Статус Конвенции об оценке воздействия на окружающую среду в трансграничном контексте (Эспо, 25 февраля 1991 года) [рус., англ.]

[неофициальный перевод]

СТАТУС КОНВЕНЦИИ
ОБ ОЦЕНКЕ ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ НА ОКРУЖАЮЩУЮ СРЕДУ
В ТРАНСГРАНИЧНОМ КОНТЕКСТЕ
(ЭСПО, 25 ФЕВРАЛЯ 1991 ГОДА)

End Note

1. For the purpose of entry into force of the [Convention/Protocol], any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of that Organization.

2. Czechoslovakia had signed the Convention on 30 August 1991 (See, C.N.188.1991.TREATIES-5 (Depositary Notification). See also note 1 under «Czech Republic» and note 1 under «Slovakia» in the «Historical Information» section in the front matter of this volume.

3. Upon signature, the Government of Denmark made the following declaration (which was not confirmed upon approval):

Decision reserved as concerns the application of the Convention to the Faeroe Islands and Greenland.

On 12 December 2001, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Denmark a communication declaring that the Convention shall apply to the Faeroe Islands and Greenland as from 14 March 1997.»

4. Upon depositing its instrument of approval, the Government of France declared the following:

The Government of the French Republic declares that the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, signed at Espoo on 25 February 1991, does not apply to the territory of French Polynesia.

Subsequently, on 16 January 2024, the Government of the French Republic notified the Secretary-General of its withdrawal of the territorial exclusion in respect of French Polynesia (see depositary notification C.N.45.2024.TREATIES-XXVII.4 of 22 January 2024).

5. For the Kingdom in Europe.

6. On behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar.

7. In this regard, the Secretary-General received from the following States, communications on the dates indicated:

Finland (28 May 1999):

In the view of the Government of Finland the general reservation made by the Government of Canada does not adequately clarify to which extent Canada considers itself bound by the Convention. It is of fundamental importance that States are prepared to undertake legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under their treaties.

Furthermore, according to article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 as well as customary international law a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

Accordingly, Finland objects to the general reservation of Canada as not compatible with the object and purpose of the [Convention].

Italy (1 June 1999):

The Italian Government notes that the reservation made by the Government of Canada in ratifying the Espoo Convention is of a general nature, since it subordinates the application of the said Convention to certain provisions of Canada's domestic law.

The Italian Government is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts regarding Canada's commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention, and wishes to recall that under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State may not formulate a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty to which it refers.

It is in the common interest of States to ensure that the treaties to which they are parties are respected in their entirety by all the Contracting Parties, and that the latter are willing to undertake the legislative changes needed to comply with the obligations arising under such treaties.

Reservations of a general nature like the one made by the Government of Canada, which do not clearly specify the scope of the derogations resulting therefrom, undermine the foundations of international treaty law.

Consequently, the Italian Government opposes the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Canada to the [Convention].

France (communicated on 8 June 1999 and confirmed on 15 June 2001)

The Government of the French Republic has considered the reservation made by the Government of Canada with respect to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.

This reservation, which stresses that legislative jurisdiction with respect to environmental impact assessment is divided between the provinces and the federal government, limits the responsibilities assigned by the Convention to a federal State. However, it is a principle of international law that a State may not invoke its domestic law to justify its failure to fulfil its obligations under a treaty. Moreover, since the reservation is worded in a very general fashion, the Government of the French Republic has been unable to establish to which provisions of the Convention the reservation applies or could apply, or in what way; it believes that application of the reservation could render the provisions of the Convention null and void. It therefore objects to the reservation.

France would be in a position to consider the reservation made by Canada admissible in the light of articles 19 and 21 of the Vienna Convention only if Canada demonstrates, by means of additional statements or through its future practice, that its reservation is in keeping with provisions that are essential for achieving the object and purpose of the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and France.

Norway (28 July 1999):

«It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore, according to well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted. Norway holds the opinion that according to customary international law, reservations of a general character, taken because of division of jurisdictional competence in the national constitution, normally are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention in question. Such a reservation does not sufficiently clarify to which extent the reserving State Party is bound by the provisions of the Convention.
»

Norway does not consider the reservation made by the Government of Canada as admissible unless the Government of Canada, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservation is compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Norway, therefore, pending clarification of the exact extent of the reservation, objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Canada.»

Luxembourg (20 August 1999):

The Government of Luxembourg notes that this reservation is of a general nature and makes compliance with the Convention subject to certain provisions of Canada's domestic laws.

This reservation casts doubt on Canada's commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention. Luxembourg wishes to recall that, under the provisions of article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not authorized.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they decide to accede be fully complied with by all parties and that States be prepared to adapt their national legislation to their obligations under such treaties. A general reservation such as the one made by the Government of Canada, which specifies neither the provisions of the Convention to which it applies nor its scope, undermes the basis of the international law of treaties.

The Government of Luxembourg therefore objects to this general reservation made by the Government of Canada with respect to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Canada.

On 21 January 2000, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Canada, the following communication:

«The Government of Canada notes that some States have formulated objections to the reservation of the Government of Canada to the Espoo Convention. The Government of Canada wishes to reaffirm its view that a reservation in respect of proposed activities (as defined in the Convention) that fall outside federal legislative jurisdiction exercised in respect of environmental assessment is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is thus admissible. In reaffirming its position on this matter, the Government of Canada refers to the negotiating history of the Convention and specifically to the sixth and final meeting of the Working Group to elaborate a draft Convention. At that meeting, the states present agreed to delete a draft article that would have prohibited all reservations to the Convention. It was and remains Canada's understanding that the agreement to delete the prohibition on reservations was linked directly with a further decision not to include a „federal clause“ within the Convention.
»

Canada further wishes to state that Canada's reservation to the Espoo Convention is an integral part of Canada's ratification of the Convention and is not severable therefrom. Canada can only accept treaty relations with other states on the basis of the reservation as formulated and in conformity with Article 21 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.»

Ireland (25 July 2002):

«The Government of Ireland has noted the reservation made by the Government of Canada when ratifying the Convention. The reservation appears to limit the application of the Convention in respect of Canada, to the proposed activities (as defined by the Convention) only insofar as they fall within the federal legislative jurisdiction exercised by Canada in respect of environmental assessment and therefore to have the effect of excluding the Convention's application to Canada insofar as the proposed activities fall within the jurisdiction of the Canadian provinces.
»

The reservation is of such a general nature that the Government of Ireland is unable to establish the extent to which Canada considers itself bound by the Convention.

Furthermore, it is a principle of international law that a State may not invoke its domestic law to justify its failure to fulfil its obligations under a treaty. It is, therefore, the view of the Government of Ireland that, without further clarification, it is not possible to determine whether or not the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention in question.

Pending further clarification from Canada ensuring that the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, the Government of Ireland objects to the reservation made by Canada.»