Instrument Of Ratification Research Articles

Chemical Weapons Convention enters into force

The Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, of 13 January 1993 (Chemical Weapons Convention - CWC) enters into force on 29 April 1997, following the deposit by Hungary on 31 October 1996 of the 65th instrument of ratification. This landmark Convention complements and reinforces the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons by also banning the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons — as well as their use — and requiring the destruction of existing stockpiles. The 1925 Geneva Protocol was adopted following a dramatic appeal against chemical warfare by the ICRC at the end of the First World War. The Biological Weapons Convention, in force since 1975, has outlawed the development, production and stockpiling of these weapons.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

On June 20, 1994, Ambassador Harriet C. Babbit, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States, deposited on behalf of the U.S. Government the instrument of ratification of the “Protocol of Washington,” adopted on December 14, 1992, by the Sixteenth Special Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States and signed by the United States on January 23, 1993, and the “Protocol of Managua,” adopted by the Nineteenth Special Session of the OAS General Assembly on June 10, 1993, and signed that day by the United States. The U.S. Senate had given its advice and consent to ratification of the Protocols on May 17, 1994, with two-thirds of the Senators present and concurring.

The Long and Difficult Road Towards Integration. The Legal Debate on the Maastricht Treaty in Germany and the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of October 12, 1993.

At the end of 1992 the law ratifying the Maastricht Treaty was passed by the German Bundestag without much discussion. Yet a heated legal debate developed later when a number of individuals filed claims with the German Constitutional Court seeking to prevent the deposit of the instrument of ratification. They claimed a violation of their basic rights owing to the envisaged transfer of sovereign competence from the German State to the European Union, with the purported result of loss of democratic control. In its judgment of October 12, 1993, however, the German Constitutional Court gave its approval to ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. This article analyses and examines the arguments put forward in the claims, that raised questions of statehood and led to consideration of the scope and limits of European integration. The author concludes with a favourable appraisal of the judgment, although he comments that it leaves unanswered the question of how the concepts of European integration and ‘preservation of statehood’ are to be reconciled.

The American Convention on Human Rights: Canada's Present Law and the Effect of Ratification

INTRODUCTIONOn november 13, 1989, Canada signed the Charter of the Organization of the American States and became a member of the Inter-American system upon depositing its instrument of ratification on January 8, 1990. Though Canada held observer status since 1972, until recently it played a passive role with respect to the Organization of American States (OAS). With the growing significance of regional systems in such matters as free trade, economic and ecosystem interdependence, and human rights, however, Canada has decided to become more involved in the Inter-American system.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child: How fares Victorian law and practice?

On the 2nd of September this year, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the Assembly in November 1989, came into force under international law, 30 days after the lodgment of the 20th instrument of ratification (by which time 31 countries had deposited ratifications). Shortly prior to that date, on 22 August, after some public controversy about the matter, Australia had determined to sign the Convention. The Convention, which stemmed from the 1979 International Year of the Child, expanded and elaborated within an international treaty, rights first enunciated (in non-binding form) in the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child. It applies to a person under the age of 18.Over 5 years ago, the Report of the Child Welfare Practice and Legislation Review Committee was published. That report - Equity and Social Justice for children families and communities, took, as one of its foundation principles, the proposition that Victorian law and practice should reflect internationally accepted principles of human and civil rights of children.

The Pacific Salmon Treaty

At the “Shamrock Summit” on March 18, 1985, President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney exchanged instruments of ratification bringing the United States-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty into force. The event ended 14 years of bilateral negotiations, culminating in a treaty that represents a balance of the fishing and conservation interests of four U.S. states, 24 U.S. treaty Indian tribes, one province and one territory.

Declarations of interpretation

On depositing the instrument of ratification by Belgium of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), done at Geneva on 8 June 1977, the Belgian Government makes the following declarations of interpretation:The Belgian Government, in view of the travaux préparatories for the international instrument herewith ratified, wishes to emphasize that the Protocol was established to broaden the protection conferred by humanitarian law solely when conventional weapons are used in armed conflicts, without prejudice to the provisions of international law relating to the use of other types of weapons.

Ratification of the Protocols by the Holy See

On 21 November 1985, the Holy See deposited with the Swiss Government an instrument of ratification of Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the protection of the victims of international and non-international armed conflicts, adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977. This instrument of ratification was accompanied by a declaration reproduced hereafter.

Declaration by the Holy See – Affixed to the instrument of ratification of the two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949

By ratifying the two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International (Protocol I) and Non-International (Protocol II) Armed Conflicts and adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977, the Holy See wishes, first of all, to acknowledge the merits and the positive results obtained by the “Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts”, in which it played an active part.

Ratification of the Protocols by the Republic of Senegal

The Republic of Senegal deposited with the Swiss Government, on 7 May 1985, the instruments of ratification, without reservation, of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) and non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II), adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977.

