Convención internacional sobre la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación racial, 1966
|
Entrada en vigor: 4 de enero de 1969 |
Firmado por 88 países, ratificado por 181 países
Países |
Fecha de firma | Fecha de ratificación * | Reserva / Declaración | Comentarios |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Afganistán |
- |
6 de julio de 1983 |
Reserva
Reservation:
While acceding to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention since according to this article, in the event of disagreement between two or several States Parties to the Convention on the interpretation and implementation of provisions of the Convention, the matters could be referred to the International Court of Justice upon the request of only one side. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, therefore, states that should any disagreement emerge on the interpretation and implementation of the Convention, the matter will be referred to the International Court of Justice only if all concerned parties agree with that procedure. Declaration: Furthermore, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan states that the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have a discriminatory nature against some states and therefore are not in conformity with the principle of universality of international treaties. |
- |
 Albania |
- |
11 de mayo de 1994 |
- | - |
 Alemania |
10 de febrero de 1967 |
16 de mayo de 1969 |
Reserva
Objections
8 August 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "These reservations relate to the basic obligations of States Parties to the Convention to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law and include the enjoyment of such fundamental political and civil rights as the right to take part in the conduct of public life, the right to marriage and choice of spouse, the right to inherit and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. As a result, the reservations made by Yemen are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention within the meaning of article 20, paragraph 2 thereof." 3 February 1998 With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that this reservation may raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 20 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation. The objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and the Federal Republic of Germany. 29 April 2003 With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession: "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the General Interpretative Declaration to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the Federal Repblic of Germany considers that the General Interpretative Declaration made by Thailand is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on an unilateral basis. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that a reservation to all provisions of a Convention which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other State Parties to the Convention the extend to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations out of the provisions of the Convention. The reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand in respect to the applications of the provisions of the Convention therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of Thailand to fulfill its obligations out of all provisions of the Convention. Hence the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers this reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to the General Interpretative Declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Thailand." |
- |
 Andorra |
5 August 2002 |
22 de septiembre de 2006 |
Reserva
|
- |
 Angola |
24 de septiembre de 2013 |
2 de octubre de 2019 |
- | - |
 Antigua y Barbuda |
- |
25 de octubre de 1988 |
Reserva
Declaration:
"The Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda entrenches and guarantees to every person in Antigua and Barbuda the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event of the violation of any of these rights, whether by the state or by a private individual. Acceptance of the Convention by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in the Constitution. The Government of Antigua and Barbuda interprets article 4 of the Convention as requiring a Party to enact measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered that the need arises to enact such legislation." |
- |
 Arabia Saudita |
- |
23 de septiembre de 1997 |
Reserva
Reservations:
[The Government of Saudi Arabia declares that it will] implement the provisions [of the above Convention], providing these do not conflict with the precepts of the Islamic Shariah . The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by the provisions of article (22) of this Convention, since it considers that any dispute should be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the approval of the States Parties to the dispute. |
- |
 Argelia |
9 de diciembre de 1966 |
14 de febrero de 1972 |
- | - |
 Argentina |
13 de julio de 1967 |
2 de octubre de 1968 |
- | - |
 Armenia |
- |
23 de junio de 1993 |
- | - |
 Australia |
13 de octubre de 1966 |
30 de septiembre de 1975 |
Reserva
"The Government of Australia ... declares that Australia is not at present in a position specifically to treat as offences all the matters covered by article 4 (a) of the Convention. Acts of the kind there mentioned are punishable only to the extent provided by the existing criminal law dealing with such matters as the maintenance of public order, public mischief, assault, riot, criminal libel, conspiracy and attempts. It is the intention of the Australian Government, at the first suitable moment, to seek from Parliament legislation specifically implementing the terms of article 4 (a)."
Objections: 8 August 1989 "In accordance with article 20 (2), Australia objects to [the reservations made by Yemen] which it considers impermissible as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention." |
- |
 Austria |
22 de julio de 1969 |
9 de mayo de 1972 |
Reserva
"Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination provides that the measures specifically described in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be undertaken with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention. The Republic of Austria therefore considers that through such measures the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association may not be jeopardized. These rights are laid down in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; they were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are referred to in article 5 (d) (viii) and (ix) of the present Convention."
Objections: 19 February 1998 With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "Austria is of the view that a reservation by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a general and unspecified manner creates doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its obligations under the Convention, essential for the fulfilment of its objection and purpose. According to paragraph 2 of article 20 a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Austria is further of the view that a general reservation of the kind made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. According to international law a reservation is inadmissible to the extent as its application negatively affects the compliance by a State with its obligations under the Convention essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose. Therefore, Austria cannot consider the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as admissible unless the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 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. This view by Austria would not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Austria.” |
- |
 Azerbaiyán |
- |
16 August 1996 |
- | - |
 Bahamas |
- |
5 August 1975 |
Reserva
"Firstly the Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas wishes to state its understanding of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration set out in article 5 of the Convention (in particular to freedom of opinion and expression and the right of freedom of peaceful assembly and association) that some legislative addition to, or variation of existing law and practice in these fields is necessary for the attainment of the ends specified in article 4. Lastly, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas entrenches and guarantees to every person in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes judicial process to be observed in the event of the violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by a private individual. Acceptance of this Convention by the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce judicial process beyond these prescribed under the Constitution."
