into force of
the Convention between Saudi Arabia and the Federal
Republic of Germany.
29 April 2003

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 13 With regard to the interpretative declaration made by
Thailand upon accession:
“The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
has examined the General Interpretative Declaration to
the International Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Racial Discrimination made by the Government
of the Kingdom of Thailand at the time of its accession to
the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Repblic of Germany
considers that the General Interpretative Declaration made
by Thailand is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the
scope of the Convention on an unilateral basis.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
notes that a reservation to all provisions of a Convention
which consists of a general reference to national law
without specifying its contents does not clearly define for
the other State Parties to the Convention the extend to
which the reserving state has accepted the obligations out
of the provisions of the Convention.
The reservation made by the Government of the
Kingdom of Thailand in respect to the applications of the
provisions of the Convention therefore raises doubts as to
the commitment of Thailand to fulfill its obligations out
of all provisions of the Convention.
Hence the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany considers this reservation to be incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects
to the General Interpretative Declaration made by the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of
the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany
and the Kingdom of Thailand.”

I
TALY
7 August 1989
“The Government of the Republic of Italy raises an
objection to the reservations entered by the Government
of the Arab Republic of Yemen to article 5 [(c) and (d)
(iv), (vi) and (vii)] of the above-mentioned Convention.”

M
EXICO
11 August 1989
With regard to reservation made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
The Government of the United Mexican States has
concluded that, in view of article 20 of the Convention,
the reservation must be deemed invalid, as it is
incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention.
Said reservation, if implemented would result in
discrimination to the detriment of a certain sector of the
population and, at the same time, would violate the rights
established in articles 2, 16 and 18 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
The objection of the United Mexican States to the
reservation in question should not be interpreted as an
impediment to the entry into force of the Convention of
1966 between the United States of Mexico and the
Government of Yemen.

M
ONGOLIA
7 June 1984
“The Government of the Mongolian People’s Republic
considers that only the People’s Revolutionary Council of
Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful
representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to
assume international obligations on behalf of the
Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of the
Mongolian People’s Republic considers that the
ratification of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a regime that ceased to
exist as a result of the people’s revolution in Kampuchea,
is null and void.”

N
ETHERLANDS
25 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“The Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the
above-mentioned reservations, as they are incompatible
with object and purpose of the Convention.
These objections are not an obstacle for the entry into
force of this Convention between the Kingdom of the
Netherlands and Yemen.”
3 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi
Arabia upon accession:
[Same objection, identical in essence, as the one made for
Yemen.]

N
EW ZEALAND
4 August 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“The New Zealand Government is of the view that
those provisions contain undertakings which are
themselves fundamental to the Convention. Accordingly
it considers that the reservations purportedly made by
Yemen relating to political and civil rights are
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Treaty
within the terms of the article 19 (c) of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Government of New Zealand advises therefore
under article 20 of the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination that it does not accept
the reservations made by Yemen.”

N
ORWAY
28 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“The Government of Norway hereby enters its formal
objection to the reservations made by Yemen.”
6 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi
Arabia upon accession:
“The Government of Norway considers that the
reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, due
to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary
to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus
impermissible under article 20, paragraph 2, of the
Convention. Under well-established treaty law, a State
party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as
justification for its failure to perform treaty obligations.
For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to
the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia.
The Government of Norway does not consider this
objection to preclude the entry into force of the
Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

R
OMANIA
3 December 2003
With regard to the general interpretative declaration
made by Thailand upon accession:

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 14 “The Government of Romania has examined the
general interpretative declaration made by the
Government of Thailand at the time of its accession to the
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination.
The Government of Romania considers that the
general interpretative declaration is, in fact, a reservation
formulated in general terms, that not allows to clearly
identify the obligations assumed by Thailand with regard
to this legal instrument and, consequently, to state the
consistency of this reservation with the purpose and
object of the above-mentioned Convention, in accordance
with the provisions of article 19 (c) of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).
The Government of Romania therefore objects to the
aforesaid reservation made by Thailand to the Convention
on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry
into force of the Convention between the Government of
Romania and Thailand.”

R
USSIAN FEDERATION
28 December 1983
The ratification of the above-mentioned International
Convention by the so-called “Government of Democratic
Kampuchea”-the Pol Pot clique of hangmen overthrown
by the Kampuchean people-is completely unlawful and
has no legal force. Only the representatives authorized by
the State Council of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea
can act in the name of Kampuchea. There is only one
State of Kampuchea in the world -the People’s Republic
of Kampuchea, which has been recognized by a large
number of countries. All power in this State is entirely in
the hands of its only lawful Government, the Government
of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, which has the
exclusive right to act in the name of Kampuchea in the
international arena, including the right to ratify
international agreements prepared within the United
Nations.
Nor should one fail to observe that the farce involving
the ratification of the above-mentioned International
Convention by a clique representing no one mocks the
norms of law and morality and is a direct insult to the
memory of millions of Kampuchean victims of the
genocide committed against the Kampuchean people by
the Pol Pot Sary régime. The entire international
community is familiar with the bloody crimes of that
puppet clique.