The Moon Treaty Enters Into Force

On July 11, 1984, the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies entered into force following the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the fifth instrument of ratification. The Agreement, following its adoption by the General Assembly, was opened for signature on December 18, 1979. In the intervening years, it has been signed by Austria, Chile, France, Guatemala, India, Morocco, the Netherlands, Peru, the Philippines, Romania and Uruguay. The fifth state to deposit its ratification was Austria, which followed Chile, the Philippines, Uruguay and the Netherlands.

Executions in Guatemala as Decreed by the Courts of Special Jurisdiction in 1982-83: A Case Study

May a government impose the death penalty for crimes which were not so punishable at the time that government became a state party to the American Convention on Human Rights? May a government on the basis of a reservation made regarding Article 4(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights at the time it became a state party thereto, subsequently apply the death penalty to crimes which were not so punishable when the state deposited its Instrument of Ratification? These fairly dry, nicely posed legal issues arose in 1982. The context from which they emerged began with a coup d'etat and ended the same way. For almost a year and a half a number of lives hung in the balance. In the end most of those lives were spared and the inter-American system for the protection and promotion of human rights registered a significant triumph.

Ratification of the Protocols by the Togolese Republic

The Togolese Republic deposited with the Swiss Government, on 21 June 1984, the instruments of ratification of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) and non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II), adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977.

ICRC Appeal following the entry into force of the Convention on Prohibitions and Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons

The “Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects” entered into force on 2 December 1983, six months after twenty States had deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. The three Protocols annexed to the Convention also entered into force on that date; Protocol I prohibits the use of weapons with non-detectable fragments, Protocol II prohibits or limits the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices, and Protocol III prohibits or limits the use of incendiary weapons.

Ratification of the Protocols by Denmark

On 17 June 1982, Denmark deposited with the Swiss Government an instrument of ratification, dated 2 June 1982, of Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the protection of the victims of international and non-international armed conflicts, adopted on 8 June 1977.

Ratifications of the Protocols

The following States deposited with the Swiss Government their instruments of ratification of the two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949:Under the provisions of the Protocols, they will enter into force on 8 December 1979 for the Republic of the Niger, on 11 December 1979 for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on 9 February 1980 for the Republic of Tunisia, and on 29 February 1980 for the Kingdom of Sweden, that is six months after deposit of the instruments of ratification.

Ratification of Protocol I

On 1 June 1979, the Republic of Cyprus deposited with the Swiss Government its instrument of ratification of Protocol I.

Ratification of the Geneva Conventions

On 10 December 1976, the Swiss Government received an instrument of ratification of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 from the Republic of Bolivia and accordingly notified the Governments of the States parties to these conventions.

Recent Actions Regarding Treaties to which the United States is Not a Party

The European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories, done at Strasbourg on January 22, 1965, appears at 4 I.L.M. 115 (1965). The Agreement entered into force on October 19,1967, following the deposit of three instruments of ratification by Denmark,Sweden, and Belgium. As of September 27, 1974, the Agreement was also in force for the following countries: Cyprus, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland,Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

Indian Attitudes on International Atomic Energy Controls

T HE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY of i968 has been in effect since March 5, 1970, when the fortieth non-nuclear-weapon state deposited its instruments of ratification in Washington, Moscow, and London. Although almost a hundred nations have now signed the treaty, the lack of support by several threshold states will vitiate some of its significance. The most prominent recalcitrants are the two nuclear-weapon states, France and China, which refused even to participate in the negotiations leading to the drafting of the treaty in the years i965-i968. In addition, Japan and West Germany-the world's third and fourth ranking countries in terms of Gross National Product-despite their belated signatures on the treaty in the winter of i969-70, are not expected to ratify the agreement in the near future. Each has its particular significant reservations about total adherence. Several other potential nuclear-weapon states have also failed to sign the treaty. Israel, Australia, the Union of South Africa, and Indonesia have not yet given their support; nor have the three largest countries of South America-Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. India, the second most populous nation in the world, is of especial concern to proponents of the treaty because of the advanced state of its civilian nuclear technology, its strategic geographic position, and its passionate espousal of most previous international efforts at arms control. In addition, as long as India refuses to sign, Pakistan can be expected to follow suit. India's attitude toward the non-proliferation treaty is frequently misunderstood by many who assume that the Indian signature will come in due time.1 Such speculation fails to realize that the Indian decision not to sign reflects several years of deliberate modification of previous Indian foreign policy. As early as i965, India's attitude toward international cooperation in matters of arms control had given evidence of becoming less internationallyoriented and more concerned with considerations of national security and internal development. The final decision on the non-proliferation treaty was simply the ultimate culmination of this adjustment.