|
- |
 Bahrein |
- |
27 de marzo de 1990 |
Reserva
Reservations:
"With reference to article 22 of the Convention, the Government of the State of Bahrain declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the express consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case." "Moreover, the accession by the State of Bahrain to the said Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind therewith." |
- |
 Bangladesh |
- |
11 de junio de 1979 |
- | - |
 Barbados |
- |
8 de noviembre de 1972 |
Reserva
Reservations:
"The Constitution of Barbados entrenches and guarantees to every person in Barbados the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event of the violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by a private individual. Accession to the Convention does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in the Constitution. The Government of Barbados interprets article 4 of the said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to enact measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered that the need arises to enact such legislation." |
- |
 Belarús |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
8 de abril de 1969 |
Reserva
Reservations:
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic states that the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination whereby a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be open to participation by all interested States without discrimination or restriction of any kind. Objections: 29 December 1983 The ratification of the above-mentioned International Convention by the so-called "Government of Democratic Kampuchea"-the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique of hangmen overthrown by the Kampuchean people - is completely unlawful and has no legal force. There is only one State of Kampuchea in the world-The People's Republic of Kampuchea, recognized by a large number of countries. All power in this State is entirely in the hands of its only lawful Government, the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which has the exclusive right to act in the name of Kampuchea in the international arena, including the right to ratify international agreements prepared within the United Nations. The farce involving the ratification of the above-mentioned International Convention by a clique representing no one mocks the norms of law and morality and blasphemes the memory of millions of Kampuchean victims of the genocide committed by the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary régime. |
- |
 Bélgica |
17 August 1967 |
7 August 1975 |
Reserva
Reservations:
In order to meet the requirements of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Kingdom of Belgium will take care to adapt its legislation to the obligations it has assumed in becoming a party to the said Convention. The Kingdom of Belgium nevertheless wishes to emphasize the importance which it attaches to the fact that article 4 of the Convention provides that the measures laid down in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) should be adopted with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention. The Kingdom of Belgium therefore considers that the obligations imposed by article 4 must be reconciled with the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Those rights are proclaimed in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have been reaffirmed in articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They have also been stated in article 5, subparagraph (d) (viii) and (ix) of the said Convention. The Kingdom of Belgium also wishes to emphasize the importance which it attaches to respect for the rights set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, especially in articles 10 and 11 dealing respectively with freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Objections: 8 August l989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): These reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and consequently are not permitted pursuant to article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention. |
- |
 Belice |
6 de septiembre de 2000 |
14 de noviembre de 2001 |
- | - |
 Benin |
2 de febrero de 1967 |
30 de noviembre de 2001 |
- | - |
 Bhután |
26 de marzo de 1973 |
- |
- | - |
 Bolivia |
7 de junio de 1966 |
22 de septiembre de 1970 |
- | - |
 Bosnia y Herzegovina |
- |
16 de julio de 1993 |
- | - |
 Botswana |
- |
20 de febrero de 1974 |
- | - |
 Brasil |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
27 de marzo de 1968 |
Reserva
|
- |
 Bulgaria |
1 de junio de 1966 |
8 August 1966 |
Reserva
The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that the provisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and article 18, paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the effect of which is to prevent sovereign States from becoming Parties to the Convention, are of a discriminatory nature. The Convention, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, should be open for accession by all States without any discrimination whatsoever.
|
- |
 Burkina Faso |
- |
18 de julio de 1974 |
- | - |
 Burundi |
1 de febrero de 1967 |
27 de octubre de 1977 |
- | - |
 Cabo Verde |
- |
3 de octubre de 1979 |
- | - |
 Camboya |
12 de abril de 1966 |
28 de noviembre de 1983 |
- | - |
 Camerún |
12 de diciembre de 1966 |
24 de junio de 1971 |
- | - |
 Canadá |
24 August 1966 |
14 de octubre de 1970 |
Reserva
Objections:
10 August 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The effect of these reservations would be to allow racial discrimination in respect of certain of the rights enumerated in Article 5. Since the objective of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as stated in its Preamble, is to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, the Government of Canada believes that the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic are incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Convention. Moreover, the Government of Canada believes that the principle of non-discrimination is generally accepted and recognized in international law and therefore is binding on all states." |
- |
 Chad |
- |
17 August 1977 |
- | - |
 Chile |
3 de octubre de 1966 |
20 de octubre de 1971 |
- | - |
 China |
- |
29 de diciembre de 1981 |
Reserva
Reservation:
The People's Republic of China has reservations on the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and will not be bound by it. (The reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on 13 January 1982.) Declaration: The signing and ratification of the said Convention by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are illegal and null and void. |
- |
 Chipre |
12 de diciembre de 1966 |
21 de abril de 1967 |
Reserva
Objections:
5 August 2003 With regard to the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: ".....the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966) on 16 September 2002 in respect of the implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey. This reservation or the objection to it shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey." |
- |
 Colombia |
23 de marzo de 1967 |
2 de septiembre de 1981 |
- | - |
 Comoras |
22 de septiembre de 2000 |
27 de septiembre de 2004 |
- | - |
 Congo |
- |
11 de julio de 1988 |
- | - |
 Costa de Marfil |
- |
4 de enero de 1973 |
- | - |
 Costa Rica |
14 de marzo de 1966 |
16 de enero de 1967 |
- | - |
 Croacia |
- |
12 de octubre de 1992 |
- | - |
 Cuba |
7 de junio de 1966 |
15 de febrero de 1972 |
Reserva
Upon signature:
The Government of the Republic of Cuba will make such reservations as it may deem appropriate if and when the Convention is ratified. Upon ratification: Reservation: The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba does not accept the provision in article 22 of the Convention to the effect that disputes between two or more States Parties shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, since it considers that such disputes should be settled exclusively by the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention or by negotiation through the diplomatic channel between the disputants. Statement: This Convention, intended to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, should not, as it expressly does in articles 17 and 18, exclude States not Members of the United Nations, members of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice from making an effective contribution under the Convention, since these articles constitute in themselves a form of discrimination that is at variance with the principles set out in the Convention; the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba accordingly ratifies the Convention, but with the qualification just indicated. |
- |
 Dinamarca |
21 de junio de 1966 |
9 de diciembre de 1971 |
Reserva
Objections:
10 July 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the Convention, to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the rights enumerated in the article. The reservations made by the Government of Yemen are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and the reservations are consequently impermissible according to article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention. In accordance with article 20, paragraph 1 of the Convention the Government of Denmark therefore formally objects to these reservations. This objection does not have the effect of preventing the Convention from entering into force between Denmark and Yemen, and the reservations cannot alter or modify in any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention." |
- |
 Djibouti |
14 de junio de 2006 |
30 de septiembre de 2011 |
- | - |
 Dominica |
- |
13 de mayo de 2019 |
- | - |
 Ecuador |
- |
22 de septiembre de 1966 |
- | - |
 Egipto |
28 de septiembre de 1966 |
1 de mayo de 1967 |
Reserva
"The United Arab Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, and it states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice."