S
LOVAKIA 8
S
PAIN
18 September 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi
Arabia upon accession:
The Government of Spain considers that, given its
unlimited scope and undefined nature, the reservation
made by the Government of Saudi Arabia is contrary to
the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore
inadmissible under article 10, paragraph 2, of the
Convention. Under the generally accepted law of treaties,
a State party may not invoke the provisions of its
domestic law as a justification for failure to perform its
treaty obligations. The Government of Spain therefore
formulates an objection to the reservation made by the
Government of Saudi Arabia. The Government of Spain
does not consider that this objection constitutes an
obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between
the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
S
WEDEN
5 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning
article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):
“Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliance with
the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the
Convention, to prohibit and to eliminate racial
discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of
everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or
national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law,
notably in the enjoyment of the rights enumerated in the
article.
The Government of Sweden has come to the
conclusion that the reservations made by Yemen are
incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention and therefore are impermissible according to
article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention. For this reason
the Government of Sweden objects to these reservations.
This objection does not have the effect of preventing the
Convention from entering into force between Sweden and
Yemen, and the reservations cannot alter or modify, in
any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention.”
27 January 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi
Arabia upon accession:
“The Government of Sweden notes that the said
reservation is a reservation of a general kind in respect of
the provisions of the Convention which may be in conflict
with the precepts of the Islamic Shariah .
The Government of Sweden is of the view that this
general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment
[of] Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the
Convention and would recall that, according to article 20,
paragraph 2, of the Convention, a reservation
incompatible with the object and purpose of this
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 necessar
to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden is further of the view that
general reservations of the kind made by the Government
of Saudi Arabia, which do not clearly specify the
provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the
extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to
undermining the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the
aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of
Saudi Arabia to the [said Convention].
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of
the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Sweden. The
Convention will thus become operative between the two
states without Saudi Arabia benefiting from this
reservation.”
14 January 2003
With regard to declarations made by Turkey upon
ratification:
The Government of Sweden has examined the
declarations made by Turkey upon ratifying the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination.
Paragraph 1 of the declaration states that Turkey will
implement the provisions of the Convention only to the
States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This
statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government
of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation makes it
unclear to what extent the Turkey considers itself bound
by the obligations of the Convention. In absence of
further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises
doubts as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and
purpose of the Convention.

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 15 It is in the common interest ofStates 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. According to article 20 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, a reservation incompatible with the object
and purpose of the convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Sweden objects to the said
reservation made by the Government of Turkey to the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between Turkey and Sweden. The
Convention enters into force in its entiretv between the
two States, without Turkey benefiting from its
reservation.
27 January 2004
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by
Thailand upon ratification:
“The Government of Sweden has examined the
general interpretative declaration made by the Kingdom
of Thailand upon acceding to the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination.
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
interpretative declaration made by the Kingdom of
Thailand in substance constitutes a reservation.
The Government of Sweden notes that the application
of the Convention is being made subject to a general
reservation referring to the confines of national
legislation, without specifying its contents. Such a
reservation makes it unclear to what extent the reserving
state considers itself bound by the obligations of the
Convention. The reservation made by the Kingdom of
Thailand therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of
the Kingdom of Thailand to the object and purpose of the
Convention. In addition, according to the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party to a treaty
may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as
justification for its failure to abide by the treaty.
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. According to customary 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.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the
aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand
to the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between the Kingdom of Thailand and
Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the
two States, without the Kingdom of Thailand benefitting
from this reservation.”

U
KRAINE
17 January 1984
The ratification of the above-mentioned international
Convention by the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique, which is
guilty of the annihilation of millions of Kampucheans and
which was overthrown in 1979 by the Kampuchean
people, is thoroughly illegal and has no juridical force.
There is only one Kampuchean State in the World, namely, the People’s Republic of Kampuchea. All
authority in this State is vested wholly in its sole
legitimate government, the Government of the People’s
Republic of Kampuchea. This Government alone has the
exclusive right to speak on behalf of Kampuchea at the
international level, while the supreme organ of State
power, the State Council of the People’s Republic of
Kampuchea has the exclusive right to ratify international
agreements drawn up within the framework of the United
Nations.

U
NITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND
4 August 1989
“The Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland do not accept the
reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic to article
5 (c) and (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii) of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination.”
26 June 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Turkey upon
ratification:
“The Government of the United Kingdom have
examined the declaration made by the Government of the
Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (New
York, 7 March 1966) on 16 September 2002 in respect of
implementation of the provisions of the Convention only
to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic
relations.
In the view of the Government of the United
Kingdom, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This
reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in
respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in
the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom
therefore object to the reservation made by the
Government of the Republic of Turkey.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Turkey.”
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by
Thailand upon accession:
“The Government of the United Kingdom have
examined the interpretative declaration made by the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand to the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966) on
28 January 2003 in respect of the Government of the
Kingdom of Thailand having no obligation to interpret
and apply the provisions of the Convention beyond the
confines of the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom
of Thailand and, in addition, that the interpretation and
application shall be limited to or consistent with the
obligations under other international human rights
instruments to which the Kingdom of Thailand is party.
In the view of the Government of the United
Kingdom, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This
reservation amounts to a general reference to national law
without specifying its contents and does not clearly define
for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to
which the declaring State has accepted the obligations of
the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom
therefore object to the reservation made by the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of
Thailand.”

