Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal    
     
 
Site's Home Page  
About the Convention  
Text of the Convention  
Status of Ratifications  
Country Contacts  
Governing Bodies  
Strategic Plan  
Synergies    
Regional Centres  
National Reporting  
The Secretariat  
Internship Opportunities  
Legal Matters  
Technical Matters  
Financial Matters  
Partnerships Programme  
Resource Mobilisation  
COP10    
Convention Meetings  
Meeting Documents  
Publications  
Press Room  
Useful Links  
 
 
Communications  
Request for Comments  
The Secretariat  
Internship Opportunities  
 
   
 

Parties to the Basel Convention

Only the information pertaining to the Convention as kept in the custody of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his capacity as Depositary constitutes authentic information for the purposes of the Convention. Please consult the website of the Depositary for authoritative information (http://treaties.un.org/Home.aspx), the following is issued for information purposes only .

Total number of Parties: 176

Entry into force: 5 May 1992, in accordance with article 25 (1) of the Convention.

Registration: 5 May 1992, No. 28911.

 
Participant Signature Date *
Afghanistan 22.03.89  
Albania   29.06.99 (a)
Algeria   15.09.98 (a)
Andorra   23.7.99 (a)
Antigua and Barbuda   05.04.93 (a)
Argentina 28.06.89 27.06.91
Armenia   01.10.99 (a)
Australia   05.02.92 (a)
Austria 19.03.90 12.01.93
Azerbaijan   01.06.01 (a)
Bahamas   12.08.92 (a)
Bahrain 22.03.89 15.10.92
Bangladesh   01.04.93 (a)
Barbados   24.08.95 (a)
Belarus   10.12.99 (a)
Belgium 22.03.89 01.11.93
Belize   23.05.97 (a)
Benin   04.12.97 (a)
Bhutan   26.08.02 (a)
Bolivia 22.03.89 15.11.96
Bosnia & Herzegovina   16.03.01 (a)
Botswana   20.05.98 (a)
Brazil   01.10.92 (a)
Brunei Darussalam   16.12.02 (a)
Bulgaria   16.02.96 (a)
Burkina Faso   04.11.99 (a)
Burundi   06.01.97 (a)
Cambodia   02.03.01 (a)
Cameroon   09.02.01 (a)
Canada 22.03.89 28.08.92
Cape Verde   02.07.99 (a)
Central African Republic   24.02.06 (a)
Chad   10.03.04 (a)
Chile 31.01.90 11.08.92
China 4 22.03.90 17.12.91
Colombia 22.03.89 31.12.96
Comoros   31.10.94 (a)
Congo (Republic of the)   20.04.07 (a)
Cook Islands   29.06.04 (a)
Costa Rica   07.03.95 (a)
Côte d'Ivoire   01.12.94 (a)
Croatia   09.05.94 (a)
Cuba   03.10.94 (a)
Cyprus 22.03.89 17.09.92
Czech Republic 5   30.09.93 (d)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea   10.07.08 (a)
Democratic Republic of Congo   06.10.94 (a)
Denmark 22.03.89 06.02.94 (AA)
Djibouti   31.05.02 (a)
Dominica   05.05.98 (a)
Dominican Republic   10.07.00 (a)
Ecuador 22.03.89 23.02.93
Egypt 6   08.01.93 (a)
El Salvador 22.03.90 13.12.91
Equatorial Guinea   07.02.03 (a)
Eritrea   10.03.05 (a)
Estonia   21.07.92 (a)
Ethiopia   12.04.00 (a)
European Union 22.03.89 07.02.94 (AA)
Finland 22.03.89 19.11.91 (A)
France 22.03.89 07.01.91 (AA)
Gabon   06.06.08 (a)
Gambia   15.12.97 (a)
Georgia   20.05.99 (a)
Germany 7 23.10.89 21.04.95
Ghana   30.05.03 (a)
Greece 22.03.89 04.08.94
Guatemala 22.03.89 15.05.95
Guinea   26.04.95 (a)
Guinea-Bissau   09.02.05 (a)
Guyana   04.04.01 (a)
Haiti 22.03.89  
Honduras   27.12.95 (a)
Hungary 22.03.89 21.05.90 (AA)
Iceland   28.06.95 (a)
India 15.03.90 24.06.92
Indonesia   20.09.93 (a)
Iran (Islamic Republic of)   05.01.93 (a)
Iraq   02.05.11 (a)
Ireland 19.01.90 07.02.94
Israel 22.03.89 04.12.94
Italy 22.03.89 07.02.94
Jamaica   23.01.03 (a)
Japan   17.09.93 (a)
Jordan 22.03.89 22.06.89 (AA)
Kazakhstan   03.06.03 (a)
Kenya   01.06.00 (a)
Kiribati   07.09.00 (a)
Kuwait 22.03.89 11.10.93
Kyrgyzstan   13.08.96 (a)
Lao People's Democratic Republic   21.09.10 (a)
Latvia   14.04.92 (a)
Lebanon 22.03.89 21.12.94
Lesotho   31.05.00 (a)
Liberia   22.09.04 (a)
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya   12.07.01 (a)
Liechtenstein 22.03.89 27.01.92
Lithuania   22.04.99 (a)
Luxembourg 22.03.89 07.02.94
Madagascar   02.06.99 (a)
