Статус Конвенции по сохранению мигрирующих видов диких животных (Бонн, 23 июня 1979 года) [рус., англ.]

(последние изменения произошли 22 декабря 2021 года)

Вступление в силу: 01.11.1983

CONVENTION
ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY
SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS (CMS)
Bonn, 23 June 1979

Last update: 22 December 2021

<1> Argentina, on depositing its instrument of accession, entered the following reservation in accordance with Article XIV (2) of the Convention:

«La REPUBLICA ARGENTINA rechaza la inclusión de la vicuña (lama vicugna) en el Apéndice I de esta Convención , por considerar que esta especie no es migratoria.»

<2> Australia, on depositing its instrument of accession, made the following declaration:

«Australia has a federal constitutional system in which legislative, executive and judicial powers are shared or distributed between its central, State and Territory authorities.
»

The implementation of the Convention throughout Australia will be effected by the Federal, State and Territory Governments having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise.»

<3> Australia on 11 January 2015 notified that it makes a reservation to the inclusion to Appendix II of the Convention of the following species:

Alopias superciliosus (Bigeye thresher shark),

Alopias vulpinus (Common thresher shark),

Alopias pelagicus (Pelagic thresher shark),

Sphyrna lewini (Scalloped hammerhead shark),

Sphyrna mokarran (Great hammerhead shark).

<4> Australia on 4 May 2020 notified that it makes a reservation to the inclusion to Appendix II of the Convention of the following species:

Sphyrna zygaene (Smooth hammerhead shark),

Galeorhinus galeus (Tope shark).

<5> Bolivia, on depositing its instrument of accession on 16 December 2002, entered the following reservation:

«Reserva a la inclusión de la vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) de Bolivia en el Apéndice I de la Convención sobre la Conservación de las Especies Migratorias de Animales Silvestres, en razón a que su población se ha incrementado de 1097 ejemplares en 1965 a 56, 383 especimenes como resultado del censo practicado el año 2001. En consecuencia, esta especie debe continuar figurando solamente en el Apéndice II de la Convención (CMS).»

<6> China: The Convention applies to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with effect from 1 July 1997.

<7> Denmark declared on 5 August 1982 that the Convention for the time being does not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland.

<8> Denmark notified on 7 April 1989 that the Convention extends to the Faroe Islands with effect from the same date.

<9> Denmark on 20 December 2002 entered the following reservation:

«The Government of Denmark hereby gives notification in accordance with Article XI, Section 5, of the Convention that it makes a reservation to the effect that the changes to Appendix I and Appendix II of the Convention concerning the whale species mentioned above do not apply to the Faroe Islands and their surrounding waters. The changes will equally not apply to Greenland and its surrounding waters by virtue of the territorial reservation made at the time of the deposit by the Government of Denmark of its instrument of ratification of the Convention in 1982.»

<10> Denmark on 17 February 2006 entered a reservation with regard to the Convention:

«Referring to Article XI, 5 in the Convention, Denmark hereby makes a territorial reservation to the listing of Basking Sharks with regards to the Faroe Islands. The authorities of the Faroe Islands are of the view that matters regarding conservation and management of fishery resources, including sharks, fall under the domain of relevant regional fishery management organisations, as for instance the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). On the basis of regional fishery resources, these organisations decide on matters regarding conservation and management at the regional level. Following a proposal by Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland) NEAFC at its Annual Meeting in November 2005 made a recommendation, based upon available advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) prohibiting all directed fishing of Basking Shark in the NEAFC Convention Area in 2006 and asking Contracting Parties to furnish ICES with data, including fisheries data, which could enable ICES to further evaluate the state of the stock.»

<11> The European Economic Community on 12 July 1983 declared that its accession to the Convention does not apply to Greenland.

<12> According to Article 1 (3) of the Treaty on the European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009 the European Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.

<13> France on depositing its instrument of approval, entered the following reservation in accordance with Article XIV (2) of the Convention:

«En déposant son instrument d'Approbation de cette Convention, le Gouvernement de la République française émet une réserve concernant l'annexe I Interprétation et relative \text{а} l'espèce „Chelonia mydas“ ou „tortue verte“.»

<14> Mauritius notified the following communication on 10 January 2020:

«Note Verbale No: 04/2020 (MU/BN/10/14)
»

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius presents its compliments to the German Federal Foreign Office and has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called «British Indian Ocean Territory», of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, 23 June 1979 in respect of which the Government of Germany is the depositary. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending the Convention to the so-called «British Indian Ocean Territory» on 23 July 1985, the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago — a claim which is untenable under international law.

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

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

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

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

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

The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to the so-called «British Indian Ocean Territory» and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

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

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

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the German Federal Foreign Office the assurances of its highest consideration.»

<15> Mauritius notified the following communication on 6 March 2020:

«Note No: 02/2020 (1197/28)
»

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius presents its compliments to the German Federal Foreign Office and has the honour to refer to Note Verbale No. OTD/004/2020 dated 11 February 2020 which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has addressed to the latter with regard to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, 23 June 1979.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius maintains its strong objection to the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to the so-called «British Indian Ocean Territory». The United Kingdom's response has no legal basis inasmuch as the Chagos Archipelago is and has always formed an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, as authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to recall that the ICJ also concluded that the Chagos Archipelago was illegally excised by the United Kingdom from the territory of Mauritius prior to its accession to independence and that the continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago by the United Kingdom constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character. The Court accordingly ruled that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archiplelago as rapidly as possible.