|
- |
 El Salvador |
- |
30 de noviembre de 1979 |
- | - |
 Emiratos Árabes Unidos |
- |
20 de junio de 1974 |
Reserva
"The accession of the United Arab Emirates to this Convention shall in no way amount to recognition of nor the establishment of any treaty relations with Israel."
|
- |
 Eritrea |
- |
31 de julio de 2001 |
- | - |
 es República Yugoslava de Macedonia |
- |
18 de enero de 1994 |
- | - |
 Eslovaquia |
- |
28 de mayo de 1993 |
- | - |
 Eslovenia |
- |
6 de julio de 1992 |
- | - |
 España |
- |
13 de septiembre de 1968 |
Reserva
Objections:
18 September 1998 With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: The Government of Spain considers that, given its unlimited scope and undefined nature, the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Under the generally accepted law of treaties, a State party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as a justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. The Government of Spain therefore formulates an objection to the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia. The Government of Spain does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. |
- |
 Estados Unidos de América |
28 de septiembre de 1966 |
21 de octubre de 1994 |
Reserva
Upon signature:
"The Constitution of the United States contains provisions for the protection of individual rights, such as the right of free speech, and nothing in the Convention shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by the United States of America incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America." Upon ratification: "I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations: (1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States contain extensive protections of individual freedom of speech, expression and association. Accordingly, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention, in particular under articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (2) That the Constitution and laws of the United States establish extensive protections against discrimination, reaching significant areas of non-governmental activity. Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in private conduct, however, are also recognized as among the fundamental values which shape our free and democratic society. The United States understands that the identification of the rights protected under the Convention by reference in article 1 to fields of `public life' reflects a similar distinction between spheres of public conduct that are customarily the subject of governmental regulation, and spheres of private conduct that are not. To the extent, however, that the Convention calls for a broader regulation of private conduct, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article 3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (3) That with reference to article 22 of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case. II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understanding, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention: That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments. To the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall, as necessary, take appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of this Convention. III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declaration: That the United States declares that the provisions of the Convention are not self-executing." |
- |
 Estonia |
- |
21 de octubre de 1991 |
- | - |
 Etiopía |
- |
23 de junio de 1976 |
Reserva
Objections:
25 January 1984 "The Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia should like to reiterate that the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea is the sole legitimate representative of the People of Kampuchea and as such it alone has the authority to act on behalf of Kampuchea. The Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia, therefore, considers the ratification of the so-called `Government of Democratic Kampuchea' to be null and void." |
- |
 Federación de Rusia |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
4 de febrero de 1969 |
Reserva
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics states that the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination whereby a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be open to participation by all interested States without discrimination or restriction of any kind.
Objections: 28 December 1983 The ratification of the above-mentioned International Convention by the so-called "Government of Democratic Kampuchea"-the Pol Pot clique of hangmen overthrown by the Kampuchean people-is completely unlawful and has no legal force. Only the representatives authorized by the State Council of the People's Republic of Kampuchea can act in the name of Kampuchea. There is only one State of Kampuchea in the world -the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which has been recognized by a large number of countries. All power in this State is entirely in the hands of its only lawful Government, the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which has the exclusive right to act in the name of Kampuchea in the international arena, including the right to ratify international agreements prepared within the United Nations. Nor should one fail to observe that the farce involving the ratification of the above-mentioned International Convention by a clique representing no one mocks the norms of law and morality and is a direct insult to the memory of millions of Kampuchean victims of the genocide committed against the Kampuchean people by the Pol Pot Sary régime. The entire international community is familiar with the bloody crimes of that puppet clique. |
- |
 Fiji |
- |
11 de enero de 1973 |
Reserva
The reservation and declarations formulated by the Government of the United Kingdom on behalf of Fiji are affirmed but have been redrafted in the following terms:
"To the extent, if any, that any law relating to elections in Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (c), that any law relating to land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school system of Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in articles 2, 3, or 5 (e) (v), the Government of Fiji reserves the right not to implement the aforementioned provisions of the Convention. "The Government of Fiji wishes to state its understanding of certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association) that some legislative addition to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of Article 4. Further, the Government of Fiji interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an and. In addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a Party to the Convention. "The Government of Fiji maintains the view that Article 15 is discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories whilst making no comparable provision for States without such territories." WITHDRAWAL OF RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS MADE UPON SUCCESSION WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES 5(c),(d)(v), 2, 3 OR 5(e)(v), 4(a),(b) AND (c), 6, 20 AND 15 The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 10 August 2012. |
- |
 Filipinas |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
15 de septiembre de 1967 |
- | - |
 Finlandia |
6 de octubre de 1966 |
14 de julio de 1970 |
Reserva
Objections:
7 July 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The Government of Finland formally, and in accordance with article 20 (2) of the Convention, objects to the reservations made by Yemen to the above provisions. In the first place, the reservations concern matters which are of fundamental importance in the Convention. The first paragraph of article 5 clearly brings this out. According to it, the Parties have undertaken to guarantee the rights listed in that article "In compliance with fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the Convention". Clearly, provisions prohibiting racial discrimination in the granting of such fundamental political rights and civil liberties as the right to participate in public life, to marry and choose a spouse, to inherit and to enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion are central in a convention against racial discrimination. Therefore, the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as specified in paragraph 20 (2) thereof and in article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Moreover, it is the view of the Government of Finland that it would be unthinkable that merely by making a reservation to the said provisions, a State could achieve the liberty to start discriminatory practices on the grounds of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin in regard to such fundamental political rights and civil liberties as the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, the right of marriage and choice of spouse, the right of inheritance and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Any racial discrimination in respect of those fundamental rights and liberties is clearly against the general principles of human rights law as reflected in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the practice of States and international organizations. By making a reservation atate cannot contract out from universally binding human rights standards. For the above reasons, the Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by Yemen are devoid of legal effect. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this fact is an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Yemen." 6 February 1998 With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "The Government of Finland is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that according to paragraph 2 of article 20 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Finland would also like to recall that according to the said paragraph a reservation shall be considered incompatible or inhibitive if at least two thirds of the States Parties to the Convention object to it. 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. The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by Saudi Arabia, which do not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the basisof international treaty law. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the [Convention]. |
