Статус Договора о запрещении размещения на дне морей и океанов и в его недрах ядерного оружия и других видов оружия массового уничтожения (Москва, Лондон, Вашингтон, 11 февраля 1971 года) [рус., англ.]

[неофициальный перевод]

СТАТУС ДОГОВОРА О ЗАПРЕЩЕНИИ РАЗМЕЩЕНИЯ НА ДНЕ МОРЕЙ И ОКЕАНОВ И В ЕГО НЕДРАХ ЯДЕРНОГО ОРУЖИЯ И ДРУГИХ ВИДОВ ОРУЖИЯ МАССОВОГО УНИЧТОЖЕНИЯ (МОСКВА, ЛОНДОН, ВАШИНГТОН, 11 ФЕВРАЛЯ 1971 ГОДА)

(последние изменения произошли 12 декабря 2006 года)

Вступление в силу: 18.05.1972

TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE EMPLACEMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND OTHER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ON THE SEA-BED AND THE OCEAN FLOOR AND IN THE SUBSOIL THEREOF

| State | Signature | | | Deposit | | | Deposit Type | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

| Afghanistan | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 22.04.1971
23.04.1971
21.05.1971 |  | Moscow
London
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Algeria |  |  |  | 27.01.1992 |  | Washington | Accession |
| Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  | 16.11.1988
26.12.1988
26.01.1989 | <*>
<*> | Washington
Moscow
London | Succession
Succession
Succession |
| Argentina | 03.09.1971
03.09.1971
03.09.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 21.03.1983
21.03.1983
21.03.1983 | <*>
<*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Australia | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 23.01.1973
23.01.1973
23.01.1973 | <*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Austria | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 10.08.1972 10.08.1972 10.08.1972 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Bahamas |  |  |  | 07.06.1989 |  | Washington | Accession |
| Belarus | 03.03.1971 |  | Moscow | 14.09.1971 |  | Moscow | Ratification |
| Belgium | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 20.11.1972
20.11.1972
20.11.1972 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Benin | 18.03.1971 |  | Washington | 19.06.1986
02.07.1986
07.07.1986 |  | Moscow
London
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Bolivia (Plurinational State of) | 11.02.1971 11.02.1971 11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina |  |  |  | 15.08.1994 | <*> | Washington | Succession |
| Botswana | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 10.11.1972 |  | Washington | Ratification |

| Brazil | 03.09.1971
03.09.1971
03.09.1971 | <> | London
Moscow
Washington | 10.05.1988
10.05.1988
04.08.1988 | <>
<*> | London
Washington
Moscow | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |

| Bulgaria | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 16.04.1971
07.05.1971
26.05.1971 |  | Moscow
Washington
London | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Burundi | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | Moscow
Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Cabo Verde |  |  |  | 24.10.1979 |  | Moscow | Accession |
| Cambodia | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Cameroon | 11.11.1971 |  | Moscow |  |  |  |  |
| Canada | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 17.05.1972
17.05.1972
17.05.1972 | <*>
<*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Central African Republic | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 09.07.1981 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| China |  |  |  | 28.02.1991
28.02.1991
28.02.1991 | <*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Colombia | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Congo |  |  |  | 23.10.1978 |  | Washington | Accession |
| Costa Rica | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Cote d'Ivoire |  |  |  | 14.01.1972
14.01.1972 |  | Moscow
Washington | Accession
Accession |
| Cuba |  |  |  | 03.06.1977 | <*> | Moscow | Accession |
| Cyprus | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 17.11.1971
17.11.1971
30.12.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Czech Republic |  |  |  | 01.01.1993
05.04.1993
09.04.1993 | <*>
<*>
<*> | Washington
London
Moscow | Succession
Succession
Succession |
| Denmark | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 15.06.1971
15.06.1971
15.06.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Dominican Republic | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 11.02.1972 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Equatorial Guinea | 04.06.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Eswatini | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 09.08.1971 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Ethiopia | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 12.07.1977
14.07.1977
14.07.1977 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Finland | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 08.06.1971
08.06.1971
08.06.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Gambia | 18.05.1971
21.05.1971
29.10.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington |  |  |  |  |

| Germany | 08.06.1971
08.06.1971
08.06.1971 | <>
<> | London
Moscow
Washington | 18.11.1975
18.11.1975 | <>
<> | London
Washington | Ratification
Ratification |

| Ghana | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 09.08.1972 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Greece | 11.02.1971
12.02.1971 |  | Moscow
Washington | 28.05.1985
28.05.1985
28.05.1985 | <*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Guatemala | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 01.04.1996 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Guinea | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | Moscow
Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Guinea-Bissau |  |  |  | 20.08.1976 |  | Moscow | Accession |
| Honduras | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Hungary | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 13.08.1971
13.08.1971
13.08.1971 | <*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Iceland | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 30.05.1972
30.05.1972
30.05.1972 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| India |  |  |  | 20.07.1973
20.07.1973
20.07.1973 | <*>
<*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Iran (Islamic Republic of) | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 26.08.1971
26.08.1971
06.09.1971 |  | London
Washington
Moscow | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Iraq | 22.02.1971 |  | Moscow | 13.09.1972 | <*> | Moscow | Ratification |
| Ireland | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Washington | 19.08.1971
19.08.1971 |  | London
Washington | Ratification
Ratification |

| Italy | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 | <> | London
Moscow
Washington | 03.09.1974
03.09.1974
03.09.1974 | <>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |

| Jamaica | 11.10.1971
11.10.1971
14.10.1971 |  | London
Washington
Moscow | 30.07.1986
30.07.1986
30.07.1986 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Japan | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 21.06.1971
21.06.1971
21.06.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Jordan | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 17.08.1971
30.08.1971
01.11.1971 |  | Washington
Moscow
London | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Lao People's Democratic Republic | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
15.02.1971 |  | London
Washington
Moscow | 19.10.1971
22.10.1971
03.11.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Latvia |  |  |  | 24.06.1992
03.08.1992
21.08.1992 |  | London
Washington
Moscow | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Lebanon | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Lesotho | 08.09.1971 |  | Washington | 03.04.1973 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Liberia | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Libya |  |  |  | 06.07.1990 |  | Moscow | Accession |
| Liechtenstein |  |  |  | 30.05.1991
30.05.1991
31.05.1991 |  | London
Washington
Moscow | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Luxembourg | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 11.11.1982
11.11.1982
11.11.1982 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Madagascar | 14.09.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Malaysia | 20.05.1971
20.05.1971
20.05.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 21.06.1972
21.06.1972
21.06.1972 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Mali | 11.02.1971
15.02.1971 |  | Washington
Moscow |  |  |  |  |
| Malta | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Washington | 04.05.1971 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Mauritius | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 23.04.1971
03.05.1971
18.05.1971 | <*> | Washington
London
Moscow | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Mexico |  |  |  | 23.03.1984
23.03.1984
23.03.1984 | <*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Mongolia | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow | 08.10.1971
15.11.1981 |  | Moscow
London | Ratification
Ratification |
| Montenegro |  |  |  | 03.06.2006
12.12.2006 | <*>
<*> | Moscow
London | Succession
Succession |
| Morocco | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
18.02.1971 |  | Moscow
Washington
London | 26.07.1971
05.08.1971
18.01.1972 |  | London
Washington
Moscow | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Myanmar | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Nepal | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
24.02.1971 |  | Moscow
Washington
London | 06.07.1971
29.07.1971
09.08.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Netherlands | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 14.01.1976
14.01.1976
14.01.1976 | <*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| New Zealand | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 24.02.1972
24.02.1972
24.02.1972 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Nicaragua | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 07.02.1973 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Niger | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 09.08.1971 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Norway | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 28.06.1971
28.06.1971
29.06.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Panama | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 20.03.1974 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Paraguay | 23.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Philippines |  |  |  | 05.11.1993 |  | London | Accession |
| Poland | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 15.11.1971
15.11.1971
15.11.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Portugal |  |  |  | 24.06.1975
24.06.1975
24.06.1975 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Qatar |  |  |  | 12.11.1974 |  | London | Accession |
| Republic of Korea | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Washington | 25.06.1987
25.06.1987 |  | London
Washington | Ratification
Ratification |
| Romania | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 10.07.1972
10.07.1972
10.07.1972 | <*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Russian Federation | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 18.05.1972
18.05.1972
18.05.1972 | <*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Rwanda | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 20.05.1975
20.05.1975
20.05.1975 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  | 18.05.1972 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  | 13.05.1999 |  | London | Succession |
| Sao Tome and Principe |  |  |  | 24.08.1979 |  | Moscow | Accession |
| Saudi Arabia | 07.01.1972 |  | Washington | 23.06.1972 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Senegal | 17.03.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Serbia |  |  |  | 03.06.2006
03.06.2006 | <*>
<*> | London
Moscow | Succession
Succession |
| Seychelles |  |  |  | 12.03.1985
14.03.1985
08.04.1985 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Sierra Leone | 11.02.1971
12.02.1971
24.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Singapore | 05.05.1971
05.05.1971
05.05.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 10.09.1976
10.09.1976 |  | Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification |
| Slovakia |  |  |  | 01.01.1993
17.05.1993
25.06.1993 | <*>
<*>
<*> | Washington
London
Moscow | Succession
Succession
Succession |
| Slovenia |  |  |  | 07.04.1992
20.08.1992 | <*> | London
Washington | Succession
Succession |
| Solomon Islands |  |  |  | 17.06.1981 |  | London | Succession |
| South Africa | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington | 14.11.1973
26.11.1973
30.11.1973 |  | Washington
London
Moscow | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Spain |  |  |  | 15.07.1987
15.07.1987
15.07.1987 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Accession
Accession
Accession |
| Sudan | 11.02.1971
12.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow |  |  |  |  |
| Sweden | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 28.04.1972
28.04.1972
28.04.1972 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Switzerland | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 04.05.1976
04.05.1976
04.05.1976 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Togo | 02.04.1971 |  | Washington | 28.06.1971 |  | Washington | Ratification |
| Tunisia | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 22.10.1971
28.10.1971
29.10.1971 |  | Moscow
London
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Turkiye | 25.02.1971
25.02.1971
25.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 19.10.1972
25.10.1972
30.10.1972 |  | Washington
London
Moscow | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Ukraine | 03.03.1971 |  | Moscow | 03.09.1971 |  | Moscow | Ratification |
| United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 18.05.1972
18.05.1972
18.05.1972 | <*>
<*>
<*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| United Republic of Tanzania | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| United States of America | 11.02.1971
11.02.1971
11.02.1971 |  | London
Moscow
Washington | 18.05.1972
18.05.1972
18.05.1972 | <*> | London
Moscow
Washington | Ratification
Ratification
Ratification |
| Uruguay | 11.02.1971 |  | Washington |  |  |  |  |
| Viet Nam |  |  |  | 20.06.1980 | <*> | Moscow | Accession |
| Yemen | 23.02.1971 |  | Moscow | 01.06.1979 |  | Moscow | Ratification |
| Zambia |  |  |  | 09.10.1972
01.11.1972
02.11.1972 |  | London
Washington
Moscow | Accession
Accession
Accession |