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 16 V
IET NAM
29 February 1984
“The Government of the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam considers that only the Government of the
People’s Republic of Kampuchea, which is the sole
genuine and legitimate representative of the Kampuchean
People, is empowered to act in their behalf to sign, ratify
or accede to international conventions.
The Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
rejects as null and void the ratification of the above-
mentioned international Convention by the so-called “Democratic Kampuchea”- a genocidal regime
overthrown by the Kampuchean people since January 7,
1979.
Furthermore, the ratification of the Convention by a
genocidal regime, which massacred more than 3 million
Kampuchean people in gross violation of fundamental
standards of morality and international laws on human
rights, simply plays down the significance of the
Convention and jeopardises the prestige of the United
Nations.”

Declarations recognizing the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 31
in accordance with article 14 of the Convention
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession or
succession.)

A
LGERIA
12 September 1989
The Algerian Government declares, pursuant to article
14 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of
the Commit tee to receive and consider communications
from individuals or groups of individuals within its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by it of
any of the rights set forth in the Convention.

A
NDORRA
22 September 2006
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the
Convention, the Principality of Andorra declares that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by the
Principality of Andorra of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention. However, this procedure applies only insofar
as the Committee has established that the same matter is
not being examined, or has not been examined by another
international body of investigation or settlement.

A
RGENTINA
5 February 2007
Pursuant to the provisions of article 14, paragraphs 2
and 3, of the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Government of
the Republic of Argentina designates the National
Institute to Combat Discrimination, Xenophobia and
Racism (INADI) as competent within the national legal
system to receive and consider petitions from individuals
and groups of individuals within the jurisdiction of the
Republic of Argentina, who claims to be victims of a
violation by the national government of the rights set
forth in the Convention.

A
USTRALIA
28 January 1993
“The Government of Australia hereby declares that it
recognises, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence
of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from individuals or groups of individuals within its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by
Australia of any of the rights set forth in the aforesaid
Convention.”
A
USTRIA
20 February 2002
“The Republic of Austria recognizes the competence
of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination to receive and consider communications
from individuals or groups of individuals within the
jurisdiction of Austria claiming to be victims of a
violation by Austria of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention, with the reservation that the Committee shall
not consider any communication from an individual or a
group of individuals unless the Committee has ascertained
that the facts of the case are not being examined or have
not been examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement. Austria reserves
the right to indicate a national body as set forth in Article
14 paragraph 2.”

A
ZERBAIJAN
27 September 2001
“In accordance with article 14, paragraph 1, of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All forms
of Racial Discrimination, the Government of the Republic
of Azerbaijan declares that it recognizes the competence
of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination to receive and consider communications
from individuals or groups of individuals within its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of any of
the rights set forth in the above-mentioned Convention.”

B
ELGIUM
10 October 2000
Belgium recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, established
by the aforementioned Convention, to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation by Belgium of any of the rights set forth in
the Convention.
Pursuant to article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention,
the Centre pour l’Egalité des Chances et la Lutte contre le
Racisme (Centre for Equal Opportunity and the Struggle
against Racism), established by the Act of 15 February
1993, has been designated as competent to receive and
consider petitions from individuals and groups of
individuals within the jurisdiction of Belgium who claim
to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in
the Convention.

Pursuant to article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention,
the Centre pour l’Egalité des Chances et la Lutte contre le
Racisme (Centre for Equal Opportunity and the Struggle

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 17 against Racism), established by the Act of 15 February
1993, has been designated as competent to receive and
consider petitions from individuals and groups of
individuals within the jurisdiction of Belgium who claim
to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in
the Convention.

B
OLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF )
14 February 2006
“The Government of Bolivia recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination established under article 8 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, in compliance with article 14 of
the Convention.”

B
RAZIL
17 June 2002
…..the Federative Republic of Brazil recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider complaints
of human rights violations, as provided for under article
XIV of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was opened
for signature in New York on 7th of March 1966.

B
ULGARIA
12 May 1993
“The Republic of Bulgaria declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation
by the Republic of Bulgaria of any of the rights set forth
in this Convention.”

C
HILE
18 May 1994
In accordance with article 14 (1) of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the Government of Chile declares that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation by the Government of Chile of any of the
rights set forth in this Convention.

C
OSTA RICA
8 January 1974
Costa Rica recognizes the competence of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
established under article 8 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in
accordance with article 14 of the Convention, to receive
and consider communications from individuals or groups
of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be
victims of a violation by the State of any of the rights set
forth in the Convention.

C
YPRUS
30 December 1993
“The Republic of Cyprus recognizes the competence
of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination established under article 14 (1) of [the
Convention] to receive and consider communications
from individuals or groups of individuals within its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Cyprus of any of the rights set forth in this
Convention.

C
ZECH REPUBLIC
11 October 2000
The Czech Republic declares that according to Article
14, paragraph 1 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination it
recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination.

D
ENMARK
11 October 1985
Denmark recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive
and consider communications from individuals or groups
of individuals within Danish jurisdiction claiming to be
victims of a violation by Denmark of any of the rights set
forth in the Convention, with the reservation that the
Committee shall not consider any communications unless
it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is
not being, examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement.

E
CUADOR
18 March 1977
The State of Ecuador, by virtue of Article 14 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, recognizes the competence of
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination to receive and consider communications
from individuals or groups of individuals within its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of the
rights set forth in the above-mentioned Convention.