- |
 Francia |
- |
28 de julio de 1971 |
Reserva
Reservation:
With regard to article 4, France wishes to make it clear that it interprets the reference made therein to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the rights set forth in article 5 of the Convention as releasing the States Parties from the obligation to enact anti-discrimination legislation which is incompatible with the freedoms of opinion and expression and of peaceful assembly and association guaranteed by those texts. With regard to article 6, France declares that the question of remedy through tribunals is, as far as France is concerned, governed by the rules of ordinary law. With regard to article 15, France's accession to the Convention may not be interpreted as implying any change in its position regarding the resolution mentioned in that provision. In a communication received subsequently, the Government of France indicated that the first paragraph of the declaration did not purport to limit the obligations under the Convention in respect of the French Government, but only to record the latter's interpretation of article 4 of the Convention. Objections: 15 May 1984 The Government of the French Republic, which does not recognize the coalition government of Democratic Cambodia, declares that the instrument of ratification by the coalition government of Democratic Cambodia of the [International] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature at New York on 7 March 1966, is without effect. 20 September 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): France considers that the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are not valid as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Such objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between France and the Yemen Arab Republic. 25 April 2003 With regard to the declaration made by Thailand upon accession: The Government of the Republic of France has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand upon accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966. The Government of the Republic of France considers that, by making the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Convention subject to respect for the Constitution and legislation of the Kingdom of Thailand, the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand is making a reservation of such a general and indeterminate scope that it is not possible to ascertain which changes to obligations under the Convention it is intended to introduce. Consequently, the Government of France considers that this reservation as formulated could make the provisions of the Convention completely ineffective. For these reasons, the Government objects to this interpretative declaration, which it considers to be a reservation likely toe incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. |
- |
 Gabón |
20 de septiembre de 1966 |
29 de febrero de 1980 |
- | - |
 Gambia |
- |
29 de diciembre de 1978 |
- | - |
 Georgia |
- |
2 de junio de 1999 |
- | - |
 Ghana |
8 de septiembre de 1966 |
8 de septiembre de 1966 |
- | - |
 Granada |
17 de diciembre de 1981 |
9 de mayo de 2013 |
Reserva
DELARATION
“The Constitution of Grenada entrenches and guarantees to every person in the State of Grenada the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event of the violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by a private individual. Ratification of the Convention by Grenada does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in the Constitution. The Government of Grenada interprets article 4 of the said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to enact measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it considers that the need arises to enact such legislation.” The Convention will enter into force for Grenada on 9 June 2013. |
- |
 Grecia |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
18 de junio de 1970 |
- | - |
 Guatemala |
8 de septiembre de 1967 |
18 de enero de 1983 |
- | - |
 Guinea |
24 de marzo de 1966 |
14 de marzo de 1977 |
- | - |
 Guinea Bissau |
12 de septiembre de 2000 |
1 de noviembre de 2010 |
- | - |
 Guinea Ecuatorial |
- |
8 de octubre de 2002 |
Reserva
Reservation:
The Republic of Equatorial Guinea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea considers that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice. |
- |
 Guyana |
11 de diciembre de 1968 |
15 de febrero de 1977 |
Reserva
"The Government of the Republic of Guyana do not interpret the provisions of this Convention as imposing upon them any obligation going beyond the limits set by the Constitution of Guyana or imposing upon them any obligation requiring the introduction of judicial processes going beyond those provided under the same Constitution."
|
- |
 Haití |
30 de octubre de 1972 |
19 de diciembre de 1972 |
- | - |
 Honduras |
- |
10 de octubre de 2002 |
- | - |
 Hungría |
15 de septiembre de 1966 |
4 de mayo de 1967 |
Reserva
"The Hungarian People's Republic considers that the provisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and of article 18, paragraph 1, of the Convention, barring accession to the Convention by all States, are of a discriminating nature and contrary to international law. The Hungarian People's Republic maintains its general position that multilateral treaties of a universal character should, in conformity with the principles of sovereign equality of States, be open for accession by all States without any discrimination whatever."
|
- |
 India |
2 de marzo de 1967 |
3 de diciembre de 1968 |
Reserva
"The Government of India declare that for reference of any dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision in terms of Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the consent of all parties to the dispute is necessary in each individual case."
|
- |
 Indonesia |
- |
25 de junio de 1999 |
Reserva
Reservation:
"The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 22 and takes the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the [Convention] which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in the said article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all the parties to the dispute." |
- |
 Irak |
18 de febrero de 1969 |
14 de enero de 1970 |
Reserva
Upon signature:
"The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq hereby declares that signature for and on behalf of the Republic of Iraq of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 December 1965, as well as approval by the Arab States of the said Convention and entry into it by their respective governments, shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or lead to entry by the Arab States into such dealings with Israel as may be regulated by the said Convention. "Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Iraq does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article twenty-two of the Convention afore-mentioned and affirms its reservation that it does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice provided for in the said article." Upon ratification: 1. The acceptance and ratification of the Convention by Iraq shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or be conducive to entry by Iraq into such dealings with Israel as are regulated by the Convention; 2. Iraq does not accept the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, concerning the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The Republic of Iraq does not consider itself to be bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and deems it necessary that in all cases the approval of all parties to the dispute be secured before the case is referred to the International Court of Justice. |
- |
 Irán |
8 de marzo de 1967 |
29 August 1968 |
- | - |
 Irlanda |
21 de marzo de 1968 |
29 de diciembre de 2000 |
Reserva
Reservation/Interpetative declaration:
"Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination provides that the measures specifically described in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be undertaken with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of the Convention. Ireland threfore considers that through such measures, the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to peaceful assembly and association may not be jeopardised. These rights are laid down in Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; they were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are referred to in Article 5 (d)(viii) and (ix) of the present Convention." |
- |
 Islandia |
14 de noviembre de 1966 |
13 de marzo de 1967 |
Reserva
|
- |
 Islas Marshall |
- |
11 de abril de 2019 |
- | - |
 Islas Salomón |
- |
17 de marzo de 1982 |
- | - |
 Israel |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
3 de enero de 1979 |
Reserva
"The State of Israel does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the said Convention."