<*> A note, statement, declaration, or reservation, is attached to the signature or depository action.

Antigua and Barbuda

Date of receipt of notification of succession to the Treaty by Antigua and Barbuda.

succession as of 01 November 1981

Argentina

Statement on signature (translation):

«The Government of the Argentine Republic wishes specially to place on record that it strictly abides by the statements made by the Representatives of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and Argentina in regard to the meaning and scope of the Treaty at the 429th Plenary Session of the Conference of the Disarmament Committee when the final draft of the Treaty was submitted for consideration.»

When referring to Article IV of the Treaty the Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stated: «As we have said before, we attach great importance to this Article of the Draft Treaty, which concerns the problem of the relationship between the obligation assumed under the present Treaty and the position of States with respect to other existing international conventions. We have repeatedly stressed that the provisions of the Seabed Treaty are designed solely to accomplish the purpose that the Treaty is designed to serve, namely, to prevent the extension to the seabed of the race in nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. The Treaty is not intended to solve numerous obligations assumed by States under other international agreements, or to prejudice possible future solutions in that sphere. In our view, Article IV of the draft Treaty fully serves that end.»

The Representative of the United States of America in turn stated: «A number of changes have been made in Article III in order to take into account the views of certain Delegations concerning means of avoiding any implication of prejudice to differing positions on Law of the Sea issues. In that connexion I want to emphasize again a point which has been fundamental to these negotiations: All the provisions of this Treaty, including those relating to verification through observation as well as other verification activities, are designed to ensure that the Treaty will accomplish its arms limitation purposes, the provisions of the Treaty are not intended to affect any of the various outstanding problems regarding the Law of the Sea. While the United States has taken this position from the very beginning and has felt that previous drafts were responsive to this need, we have continued to work with other Delegations to find formulations which all could accept as being entirely neutral on these issues. We believe that Article III as now drafted, together with the Article IV disclaimer which remains unchanged, should remove any remaining doubt as to the possibility that the Treaty might affect Law of the Sea issues.» On the same occasion the Representative of the Argentine Republic stated: «One of the constant anxieties which have guided our action has been to avoid, by all the means available to us, the risk that the draft might, by virtue of its sphere of application, affect the position of various States on questions relating to International Maritime Law and most particularly to the territorial sea and continental shelf. We have stated, and emphatically repeat, that a document of this nature could not and should not, either directly or indirectly, attempt to solve or even interfere in the complex problems pertaining to the Law of the Sea (CCD/PV.445, paragraph 48 et seq., CCD/PV.454, paragraphs 10 and 11 and CCD/PV.475/Add.1, paragraph 16). For that reason we have taken due note of the statements made by the co-sponsors of the Draft that this is not the aim of the Treaty and that its provisions are in no way designed to, nor do they seek to, undermine, strengthen or affect the position of States, or to prejudice or influence future decisions on those questions, or to support or revoke existing or future obligations assumed under international instruments. On the basis of those assertions, to which we attach the value of a formal commitment or undertaking, and by virtue of the provisions of Article IV — the so-called „Safeguard Clause“ — by whose letter and spirit we abide strictly, we wish expressly to record the view that we interpret the references to the freedoms of the high seas as in no way implying a pronouncement on the different positions relating to questions connected with International Maritime Law. In the same context, we understand that the reference to the rights of exploration and exploitation by coastal States over their continental shelves is included solely because those could be the rights most frequently affected by verification procedures. In other words, we preclude henceforward any possibility of strengthening, through this document, certain positions concerning continental shelves to the detriment of others based on different criteria.»

These statements constitute the authentic interpretation of the Treaty and it is on this understanding that the Argentine Government signs the instrument.»

The above declaration by the Argentine representative was confirmed on ratification.

With declaration

«Одна из постоянных забот, которая определяла нашу деятельность, заключалась в том, чтобы избежать всеми имеющимися в нашем распоряжении средствами такого положения, когда проект в силу своей сферы применения мог бы затронуть позиции различных государств в вопросах международного морского права и, в особенности, в вопросах, касающихся территориального моря и континентального шельфа. Мы говорили и решительно повторяем, что документ такого характера не мог и не должен был, прямо или косвенно, пытаться разрешить или даже касаться сложных проблем, связанных с морским правом. Поэтому мы должным образом принимаем во внимание заявления, сделанные авторами о том, что не это является целью Договора и что его предписания ни в коей мере не предназначены и не направлены на то, чтобы преуменьшить, усилить или повлиять на позиции государств по этим вопросах, равно как нанести ущерб или повлиять на решения, которые могли бы быть приняты в будущем в этой области, а также подкреплять или аннулировать обязательства, которые были приняты или могут быть приняты на основе международных соглашений.»

Основываясь на этих заявлениях, которым мы придаем силу формального компромисса, а также в силу положений статьи IV, — получившей название « Cláusula de salvaguardia» <*>, буквы и духа которой мы неукоснительно придерживаемся, — мы хотим подтвердить наше понимание того, что ссылки на свободу открытого моря ни в коей мере не влекут за собой необходимости излагать свое мнение относительно различных позиций в вопросах международного морского права. В этом же смысле мы понимаем, что упоминание о правах прибрежных государств на разведку и разработку их континентальных шельфов делается исключительно в силу того, что в отношении этих государств чаще может применяться процедура контроля. Другими словами, мы исключаем всякую возможность, чтобы посредством данного документа закреплялись бы определенные позиции в отношении континентального шельфа в ущерб другим позициям, исходящим из других критериев.

<*> Статья, определяющая соотношение обязательств по данному Договору с обязательствами государств по другим договорам или с суверенными правами данного государства.

At the time of signature of the Treaty by Argentina, the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Embassy of the Argentine Republic addressed a note to the Secretary of State, dated September 2, 1971, an English translation of which reads as follows:

«Mr. Secretary:»

«I have the honor to address Your Excellency on the occasion of signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, in order to inform you that I have received specific instructions from my Government to make the following declaration of interpretation:»

«On signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, the Government of the Argentine Republic expressly states that it adheres strictly to the statements with respect to the meaning and scope of the treaty made by the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America, and Argentina at the 492d Plenary Session of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, at which time the definitive version of the treaty was presented.»

