ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
  • Print page

    With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia upon ratification concerning articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29 :

    In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes "an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Republic of Indonesia."

    *****

    Objection with regard to the reservation made on 25 July 1991 by Pakistan upon signature and confirmed upon ratification :

    [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Indonesia.]

    SOURCE : Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General, Status as at 31 December 1991, United Nations, New York, 1992, p.203.

    *****

    On 9 June 1993, the Secretary-General of the United Nations received from the Government of Finland the following communication with respect to the reservation made by Jordan upon ratification (In this connexion, reference is made to depositary notification C.N.116.1991.TREATIES-4 of 29 July 1991):

    "The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservation made by Jordan upon ratification, by which Jordan states "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan expresses its reservation and does not consider itself bound by articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention, which grant the child the right of freedom of choice of religion and concern the question of adoption, since they are at variance with the precepts of the tolerant Islamic Shariah."


    "In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke general principles of national law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservations. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and Jordan."

    ****

    24 June 1994 - With regard to the reservations made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification:

    [Same objection, "mutatis mutandis", as the one made with regard to Indonesia]

    SOURCE: Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General, Status as at 31 December 1994, United Nations, New York, p. 200.

    *****



    5 September 1995 - With regard to the reservation made by Iran (Islamic Republic) upon ratification:

    In the view of the Government of Finland, the unlimited and undefined character of the said reservation leaves open to what extent the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran does not clearly identify which particular provisions of the Convention the Islamic Republic of Iran does not intend to apply. In the view of the Government of Finland, reservations of such comprehensive and unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

    The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order fulfill the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation is also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.

    In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Rights of the child. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is devoid of legal effect.

    The Government of Finland recommends the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to reconsider its reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the child.

    C.N.321.TREATIES-6 (Depositary Notification)

    *****
    14 June 1996


    With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession:


    "The reservation made by Malaysia covers several central provisions of the [said Convention]. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Malaysia commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.



    The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of the States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.



    In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention]. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia is devoid of legal effect.



    The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the [said Convention]."

    With regard to the reservations made by Qatar upon ratification:



    [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Malaysia.]


    ******
    26 November 1996


    With regard to the reservations made by Singapore upon accession:


    "The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by the Republic of Singapore, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties

    .

    The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of the Republic of Singapore are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.

    The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by the Republic of Singapore are are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Goernment of Finalnd objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect"


    *****

    Subsequently, on 20 March 1997, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Finland communications with regard reservations made by Brunei Darussalam and Saudi Arabia upon accession:


    [Same text, mutatis mutandis, as the objection made with regard to Singapore under "Objections".]

    *****
6 November 1998
    With regard to the reservations made by Oman upon accession:
    [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Singapore.]
26.01.1990

20.06.1991

25.07.1991, 09.06.1993, 24.06.1994, 05.09.1995, 14.06.1996, 26.11.1996, 20.03.1997, 06.11.1998