Статус Международной конвенции о гражданской ответственности за ущерб от загрязнения нефтью (КГО/CLC) (Брюссель, 29 ноября 1969 года) [рус., англ.]

The depositary received a communication dated 16 August 1976 from the Embassy of the Argentine Republic in London. The communication, the full text of which was circulated by the depositary, includes the following:

«The extension of the convention to the Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur notified by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General, on 1 April 1976... under the erroneous denomination of „Falkland Islands and Dependencies“ — [does] not in any way affect the rights of the Argentine Republic over those islands which are part of its territory and come under the administrative jurisdiction of the Territorio Nacional de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur.»

«The aforementioned islands were occupied by force by a foreign power. The situation has been considered by the United Nations Assembly which adopted resolutions 2065(XX) and 3160(XXVIII). In both resolutions the existence of a dispute regarding the sovereignty over the archipelago was confirmed and the Argentine Republic and the occupying power were urged to negotiate with a view to finding a definitive solution to the dispute.»

The depositary received the following communication dated 20 September 1976 from the Government of the United Kingdom.

«...With reference to the statement of the Embassy of the Argentine Republic... Her Majesty's Government is bound to state that they have no doubt as to United Kingdom sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islands dependencies.»

Has since become the independent State of Kiribati to which the Convention applies provisionally.

Ceased to apply to Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997.

The depositary received a communication, dated 2 March 2010, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, informing that the name of the British overseas territory formerly called «St. Helena and Dependencies» has been changed to «St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha». The status of the territory as a British overseas territory remains unchanged.

Has since become the independent State of Seychelles.

Has since become an independent State to which the Convention applies provisionally.

III. States which have denounced the Convention

<1> Also applicable to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

<2> The United Kingdom declared denunciation to be effective also in respect of:

<*> The depositary received a communication, dated 2 March 2010, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, informing that the name of the British overseas territory formerly called «St. Helena and Dependencies» has been changed to «St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha». The status of the territory as a British overseas territory remains unchanged.

<**> A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

IV. Declarations, Reservations and Statements

Australia

The instrument of ratification of the Commonwealth of Australia was accompanied by the following declarations:

«Australia has taken note of the reservation made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on its accession on 24 June 1975 to the Convention, concerning article XI(2) of the Convention. Australia wished to advise that it is unable to accept the reservation. Australia considers that international law does not grant a State the right to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State in proceedings concerning civil liability in respect of a State-owned ship used for commercial purposes. It is also Australia's understanding that the above-mentioned reservation is not intended to have the effect that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may claim judicial immunity of a foreign State with respect to ships owned by it, used for commercial purposes and operated by a company which in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is registered as the ship's operator, when actions for compensation are brought against the company in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Australia also declares that, while being unable to accept the Soviet reservation, it does not regard that fact as precluding the entry into force of the Convention as between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Australia.»

«Australia has taken note of the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic on its accession on 13 March 1978 to the Convention, concerning article XI(2) of the Convention. Australia wished to declare that it cannot accept the German Democratic Republic's position on sovereign immunity. Australia considers that international law does not grant a State the right to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State in proceedings concerning civil liability in respect of a State-owned ship used for commercial purposes. Australia also declares that, while being unable to accept the declaration by the German Democratic Republic, it does not regard that fact as precluding the entry into force of the Convention as between the German Democratic Republic and Australia.»

Belgium

The instrument of ratification of the Kingdom of Belgium was accompanied by a Note Verbale (in the French language) the text of which reads as follows:

[Translation]

«...The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium regrets that it is unable to accept the reservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dated 24 June 1975, in respect of article XI, paragraph 2 of the Convention.»

«The Belgian Government considers that international law does not authorize States to claim judicial immunity in respect of vessels belonging to them and used by them for commercial purposes.»

«Belgian legislation concerning the immunity of State-owned vessels is in concordance with the provisions of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules concerning the Immunity of State-owned Ships, done at Brussels on 10 April 1926, to which Belgium is a Party.»