|
- |
 Italia |
13 de marzo de 1968 |
5 de enero de 1976 |
Reserva
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica- tion:
(a) The positive measures, provided for in article 4 of the Convention and specifically described in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that article, designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, discrimination, are to be interpreted, as that article provides, "with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5" of the Convention. Consequently, the obligations deriving from the aforementioned article 4 are not to jeopardize the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association which are laid down in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and are referred to in articles 5 (d) (viii) and (ix) of the Convention. In fact, the Italian Government, in conformity with the obligations resulting from Articles 55 (c) and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations, remains faithful to the principle laid down in article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration, which provides that "in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (b) Effective remedies against acts of racial discrimination which violate his individual rights and fundamental freedoms will be assured to everyone, in conformity with article 6 of the Convention, by the ordinary courts within the framework of their respective jurisdiction. Claims for reparation for any damage suffered as a result of acts of racial discrimination must be brought against the persons responsible for the malicious or criminal acts which caused such damage. Objections: 7 August 1989 "The Government of the Republic of Italy raises an objection to the reservations entered by the Government of the Arab Republic of Yemen to article 5 [(c) and (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii)] of the above-mentioned Convention." |
- |
 Jamaica |
14 August 1966 |
4 de junio de 1971 |
Reserva
"The Constitution of Jamaica entrenches and guarantees to every person in Jamaica the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event of the violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by a private individual. Ratification of the Convention by Jamaica does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligation to introduce judicial processes beyond those prescribed under the Constitution."
|
- |
 Japón |
- |
15 de diciembre de 1995 |
Reserva
Reservation:
"In applying the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of article 4 of the [said Convention] Japan fulfills the obligations under those provisions to the extent that fulfillment of the obligations is compatible with the guarantee of the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression and other rights under the Constitution of Japan, noting the phrase `with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention' referred to in article 4." |
- |
 Jordania |
- |
30 de mayo de 1974 |
- | - |
 Kazajstán |
- |
26 August 1998 |
Reserva
|
- |
 Kenya |
- |
13 de septiembre de 2001 |
- | - |
 Kuwait |
- |
15 de octubre de 1968 |
Reserva
"In acceding to the said Convention, the Government of the State of Kuwait takes the view that its accession does not in any way imply recognition of Israel, nor does it oblige it to apply the provisions of the Convention in respect of the said country.
"The Government of the State of Kuwait does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any party to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, and it states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice." |
- |
 Lesotho |
- |
4 de noviembre de 1971 |
- | - |
 Letonia |
- |
14 de abril de 1992 |
- | - |
 Líbano |
- |
12 de noviembre de 1971 |
Reserva
The Republic of Lebanon does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any party to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, and it states that, in each individual case, the consent of all States parties to such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice.
|
- |
 Liberia |
- |
5 de noviembre de 1976 |
- | - |
 Libia |
- |
3 de julio de 1968 |
Reserva
"(a) The Kingdom of Libya does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, and it states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice.
"(b) It is understood that the accession to this Convention does not mean in any way a recognition of Israel by the Government of the Kingdom of Libya. Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the Kingdom of Libya and Israel." |
- |
 Liechtenstein |
- |
1 de marzo de 2000 |
Reserva
|
- |
 Lituania |
8 de junio de 1998 |
10 de diciembre de 1998 |
- | - |
 Luxemburgo |
12 de diciembre de 1967 |
1 de mayo de 1978 |
Reserva
|
- |
 Madagascar |
18 de diciembre de 1967 |
7 de febrero de 1969 |
Reserva
The Government of the Malagasy Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for referral of the dispute to the International Court.
|
- |
 Malawi |
- |
11 de junio de 1996 |
- | - |
 Maldivas |
- |
24 de abril de 1984 |
- | - |
 Malí |
- |
16 de julio de 1974 |
- | - |
 Malta |
5 de septiembre de 1968 |
27 de mayo de 1971 |
Reserva
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica- tion :
"The Government of Malta wishes to state its understanding of certain articles in the Convention. "It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article should it consider, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights set forth in article 5 of the Convention, that the need arises to enact ' ad hoc ' legislation, in addition to or variation of existing law and practice to bring to an end any act of racial discrimination. "Further, the Government of Malta interprets the requirements in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end." |
- |
 Marruecos |
18 de septiembre de 1967 |
18 de diciembre de 1970 |
Reserva
Reservation:
The Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision. The Kingdom of Morocco states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Declaration: 19 October 2006 In accordance with article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco declares that it recognizes, on the date of deposit of the present document, the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation, subsequent to the date of deposit of the present document, of any of the rights set forth in this Convention. |
- |
 Mauricio |
- |
30 de mayo de 1972 |
- | - |
 Mauritania |
21 de diciembre de 1966 |
13 de diciembre de 1988 |
- | - |
 México |
1 de noviembre de 1966 |
20 de febrero de 1975 |
Reserva
Objections:
11 August 1989 With regard to reservation made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): The Government of the United Mexican States has concluded that, in view of article 20 of the Convention, the reservation must be deemed invalid, as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Said reservation, if implemented would result in discrimination to the detriment of a certain sector of the population and, at the same time, would violate the rights established in articles 2, 16 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The objection of the United Mexican States to the reservation in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the Convention of 1966 between the United States of Mexico and the Government of Yemen. |
- |
 Mónaco |
- |
27 de septiembre de 1995 |
Reserva
Reservation regarding article 2, paragraph 1:
Monaco reserves the right to apply its own legal provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the labour market of the Principality. Reservation regarding article 4: Monaco interprets the reference in that article to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to the rights enumerated in article 5 of the Convention as releasing States Parties from the obligation to promulgate repressive laws which are incompatible with freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association, which are guaranteed by those instruments. |
- |
 Mongolia |
3 de mayo de 1966 |
6 August 1969 |
Reserva
The Mongolian People's Republic states that the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention whereby a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a discriminatory nature, and it holds that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination should be open to participation by all interested States without discrimination or restriction of any kind.
