QATAR

CRC

RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(Unless otherwise indicated, the reservations and declarations were made upon ratification, accession or succession)

29 April 2009

Whereas the Government of the State of Qatar ratified the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 3 April 1995, and entered a general reservation concerning any of its provisions that are inconsistent with the Islamic sharia;

Whereas the Council of Ministers decided at its fourth ordinary meeting of 2009, held on 28 January 2009, to approve the partial withdrawal by the State of Qatar of its general reservation, which shall continue to apply in respect of the provisions of articles 2 and 14 of the Convention;

Now therefore We declare, by means of the present instrument, the partial withdrawal by the State of Qatar of its general reservation, which shall continue to apply in respect of the provisions of articles 2 and 14 of the Convention.

Note

On 29 April 2009, the Government of the State of Qatar informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to partially withdraw the general reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification to the Convention. The text of the general reservation reads as follows:

[The State of Qatar] enter(s) a general reservation by the State of Qatar concerning provisions incompatible with Islamic Law.

(Note 46, Chapter IV.11, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General)

OBJECTIONS MADE TO STATE PARTY’S RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made upon ratification, accession or succession)

Finland

25 July 1991

With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia upon ratification concerning articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29:

"In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Republic of Indonesia."

Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, from the Government of Finland, objections of the same nature as the one above with regard to reservations made by the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter:

...

- 9 June 1993: with regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon signature;

*****

Finland, 14 June 1996

With regard to the reservations made by Qatar upon ratification:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Malaysia.]

[Ed. note: as follows:

With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession:

"The reservation made by Malaysia covers several central provisions of the [said Convention]. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Malaysia commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of the States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.

In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention]. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia is devoid of legal effect.

The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the [said Convention]."]

*****

Germany, 20 March 1996

With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession and Qatar upon ratification:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of [Malaysia and Qatar, respectively] under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of [Malaysia and Qatar, respectively] to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and [Malaysia and Qatar, respectively].

*****

Italy, 14 June 1996

With regard to the reservations made by Qatar upon ratification:

"The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Qatar under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and the State of Qatar."

*****

Netherlands

With regard to the reservations made by Djibouti, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the aforementioned States."

Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, from the Government of the Netherlands, objections of the same nature as the one above with regard to reservations made by the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter:

- 11 June 1996: with regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon ratification;

...

*****

Norway, 14 June 1996

With regard to the declaration made by Qatar upon ratification:

"The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the State of Qatar, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. For that reason, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the State of Qatar.

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 State of Qatar."

*****

Portugal

15 July 1992

With regard to the reservations made by Myanmar upon accession, by Bangladesh, Djibouti, Indonesia, Kuwait and Pakistan upon ratification and by Turkey upon signature:

"The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.

This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Myanmar.

The Government of Portugal furthermore notes that, as a matter of principle, the same objection could be made to the reservations presented by Bangladesh, Djibouti, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Turkey."

Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, from the Government of the Portugal, objections of the same nature as the one above with regard to reservations made by the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter:

...

- 11 January 1996: with regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon ratification;

...

*****

Slovakia, 9 August 1993

With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon signature:

"The Slovak Republic regards the general reservation made by the State of Qatar upon signature of the Convention as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention as well as in contradiction with the well established principle of the Law of Treaties according to which a State cannot invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Therefore, the Slovak Republic objects to the said general reservation."

Note

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Sweden the following communications: on 20 July 1993, with regard to the reservations made upon accession by Thailand concerning articles 7, 22 and 29, upon ratification by Myanmar concerning articles 15 and 37 [...], upon ratification by Bangladesh concerning article 21, upon ratification by Djibouti concerning the whole Convention, and on 29 March 1994, with regard to the reservation made upon signature by Qatar.

...

(Note 18, Chapter IV.11, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General)

*****

Note

In this regard, on 16 November 1995, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Denmark, the following communication:

"Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic respectively and Denmark.

It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

...

On 3 July 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Denmark a communication regarding the reservations made by Botswana and Qatar, identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, as the one made on 16 November 1995.

(Note 20, Chapter IV.11, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General)

*****

Note

On 18 June 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Austria, the following communication with regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon ratification:

[Same text, mutatis mutandis, as the objection made with regard to Malaysia under "Objections".]

[Ed. note: as follows:

18 June 1996

            With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession:

"Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the [Convention] a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate from provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by Malaysia to the [Convention]. Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.

Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by Malaysia, the Republic of Austria considers these reservations as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [Convention].

Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservations in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance of Malaysia ... with its obligations under the [Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.

Austria could not consider the reservation made by Malaysia ... as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless Malaysia ... , by providing additional information or through subsequent practice to ensure [s] that the reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [Convention]".]

(Note 44, Chapter IV.11, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General)

*****

Note

On 1 July 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Belgium, the following communication:

...

The Belgian Government believes that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and that, consequently, in accordance with article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it is not permitted.

Accordingly, Belgium wishes to be bound by the Convention in its entirety as regards the [State of Qatar] which [has] expressed reservations prohibited by the [said] Convention.

Moreover, as the 12 month period specified in article 20.5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is not applicable to reservations which are null and void, Belgium's objection to such reservations is not subject to any particular time-limit.

(Note 45, Chapter IV.11, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General)