E
STONIA
21 July 2010
“The Republic of Estonia declares that pursuant to
Article 14 paragraph 1 of the Convention it recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of Estonia claiming to be victims
of a violation by Estonia of any of the rights set forth in
the Convention if this violation results from
circumstances or events occurring after the deposit of this
Declaration.
Estonia recognizes that competence on the
understanding that the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination shall not consider any
communications without ascertaining that the same matter
is not being considered or has not already been considered
by another international body of investigation or
settlement.”
F
INLAND
16 November 1994
“Finland recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive
and consider communications from individuals or groups
of individuals within the jurisdiction of Finland claiming
to be victims of a violation by Finland of any of the rights
set forth in the said Convention, with the reservation that
the Committee shall not consider any communication
from an individual or a group of individuals unless the

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 18 Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not
being examined or has not been examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.”

F
RANCE
16 August 1982
[The Government of the French Republic declares], in
accordance with article 14 of the International Convention
on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
opened for signature on 7 March 1966, [that it] recognizes
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within French jurisdiction that either by reason of acts or
omissions, events or deeds occurring after 15 August
1982, or by reason of a decision concerning the acts or
omissions, events or deeds after the said date, would
complain of being victims of a violation, by the French
Republic, of one of the rights mentioned in the
Convention.

G
EORGIA
30 June 2005
“In accordance with Article 14, Paragraph 1, of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination done at New York on March 7, 1966
Georgia recognizes the competence of the Committee for
the elimination of racial discrimination to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation, by Georgia, of any of the rights set forth in
the abovementioned Convention.”

G
ERMANY
30 August 2001
The Federal Republic of Germany hereby declares that
pursuant to Article 14 paragraph 1 of the Convention it
recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals within her jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation by the Federal Republic of Germany of any
of the rights set forth in this Convention. However, this
shall only apply insofar as the Committee has determined
that the same matter is not being or has not been
examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.

H
UNGARY
13 September 1989
“The Hungarian People’s Republic hereby recognizes
the competence of the Committee established by the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination provided for in paragraph 1 of
article 14 of the Convention.”

I
CELAND
10 August 1981
“[The Government of Iceland declares] in accordance
with article 14 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which
was opened for signature in New York on 7 March 1966,
that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive
and consider communications from individuals or groups
of individuals within the jurisdiction of Iceland claiming
to be victims of a violation by Iceland of any of the rights
set forth in the Convention, with the reservation that the
Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual or group of individuals unless the Committee
has ascertained that the same matter is not being
examined or has not been examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.”

I
RELAND
“With reference to article 14, paragraph 1, of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature at New
York on 7 March 1966, Ireland recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, established by the afore-mentioned
Convention to receive and consider communications from
individuals or groups of individuals within Ireland
claiming to be victims of a violation by Ireland of any of
the rights set forth in the Convention.
Ireland recognizes that competence on the
understanding that the said Committee shall not consider
any communication without ascertaining that the same
matter is not being considered or has not already been
considered by another international body of investigation
or settlement.”

I
TALY
5 May 1978
With reference to article 14, paragraph 1, of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature at New
York on 7 March 1966, the Government of the Italian
Republic recognizes the competence of the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, established by
the afore-mentioned Convention, to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within Italian jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a
violation by Italy of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention.
The Government of the Italian Republic recognizes
that competence on the understanding that the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination shall not
consider any communication without ascertaining that the
same matter is not being considered or has not already
been considered by another international body of
investigation or settlement.

K
AZAKHSTAN
29 May 2008
“In accordance with article 14, paragraph 1, of the
International convention on the elimination of all forms of
racial discrimination done at New York on December 21,
1965 the Republic of Kazakhstan hereby declares that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee of
elimination of racial discrimination within its jurisdiction
to receive and consider communications from or on behalf
of individuals who claim to be victims of a violation by
the Republic of Kazakhstan of the provisions of the
Convention.”
L
IECHTENSTEIN
18 March 2004
“…..the Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of Liechtenstein claiming to be
victims of a violation by Liechtenstein of any of the rights
set forth in the Convention.
The Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes that
competence on the understanding that the said Committee
shall not consider any communication without
ascertaining that the same matter is not being considered
or has not already been considered under another
international procedure of investigation or settlement.

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 19 Pursuant to article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention,
the Constitutional Court has been designated as
competent to receive and consider petitions from
individuals and groups of individuals within the
jurisdiction of Liechtenstein who claim to be victims of a
violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.”

L
UXEMBOURG
22 July 1996
Pursuant to article 14 (1) of the [said Convention],
Luxembourg declares that it recognizes the competence of
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination to receive and consider communications
from individuals or groups of individuals within its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by
Luxembourg of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention.
Pursuant to article 14 (2) of the [said Convention], the
“Commission spéciale permanente contre la
discrimination”, created in May 1996 pursuant to article
24 of the Law dated 27 July 1993 on the integration of
aliens shall be competent to receive and consider petitions
from individuals and groups of individuals within the
jurisdiction of Luxembourg who claim to be victims of a
violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.

M
ALTA
16 December 1998
Malta declares that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee to receive and consider communications from
individuals subject to the jurisdiction of Malta who claim
to be victims of a violation by Malta of any of the rights
set forth in the Convention which results from situations
or events occurring after the date of adoption of the
present declaration, or from a decision relating to
situations or events occurring after that date.
The Government of Malta recognizes this competence
on the understanding that the Committee on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination shall
not consider any communication without ascertaining that
the same matter is not being considered or has not already
been considered by another international body of
investigation or settlement.”