«With respect to article IV, the Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stated:»

«As we have said before, we attach great importance to this article of the draft treaty, which concerns the problem of the relationship between the obligations assumed under the present treaty and the positions of States with respect to other existing international conventions. We have repeatedly stressed that the provisions of the sea-bed treaty are designed solely to accomplish the purpose that the treaty is designed to serve — namely, to prevent the extension of the race in nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction to the sea-bed. The treaty is not intended to solve numerous questions of international law, including the law of the sea, to confirm or annul obligations assumed by States under other international agreements, or to prejudge possible future solutions in that sphere. In our view article IV of the draft treaty fully serves that end.»

«The Representative of the United States of America stated:»

«A number of changes have been made in article III in order to take into account the views of certain delegations concerning means of avoiding any implication of prejudice to differing positions on law-of-the-sea issues. In that connection I want to emphasize again a point which has been fundamental to these negotiations: all the provisions of this treaty, including those relating to verification through observation as well as other verification activities, are designed to ensure that the treaty will accomplish its arms-limitation purposes; the provisions of the treaty are not intended to affect any of the various outstanding problems regarding the law of the sea. While the United States has taken this position from the very beginning and has felt that previous drafts were responsive to this need, we have continued to work with other delegations to find formulations which all could accept as being entirely neutral on these issues. We believe that article III as now drafted, together with the article IV disclaimer, which remains unchanged, should remove any remaining doubt as to the possibility that the treaty might affect law-of-the-sea issues.»

«The Representative of the Argentine Republic stated:»

«One of the constant anxieties which have guided our action has been to avoid, by all the means available to us, the risk that the draft might, by virtue of its sphere of application, affect the position of various States on questions relating to international maritime law and most particularly to the territorial sea and the continental shelf. We have stated, and emphatically repeated, that a document of this nature could not and should not, either directly or indirectly, attempt to solve or even interfere in the complex problems pertaining to the law of the sea (CCD/PV.445, paras. 48 et seq.; CCD/PV.454, paras. 10, 11; CCD/PV.475/Add.1, para. 16). For that reason we have taken due note of the statements made by the co-sponsors of the draft that this is not the aim of the treaty and that its provisions are in no way designed to, nor do they seek to, undermine, strengthen, or affect the positions of States, or to prejudice or influence future decisions on those questions, or to confirm or annul existing or future obligations assumed under international instruments.»

«On the basis of those assertions, to which we attach the value of a formal commitment or undertaking, and by virtue of the provisions of article IV — the so-called disclaimer clause — by whose letter and spirit we abide strictly, we wish expressly to record the view that we interpret the references to freedoms of the high seas as in no way implying a pronouncement or judgment on the different positions relating to questions connected with international maritime law. In the same context, we understand that the reference to the rights of exploration and exploitation by coastal States over their continental shelves is included solely because those could be the rights most frequently affected by verification procedures. In other words, we preclude henceforward any possibility of strengthening, through this document, certain positions concerning continental shelves to the detriment of others based on different criteria.»

«These statements constitute the true interpretation of the treaty, and it is with that understanding that the Government of the Argentine Republic signs the instrument.»

«I respectfully request Your Excellency to transmit the text of this declaration of interpretation to the other signatories of the treaty.»

Accept, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.»

The Argentine instrument of ratification of the Treaty includes a declaration, an English translation of which reads as follows:

«One of the constant anxieties which have guided our action has been to avoid, by all the means available to us, the risk that the draft might, by virtue of its sphere of application, affect the position of various States on questions relating to international maritime law and most particularly to the territorial sea and the continental shelf. We have stated, and emphatically repeated, that a document of this nature could not and should not, either directly or indirectly, attempt to solve or even interfere in the complex problems pertaining to the law of the sea (CCD/PV.445, paras. 48 et seq.; CCD/PV.454, paras. 10, 11; CCD/PV.475/Add.1, para. 16). For that reason we have taken due note of the statements made by the co-sponsors of the draft that this is not the aim of the treaty and that its provisions are in no way designed to, nor do they seek to, undermine, strengthen, or affect the positions of States, or to prejudice or influence future decisions on those questions, or to confirm or annul existing or future obligations assumed under international instruments.»

«On the basis of those assertions, to which we attach the value of a formal commitment or undertaking, and by virtue of the provisions of article IV — the so-called disclaimer clause — by whose letter and spirit we abide strictly, we wish expressly to record the view that we interpret the references to freedoms of the high seas as in no way implying a pronouncement or judgment on the different positions relating to questions connected with international maritime law. In the same context, we understand that the reference to the rights of exploration and exploitation by coastal States over their continental shelves is included solely because those could be the rights most frequently affected by verification procedures. In other words, we preclude henceforward any possibility of strengthening, through this document, certain positions concerning continental shelves to the detriment of others based on different criteria (CCD/PV.492, paras. 51 and 52).»

«This declaration constitutes the true interpretation of the treaty, and it is with that understanding that the Government of the Argentine Republic ratifies the Instrument.»

Australia

Objection:

Communication by Note dated 4 March 1987:

«The Australian Government takes the view that the declaration made by Mexico is incompatible with international law to the extent that it lays claims to rights over the continental shelf which a coastal state is not entitled to exercise under the Treaty itself or under international law as reflected in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea»

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Date of receipt of notification of succession to the Treaty by Bosnia and Herzegovina. The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed the Treaty on March 2, 1971 and deposited an instrument of ratification on October 25, 1973.

The Ambassador of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Washington addressed a note, dated February 25, 1974, to the Secretary of State, which reads as follows:

«The Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia presents his compliments to the Honorable the Secretary of State and with reference to the deposition of the instruments of ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and [in] the Subsoil Thereof by the Government of Yugoslavia of October 25, 1973, has the honor to transmit the following statement of the Government of Yugoslavia, accompanying the deposition:»

«In depositing this instrument of ratification, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia wishes to declare the following:»

«In [the] view of the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Article 3, Paragraph I, should be interpreted to the effect that a state exercising the right under this article shall be obliged to notify in advance the coastal state, in so far as its observations are to be carried out within the stretch of the sea extending above the continental shelf of the said state.»

«The above statement of the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was accepted by the Federal Assembly at the time of the ratification of the above Treaty. It would be greatly appreciated, if in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the above Treaty, this statement is forwarded to the Governments of the States signatory and acceding at Washington to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof.»

«The Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Honorable the Secretary of State the assurances of his highest consideration.»

The views of the Government of the United States of America with regard to the Yugoslav statement are contained in the Secretary of State's circular note, dated January 16, 1975, which reads as follows:

«The Secretary of State presents his compliments to Their Excellencies and Messieurs the Chiefs of Mission of the Governments of the States signatory and acceding at Washington to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, which was done at Washington, London, and Moscow on February 11, 1971, and has the honor to refer to his circular note of January 15, 1975, enclosing a copy of a note of the Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dated February 25, 1974, transmitting a statement of the Government of Yugoslavia with respect to its interpretation of Article III, paragraph 1, of the Treaty.»

«The Secretary of State would like to present the views of the United States concerning the note of the Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.»

«Insofar as the note is intended to be interpretative of the Convention, the United States cannot accept it as a valid interpretation. In addition, the United States does not consider that it can have any effect on the existing law of the sea.»

«Insofar as the note is intended to be a reservation to the Convention, the United States places on record its formal objection to it on the grounds that it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The United States also draws attention to the fact that the note was submitted too late to be legally effective as a reservation.»

«The Secretary of State would be grateful if each Chief of Mission would forward this information to his Government.»

Brazil

Brazil issued a statement and understanding upon signature of the Treaty, the Department of State translation of which reads as follows:

«Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as prejudicing in any way the sovereign rights of Brazil in the area of the sea, the seabed, and the subsoil thereof adjacent to its coasts. It is the understanding of the Brazilian Government that the word „observation“ as it is used in Article III (1) of the Treaty refers only to observation that is incidental to the normal course of navigation in accordance with international law.»

The instrument of ratification of the Treaty by Brazil was accompanied by a statement and understanding which read as follows:

«The Brazilian Government wishes to state that nothing in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as in any way prejudicing the sovereign rights of Brazil in the area of the sea, the seabed and its subsoil adjacent to the Brazilian coast, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is the understanding of the Brazilian Government that the word „observation“ in Article III, Paragraph 1 of the Treaty refers only to observation that is incidental in the normal course of navigation, in accordance with international law.»

The views of the Government of the United States of America with regard to the Brazilian statement and understanding are contained in the Department of State's note of March 16, 1989, which reads as follows:

«The Department of State refers to the Note of the Brazilian Embassy of May 10, 1988 enclosing a statement and understanding on the occasion of the deposit on May 10, 1988, of [an] instrument of ratification of Brazil of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, done at Washington, London, and Moscow on February 11, 1971.»