«The Belgian Government assumes that the reservation of the USSR does not in any way affect the provisions of article 16 of the Maritime Agreement between the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of the Protocol and the Exchange of Letters, signed at Brussels on 17 November 1972.»

«The Belgian Government also assumes that this reservation in no way affects the competence of a Belgian court which, in accordance with article IX of the aforementioned International Convention, is seized of an action for compensation for damage brought against a company registered in the USSR in its capacity of operator of a vessel owned by that State, because the said company, by virtue of article I, paragraph 3 of the same Convention, is considered to be the „owner of the ship“ in the terms of this Convention.»

«The Belgian Government considers, however, that the Soviet reservation does not impede the entry into force of the Convention as between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Kingdom of Belgium.»

China

At the time of depositing its instrument of accession the Representative of the People's Republic of China declared «that the signature to the Convention by Taiwan authorities is illegal and null and void».

German Democratic Republic

The instrument of accession of the German Democratic Republic was accompanied by the following statement and declarations (in the German language):

[Translation]

«In connexion with the declaration made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on 20 May 1975 concerning the application of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 29 November 1969 to Berlin (West), it is the understanding of the German Democratic Republic that the provisions of the Convention may be applied to Berlin (West) only inasmuch as this is consistent with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, under which Berlin (West) is no constituent part of the Federal Republic of Germany and must not be governed by it.»

«The Government of the German Democratic Republic considers that the provisions of article XI, paragraph 2, of the Convention are inconsistent with the principle of immunity of States.» <1>

«The Government of the German Democratic Republic considers that the provisions of article XIII, paragraph 2, of the Convention are inconsistent with the principle that all States pursuing their policies in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations shall have the right to become parties to conventions affecting the interests of all States.»

«The position of the Government of the German Democratic Republic on article XVII of the Convention, as far as the application of the Convention to colonial and other dependent territories is concerned, is governed by the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960) proclaiming the necessity of bringing a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.»

<1> The following Governments do not accept the reservation contained in the instrument of accession of the Government of the German Democratic Republic, and the texts of their Notes to this effect were circulated by the depositary: Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Federal Republic of Germany

The instrument of ratification of the Federal Republic of Germany was accompanied by a declaration (in the English language) that «with effect from the day on which the Convention enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germany it shall also apply to Berlin (West)».

Guatemala

The instrument of acceptance of the Republic of Guatemala contained the following declaration (in the Spanish language):

[Translation]

«It is declared that relations that may arise with Belize by virtue of this accession can in no sense be interpreted as recognition by the State of Guatemala of the independence and sovereignty unilaterally decreed by Belize.»

Italy

The instrument of ratification of the Italian Republic was accompanied by the following statement (in the Italian language):

[Translation]

«The Italian Government wished to state that it has taken note of the reservation put forward by the Government of the Soviet Union (on the occasion of the deposit of the instrument of accession on 24 June 1975) to article XI(2) of the International Convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, adopted in Brussels on 29 November 1969.»

«The Italian Government declares that it cannot accept the aforementioned reservation and, with regard to the matter, observes that, under international law, the States have no right to jurisdictional immunity in cases where vessels of theirs are utilized for commercial purposes.»

«The Italian Government therefore considers its juridical bodies competent — as foreseen by article IX and XI(2) of the Convention — in actions for the recovery of losses incurred in cases involving vessels belonging to States employing them for commercial purposes, as indeed in cases where, on the basis of article I(3), it is a company, running vessels on behalf of a State, that is considered the owner of the vessel.»

«The reservation and its non-acceptance by the Italian Government do not, however, preclude the coming into force of the Convention between the Soviet Union and Italy, and its full implementation, including that of article XI(2).»

Peru <1>

The instrument of accession of the Republic of Peru contained the following reservation (in the Spanish language):

[Translation]

«With respect to article II, because it considers that the said Convention will be understood as applicable to pollution damage caused in the sea area under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Peruvian State, up to the limit of 200 nautical miles, measured from the base lines of the Peruvian coast».