Objections: 7 June 1984 "The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a regime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void." |
- |
 Montenegro |
- |
23 de octubre de 2006 |
- | - |
 Mozambique |
- |
18 de abril de 1983 |
Reserva
Reservation:
"The People's Republic of Mozambique does not consider to be bound by the provision of article 22 and wishes to restate that for the submission of any dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision in terms of the said article, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary in each individual case." |
- |
 Namibia |
- |
11 de noviembre de 1982 |
- | - |
 Nauru |
12 de noviembre de 2001 |
- |
- | - |
 Nepal |
- |
30 de enero de 1971 |
Reserva
"The Constitution of Nepal contains provisions for the protection of individual rights, including the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to form unions and associations not motivated by party politics and the right to freedom of professing his/her own religion; and nothing in the Convention shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by Nepal incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution of Nepal.
"His Majesty's Government interprets article 4 of the said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only insofar as His Majesty's Government may consider, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that some legislative addition to, or variation of, existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of article 4. His Majesty's Government interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available; and further interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. "His Majesty's Government does not consider itself bound by the provision of article 22 of the Convention under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision." |
- |
 Nicaragua |
- |
15 de febrero de 1978 |
- | - |
 Níger |
14 de marzo de 1966 |
27 de abril de 1967 |
- | - |
 Nigeria |
- |
16 de octubre de 1967 |
- | - |
 Noruega |
21 de noviembre de 1966 |
6 August 1970 |
Reserva
Objections:
28 July 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The Government of Norway hereby enters its formal objection to the reservations made by Yemen." 6 February 1998 With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissible under article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Under well-established treaty law, a State party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." |
- |
 Nueva Zelandia |
25 de octubre de 1966 |
22 de noviembre de 1972 |
Reserva
Objections:
4 August 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The New Zealand Government is of the view that those provisions contain undertakings which are themselves fundamental to the Convention. Accordingly it considers that the reservations purportedly made by Yemen relating to political and civil rights are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Treaty within the terms of the article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Government of New Zealand advises therefore under article 20 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that it does not accept the reservations made by Yemen." |
- |
 Omán |
- |
2 de enero de 2003 |
- | - |
 Países Bajos |
24 de octubre de 1966 |
10 de diciembre de 1971 |
Reserva
Objections:
25 July 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the above-mentioned reservations, as they are incompatible with object and purpose of the Convention. These objections are not an obstacle for the entry into force of this Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Yemen." 3 February 1998 With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: [Same objection, identical in essence, as the one made for Yemen.] |
- |
 Pakistán |
19 de septiembre de 1966 |
21 de septiembre de 1966 |
- | - |
 Palau |
20 de septiembre de 2011 |
- |
- | - |
 Panamá |
8 de diciembre de 1966 |
16 August 1967 |
- | - |
 Papua Nueva Guinea |
- |
27 de enero de 1982 |
Reserva
Reservation:
"The Government of Papua New Guinea interprets article 4 of the Convention as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the areas covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles contained in the Universal Declaration set out in Article 5 of the Convention that some legislative addition to, or variation of existing law and practice, is necessary to give effect to the provisions of article 4. In addition, the Constitution of Papua New Guinea guarantees certain fundamental rights and freedoms to all persons irrespective of their race or place of origin. The Constitution also provides for judicial protection of these rights and freedoms. Acceptance of this Convention does not therefore indicate the acceptance of obligations by the Government of Papua New Guinea which go beyond those provided by the Constitution, nor does it indicate the acceptance of any obligation to introduce judicial process beyond that provided by the Constitution". (The reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on 22 February 1982.) |
- |
 Paraguay |
13 de septiembre de 2000 |
18 August 2003 |
- | - |
 Perú |
22 de julio de 1966 |
29 de septiembre de 1971 |
- | - |
 Polonia |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
5 de diciembre de 1968 |
- | - |
 Portugal |
- |
24 August 1982 |
- | - |
 Qatar |
- |
22 de julio de 1976 |
- | - |
 Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte |
11 de octubre de 1966 |
7 de marzo de 1969 |
Reserva
Upon signature:
Subject to the following reservation and interpretative statements: "First, in the present circumstances deriving from the usurpation of power in Rhodesia by the illegal régime, the United Kingdom must sign subject to a reservation of the right not to apply the Convention to Rhodesia unless and until the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it is in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Convention in respect of that territory can be fully implemented. "Secondly, the United Kingdom wishes to state its under- standing of certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association) that some legislative addition to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of article 4. Further, the United Kingdom interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a Party to the Convention. "Lastly, the United Kingdom maintains its position in regard to article 15. In its view this article is discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while making no comparable provision for States without such territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish a procedure applicable to the dependent territories of States whether or not those States have become parties to the Convention. Her Majesty's Government have decided that the United Kingdom should sign the Convention, these objections notwithstanding, because of the importance they attach to the Convention as a whole." Upon ratification: "First, the reservation and interpretative statements made by the United Kingdom at the time of signature of the Convention are maintained. "Secondly, the United Kingdom does not regard the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, 1962 and 1968, or their application, as involving any racial discrimination within the meaning of paragraph 1 of article 1, or any other provision of the Convention, and fully reserves its right to continue to apply those Acts. "Lastly, to the extent if any, that any law relating to election in Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (c), that any law relating to land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school system of Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in articles 2, 3 or 5 (e) (v), the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply the Convention to Fiji." Objections: 4 August 1989 "The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not accept the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic to article 5 (c) and (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination." 26 June 2003 With regard to the declaration made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966) on 16 September 2002 in respect of implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of the United Kingdom, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Turkey." With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession: "The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966) on 28 January 2003 in respect of the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand having no obligation to interpret and apply the provisions of the Convention beyond the confines of the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand and, in addition, that the interpretation and application shall be limited to or consistent with the obligations under other international human rights instruments to which the Kingdom of Thailand is party. In the view of the Government of the United Kingdom, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation amounts to a general reference to national law without specifying its contents and does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the declaring State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Thailand." Objection concerning Grenada's declaration “The Government of the United Kingdom has examined the Declaration made by Grenada. In the view of the United Kingdom, the Declaration amounts to a reservation. The Declaration makes only a general reference to national law without specifying its contents and does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which Grenada has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservation made by Grenada in its Declaration and hereby gives notice that it does not accept it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Grenada.” |
- |
 República Árabe Siria |
- |
21 de abril de 1969 |
Reserva
1. The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entry into a relationship with it regarding any matter regulated by the said Convention.
2. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the Parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision. The Syrian Arab Republic states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice. |
- |
 República Centroafricana |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
16 de marzo de 1971 |
- | - |
 República Checa |
- |
22 de febrero de 1993 |
- | - |
 República de Corea |
8 August 1978 |
5 de diciembre de 1978 |
- | - |
 República Democratica del Congo |
- |
21 de abril de 1976 |
- | - |
 República Democrática Popular Lao |
- |
22 de febrero de 1974 |
- | - |
 República Dominicana |
- |
25 de mayo de 1983 |
- | - |
 República Kirguisa |
- |
5 de septiembre de 1997 |
- | - |
 República Unida de Tanzania |
- |
27 de octubre de 1972 |
- | - |
 Repuública de Moldova |
- |
26 de enero de 1993 |
Reserva
DECLARACIÓN DE CONFORMIDAD CON EL ARTÍCULO 14 (1)
La acción tuvo efecto el 8 de mayo de 2013. "De acuerdo con el artículo 14, párrafo 1 de la Convención Internacional sobre la Eliminación de todas las Formas de Discriminación Racial, la República de Moldova reconoce la competencia del Comité para la Eliminación de la Discriminación Racial para recibir y examinar comunicaciones de personas o grupos de personas comprendidas dentro la jurisdicción de la República de Moldova que aleguen ser víctimas de una violación por la República de Moldova de cualquiera de los derechos enunciados en la Convención, con la reserva de que el Comité no examinará ninguna comunicación a menos que se haya cerciorado de que el mismo asunto es no siendo examinada o no ha sido sometido ya a otro procedimiento de examen o arreglo internacionales ". |
- |
 Rumania |
- |
15 de septiembre de 1970 |
Reserva
The Council of State of the Socialist Republic of Romania declares that the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are not in accordance with the principle that multilateral treaties, the aims and objectives of which concern the world community as a whole, should be open to participation by all States.
Objections: 3 December 2003 With regard to the general interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession: "The Government of Romania has examined the general interpretative declaration made by the Government of Thailand at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Government of Romania considers that the general interpretative declaration is, in fact, a reservation formulated in general terms, that not allows to clearly identify the obligations assumed by Thailand with regard to this legal instrument and, consequently, to state the consistency of this reservation with the purpose and object of the above-mentioned Convention, in accordance with the provisions of article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). The Government of Romania therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by Thailand to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of Romania and Thailand." |
- |
 Rwanda |
- |
16 de abril de 1975 |
- | - |
 Saint Kitts y Nevis |
- |
13 de abril de 2006 |
- | - |
 San Marino |
11 de diciembre de 2001 |
12 de marzo de 2002 |
- | - |
 San Vicente y las Granadinas |
- |
9 de noviembre de 1981 |
- | - |
 Santa Lucía |
- |
14 de febrero de 1990 |
- | - |
 Santa Sede |
21 de noviembre de 1966 |
1 de mayo de 1969 |
- | - |
 Santo Tomé y Príncipe |
6 de septiembre de 2000 |
10 de enero de 2017 |
- | - |
 Senegal |
22 de julio de 1968 |
19 de abril de 1972 |
- | - |
 Serbia |
- |
12 de marzo de 2001 |
- | - |
 Seychelles |
- |
7 de marzo de 1978 |
- | - |
 Sierra Leona |
17 de noviembre de 1966 |
2 August 1967 |
- | - |
 Singapur |
19 de octubre de 2015 |
27 de noviembre de 2017 |
- | - |
 Somalia |
26 de enero de 1967 |
26 August 1975 |
- | - |
 Sri Lanka |
- |
18 de febrero de 1982 |
- | - |
 Sudáfrica |
3 de octubre de 1994 |
10 de diciembre de 1998 |
- | - |
 Sudán |
- |
21 de marzo de 1977 |
- | - |
 Suecia |
5 de mayo de 1966 |
6 de diciembre de 1971 |
Reserva
Objections:
5 July 1989 With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the Convention, to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the rights enumerated in the article. The Government of Sweden has come to the conclusion that the reservations made by Yemen are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore are impermissible according to article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention. For this reason the Government of Sweden objects to these reservations. This objection does not have the effect of preventing the Convention from entering into force between Sweden and Yemen, and the reservations cannot alter or modify, in any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention." 27 January 1998 With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "The Government of Sweden notes that the said reservation is a reservation of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be in conflict with the precepts of the Islamic Shariah . The Government of Sweden is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment [of] Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention shall not be permitted. 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 necessar to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, which do not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the [said Convention]. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Saudi Arabia benefiting from this reservation." 14 January 2003 With regard to declarations made by Turkey upon ratification: The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations made by Turkey upon ratifying the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Paragraph 1 of the declaration states that Turkey will implement the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Turkey considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention. In absence of further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Convention. It is in the common interest ofStates 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. According to article 20 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden objects to the said reservation made by the Government of Turkey to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Turkey and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entiretv between the two States, without Turkey benefiting from its reservation. 27 January 2004 With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon ratification: "The Government of Sweden has examined the general interpretative declaration made by the Kingdom of Thailand upon acceding to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the interpretative declaration made by the Kingdom of Thailand in substance constitutes a reservation. The Government of Sweden notes that the application of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the confines of national legislation, without specifying its contents. Such a reservation makes it unclear to what extent the reserving state considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention. The reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Thailand to the object and purpose of the Convention. In addition, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to abide by the treaty. 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. According to customary law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Thailand and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the two States, without the Kingdom of Thailand benefitting from this reservation." |
- |
 Suiza |
- |
29 de noviembre de 1994 |