«The Government of the United States of America draws the attention of the Government of Brazil to the provisions of Article III of the Seabed Treaty that address verification and inspection rights of States Parties. The United States expects all States Parties to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations in accordance with the Seabed Treaty.»

«Article III provides that all States Parties may „verify through observation the activities of other States Parties to the Treaty“ beyond the 12-mile seabed zone, so long as such observation does not interfere with the activities of other States Parties and is conducted with due regard for rights recognized under international law. It is the view of the Government of the United States of America that, under customary international law and Article III of the Treaty, these observations may be undertaken whether or not they are incidental to a so-called „normal course of navigation,“ and that such activity is not subject to unilateral coastal state restriction.»

The views of the Federal Republic of Germany with regard to the Brazilian statement and understanding are contained in a note from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Department of State, dated May 18, 1989, which reads as follows:

«The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany presents its compliments to the Department of State and, referring to the note of the Department of State of May 27, 1988, communicating the deposit on May 1[0], 1988, of [an] instrument of ratification of Brazil to the treaty on the prohibition of the emplacement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction on the seabed and the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof of 1971, has the honor, addressing the statement of the Government of Brazil on this occasion, to state the following:»

«The right of each state party under article III para. 1 of the aforementioned treaty to verify through observation the activities of other states parties is limited only insofar as it shall not interfere with such activities or activities of other state parties and as it shall be conducted with due regard to recognized rights under international law. The understanding of the Government of Brazil of the term „observation“ does not represent, in the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, an adequate interpretation of that term.»

«The Embassy would be grateful if the text of this note could be communicated to the Government[s] of State parties to the treaty.»

Declaration:

«Nothing in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as in any way prejudicing the sovereign rights of Brazil in the area of the sea, the sea-bed and its subsoil adjacent to the Brazilian coast, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is the understanding of the Brazilian Government that the word „observation“, in Article III, paragraph 1 of the Treaty refers only to observation that is incidental to the normal course of navigation, in accordance with international law.»

With declaration

«Ничто в этом Договоре не будет толковаться, как ущемляющее в любой форме суверенные права Бразилии в отношении морской зоны, морского дна и его недр, прилегающих к его побережью, в соответствии с Конвенцией ООН по морскому праву. В понимании Правительства Бразилии термин „наблюдение“, как это записано в параграфе 1 статьи III Договора, относится только к периодическому наблюдению в ходе осуществления нормального судоходства в соответствии с международным правом».

Canada

Declarations:

«(i). In the view of the Canadian Government, the provisions of Article I, paragraph 1, cannot be interpreted as indicating that any state has a right to implant or emplace any weapons not prohibited under Article I, paragraph 1, on the seabed and ocean floor, and in the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, or as constituting any limitation on the principle that this area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof shall be reserved for exclusively peaceful purposes.»

(ii). In the view of the Canadian Government, the provisions of Articles I, II and III cannot be interpreted as indicating that any state but the coastal state has any right to implant or emplace any weapon not prohibited under Article I, paragraph 1, on the continental shelf, or the subsoil thereof, appertaining to that coastal state, beyond the outer limit of the seabed zone referred to in Article I and defined in Article II.

(iii). In the view of the Canadian Government, the provisions of Article III cannot be interpreted as indicating any restrictions or limitation upon the rights of the coastal state, consistent with its exclusive sovereign rights with respect to the continental shelf, to verify, inspect or effect the removal of any weapon, structure, installation, facility or device implanted or emplaced on the continental shelf, or the subsoil thereof, appertaining to that coastal state, beyond the outer limit of the seabed zone referred to in Article I and defined in Article II.»

With declaration

«1. По мнению правительства Канады положения пункта 1 статьи I не могут толковаться как указывающие на то, что какое-либо государство имеет право устанавливать или размещать любые виды оружия, не запрещенные пунктом 1 статьи I, на дне морей и океанов и в его недрах за пределами его национальной юрисдикции, либо как вводящие какое-либо ограничение принципа о том, что это пространство дна морей и океанов и его недра предназначаются исключительно для мирных целей.»

2. По мнению правительства Канады, положения статей I, II, III не могут толковаться как указывающие на то, что какое-либо государство, не имеющее выхода к морю, имеет право устанавливать или размещать любые виды оружия, не запрещенные пунктом 1 статьи I, на принадлежащем прибрежному государству континентальном шельфе или в его недрах за внешним пределом зоны морского дна, которая упомянута в статье I и определена в статье II.

3. По мнению правительства Канады, положения статьи III не могут толковаться как указывающие на какое-либо ограничение прав прибрежного государства, совместимое с его исключительными суверенными правами в отношении континентального шельфа, проверять, обследовать или извлекать любое оружие, устройство, установку, оборудование или механизм, установленные или размещенные на принадлежащем этому прибрежному государству континентальном шельфе или в его недрах за внешним пределом зоны морского дна, которая упомянута в статье I и определена в статье II».

In depositing its instrument of ratification of the Treaty, the Government of Canada made certain statements which are contained in the Canadian Embassy's note No. 134 of May 17, 1972, which reads as follows:

«The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments to the Department of State and has the honor to refer to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and on the Ocean Floor and on the Subsoil thereof. The Instrument of Ratification of the Treaty by the Government of Canada is attached for deposit today May 17, 1972.»

«In depositing this Instrument of Ratification, the Government of Canada declares as follows:»

(i) In the view of the Canadian Government, the provisions of Article I, paragraph 1, cannot be interpreted as indicating that any state has a right to implant or emplace any weapons not prohibited under Article I, paragraph 1, on the seabed and ocean floor, and in the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, or as constituting any limitation on the principle that this area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof shall be reserved for exclusively peaceful purposes.

(ii) In the view of the Canadian Government, the provisions of Articles I, II and III cannot be interpreted as indicating that any state but the coastal state has any right to implant or emplace any weapon not prohibited under Article I, paragraph 1, on the continental shelf, or the subsoil thereof, appertaining to that coastal state, beyond the outer limit of the seabed zone referred to in Article I and defined in Article II.

(iii) In the view of the Canadian Government, the provisions of Article III cannot be interpreted as indicating any restrictions or limitation upon the rights of the coastal state, consistent with its exclusive sovereign rights with respect to the continental shelf, to verify inspect or effect the removal of any weapon, structure, installation, facility or device implanted or emplaced on the continental shelf, or the subsoil thereof, appertaining to that coastal state, beyond the outer limit of the seabed zone referred to in Article I and defined in Article II.

«The Embassy of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.»

The views of the Government of the United States of America with regard to the Canadian statements are contained in the Department of State's note to the Canadian Embassy, dated October 31, 1972, which reads as follows:

«The Department of State acknowledges the receipt of Note No. 134 of May 17, 1972 from the Embassy of Canada to which was attached the instrument of ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, deposited by the Government of Canada on that date.»

«It is the understanding of the Government of the United States that the declaration of the Government of Canada contained in the aforementioned Note is based on the premise that the Treaty does not affect the rights of States under existing international law with respect to activities not prohibited by the Treaty. The Government of the United States concurs in this premise and takes the view that any and all rights existing under international law prior to the conclusion of the Treaty and not falling within its prohibitions remain unaffected. Note is taken of the fifth preambular paragraph of the Treaty, which reads as follows:»

«Convinced that this Treaty will further the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in a manner consistent with the principles of international law and without infringing the freedoms of the high seas,...»

China

Ceased to apply to Hong Kong wef 1 July 1997. Applies to Hong Kong (SAR) wef 1 July 1997.

The Chinese Government reaffirms that nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as prejudicing in any way the sovereign rights and the other rights of the People's Republic of China over its territorial sea, as well as the sea area, the seabed and subsoil thereof adjacent to its territorial sea.

The signature and ratification of this Treaty by the Taiwan authorities by illegally using the name of China on 11 February 1971 and 22 February 1972 respectively are null and void.

The Republic of China signed the Treaty on February 11, 1971 and deposited an instrument of ratification of the Treaty on February 22, 1972. Effective January 1, 1979, the United States recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. The authorities on Taiwan state that they will continue to abide by the provisions of the Treaty and the United States regards them as bound by its obligations.

On February 28, 1991, the People's Republic of China deposited an instrument of accession to the Treaty. The text of the instrument of accession contains statements, an English translation of which reads as follows:

«The Chinese Government reaffirms that nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as prejudicing in any way the sovereign rights and the other rights of the People's Republic of China over its territorial sea, as well as the sea area, the seabed and subsoil thereof adjacent to its territorial sea.»

«The signature and ratification of this Treaty by the Taiwan authorities by illegally using the name of China on 11 February 1971 and 22 February 1972 respectively are null and void.»