M
EXICO
15 March 2002
The United Mexican States recognizes as duly binding
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, established by article 8 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly in its resolution 2106 (XX) of 21
December 1965 and opened for signature on 7 March
1966.
The United Mexican States declares, pursuant to
article 14 of the Convention, that it recognizes the
competence of the Committee to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation
by that State of any of the rights stipulated in the
Convention.
Accordingly, in exercise of the power vested in me
under article 89, subparagraph X, of the Political
Constitution of the United Mexican States and in
accordance with article 5 of the Conclusion of Treaties
Act, I hereby issue this instrument of acceptance, the
Declaration on Recognition of the Competence of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
as set out in the Declaration adopted by the Senate of the
Distinguished Congress of the Union, and promise, on
behalf of the Mexican Nation, to implement it, uphold it
and ensure that it is implemented and upheld.
M
ONACO
6 November 2001
We hereby declare that we recognize the competence
of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination to receive and examine communications
from individuals or groups of individuals under its
jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the
Principality of Monaco of any of the rights set forth in the
said Convention, such competence to be exercised only
when all domestic remedies have been exhausted, and we
pledge our word as Prince and promise, on behalf of
ourselves and our successors, to observe and execute it
faithfully and loyally.

M
ONTENEGRO
Confirmed upon succession :
“By affirming its commitment to establish the
principles of the rule of law and promote and protect
human rights, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider complaints submitted by individuals and groups
alleging violations of rights guaranteed under the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination.
The Government of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia determines the competence of the Federal
Constitutional Court to accept and consider, within its
domestic legal system, the complaints submitted by
individuals and groups under the State jurisdiction,
alleging to have been victims of rights violations under
the Convention, and who have exhausted all available
legal means provided for by the national legislation.”

M
OROCCO
19 October 2006
In accordance with article 14 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the Government of the Kingdom of
Morocco declares that it recognizes, on the date of deposit
of the present document, the competence of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to
receive and consider communications from individuals or
groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be
victims of a violation, subsequent to the date of deposit of
the present document, of any of the rights set forth in this
Convention.

N
ETHERLANDS
In accordance with article 14, paragraph 1, of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination concluded at New York on 7 March 1966,
the Kingdom of the Netherlands recognizes, for the
Kingdom in Europe, Surinam and the Netherlands
Antilles, the competence of the Committee for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation, by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of any
of the rights set forth in the above-mentioned Convention.

See also notes 1 and 2 under “Netherlands” regarding
Aruba/Netherlands Antilles in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
N
ORWAY
23 January 1976
“The Norwegian Government recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 20 Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of Norway claiming to be victims
of a violation by Norway of any of the rights set forth in
the International Convention of 21 December 1965 on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
according to article 14 of the said Convention, with the
reservation that the Committee shall not consider any
communication from an individual or group of individuals
unless the Committee has ascertained that the same matter
is not being examined or has not been examined under
another procedure of international investigation or
settlement.”

P
ERU
27 November 1984
[The Government of the Republic of Peru declares] that, in accordance with its policy of full respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms, without
distinctions as to race, sex, language or religion, and with
the aim of strengthening the international instruments on
the subject, Peru recognizes the competence of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to
receive and consider communications from individuals or
groups of individuals within its jurisdiction, who claim to
be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, in conformity with the provisions of
article 14 of the Convention.

P
OLAND
1 December 1998
The Government of the Republic of Poland recognizes
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, established by the provisions of
the afore-mentioned Convention, to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within jurisdiction of the Republic of Poland claiming, to
be victims of a violation by the Republic of Poland of the
rights set forth in the above Convention and concerning
all deeds, decisions and facts which will occur after the
day this Declaration has been deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.

P
ORTUGAL
2 March 2000
“…..The Government of Portugal recognises the
competence of the Committee established under Article
14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation
by the Republic of Portugal of any of the rights set forth
in that Convention.
Portugal recognises such jurisdiction provided that the
Committee does not consider any communication unless
it is satisfied that the matter has neither been examined
nor is it subject to appreciation by any other international
body with powers of inquiry or decision.
Portugal indicates the High Commissioner for
Immigration and Ethnic Minorities as the body with
competence to receive and consider petitions from
individuals and groups of individuals that claim to be
victims of violation of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention”.

R
EPUBLIC OF KOREA
5 March 1997
“The Government of the Republic of Korea recognizes
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea claiming
to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Korea of
any of the rights set forth in the said Convention.”

R
OMANIA
21 March 2003
“Romania declares, in accordance with article 14
paragraph 1 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications from persons within its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by
Romania of any of the rights set forth in the Convention,
to which Romania acceded by Decree no. 345 of 1970.
Without prejudice to the article 14 paragraphs 1 and 2
of the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination, Romania considers that
the mentioned provisions do not confer to the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination the
competence of examining communications of persons
invoking the existence and infringement of collective
rights.
The body which is competent in Romania, according
to domestic law, to receive and to examine
communications in accordance with article 14 paragraph
2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination is the National
Council for Combating Discrimination established by the
Government Decision no. 1194 of 2001.”

R
USSIAN FEDERATION
1 October 1991
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications, in respect of situations and
events occurring after the adoption of the present
declaration, from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of the USSR claiming to be victims
of a violation by the USSR of any of the rights set forth in
the Convention.