Reserva
Reservation concerning article 4:
Switzerland reserves the right to take the legislative measures necessary for the implementation of article 4, taking due account of freedom of opinion and freedom of association, provided for inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Reservation concerning article 2, paragraph 1 (a):Switzerland reserves the right to apply its legal provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the Swiss market. |
- |
 Suriname |
- |
15 de marzo de 1984 |
- | - |
 Swazilandia |
- |
7 de abril de 1969 |
- | - |
 Tailandia |
- |
28 de enero de 2003 |
Reserva
Interpretative declaration :
"General Interpretative Declaration The Kingdom of Thailand does not interpret and apply the provisions of this Convention as imposing upon the Kingdom of Thailand any obligation beyond the confines of the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand. In addition, such interpretation and application shall be limited to or consistent with the obligations under other international human rights instruments to which the Kingdom of Thailand is party. Reservations 1. The Kingdom of Thailand interprets Article 4 of the Convention as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered that the need arises to enact such legislation. 2. The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 22 of the Convention." |
- |
 Tayikistán |
- |
11 de enero de 1995 |
- | - |
 Timor-Leste |
- |
16 de abril de 2003 |
- | - |
 Togo |
- |
1 de septiembre de 1972 |
- | - |
 Tonga |
- |
16 de febrero de 1972 |
Reserva
Reservation:
"To the extent, [...], that any law relating to land in Tonga which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), [...], the Kingdom of Tonga reserves the right not to apply the Convention to Tonga. Declaration: "Secondly, the Kingdom of Tonga wishes to state its understanding of certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association) that some legislative addition to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of article 4. Further, the Kingdom of Tonga interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a Party to the Convention. "Lastly, the Kingdom of Tonga maintains its position in regard to article 15. In its view this article is discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while making no comparable provision for States without such territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish a procedure applicable to the dependent territories of States whether or not those States have become parties to the Convention. His Majesty's Government have decided that the Kingdom of Tonga should accede to the Convention, these objections notwithstanding because of the importance they attach to the Convention as a whole." |
- |
 Trinidad y Tabago |
9 de junio de 1967 |
4 de octubre de 1973 |
- | - |
 Túnez |
12 de abril de 1966 |
13 de enero de 1967 |
- | - |
 Turkmenistán |
- |
29 de septiembre de 1994 |
- | - |
 Turquía |
13 de octubre de 1972 |
16 de septiembre de 2002 |
Reserva
Declarations and reservation:
"The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. The Republic of Turkey does not consider itself bound by Article 22 of this Convention. The explicit consent of the Republic of Turkey is necessary in each individual case before any dispute to which the Republic of Turkey is party concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention may be referred to the International Court of Justice." |
- |
 Ucrania |
7 de marzo de 1966 |
7 de marzo de 1969 |
Reserva
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic states that the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination whereby a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be open to participation by all interested States without discrimination or restriction of any kind.
Objections: 17 January 1984 The ratification of the above-mentioned international Convention by the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique, which is guilty of the annihilation of millions of Kampucheans and which was overthrown in 1979 by the Kampuchean people, is thoroughly illegal and has no juridical force. There is only one Kampuchean State in the World, namely, the People's Republic of Kampuchea. All authority in this State is vested wholly in its sole legitimate government, the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. This Government alone has the exclusive right to speak on behalf of Kampuchea at the international level, while the supreme organ of State power, the State Council of the People's Republic of Kampuchea has the exclusive right to ratify international agreements drawn up within the framework of the United Nations. |
- |
 Uganda |
- |
21 de noviembre de 1980 |
- | - |
 Uruguay |
21 de febrero de 1967 |
30 August 1968 |
- | - |
 Uzbekistán |
- |
28 de septiembre de 1995 |
- | - |
 Venezuela |
21 de abril de 1967 |
10 de octubre de 1967 |
- | - |
 Viet Nam |
- |
9 de junio de 1982 |
Reserva
Declaration:
(1) The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares that the provisions of article 17 (1) and of article 18 (1) of the Convention whereby a number of States are deprived of the opportunity of becoming Parties to the said Convention are of a discriminatory nature and it considers that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be open to participation by all States without discrimination or restriction of any kind. Reservation: (2) The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and holds that, for any dispute with regard to the interpretation or application of the Convention to be brought before the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute is necessary. (The reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on 10 August 1982.) Objections: 29 February 1984 "The Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam considers that only the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which is the sole genuine and legitimate representative of the Kampuchean People, is empowered to act in their behalf to sign, ratify or accede to international conventions. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam rejects as null and void the ratification of the above-mentioned international Convention by the so-called "Democratic Kampuchea"- a genocidal regime overthrown by the Kampuchean people since January 7, 1979. Furthermore, the ratification of the Convention by a genocidal regime, which massacred more than 3 million Kampuchean people in gross violation of fundamental standards of morality and international laws on human rights, simply plays down the significance of the Convention and jeopardises the prestige of the United Nations." |
- |
 Yemen |
- |
18 de octubre de 1972 |
Reserva
"The accession of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entry into a relationship with it regarding any matter regulated by the said Convention.
"The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for referral of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. "The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen states that the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, and Article 18, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination whereby a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a discriminatory nature, and holds that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be opened to participation by all interested States without discrimination or restriction of any kind." |
- |
 Zambia |
11 de octubre de 1968 |
4 de febrero de 1972 |
- | - |
 Zimbabwe |
- |
13 de mayo de 1991 |
- | - |