Cuba

With declaration

«Присоединение Республики Куба к настоящему Договору не может быть истолковано как признание со стороны правительства Кубы фашистского Правительства Южно-Африканской Республики, которое не представляет южноафриканский народ и которое из-за своей систематически проводимой дискриминационной политики апартеида было исключено из международных организаций, осуждено Организацией Объединенных Наций и отвергнуто всеми народами мира.»

Присоединение Республики Куба к настоящему Договору ни в коей мере не означает признания со стороны Правительства Кубы так называемого националистического правительства Китая в отношении территории Тайваня; это также не означает признания упомянутого правительства как законного или компетентного в отношении Китая».

«La Adhesión de la República de Cuba al presente Tratado no podrá interpretarse como el reconocimiento o aceptación por parte del Gobierno de Cuba, del Gobierno fascista de Africa del Sur que no representa al pueblo sudafricano y que por su práctica sistemática de la politica discriminatoria del apartheid ha sido expulsado de organismos internacionales, recibido la condena de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas y la repulsa de todos los pueblos del mundo.»

La Adhesión de la República de Cuba de presente Tratado en ningún momento significa, por parte del Gobierno de Cuba reconocimiento del Ilamado Gobierno Nacionalista de China, sobre el territorio de Taiwán , ni reconcimiento de dicho Gobierno como legal o competente de China».

Czech Republic

Effective date of succession to the Treaty by the Czech Republic is January 1, 1993; the former Czechoslovakia signed and ratified the Treaty on February 11, 1971 and January 11, 1972, respectively. On December 31, 1992, at midnight, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and was succeeded by two separate and independent states, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.

In a Note dated 24 March 1993, received on 5 April 1993 the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Czech Republic notified the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the following:

«Upon the instruction of the Government of the Czech Republic and referring to the Declaration of the Czech National Council to All Parliaments and Nations of the World of 17 December 1992, I have the honour to communicate to Your Excellency the following:»

In conformity with the valid principles of international law and to the extent defined by it, the Czech Republic, as a successor State to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considers itself bound, as of 1 January 1993, i.e. the date of the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, by multilateral international treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party on that date, including reservations and declarations to their provisions made earlier by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.

From among the treaties deposited with the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland this applies also to the following:

Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, done at London, Washington and Moscow on 11 February 1971.»

Succession as of 01 January 1993

Germany

Declaration (translation):

Signature of this Treaty does not imply recognition of the German Democratic Republic under international law; therefore, no relations under international law with the GDR shall arise out of this Treaty for the Federal Republic of Germany.

Notes:

Includes Berlin (West)

At the time of signature of the Treaty by Germany, the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Washington transmitted to the Secretary of State a note of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, dated June 8, 1971, which reads as follows:

«The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany presents its compliments to the Government of the United States of America and, on the occasion of and in formal connexion with its signing today of the Treaty of 11 February 1971 on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, has the honor to declare that»

• signature of this Treaty does not imply recognition of the GDR under international law;
• therefore, no relations under international law with the GDR shall arise out of this Treaty for the Federal Republic of Germany.»

With declaration

«Договор будет применяться к Берлину (Западному), не затрагивая прав и ответственности союзных властей и их компетенции в отношении разоружения и демилитаризации».

«Подписание настоящего Договора не подразумевает международно-правового признания ГДР. Вследствие этого настоящий Договор не создает для Федеративной Республики Германии никаких международно-правовых отношений с ГДР».

Declaration on ratification:

With effect from the day on which the Treaty enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germany it will also apply to Berlin (West) without affecting the rights and responsibilities of the Allied Authorities and the competences falling upon them with respect to disarmament and demilitarization.

Declaration by a Note dated 12 April, 1976 (translation):

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to state with regard to the Note of the Government of Canada of 17 May 1972, the Note of the Government of the Republic of India of 20 July 1973 and the Note of the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 25 February 1974 that the declarations contained in the above-mentioned Notes are not of a nature to confer on the Governments of those three countries more far-reaching rights than those to which they are entitled under current international law. Moreover, the Federal Government holds the view that all rights existing under current international law which are not covered by the prohibitions are left intact by the Treaty.

Declaration dated 14 July, 1981 (translation):

With regard to the declaration submitted by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the occasion of the deposit of its instrument of accession to the Treaty of 11 February 1971 on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, to the depository in Moscow on 20 June 1980, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall its position set out in its Note of 12 April 1976 to the depository in London in connection with the declarations made by the Governments of Canada, India and Yugoslavia on the said Treaty. It continues to hold the view that those declarations are not of a nature to confer on those governments more far-reaching rights than those to which they are entitled under current international law. It also holds this view with regard to the declaration made by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Furthermore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to state once more that all rights existing under current international law which are not covered by the prohibitions are left intact by the Treaty.

Objection:

Communication by a Note dated 14 October 1985 referring to the declaration by the Government of Mexico on depositing their instrument of accession in London on 23 March, 1984: «In the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the aforementioned declaration relates above all to matters that are not dealt with in the Treaty to which it refers. The declaration is not acceptable to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to the extent that it lays claim to rights to which a coastal State is not entitled under general international law.»

At the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Treaty by Germany, the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Washington addressed a note to the Secretary of State, dated November 18, 1975, which reads as follows:

«My dear Mr. Secretary,»

«In connection with the deposit today of the instrument of ratification to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, I have the honor to state on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany that with effect from the day on which the Treaty enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germany it will also apply to Berlin (West) without affecting the rights and responsibilities of the Allied Authorities and the competences falling upon them with respect to disarmament and demilitarization.»

«Accept, Mr. Secretary, the expression of my highest consideration.»

Greece

Signed at Moscow.

Hungary

Objection:

Communication by a Note dated 13 September 1976 concerning the application of the Treaty by the Federal Republic of Germany to West Berlin:

«The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic as a party to the Treaty is of the opinion that this step by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is at variance with the Four-Party Agreement of 3 September 1971, since the Treaty directly affects the questions of status and security. This view is in conformity with the position represented in the question of extension by the Government of the Soviet Union as a party to the Four-Party Agreement.»

India

Statement:

«On the occasion of its accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, the Government of India would like to make the following statement of its position.»

2. In accordance with its basic position — which is shared by a vast majority of States — that the exploration and exploitation of the seabed should be reserved for peaceful purposes and that serious efforts should be made to prevent an arms race on the seabed, the Government of India has supported the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof. The disclaimer clause contained in Article IV of the Seabed Treaty ensures that the position of any State Party on questions related to the Law of the Sea is not affected in any way. It is important that nothing should be done through a seabed treaty in the field of disarmament which would prejudice or prejudge questions in regard to the Law of the Sea, nor should such a treaty affect adversely in any way the rights of coastal States on their continental shelves. As a coastal State, India has, and always has had, full and exclusive sovereign rights over the continental shelf adjoining its territory and beyond its territorial waters and the subsoil thereof. It is the considered view of India that other countries cannot use its continental shelf for military purposes. There cannot, therefore, be any restriction on, or limitation of, the sovereign right of India as a coastal State to verify, inspect, remove or destroy any weapon, device, structure, installation or facility which might be emplanted or emplaced on or beneath its continental shelf by any other country, or to take such other steps as may be considered necessary to safeguard its security.

3. The accession by the Government of India to the Seabed Treaty is based on this position.

With declaration

В соответствии со своей основной позицией, разделяемой подавляющим большинством государств, которая сводится к тому, что разведка и разработка морского дна должны осуществляться только в мирных целях и что необходимо прилагать серьезные усилия для предотвращения гонки вооружений на морском дне, Правительство Индии поддержало Договор о запрещении размещения на дне морей и океанов и в его недрах ядерного оружия и других видов оружия массового уничтожения. Положение о признании или непризнании претензий, содержащееся в статье IV Договора о морском дне, гарантирует, что позиция любого государства-участника по вопросам, относящимся к морскому праву, никоим образом не затрагивается. Важно, чтобы посредством договора о морском дне не предпринималось никаких шагов в области разоружения, которые могли бы поставить под сомнение или предрешить вопросы, касающиеся морского права. Кроме того, такой договор никоим образом не должен неблагоприятно затрагивать прав прибрежных государств в отношении их континентального шельфа. Индия, как прибрежное государство обладает и всегда обладала полными и исключительными суверенными правами на континентальный шельф, прилегающий к ее территории и находящийся за пределами ее территориальных вод, и его недра, Индия придерживается точки зрения, что другие страны не могут использовать ее континентальный шельф для военных целей. Индия убеждена в том, что другие государства не вправе использовать континентальный шельф для военных целей. Следовательно, не может быть никакого ограничения суверенного права Индии как прибрежного государства проверять, обследовать, извлекать или уничтожать любое оружие, механизм, устройство, установку или оборудование, которые могли бы быть размещены другими государствами на континентальном шельфе или в его недрах или предпринимать другие шаги, которые могут быть сочтены необходимыми для обеспечения ее безопасности».