S
AN MARINO
22 February 2008
The Republic of San Marino, in accordance with
article 14 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communications from individuals or groups of
individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation by the Republic of San Marino of any of the
rights set forth in the Convention.
S
ENEGAL
3 December 1982
In accordance with [article 14], the Government of
Senegal declares that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee (on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination)
to receive and consider communications from individuals
within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation
by Senegal of any of the rights set forth in the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

S
ERBIA
Confirmed upon succession :

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 21 “By affirming its commitment to establish the
principles of the rule of law and promote and protect
human rights, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider complaints submitted by individuals and groups
alleging violations of rights guaranteed under the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination.
The Government of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia determines the competence of the Federal
Constitutional Court to accept and consider, within its
domestic legal system, the complaints submitted by
individuals and groups under the State jurisdiction,
alleging to have been victims of rights violations under
the Convention, and who have exhausted all available
legal means provided for by the national legislation.”

S
LOVAKIA
17 March 1995
The Slovak Republic, pursuant to article 14 of the
Convention, recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive
and consider communications from individuals or groups
of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be
victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention.

S
LOVENIA
10 November 2001
“The Republic of Slovenia recognizes to the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
competence to receive and consider communications from
individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction
claiming to be victims of a violation by the Republic of
Slovenia of any of the rights set forth in the Convention,
with the reservation that the Committee shall not consider
any communications unless it has ascertained that the
same matter has not been, and is not being, examined
under another procedure of international investigation or
settlement.”

S
OUTH AFRICA
“The Republic of South Africa-
(a) declares that, for the purposes of
paragraph 1 of article 14 of the Convention, it recognises
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the Republic’s jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation by the Republic in any of the rights set forth
in the Convention after having exhausted all domestic
remedies
and
(b) indicates that, for the purposes of
paragraph 2 of article 14 of the Convention, the South
African Human Rights Commission is the body within the
Republic’s national legal order which shall be competent
to receive and consider petitions from individuals or
groups of individuals within the Republic’s jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of any of the rights set forth in
the Convention.”

S
PAIN
13 January 1998
[The Government of Spain] recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of Spain claiming to be victims of violations by the Spanish State of any of the rights set
forth in that Convention.
Such competence shall be accepted only after appeals
to national jurisdiction bodies have been exhausted, and it
must be exercised within three months following the date
of the final judicial decision.

S
WEDEN
“Sweden recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive
and consider communications from individuals or groups
of individuals within the jurisdiction of Sweden claiming
to be victims of a violation by Sweden of any of the rights
set forth in the Convention, with the reservation that the
Committee shall not consider any communication from an
individual or a group of individuals unless the Committee
has ascertained that the same matter is not being
examined or has not been examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.”

S
WITZERLAND
19 June 2003
… .Switzerland recognizes, pursuant to article 14,
paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
concluded at New York on 21 December 1965, the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination (CERD) to receive and consider
communications under the above-mentioned provision,
with the reservation that the Committee shall not consider
any communication from an individual or group of
individuals unless the Committee has ascertained that the
same matter is not being examined or has not been
examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.

T
HE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
22 December 1999
“The Republic of Macedonia declares that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and
consider communcations from individuals or groups of
individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation by the Republic of Macedonia of any of its
rights set forth in this Convention, with the reservation
that the Committee shall not consider any communication
from individuals or groups of individuals, unless it has
ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not
being, examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.”

U
KRAINE
28 July 1992
In accordance with the article 14 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial
Discrimination, Ukraine declares that it recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
[within its jurisdiction] claiming to be victims of a
violation by [it] of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention.

U
RUGUAY
11 September 1972
The Government of Uruguay recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, under article 14 of the Convention.

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 22 V
ENEZUELA (B OLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF )
22 September 2003
Pursuant to the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1 of
the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Government of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination established under article 8 of the
Convention to receive and consider communications from
individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction
claiming to be victims of violations by the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention.

