Access information on Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Previously, Belize adhered to the Convention on June 15, 1982. By note of December 30, 1987, the Ambassador of Belize gave notice of withdrawal from the Convention by the Government of Belize. The withdrawal became effective on June 30, 1988.

Ratification by Chile includes the reservation that none of the provisions of the Convention could affect or restrict the sovereign rights of Chile in its Maritime Zone of 200 miles.

Previously, Costa Rica adhered to the Convention on May 6, 1981. By note of June 1, 1981, Costa Rica retracted its notification of adherence pending completion of legislative procedures.

Previously, Ecuador adhered to the Convention on May 2, 1991, with a reservation which, in translation, reads as follows: 

"None of [the Convention’s] provisions may affect or diminish the sovereign rights which Ecuador holds, has exercised, and exercises over its 200 nautical mile territorial sea, both insular and continental." 

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the Federal Republic of Germany communicated objections to this reservation, which objections read as follows: 

From the United States of America: 

“The Secretary of State presents his compliments to Their Excellencies and Messieurs and Mesdames the Chiefs of Mission of the Governments concerned with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed at Washington on December 2, 1946, and has the honor to refer to his circular note of May 15, 1991 referring to the deposit with the Government of the United States of America on May 2, 1991 by Ecuador of an instrument of adherence which includes a reservation, which, in translation, reads as follows: 

“None of its provisions may affect or diminish the sovereign rights which Ecuador holds, has exercised, and exercises over its 200 nautical mile territorial sea, both insular and continental.” 

“The Secretary of State wishes to state that, while the United States recognizes the right of Ecuador under international law to exercise fisheries jurisdiction within 200 nautical miles of its coast, the United States does not accept the reservation contained in the instrument of adherence by Ecuador, insofar as it asserts a claim to the territorial sea greater than 12 nautical miles, the maximum limit permitted under international law. 

“The Secretary of State would be grateful if the Chiefs of Mission would forward this information to their respective governments. 

Department of State Washington, 

May 1, 1992.” 

From the Russian Federation: 

“The Embassy of the Russian Federation presents its compliments to the Department of State of the United States of America and, referring to the note from the U.S. Secretary of State, dated May 15, 1991, notifying it of Ecuador’s accession to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, has the honor to communicate that the Russian Federation cannot agree with the proviso made by Ecuador, because it is incompatible with the objective and goals of this Convention and contradicts the norms of international law, according to which the breadth of the territorial waters of a state may not exceed 12 nautical miles. “The Embassy takes the occasion to renew to the Department of State the assurances of its high consideration. Washington, D.C., February 10, 1992.” From the Federal Republic of Germany: 

“The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany presents its compliments to the Department of State and has the honor to refer to its circular note of May 15, 1991 concerning the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and in particular to the instrument of adherence by the Government of Ecuador as of May 2, 1992 including a reservation as mentioned in the above circular note. 

“The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to submit a statement of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning this matter which reads as follows: “The reservation made in the circular note of May 15, 1991 – concerning Ecuador – cannot be accepted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany as it is not in accordance with the general principles of International Law as these have found expression in the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. Those principles state explicitly that Sovereign Rights exercised by a State over its Territorial Sea should not exceed the limit of 12 nautical miles. 

“The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration. 

Washington, D.C., May 29, 1992.”

From the Federal Republic of Germany: 

“The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany presents its compliments to the Department of State and has the honor to refer to its circular note of May 15, 1991 concerning the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and in particular to the instrument of adherence by the Government of Ecuador as of May 2, 1992 including a reservation as mentioned in the above circular note. 

“The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to submit a statement of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning this matter which reads as follows: 

“The reservation made in the circular note of May 15, 1991 – concerning Ecuador – cannot be accepted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany as it is not in accordance with the general principles of International Law as these have found expression in the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. Those principles state explicitly that Sovereign Rights exercised by a State over its Territorial Sea should not exceed the limit of 12 nautical miles. 

“The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration. 

Washington, D.C., May 29, 1992.

By note of December 8, 1993, the Embassy of Ecuador gave notice of Ecuador's withdrawal from the Convention effective June 30, 1994.

Previously, Iceland adhered to the Convention on March 10, 1947, and the Convention entered into force for all parties November 10, 1948. By note of December 27, 1991, the Embassy of Iceland gave notice of Iceland's withdrawal from the Convention effective June 30, 1992.