In depositing the instrument of accession to the Treaty by India, the Ambassador of India to Washington made a statement which reads as follows:

«On the occasion of its accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, the Government of India would like to make the following statement of its position.»

«2. In accordance with its basic position — which is shared by a vast majority of States — that the exploration and exploitation of the seabed should be reserved for peaceful purposes and that serious efforts should be made to prevent an arms race on the seabed, the Government of India has supported the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof. The disclaimer clause contained in Article IV of the Seabed Treaty ensures that the position of any State Party on questions related to the law of the sea is not affected in any way. It is important that nothing should be done through a seabed treaty in the field of disarmament which would prejudice or prejudge questions in regard to the law of the sea, nor should such a treaty affect adversely in any way the rights of coastal States on their continental shelves. As a coastal State, India has, and always has had, full and exclusive sovereign rights over the continental shelf adjoining its territory and beyond its territorial waters and the subsoil thereof. It is the considered view of India that other countries cannot use its continental shelf for military purposes. There cannot, therefore, be any restriction on, or limitation of, the sovereign right of India as a coastal State to verify, inspect, remove or destroy any weapon, device, structure, installation or facility, which might be emplanted or emplaced on or beneath its continental shelf by any other country, or to take such other steps as may be considered necessary to safeguard its security.»

«3. The accession by the Government of India to the Seabed Treaty is based on this position.»

«July 20, 1973.»

The views of the Government of the United States of America with regard to the Indian statement are contained in the Department of State's note to the Indian Embassy in Washington, dated October 4, 1973, which reads as follows:

«The Acting Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of India and has the honor to refer to the statement made by the Ambassador on July 20, 1973, on the occasion of the deposit of the Government of India's instrument of accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, done at Washington, London, and Moscow on February 11, 1971.»

«It is the understanding of the Government of the United States of America that the position of the Government of India expressed in the Ambassador's statement is based on the premise that the Treaty does not affect the rights of States under existing international law with respect to activities not prohibited by the Treaty. The Government of the United States concurs in this premise and takes the view that any and all rights existing under international law prior to the conclusion of the Treaty and not falling within its prohibitions remain unaffected. Note is taken of the fifth preambular paragraph of the Treaty, which reads as follows:»

«Convinced that this Treaty will further the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in a manner consistent with the principles of international law and without infringing the freedoms of the high seas,...»

«In addition, the Government of the United States wishes to state its view that under existing international law the rights of coastal States over their continental shelves are exclusive only for purposes of exploration and exploitation of natural resources, and are otherwise limited by the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and other principles of international law.»

«In performance of the depositary duties of the Government of the United States of America under the Seabeds Treaty, the Department of State has transmitted the text of the Ambassador's statement of July 20, 1973 to the States signatory and acceding to the Treaty at Washington. Accordingly, similar circulation is being given to the present note.»

By a note from the Embassy of India in Washington, dated January 30, 1974, the Government of India reiterated its position as stated at the time of accession. The text of the note reads as follows:

«The Embassy of India presents its compliments to the Department of State and has the honour to refer to the note dated 4 October 1973 from the Acting Secretary of State, regarding the statement made by the Representative of the Government of India on 20 July 1973 on the occasion of the deposit of the Government of India's Instrument of Accession to the „Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Sub-soil Thereof“ done at Washington, London and Moscow on 11 February 1971.»

«The position of the Government of India regarding the nature of rights enjoyed by a coastal State on and in relation to its continental shelf has already been explained in its statement of 20 July 1973. In the view of the Government of India, the position expressed in that statement conforms to international law. It is, therefore, the belief of the Government of India that no other State can use the continental shelf of a coastal State for military purposes or in any other manner as might affect the security or sovereign rights of the coastal State on its continental shelf and its resources.»

«It is requested that this note may please be circulated by the United States as a Depositary State to all the States signatory and acceding to the Treaty.»

«The Embassy of India avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.»

The Department of State's note, dated June 7, 1974, re-states the views of the Government of the United States of America and reads as follows:

«The Department of State refers to note No. WAS/POL/161/7/73 of January 30, 1974 from the Embassy of India with reference to the statement made by the Ambassador of India on the occasion of the deposit on July 20, 1973 of the instrument of accession by the Government of India to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, which was done at Washington, London and Moscow on February 11, 1971.»

«The views of the Government of the United States of America on this matter remain as previously stated in the Acting Secretary of State's note to the Ambassador of India dated October 4, 1973.»

«In the performance of the depositary duties of the Government of the United States of America under the Treaty, the Department of State is circulating the Embassy's note of January 30, 1974, as well as the Department's present note to the Embassy of India.»

Iraq

With declaration

«Вступление в упомянутый Договор Иракской Республики ни в коей мере не означает признания Израиля и не ведет к вступлению в какие-либо отношения с ним».

Italy

On the occasion of Italy's signature of the Treaty, the Embassy of Italy in Washington addressed a note to the Department of State, dated February 11, 1971, containing a statement, an unofficial English translation of which, provided by the Embassy of Italy, reads as follows:

«The Italian Government naturally hopes that, as provided for by Art. V of the Treaty, negotiations in good faith may be continued in relation to further measures in the field of disarmament for the prevention of an armaments race on the seabed and ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof. The Italian Government believes that in the event of agreements on such further measures, the problem of delimitation of the area within which these should be applied, should be in each single instance examined and solved according to the nature of the measures to be adopted.»

In depositing the instrument of ratification by Italy on September 3, 1974, the Embassy of Italy in Washington, in a note of the same date, declared that it wished to confirm the statement made by the Government of Italy at the time of its signature of the Treaty.

Translation:

The Italian Government naturally hope that, as foreseen in Article V of the Treaty, it will be possible to continue in good faith negotiations on further measures in the field of disarmament to prevent an arms race on the seabed and ocean floor and in their subsoil. They believe that, in the case of future agreements on such further measures, the question of the delimitation of the area within which these would find application, shall have to be examined and solved in each instance in relation to the nature of the measures envisaged.

With declaration

«Итальянское правительство, разумеется, ожидает, что, как предусматривает статья V Договора, переговоры относительно дальнейших мер в области разоружения в интересах предотвращения гонки вооружений на дне морей и океанов и в его недрах могут быть добросовестно продолжены. Оно исходит из того, что в возможных соглашениях по таким дальнейшим мерам вопрос о делимитации района, в пределах которого эти меры могли бы применяться будет рассматриваться и решаться в зависимости от существа принимаемых мер».

Mauritius

Signed at Washington.

Mexico

Declaration (translation):

«1. In the view of the Government of Mexico no provision of the Treaty, including Article 1, may be interpreted as indicating that any State has the right to emplace nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or military weapons or devices of any kind on the continental shelf of Mexico.»

2. In consequence of the above, the Government of Mexico reserves the right to verify, inspect, remove or destroy any military weapon, structure, installation, facility or equipment emplaced on its continental shelf, including nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

3. The well-known position of the Government of Mexico in all the international fora in which negotiations on disarmament have taken place, has been to support a general and complete disarmament, and on all possible territories. In this respect, although the Government of Mexico would prefer to reply on a treaty that clearly prohibits the emplacement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction on any physical space, it accedes to this Treaty which limits the prohibition to the Seabed, the Ocean Floor and the Subsoil Thereof, in view of the fact that it constitutes a step towards the objective of having a universal prohibition, as indicated, through the establishment of denuclearised zones throughout the world.

4. Having signed and ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Mexico considers that the provisions contained in it which relate to what is stipulated in the Treaty apply fully to the Treaty.»

The instrument of accession to the Treaty by Mexico was accompanied by a declaration, an English translation of which reads as follows:

«In depositing its instrument of accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, the Government of Mexico makes the following declaration:»

«1. In the view of the Mexican Government, no provision of the Treaty, including Article 1 thereof, can be interpreted as meaning that a State has the right to emplace nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or arms or military equipment of any type, on the continental shelf of Mexico.»

«2. Consequently, the Government of Mexico reserves the right to verify, inspect, remove, or destroy any military weapon, structure, installation, device, or equipment placed on its continental shelf, including nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.»

«3. The well-known position of the Government of Mexico in all international disarmament negotiations has been that disarmament must be general and complete everywhere possible. In this respect, although the Government of Mexico would have preferred a treaty that more clearly prohibits the emplacement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world, it is acceding to this Treaty limiting such prohibition to the seabed, the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof, for it considers it to be a step toward achieving the universal prohibition mentioned above through the establishment of worldwide denuclearized zones.»

«4. Having signed and ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Mexico considers that the provisions it contains pertaining to the stipulations of the Treaty are fully applicable to it.»

