Convención sobre los Humedales de Importancia Internacional, especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas

"The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers it necessary to state that Article 9 of the Convention restricts the possibility of some States to become parties to it and contradicts the universally recognized principle of the sovereign equality of States."

(Translation)

(See letter LA/Depositary/1975/5 of 21 November 1975) 

"...in spite of the great importance attached by the Danish Government to the Vadehavet (a marshy maritime plain situation in the southern part of the west coast of Jutland) as a wetland, it has decided not to include the Vadehavet for the time being in the above-mentioned List. 

This decision has been taken on account of the negotiations under way between the Governments of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the construction of an advanced dyke in that area, and also on account of the trilateraI negotiations between the Governments of Denmark, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning a special agreement for the protection of the Vadehavet. The Danish Government is convinced, however, that the Vadehavet, or certain parts thereof, should be included in the aforesaid List once the above-mentioned negotiations have been concluded." 

(Translation)

(See letter LA/Depositary /1977/27 of 30 December 1977.)

"The Federal Republic of Germany in becoming a party to the Convention interprets and understands the provisions of this Convention as being of a nature not to prevent measures to be taken to protect the population of the regions concerned against floods nor to interfere with well-established rights the inhabitants of these regions may have." 

(See letter LA/Depositary/1976/13 of 21 June 1976)

"Article 9 of the Convention, which restricts the freedom of certain countries to become Parties to the Convention, contradicts the generally accepted principle of the sovereignty of States." 

(See letter LA/Depositary/1979/12 of 13 July 1979)

On 14 January 2020, the Director-General received from the Government of Mauritius the following communication: 

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius presents its compliments to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar, 2 February 1971 in respect of which the Director-General is the depositary. 

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending the Convention to the so-called “British Indian Ocean Territory” on 8 September 1998, the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law. 

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called “British Indian Ocean Territory”. The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. 

In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom's ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration "as rapidly as possible". 

The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago. 

On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court's Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired. 

Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to "cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible" and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". Lastly, the resolution also called upon “all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty,” to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to "refrain from impeding that process" by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". 

The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory" and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius. 

For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all Contracting Parties to the Convention to reject the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention to the so-called "British lndian Ocean Territory". 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius kindly requests that the present objection be duly recorded, circulated and registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations. 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius avails itself of his opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization the assurances of its highest consideration."

[Original: English] 

"Accession to this Convention shall not under any circumstances be taken to mean that Syria recognizes Israel or establishes with it any relations that may derive from the provisions of this Convention".

(See letter LA/Depositary/1998/05)

"The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics deems it necessary to declare that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention. restricting the possibility of some countries becoming Parties to it, contradict the universally recognized principle of the sovereign equality of States."

(See letter CL/2365 of 28 May 1974.) 

ln its instrument of ratification, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics indicated that it ratified the Convention while maintaining that declaration.

(Translation)

(See letter LA/Depositary/1976/18 of 31 December 1976.)