It follows that under international law, the Republic of Mauritius is the sole State lawfully entitled to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. As such, the United Kingdom, which is an illegal colonial occupier, does not and cannot have sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.

In Resolution 73/295 of 22 May 2019, the UN General Assembly demanded that the United Kingdom withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos Archipelago unconditionally by 22 November 2019, thereby enabling the Republic of Mauritius to complete the decolonization of its territory as rapidly as possible. The United Kingdom has failed to meet this deadline.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore rejects the United Kingdom's response and reiterates its protest against the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to the so-called «British Indian Ocean Territory» and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom and any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius also renews its call upon all Contracting Parties to the Convention to reject the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention to the so-called «British Indian Ocean Territory».

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius would appreciate if the contents of this Note Verbale could be duly recorded and circulated.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the German Federal Foreign Office the assurances of its highest consideration.

<16> the Netherlands: The Convention has been declared effective with respect to the Caribbean Part of the Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint Eustatius), Curaçao , and Sint Maarten as of 10 October 2010.

<17> Norway entered a reservation in accordance with Article XI (6) of the Convention to the adoption of the white-beaked dolphin and of the Atlantic white-sided dolphin to Annex II of the Convention by the Second COP held from 10 to 14 October 1988 in Geneva.

<18> Norway entered a reservation in accordance with Article XI (6) of the Convention to the adoption of the orca and of the narwhale to Annex II of the Convention by the Third COP held from 9 to 13 September 1991 in Geneva.

<19> Norway entered the following reservation on 11 December 2002:

«...the Government of Norway hereby lodges a formal reservation, in accordance with Article XI 6 of the Convention, against the amendments adopted at the seventh Conference of the Parties (COP7), held in Bonn, Germany, on 18 — 24 September 2002, regarding the inclusion of the following species in Appendices I and II of the Convention:
»

1. Balaenoptera bonaerensis — Antarctic Minke Whale

(in Appendix II)

2. Balaenoptera edeni — Bryde's Whale

(in Appendix II)

3. Balaenoptera physalus — Fin Whale

(in Appendices I and II)

4. Balaenoptera borealis — Sei Whale

(in Appendices I and II)

5. Capera marginata — Pygmy Right Whale

(in Appendix II)

6. Physeter macrocephalus (syn. catodon) — Sperm Whale

(in Appendices I and II)

7. Orcinus orca — Killer Whale

(in Appendix II)

8. Carcharodon carcharias — Great White Shark

(in Appendices I and II).»

<20> Norway entered the following reservation on 24 February 2006:

«The Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS) at its 8th meeting in Nairobi, Kenya 21 — 25 November, accepted the inclusion in Appendix I (Article III: Endangered migratory species) and II (Article IV: Migratory species to be the Subject of Agreements) of the following species:
»

Cetorhinus maximus (Basking shark)

In accordance with Article X, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the Government of Norway hereby notifies the Government of Germany, Depositary Government of the Convention that it has decided to make a reservation to the inclusions mentioned above. With the respect to the inclusion in Appendix I and Appendix II of the above mentioned species, the Norwegian Government considers that the listing of this species does not comply with the criteria for species to be included in Appendix I and Appendix II of the Convention. Also, the Basking shark is within the purview of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which at its 24th Annual Meeting recommended that no fishery should be undertaken in the Convention Area in 2006. The Commission also called for compilation of data to better assess stock status. The Norwegian Government will closely follow the work carried out in the NEAFC and FAO on this species. Based on the development of the on-going initiatives Norway may review its reservation of Basking shark in Appendix II of the CMS at a later stage.»

<21> The Syrian Arabic Republic on depositing its instrument of ratification, notified the following:

(Translation)

«Under no circumstances shall the accession of the Syrian Arab republic to this Convention, as amended, imply recognition of Israel or occasion its entry with the latter into any of the transactions regulated by the provisions of the same, as amended.»

<22> The United Kingdom entered the following declaration on depositing its instrument of ratification:

«[...] NOW THEREFORE the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, having considered the Convention aforesaid, hereby confirm and ratify the same on behalf of:
»

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Bailiwick of Jersey

The Bailiwick of Guernsey

Bermuda

British Indian Ocean Territory

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Falkland Islands

Falkland Islands Dependencies

Gibraltar

Hong Kong

Montserrat

Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands

Saint Helena

Saint Helena Dependencies

Turks and Caicos Islands

United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in the island of Cyprus

and undertake faithfully to perform and carry out all the stipulates therein contained. [...]»

The United Kingdom on 20 August 1992 notified the extension of the Convention to the Isle of Man with effect from 1 November 1992 in accordance with Article XVIII (2) of the Convention.

<23> The United Kingdom entered with note dated 11 February 2020 and received on 14 February 2020 the following communication:

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland presents its compliments to the Federal Foreign Office and has the honour to refer to a Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius dated 10 January 2020 (1197/28). This concerns the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's extension of the 1979 Convention for Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects the claims contained in the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the territory of BIOT, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the islands that now form BIOT and the United Kingdom does not recognise its claim.

<24> The United Kingdom entered with note received on 22 May 2020 the following reservation: The United Kingdom hereby makes a reservation to the effect that Oceanic White-tip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) shall not be included in Appendix I to the Convention with respect to the territories of Bermuda, Montserrat and Turks and Caicos Islands. The United Kingdom confirms that the intention is to implement the full species listings adopted at COP13 in the above-listed territories as soon as practicable and that these reservations will be withdrawn when implementing legislation is in place.