The views of the Government of the United States of America with regard to the declaration by Mexico are contained in the Secretary of State's note to the Ambassador of Mexico to Washington, dated February 26, 1985, which reads as follows:

«Excellency:»

«I have the honor to refer to your note of March 23, 1984, and the accompanying statement on the occasion of the deposit on March 23, 1984, of the Government of Mexico's instrument of accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof (Seabed Treaty), done at Washington, London, and Moscow on February 11, 1971.»

«It is the understanding of the Government of the United States of America that the Seabed Treaty addresses only nuclear weapons and any other types of weapons of mass destruction, and instrumentalities for launching, storing, testing, or using such weapons. With respect to such weapons, the United States agrees that no State Party may place such weapons on the continental shelf of Mexico.»

«With respect to emplacement of „arms or military equipment of any type“ referred to in the aforesaid declaration of the Government of Mexico, it is the understanding of the United States that the Treaty does not deal with arms or military equipment other than the types specified therein. Furthermore, it is the position of the United States that general principles of international law do not support the view expressed in that portion of the aforesaid declaration. The only rights the coastal State may exercise with respect to the continental shelf, whether located within the exclusive economic zone or beyond, are those accepted in international law and reflected in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. These carefully limited rights pertain to economic activities, marine scientific research, natural resource management, marine pollution control, and similar matters rather than to matters of the type specified by the Government of Mexico in its declaration. Unrelated high seas freedoms remain vested in the international community and are not subject to coastal State control.»

«The Government of the United States of America draws the attention of the Government of Mexico to the provisions of Article III of the [S]eabed Treaty that address verification and inspection rights. The United States assumes that Mexico would exercise those rights in a manner consistent with [the] Seabed Treaty. Article III provides that all States Parties may „verify through observations the activities of other States Parties to the Treaty“ beyond the 12-mile seabed zone. That Article also provides that inspection of a questionable seabed activity shall be conducted only after consultation with the State Party responsible for the activity, when known. If the State Party responsible for the activity is unknown, inspection „may be undertaken by the inquiring State Party which shall invite the participation of the Parties in the region of the activities, including any coastal State, and of any other party desiring to cooperate.“»

«With respect to the removal or destruction of items located on the seabed, it is the position of the Government of the United States of America that the Seabed Treaty does not address removal or destruction of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction or related equipment found on the seabed.»

«In performance of the depositary duties of the Government of the United States of America under the Seabed Treaty, the text of the Mexican statement was transmitted to States signatory and acceding to the Treaty at Washington, under cover of circular note dated August 7, 1984. Similar circulation is being given to the present note.»

«Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.»

The views of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany with regard to the declaration by Mexico are contained in a note from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Washington to the Department of State, dated October 15, 1985, which reads as follows:

«The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany presents its compliments to the Government of the United States and, with reference to the declaration contained in the instrument of accession deposited by the Government of Mexico on 23 March 1984 to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, done at Washington, London and Moscow on 11 February 1971, has the honor to communicate the following:»

«In the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the aforementioned declaration relates above all to matters that are not dealt with in the Treaty to which it refers. The declaration is not acceptable to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to the extent that it lays claim to rights to which a coastal State is not entitled under general international law.»

The views of the Government of Australia with regard to the declaration by Mexico are contained in a note from the Australian Embassy in Washington to the Department of State, dated June 12, 1987, which reads as follows:

«The Australian Embassy presents its compliments to the United States Department of State and, with reference to the declaration contained in the instrument of accession deposited by the Government of Mexico on 23 March 1984 to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, done at Washington, London and Moscow on 11 February 1971, has the honour to communicate to it as a depositary of the Treaty the following:-»

«The Australian Government takes the view that the declaration made by Mexico is incompatible with international law to the extent that it lays claim to rights over the continental shelf which a coastal state is not entitled to exercise under the Treaty itself or under international law as reflected in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.»

«The Australian Embassy avails itself of this opportunity to express to the United States Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.»

Montenegro

Succession as of 03 June 2006

In a Note dated 12 December 2006, the Government of the Republic of Montenegro confirmed that this Agreement continues in force for the Republic of Montenegro with effect from 3 June, 2006.

Netherlands

In respect of the Kingdom in Europe, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

The Netherlands instrument of ratification of the Treaty states that the Treaty is approved for «le Royaume en Europe et les Antilles Néerlandaises ».

The Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington transmitted to the Department of State a diplomatic note, dated January 9, 1986, which reads as follows:

«Effective January 1, 1986 the island of Aruba — formerly part of the Netherlands Antilles — obtained internal autonomy as a country within the Kingdom of The Netherlands. Consequently the Kingdom of The Netherlands as of January 1, 1986 consists of three countries, to wit: the Netherlands proper, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.»

«Since the abovementioned event concerns only a change in internal constitutional relations within the Kingdom of The Netherlands, and as the Kingdom as such, under international law, will remain the subject with which treaties are concluded, the aforementioned change will have no consequences in international law with regard to treaties concluded by the Kingdom, the application of which (treaties) were extended to the Netherlands Antilles, including Aruba.»

«These treaties, thus, will remain applicable for Aruba in its new status as autonomous country within the Kingdom of The Netherlands effective January 1, 1986.»

«Consequently the [Treaty] to which the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a Party, and which [has] been extended to the Netherlands Antilles will as of January 1, 1986 apply to all three countries of the Kingdom of The Netherlands.»

«The Embassy would appreciate if the other Parties concerned would be notified of the above.»

«The Royal Netherlands Embassy avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of State the assurance of its highest consideration.»

The Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington transmitted to the Department of State a diplomatic note, dated October 6, 2010, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

«The Kingdom of the Netherlands currently consists of three parts: the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The Netherlands Antilles consists of the islands of Curaçao , Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.»

«With effect from 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles will cease to exist as a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. From that date onwards, the Kingdom will consist of four parts: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Curaçao and Sint Maarten will enjoy internal self-government within the Kingdom, as Aruba and, up to 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles do.»

«These changes constitute a modification of the internal constitutional relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands will accordingly remain the subject of international law with which agreements are concluded. The modification of the structure of the Kingdom will therefore not affect the validity of the international agreements ratified by the Kingdom for the Netherlands Antilles; these agreements will continue to apply to Curaçao and Sint Maarten.»

Romania

Objection:

Declaration of 1 June 1971:

«The Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the signing of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and the Subsoil thereof, signed in London on the 11th of February 1971 by the „Republic of Korea“ is an illegal act, as the authorities of South Korea cannot in any case act in the name of Korea.»

The instrument of ratification of the treaty by Romania was accompanied by a note from the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Romania in Washington to the Secretary of State, dated July 10, 1972, which reads as follows:

«Dear Mr. Secretary,»

«Presenting the Instrument of Ratification by the Socialist Republic of Romania of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, opened for signature in Washington, London and Moscow on February the 11th, 1971 by instruction of the Romanian Government, I have the honor to inform you of the following:»

«The Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers null and void the ratification — in Washington — by the so called Chiang-Kai-Shek authorities of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, opened for signature in Washington, London and Moscow on February the 11th, 1971, in so far as the only Government having the right to assume obligations on behalf of China and to represent her on international relations is the Government of the People's Republic of China.»

«I am kindly requesting you, Mr. Secretary, to forward to all parties concerned the above mentioned statements as official documents.»

«I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my highest consideration.»

Russian Federation

Objection:

Communication of 2 July, 1971 (translation):

Amongst the signatories in London of the above Treaty was the Representative of the South Korean regime. In connection with this, the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers it necessary to make clear that the Soviet Union does not recognise the signature to the Treaty of the South Korean authorities as having legal force, as these authorities have no right to speak in the name of Korea.

Communication of 10 May, 1976 (translation): The Federal Republic of Germany's statement on the extension to Berlin (West) of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, is not in accord with law. The said Treaty in its entire content directly affects matters of security and status and therefore is numbered among those international agreements and arrangements the force of which the FRG, as is clearly stated in the Quadripartite Agreement is not entitled to extend to Berlin (West).

The reservation in the FRG's statement to the effect that the Treaty «shall apply to Berlin (West), without affecting the rights and responsibilities of the Allied authorities and their competence in respect of disarmament and demilitarisation» is unfounded, since all provisions in the Treaty relate to matters of disarmament and demilitarisation and such application is simply impossible. This reservation is designed merely to veil the illegal character of the FRG statement which, obviously, can have no legal force. The said actions on the part of the FRG are nothing but a crude violation of the Quadripartite Agreement.

The Treaty was signed and ratified by the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. By a note dated January 13, 1992, the Russian Federation informed the United States Government that it «continues to perform the rights and fulfil the obligations following from the international agreements signed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.»