In June 8, 2001, Iceland deposited an instrument of adherence to the Whaling Convention and the 1956 Protocol thereto which contains a reservation to Paragraph 10 (e) of the Convention’s Schedule. In performance of its depositary function, the United States, in a circular note dated June 11, 2001, informed the parties to the Whaling Convention of Iceland’s action. On July 22, 2001, at the 53rd meeting of the International Whaling Commission, the Commission decided (by a vote of 19 in favor, none opposed, 3 abstentions and 16 states not participating) not to accept Iceland’s reservation. A subsequent vote of the Commission decided to continue to recognize Iceland as an observer (by a vote of 18 in favor, 16 opposed and 4 abstentions).

On May 14, 2002, Iceland deposited another instrument of adherence to the Whaling Convention and the 1956 Protocol thereto which contains a reservation to Paragraph 10 (e) of the Convention’s Schedule identical to the reservation Iceland had included in the instrument of adherence it deposited on June 8, 2001. Included in this instrument is a statement which reads as follows from the English translation provided by Iceland: 

Notwithstanding the aforementioned reservation, the Government of Iceland will not authorize whaling for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels while progress is being made in negotiations within the International Whaling Commission on the Revised Management Scheme. This does not apply, however, in case of the so-called moratorium on whaling for commercial purposes, contained in paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule, not being lifted within reasonable time after the completion of the Revised Management Scheme. 

Under no circumstances will whaling for commercial purposes be authorized in Iceland without a sound scientific basis and an effective management and enforcement scheme. 

The depositary communicated Iceland’s action to the members of the International Whaling Commission attending its 54th meeting in Shimonoseki, Japan. On May 20, 2002, the Commission decided (by a 25-20 vote) to uphold the Chairman’s ruling that he was bound by the decisions not to accept Iceland’s reservation and to recognize Iceland as an observer which were taken at the 53rd meeting of the International Whaling Commission. 

On October 10, 2002, Iceland deposited another instrument of adherence to the Whaling Convention and the 1956 Protocol thereto which contains a reservation to Paragraph 10 (e) of the Convention’s Schedule identical to the reservation Iceland had included in the instruments of adherence to the Convention it deposited on June 8, 2001 and May 14, 2002. Included in this instrument is a statement which reads as follows from the English translation provided by Iceland: 

Notwithstanding this [reservation], the Government of Iceland will not authorize whaling for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels before 2006 and, thereafter, will not authorize such whaling while progress is being made in negotiations within the International Whaling Commission on the Revised Management Scheme. This does not apply, however, in case of the so-called moratorium on whaling for commercial purposes, contained in paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule, not being lifted within reasonable time after the completion of the Revised Management Scheme. 

Under no circumstances will whaling for commercial purposes be authorized in Iceland without a sound scientific basis and an effective management and enforcement scheme. 

The depositary communicated Iceland’s action to the members of the International Whaling Commission attending its Fifth Special Meeting in Cambridge, United Kingdom on October 14, 2002. In a challenge vote to the Chairman’s ruling that he was bound by the decisions not to accept Iceland’s reservation and to recognize Iceland as an observer, taken at the 53rd Meeting of the Commission, the Commission decided (by a 19-18 vote) not to uphold that ruling. 

Certain parties to the Convention provided communications to the depositary with respect to the events described above as follows: 

By note dated November 26, 2002, and received on November 27, 2002, the Government of Sweden objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated December 5, 2002, and received on December 16, 2002, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated December 13, 2002, and received on January 7, 2003, France objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated December 6, 2002, and received on February 5, 2003, Italy objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. The objection by Italy states in relevant part: “. . . that Iceland, because of its reservation, may not be regarded as a party to the Convention nor a member of the IWC.” 

By note dated January 31, 2003, and received on February 5, 2003, Brazil objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated February 3, 2003, and received on that same date, Germany objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated February 5, 2003, and received on that same date, Australia objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated February 6, 2003, and received on that same date, Argentina objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated February 10, 2003, and received on February 14, 2003, Mexico objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. The objection by Mexico states in relevant part: “ . . . because of its reservation, Iceland will not be regarded as a party to the Convention, nor as a member of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), insofar as Mexico is concerned.” 

By note dated February 12, 2003, and received on February 26, 2003, the Netherlands objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated February 4, 2003, and received on March 6, 2003, Spain objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated February 13, 2003, and received on March 24, 2003, the Department of Foreign Relations of the Principality of Monaco objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated March 5, 2003, and received on March 11, 2003, Peru objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated March 13, 2003, and received on March 17, 2003, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of San Marino objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated March 25, 2003, and received on March 26, 2003, the Royal Norwegian Embassy communicated the position of the Norwegian Government regarding Iceland’s membership in the International Whaling Commission. The note reads in relevant part as follows: 

“The position of the Norwegian Government is that the competent body of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has already made a decision with regard to Iceland’s adherence to the IWC, with binding effect for all IWC Parties, and in accordance with the principle of Art. 20 Para. 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The decision of the 5th Special Meeting of the IWC on 14 October 2002 to accept Iceland’s adherence obliges all IWC Members to fully recognize Iceland as a Member of the IWC with such reservations as have been made, and Norway will consider any and all objections to this decision to be without legal consequence. 