Notes:
1 Article 19 of the Convention provides that the Convention
shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twenty-
seventh instrument of ratification or instrument of accession. On
5 December 1968, the Government of Poland deposited the
twenty-seventh instrument. However, among those instruments
there were some which contained a reservation and therefore
were subject to the provisions of article 20 of the Convention
allowing States to notify objections within ninety days from the
date of circulation by the Secretary-General of the reservations.
In respect of two such instruments, namely those of Kuwait and
Spain, the ninety-day period had not yet expired on the date of
deposit of the twenty-seventh instrument. The reservation
contained in one further instrument, that of India, had not yet
been circulated on that date, and the twenty-seventh instrument
itself, that of Poland, contained a reservation; in respect of these
two instruments the ninety-day period would only begin to run
on the date of the Secretary-General’s notification of their
deposit. Therefore, in that notification, which was dated 13
December 1968, the Secretary-General called the attention of
the interested States to the situation and stated the following:
“It appears from the provisions of article 20 of the Convention
that it would not be possible to determine the legal effect of the
four instruments in question pending the expiry of the respective
periods of time mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Having regard to the above-mentioned consideration, the
Secretary-General is not at the present time in a position to
ascertain the date of entry into force of the Convention.”
Subsequently, in a notification dated 17 March 1969, the
Secretary-General informed the interested States; (a) that within
the period of ninety days from the date of his previous
notification he had received an objection from one State to the
reservation contained in the instrument of ratification by the
Government of India; and (b) that the Convention, in accordance
with paragraph 1 of article 19, had entered into force on 4
January 1969, i.e., on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit of
the instrument of ratification of the Convention by the
Government of Poland, which was the twenty-seventh
instrument of ratification or instrument of accession deposited
with the Secretary-General.
2 Official Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth
Session, Supplement No. 14 (A/6014),p. 47.
3 The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the
Convention on 23 March 1973 with a reservation and a
declaration. For the text of the reservation and declaration, see
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 883, p. 190.
Moreover, on 26 April 1984, the Government of the German
Democratic Republic had made an objection with regard to the ratification made by the Government of the Democratic
Kampuchea. For the text of the objection, see United Nations,
Treaty Series , vol. 1355, p. 327.
See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
4 The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the
Convention on 15 April 1966 and 2 October 1967, respectively.
See also note 1 under “Bosnia and Herzegovina”, “Croatia”,
“former Yugoslavia”, “Slovenia”, “The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia” and “Yugoslavia” in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
5 On 10 June 1997, the Secretary-General received
communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from the
Governments of the United Kingdom and China (see also note 2
under “China” and note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland” regarding Hong Kong in the
“Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over
Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the
Convention with the reservation made by China will also apply
to the Hong Kong special Administrative Region.
In addition, the notification made by the Government of China
contained the following declarations:
1. …
2. The reservation of the People’s Republic of China on behalf
of the the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region interprets
the requirement in article 6 concerning “reparation and
satisfaction” as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of
redress is made available and interprets “satisfaction” as
including any form of redress effective to bring the
discriminatory conduct to an end.
6 On 27 April 1999, the Government of Portugal informed
the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to
Macao.
Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications
concerning the status of Macao from Portugal and China (see
note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portgual” in the
Historical Information section in the front matter of this
volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over
Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the
Convention with the reservation made by China will also apply
to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
7 The Convention had previously been signed and ratified
on behalf of the Republic of China on 31 March 1966 and 10
December 1970, respectively. See also note 1 under “China” in

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 23
the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume.
With reference to the above-mentioned signature and/or
ratification, communications have been received by the
Secretary-General from the Governments of Bulgaria (12 march
1971), Mongolia (11 January 1971), the Byelorussian Soviet
Socialist Republic (9 June 1971), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic (21 April 1971) and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (18 January 1971) stating that they considered the
said signature and/or ratification as null and void, since the so-
called “Government of China” had no right to speak or assume
obligations on behalf of China, there being only one Chinese
State, the People’s Republic of China, and one Government
entitled to represent it, the Government of the People’s Republic
of China.
In letters addressed to teh Secretary-General in regard to the
above-mentioned communications, the Permanent
Representative of China to the United Nations stated that the
Republic of China, a sovereign State and Member of the United
Nations, had attended the twentieth regular session of hte United
Nations General Assembly, contributed to the formulation of the
Convention concerned, signed the Convention and duly
deposited the instrument of ratification thereof, and that “any
statements and reservations relating to the abocve-mentioned
Convention that are incmopatible with or derogatory to the
legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China
shall in no wa affect the rights and obligations of the Republic of
China under this Convention”.
Finally, upon depositing its instrument of accession, the
Government of the People’s Republic of China made the
following declaration: The signing and ratification of the said
Convention by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are
illegal and null and void.
8 Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on
7 October 1966 and 29 December 1966, respectively, with
reservations. Subsequently, on 12 March 1984, the Government
of Czechoslovakia made an objection to the ratification by
Democratic Kampuchea. Further, by a notification received on
26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the
Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to
article 22 made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification.
For the text of the reservations and the objection, see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 276 and vol. 1350, p. 386,
respectively. See also note 14 in this chapter and note 1 under
“Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
9 In a communication received on 4 October 1972, the
Government of Denmark notified the Secretary-General that it
withdrew the reservation made with regard to the
implementation on the Faroe Islands of the Convention. For the
text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol.
820, p. 457.
The legislation by which the Convention has been
implemented on the Faroe Islands entered into force by 1
November 1972, from which date the withdrawal of the above
reservation became effective.
10 See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume.
11 See note 1 under “Montenegro” in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
12 See note 1 under “Namibia” in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
13 See note 1 under “New Zealand” regarding Tokelau in the
“Historical Information” section in the preliminary pages in the
front matter of this volume.
14 In its instrument of ratification, the Government of the
United Kingdom specified that the ratification also applied to
the following territories: Associated States (Antigua, Dominica,
Grenada, Saint Christopher Nevis Anguilla and Saint Lucia) and
Territories under the territorial sovereignty of the United
Kingdom, as well as the State of Brunei, the Kingdom of Tonga
and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
15 The Yemen Arab Republic had acceded to the Convention
on 6 April 1989 with the following reservation:
Reservations in respect of article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv),
(vi) and (vii).
In this regard, the Secretary-General received on 30 April
1990, from the Government of Czechoslovakia the following
objection:
“The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic considers the
reservations of the Government of Yemen with respect to article
5 (c) and articles 5 (d) (iv), (vi), and (vii) of [the Convention],
as incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention.”
See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information”
section in the front matter of this volume.
16 In a communication received by the Secretary-General on
10 July 1969, the Government of Israel declared:
“[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character
of the declaration made by the Government of Iraq on signing
the above Convention.
In the view of the Government of Israel, the Convention is not
the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The
Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of
the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of
complete reciprocity. Moreover, it is the view of the
Government of Israel that no legal relevance can be attached to
those Iraqi statements which purport to represent the views of
the other States”.
Except for the omission of the last sentence, identical
communica- tions in essence, mutatis mutandis , were received
by the Secretary-General from the Government of Israel as
follows: on 29 December 1966 in respect of the declaration
made by the Government of the United Arab Republic upon
signature (see also note 17); on 16 August 1968 in respect of
the declaration made by the Government of Libya upon
accession; on 12 December 1968 in respect of the declaration
made by the Government of Kuwait upon accession; on 9 July
1969 in respect of the declaration made by the Government of