Serbia

As of 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became known as «Serbia and Montenegro». As of 3 June 2006, the Republic of Serbia became the continuation State of «Serbia and Montenegro»: in a Note dated 12 December 2006, the Government of the Republic of Montenegro confirmed that this Agreement continues in force for the Republic of Montenegro with effect from 3 June, 2006.

Formerly Yugoslavia, which signed the Treaty on 2 March 1971 and ratified it on 25 October 1973.

With declarations

«In view of the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, article 3, paragraph 1, should be interpreted to the effect that a state exercising the right under this article shall be obliged to notify in advance the coastal state, insofar as its observations are to be carried out within the stretch of the sea extending above the continental shelf of the said state».

Slovakia

Effective date of succession to the Treaty by the Slovak Republic is January 1, 1993; the former Czechoslovakia signed and ratified the Treaty on February 11, 1971 and January 11, 1972, respectively. On December 31, 1992, at midnight, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and was succeeded by two separate and independent states, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.

In a Note dated 17 May 1993, received on 17 May 1993 the Ministry Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic notified the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the following:

«In conformity with the valid principles of international law and the extent defined by it, the Slovak Republic as one of the successor States to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considef itself bound, as of 1st January 1993, i.e. the date of the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, by multilateral international treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party on that date, including reservations and declarations to their provisions made earlier by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.»

From among the treaties deposited with the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland this applies to the following:

Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, done at London, Moscow and Washington on 11 February 1971.»

Succession as of 01 January 1993

Slovenia

Date of receipt of notification of succession to the Treaty by Slovenia. The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed the Treaty on March 2, 1971 and deposited an instrument of ratification on October 25, 1973.

The Ambassador of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Washington addressed a note, dated February 25, 1974, to the Secretary of State, which reads as follows:

«The Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia presents his compliments to the Honorable the Secretary of State and with reference to the deposition of the instruments of ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and [in] the Subsoil Thereof by the Government of Yugoslavia of October 25, 1973, has the honor to transmit the following statement of the Government of Yugoslavia, accompanying the deposition:»

«In depositing this instrument of ratification, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia wishes to declare the following:»

«In [the] view of the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Article 3, Paragraph I, should be interpreted to the effect that a state exercising the right under this article shall be obliged to notify in advance the coastal state, in so far as its observations are to be carried out within the stretch of the sea extending above the continental shelf of the said state.»

«The above statement of the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was accepted by the Federal Assembly at the time of the ratification of the above Treaty. It would be greatly appreciated, if in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the above Treaty, this statement is forwarded to the Governments of the States signatory and acceding at Washington to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof.»

«The Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Honorable the Secretary of State the assurances of his highest consideration.»

The views of the Government of the United States of America with regard to the Yugoslav statement are contained in the Secretary of State's circular note, dated January 16, 1975, which reads as follows:

«The Secretary of State presents his compliments to Their Excellencies and Messieurs the Chiefs of Mission of the Governments of the States signatory and acceding at Washington to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, which was done at Washington, London, and Moscow on February 11, 1971, and has the honor to refer to his circular note of January 15, 1975, enclosing a copy of a note of the Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dated February 25, 1974, transmitting a statement of the Government of Yugoslavia with respect to its interpretation of Article III, paragraph 1, of the Treaty.»

«The Secretary of State would like to present the views of the United States concerning the note of the Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.»

«Insofar as the note is intended to be interpretative of the Convention, the United States cannot accept it as a valid interpretation. In addition, the United States does not consider that it can have any effect on the existing law of the sea.»

«Insofar as the note is intended to be a reservation to the Convention, the United States places on record its formal objection to it on the grounds that it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The United States also draws attention to the fact that the note was submitted too late to be legally effective as a reservation.»

«The Secretary of State would be grateful if each Chief of Mission would forward this information to his Government.»

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Notes:

Also in respect of the Associated States (Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent) and Territories under the territorial Sovereignty of the United Kingdom as well as the State of Brunei and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.

Ceased to apply to Hong Kong wef 1 July 1997. Applies to Hong Kong (SAR) wef 1 July 1997.

Declaration:

«The Government of the United Kingdom wish in this connexion to recall their view that if a regime is not recognised as the Government of a State, neither signature nor the deposit of any instrument by it, nor notification of any of those acts, will bring about the recognition of that regime by any other State.»

Objection:

Communication to the Yugoslav Ambassador dated 23 April 1975:

«The views of Her Majesty's Government on the statement made by the Yugoslav Government quoted in Your Excellency's Note are as follows: In so far as the Statement may be intended to take effect as an interpretive declaration, Her Majesty's Government regret that they are unable to accept it as a valid interpretation, or as having any effect on the Law of the Sea.»

In so far as it may be intended to take effect as a reservation, Her Majesty's Government must place on record their formal objection to the Statement on the grounds that it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Treaty. Her Majesty's Government would further draw attention to the fact that it was submitted out of time.»

In a Note to the Soviet Union dated 9 August 1976, Her Majesty's Government, following consultations with the Governments of France and the United States of America, stated the following on behalf of all three Governments:

In a communication to the Government of the USSR which is an integral part (Annex IV A) of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, the Three Powers confirmed that, provided matters of security and status are not affected and provided the extension is specified in each case, international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany may be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin in accordance with established procedures. For its part, the Government of the USSR, in a communication to the Governments of the Three Powers, which is similarly an integral part (Annex IVB) of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, affirmed that it would raise no objection to such extension.

The established procedures referred to above, which were endorsed in the Quadripartite Agreement, are designed, inter alia, to afford the authorities of the Three Powers the opportunity to ensure that the treaties concluded by the Federal Republic of Germany which are to be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin are extended in such a way that matters of security and status are not affected. When authorising the extension of the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof to the Western Sectors of Berlin, the authorities of the Three Powers, acting in the exercise of their supreme authority, took the necessary steps to ensure in accordance with the established procedures that this treaty was applied in the Western Sectors of Berlin subject to Allied rights and responsibilities in the field of disarmament and demilitarization. The application of the Treaty to the Western Sectors of Berlin can, therefore, in no way affect matters of security and status. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, for its part, in its declaration on Berlin, also stated that the rights and responsibilities of the Allies in the fields of disarmament and demilitarization were not affected. Consequently it is the opinion of the three Governments that the extension of this Treaty to the Western Sectors of Berlin is entirely consistent with the Quadripartite Agreement».

In a Note of 31 December 1976 to the Hungarian Government, Her Majesty's Government, following consultations with the Governments of France and the United States of America, stated the following on behalf of all three Governments:

«The Note from the Embassy of the Hungarian People's Republic refers to the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971. This Agreement was concluded in Berlin between the Governments of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. Governments not parties to the Quadripartite Agreement are not competent to make authoritative comment on its provisions.»

The position of the Governments of the United States, France and the United Kingdom concerning the extension of the Seabed Treaty to the Western Sectors of Berlin was set forth in the Note of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 9 August 1976. This position remains unchanged.»

With declaration

«Правительство Соединенного Королевства Великобритании и Северной Ирландии, рассмотрев вышеупомянутый Договор, настоящим подтверждает и ратифицирует также в отношении ассоциированных государств (Антигуа, Доминика, Гренада, Сент-Кристофер-Невис, Ангилья, Сент-Люсия, Сент-Винсент) и территорий, находящихся под территориальным суверенитетом Соединенного Королевства, а также государства Бруней и Британского протектората Соломоновы Острова и обязуется неукоснительно соблюдать и выполнять все содержащиеся в нем положения».

The instrument of ratification of the Treaty by the United Kingdom states that the Treaty is ratified «in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Associated States (Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent) and Territories under the territorial Sovereignty of the United Kingdom, as well as the State of Brunei and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate...»

The British Ambassador to Washington addressed a note, dated June 11, 1997, to the Secretary of State which reads as follows:

«Secretary of State»

«I am instructed by Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to refer to the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, done at London/Moscow/Washington on 11 February 197[1] (hereinafter referred to as the „Treaty“) which applies to Hong Kong at present.»

«I am also instructed to state that, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the Government of the United Kingdom will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom will continue to have international responsibility for Hong Kong until that date. Therefore, from that date the Government of the United Kingdom will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Treaty to Hong Kong.»

«I should be grateful if the contents of this Note could be placed formally on record and brought to the attention of the other Parties to the Treaty.»

«I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.»

United States of America

With declaration

«Поскольку правительство Соединенных Штатов Америки, в качестве одной из четырех держав с особой ответственностью за Германию в целом, не признает „Германскую Демократическую Республику“ как государство или как образование, обладающее национальным суверенитетом, оно не принимает сообщения о подписании ею Договора. Однако, имея в виду цели Договора, правительство Соединенных Штатов Америки отмечает, что режим Восточной Германии проявил свои намерения в отношении вопросов, содержащихся в Договоре».