“The Government of Norway undertakes to act in accordance with the said decision, and will oppose attempts to question its legitimacy.” 

By note dated April 17, 2003, and received on April 23, 2003, the Embassy of New Zealand communicated the position of the Government of New Zealand regarding the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. The note reads in relevant part as follows: 

“It is the view of the Government of New Zealand that the reservation is not permitted by the Convention. Further, the Government of New Zealand considers that the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is without legal effect. Accordingly, New Zealand does not accept the Convention as being in force between New Zealand and Iceland.” 

By note dated May 6, 2003, and received on May 23, 2003, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence of October 10, 2002. The objection by Chile reads in relevant part as follows: “The Government of Chile would like to express its objection with respect to the . . . reservation, declaring that it constitutes an untimely presentation of an amendment to the Schedule or Annex of the Convention approved by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, which is inadmissible.” [Nonofficial translation provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile] 

By note dated May 15, 2003, and received on May 30, 2003, the Government of Finland objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

By note dated May 19, 2003, and received on June 4, 2003, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland communicated its views regarding the objection by Sweden to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. The note from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland reads in relevant part: 

“The . . . Note [from the Embassy of Sweden] states that the objection by the Government of Sweden shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Iceland and Sweden. However, the Note also contains the following conclusion: ‘The Convention enters into force in its entirety without Iceland benefiting from its reservation.’ 

“This conclusion is without foundation in international law. According to Article 21, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reflects customary international law, ‘[w]hen a State objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between itself and the reserving State, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply as between the two States to the extent of the reservation.’ 

“Accordingly, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is in force between Iceland and Sweden with the exception of paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention, to which the reservation of Iceland relates.” 

By note dated May 15, 2003, and received on June 16, 2003, the Government of Portugal objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. The note reads in relevant part as follows: “When paragraph 10 (e) of the schedule was adopted (1982), Iceland was a party to the Whaling Convention and did not present any objection to it, as it could have done within the 90-day deadline and under the procedures set forth in Art. V. paragraph 3, of the Convention. “Portugal considers that the reservation is not compatible with the object and purpose of the Whaling Convention and therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Iceland with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention. “Nevertheless, it is our understanding that the remainder of the Convention may [enter] into force between Iceland and Portugal.” 

By circular note dated May 27, 2003, the United States of America, in its capacity as a party to the Convention, objected to the reservation contained in Iceland’s instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002. 

Previously, the Netherlands submitted an instrument of ratification for the Convention November 10, 1948. By a note dated December 31, 1958, to the Secretary of State, the Netherlands Ambassador gave notice of the Netherlands withdrawal from the Convention, to be effective June 30, l959. The Netherlands rejoined the Convention by adherence on May 6, 1962. By a note dated December 24, 1969, to the Secretary of State, the Netherlands Ambassador gave notice of the Netherlands' withdrawal from the Convention. The withdrawal became effective on June 30, 1970.

Previously, Panama adhered to the Convention September 30, 1948. By a note dated July 2, 1968, to the Secretary of State, the Panamanian Ambassador gave notice of Panama's withdrawal from the Convention, to be effective June 30, 1969. A note was received on June 13, 1969, from the Panamanian Ambassador, canceling the notification of withdrawal dated July 2, 1968.

By a note dated November 16, 1977, the Embassy of Panama gave notice to the Department of State of Panama's withdrawal from the Convention to be effective June 30, 1978. A note dated June 26, 1978, was received from the Embassy of Panama informing the Department of State of the Government of Panama's decision to remain a party to the Convention and, consequently, of the withdrawal of its notice of November 16, 1977.

By a note February 7, 1979, the Embassy of Panama gave notice of Panama's withdrawal from the Convention. The withdrawal became effective on June 30, 1980.

The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed and ratified the Convention. By a note dated January 13, 1992, the Russian Federation informed the United States Government that it “continues to perform the rights and fulfil the obligations following from the international agreements signed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” Furthermore, by note of June 25, 1992, the Embassy of the Russian Federation in London informed the International Whaling Commission that the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is continued by the Russian Federation and that the name "The Russian Federation" should be used.

Previously, Sweden adhered to the Convention on January 28, 1949. By a note dated December 17, 1963, to the Secretary of State, the Swedish Ambassador gave notice of Sweden's withdrawal from the Convention. The withdrawal became effective on June 30, 1964.