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 24
Syria upon accession; on 21 April 1970 made in respect of the
declaration made by Government of Iraq upon ratification with
the following statement: “With regard to the political declaration
in the guise of a reservation made on the occasion of the
ratification of the above Treaty, the Government of Israel wishes
to refer to its objection circulated by the Secretary-General in his
letter [. . .] and to maintain that objection.”; on 12 February 1973
in respect of the declaration made by the Government of the
People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen upon accession; on 25
September 1974 in respect of the declaration made by the United
Arab Emirates upon accession and on 25 June 1990 in rthe
reservation made by Bahrain upon accession.
17 In communications received on 8 March, 19 and 20 April
1989, the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, respectively, notified the
Secretary-General that they had decided to withdraw the
reservations relating to article 22. For the texts of the
reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 676, p.
397, vol. 81, p. 392 and vol.77, p. 435.
18 On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the
Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation to
article 22 made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification.
For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty
Series , vol. 60, p. 270.
19 None of the States concerned having objected to the
reservation by the end of a period of ninety days after the date
when it was circulated by the Secretary-General, the said
reservation is deemed to have been permitted in accordance with
the provisions of article 20 (1).
20 In a notification received on 18 January 1980, the
Government of Egypt informed the Secretary-General that it had
decided to withdraw the declaration it had made in respect of
Israel. For the text of the declaration see United Nations, Treaty
Series , vol. 60, p. 318. The notification indicates 25 January
1980 as the effective date of the withdrawal.
21 In a communication received in 10 August 2012, the
Government of Fiji notified the Secretary-General of the
withdrawal of the reservations and declarations made upon
sucession to the Convention. The text of the reservations and
declarations read as follows:
The reservation and declarations formulated by the
Government of the United Kingdom on behalf of Fiji are
affirmed but have been redrafted in the following terms:
“To the extent, if any, that any law relating to elections in Fiji
may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (c), that any
law relating to land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts the
alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil
the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school
system of Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in
articles 2, 3, or 5 (e) (v), the Government of Fiji reserves the
right not to implement the aforementioned provisions of the
Convention.
“The Government of Fiji wishes to state its understanding of
certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as
requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative
measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to
the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association) that some legislative addition to or variation of
existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the
attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of Article 4.
Further, the Government of Fiji interprets the requirement in
article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction’ as being fulfilled
if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and
interprets `satisfaction’ as including any form of redress
effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an and. In
addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions
of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is
not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a
Party to the Convention.
“The Government of Fiji maintains the view that Article 15 is
discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the receipt of
petitions relating to dependent territories whilst making no
comparable provision for States without such territories.”

22 In a communication received subsequently, the
Government of France indicated that the first paragraph of the
declaration did not purport to limit the obligations under the
Convention in respect of the French Government, but only to
record the latter’s interpretation of article 4 of the Convention.
23 In a communication received on 13 September 1989, the
Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it
had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect to article 22
of the Convention made upon ratification. For the text of the
reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 310.
24 In a communication received on 24 February 1969, the
Government of Pakistan notified the Secretary-General that it
“has decided not to accept the reservation made by the
Government of India in her instrument of ratification”.
25 In a communication received on 19 July 1990, the
Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its
decision to withdraw the reservation concerning article 22 made
upon ratification. For the text of the reservation see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 289.
26 On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified
the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its
reservation with regard to article 22 of the Convention made
upon ratification. For the text of the reservation see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 195.
27 On 19 August 1998, the Government of Romania notified
the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its
reservation made with regard to article 22 of the Convention
made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 763, p. 362.

IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 25
28 In a communication received in 15 December 2008, the
Government of Rwanda notified the Secretary-General of the
withdrawal of the reservation made upon accession to the
Convention. The text of the reservation reads as follows:
The Rwandese Republic does not consider itself as bound by
article 22 of the Convention.
29 On 22 October 1999, the Government of Spain informed
the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its
reservation in respect of article XXII made upon accession. For
the texte of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series ,
vol. 660, p. 316.
30 By a notification received on 28 October 1977, the
Government of Tonga informed the Secretary-General that it has
decided to withdraw only those reservations made upon
accession relating to article 5 (c) in so far as it relates to
elections, and reservations relating to articles 2, 3 and 5 (e) (v),
in so far as these articles relate to education and training. For the
text of the original reservation see United Nations, Treaty
Series , vol. 829, p. 371.
31 The first ten declarations recognizing the competence of
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination took
effect on 3 December 1982, date of the deposit of the tenth
declaration, according to article 14, paragraph 1 of the
Convention.

-->