<1> The depositary received the following communication dated 14 July 1987 from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in London (in the English language):

«...the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has the honour to reiterate its well-known position as to the sea area up to the limit of 200 nautical miles, measured from the base lines of the Peruvian coast, claimed by Peru to be under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Peruvian State. In this respect the Federal Government points again to the fact that according to international law no coastal State can claim unrestricted sovereignty and jurisdiction beyond its territorial sea, and that the maximum breadth of the territorial sea according to international law is 12 nautical miles.»

The depositary received the following communication dated 4 November 1987 from the Permanent Mission of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the International Maritime Organization (in the Russian language):

[Translation]

«...the Soviet Side has the honour to confirm its position in accordance with which a coastal State has no right to claim an extension of its sovereignty to sea areas beyond the outer limit of its territorial waters the maximum breadth of which in accordance with international law cannot exceed 12 nautical miles.»

Saint Kitts and Nevis

The instrument of accession of Saint Kitts and Nevis contained the following declaration:

«The Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis considers that international law does not authorize States to claim judicial immunity in respect of vessels belonging to them and used by them for commercial purposes.»

Saudi Arabia

The instrument of accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contained the following reservation (in the Arabic language):

[Translation]

«However, this accession does not in any way mean or entail the recognition of Israel, and does not lead to entering into any dealings with Israel; which may be arranged by the above-mentioned Convention and the said Protocol.»

Syrian Arab Republic

The instrument of accession of the Syrian Arab Republic contains the following sentence (in the Arabic language):

[Translation]

«...this accession [to the Convention] in no way implies recognition of Israel and does not involve the establishment of any relations with Israel arising from the provisions of this Convention.»

USSR

The instrument of accession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics contains the following reservation (in the Russian language):

[Translation]

«The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article XI, paragraph 2 of the Convention, as they contradict the principle of the judicial immunity of a foreign State.» <1>

<1> The following Governments do not accept the reservation contained in the instrument of accession of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the texts of the their Notes to this effect were circulated by the depositary: Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the instrument of accession contains the following statement (in the Russian language):

[Translation]

«On its accession to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers it necessary to state that»

«(a) the provision of article XIII, paragraph 2 of the Convention which deny participation in the Convention to a number of States, are of a discriminatory nature and contradict the generally recognized principle of the sovereign equality of States, and»

«(b) the provision of article XVII of the Convention envisaging the possibility of its extension by the Contracting States to the territories for the international relations of which they are responsible are outdated and contradict the United Nations Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960).»

The depositary received on 17 July 1979 from the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in London a communication stating that:

«...the Soviet side confirms the reservation to paragraph 2 of article XI of the International Convention of 1969 on the Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at adhering to the Convention. This reservation reflects the unchanged and well-known position of the USSR regarding the impermissibility of submitting a state without its express consent to the courts jurisdiction of another state. This principle of the judicial immunity of a foreign state is consistently upheld by the USSR at concluding and applying multilateral international agreements on various matters, including those of merchant shipping and the Law of the sea.»

«In accordance with article III and other provisions of the 1969 Convention, the liability for the oil pollution damage, established by the Convention is attached to „the owner“ of the „ship“, which caused such damage, while paragraph 3 of article 1 of the Convention stipulates that „in the case of a ship owned by a state and operated by a company which in that state is registered as the ship's operator, „owner“ shall mean such company». Since in the USSR state ships used for commercial purposes are under the operational management of state organizations who have an independent liability on their obligations, it is only against these organizations and not against the Soviet state that actions for compensation of the oil pollution damage in accordance with the 1969 Convention could be brought. Thus the said reservation does not prevent the consideration in foreign courts in accordance with the jurisdiction established by the Convention, of such suits for the compensation of the damage by the merchant ships owned by the Soviet state.»