Malawi   21.04.94 (a)
Malaysia   08.10.93 (a)
Maldives   28.04.92 (a)
Mali   05.12.00 (a)
Malta   19.06.00 (a)
Marshall Islands   27.01.03 (a)
Mauritania   16.08.96 (a)
Mauritius   24.11.92 (a)
Mexico 22.03.89 22.02.91
Micronesia (Federated States of)   06.09.95 (a)
Monaco   31.08.92 (a)
Mongolia   15.04.97 (a)
Montenegro 8   23.10.06 (d)
Morocco   28.12.95 (a)
Mozambique   13.03.97 (a)
Namibia   15.05.95 (a)
Nauru   12.11.01 (a)
Nepal   15.10.96 (a)
Netherlands 9 22.03.89 16.04.93 (A)
New Zealand 10 18.03.89 20.12.94
Nicaragua   03.06.97 (a)
Niger   17.06.98 (a)
Nigeria 15.03.90 13.03.91
Norway 22.03.89 02.07.90
Oman   08.02.95 (a)
Pakistan   26.07.94 (a)
Panama 22.03.89 22.02.91
Papua New Guinea   01.09.95 (a)
Paraguay   28.09.95 (a)
Peru   23.11.93 (a)
Philippines 22.03.89 21.10.93
Poland 22.03.90 22.03.92
Portugal 11 26.06.89 26.01.94
Qatar   09.08.95 (a)
Republic of Korea   28.02.94 (a)
Republic of Moldova   02.07.98 (a)
Romania   27.02.91 (a)
Russian Federation 22.03.90 31.01.95
Rwanda   07.01.04 (a) 
Samoa   22.03.02 (a)
Saudi Arabia 22.03.89 07.03.90
Senegal   10.11.92 (a)
Serbia 8   18.04.00 (a)
Seychelles   11.05.93 (a)
Singapore   02.01.96 (a)
Slovakia 5   28.05.93 (d)
Slovenia   07.10.93 (a)
Somalia   26.07.10 (a)
South Africa   05.05.94 (a)
Spain 22.03.89 07.02.94
Sri Lanka   28.08.92 (a)
St. Kitts and Nevis   07.09.94 (a)
St. Lucia   09.12.93 (a)
St. Vincent and the Grenadines   02.12.96 (a)
Sudan   09.01.06 (a)
Swaziland   08.08.05 (a)
Sweden 22.03.89 02.08.91
Switzerland 22.03.89 31.01.90
Syrian Arab Republic 11.10.89 22.01.92
Thailand 22.03.90 24.11.97
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   16.07.97 (a)
Togo   02.07.04 (a)
Tonga   26.03.10 (a)
Trinidad and Tobago   18.02.94 (a)
Tunisia   11.10.95 (a)
Turkey 22.03.89 22.06.94
Turkmenistan   25.09.96 (a)
Uganda   11.03.99 (a)
Ukraine   08.10.99 (a)
United Arab Emirates 22.03.89 17.11.92
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4, 12 06.10.89 07.02.94
United Republic of Tanzania   07.04.93 (a)
United States of America 13 22.03.90  
Uruguay   20.12.91
Uzbekistan   07.02.96 (a)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 22.03.89 03.03.98
Viet Nam   13.03.95 (a)
Yemen   21.02.96 (a)
Zambia   15.11.94 (a)
* (a) Accession; (A) Acceptance; (AA) Approval; (c) Formal confirmation; Ratification; (d) Succession
Signatories of the Basel Convention which have not deposed instruments of ratifications: Afghanistan, Haiti, United States of America

Declarations

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations were made upon formal confirmation, ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or succession. For objections thereto, see hereinafter.)


Algeria

 

Declaration:

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares, with regard to article 20, paragraph 2 of the [Convention], that in every case, the agreement of the all parties concerned is necessary to submit a dispute to the International Court of Justice or to arbitration.


Chile


Declaration:

The Government of Chile considers that the provisions of this Convention [. . .] help to consolidate and expand the legal regime that Chile has established through various international instruments on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, whose scope of application covers both the continental territory of the Republic and its area of jurisdiction situated south of latitude 600S, in accordance with the provisions of article 4, paragraph 6, of the present Convention.


Colombia


Upon signature:

It is the understanding of Colombia that the implementation of the present Convention shall in no case restrict, but rather shall strengthen, the application of the juridical and political principles which, as [was] made clear in the statement [made on 21 March to the Basel Conference], govern the actions taken by the Colombian State in matters covered by the Convention -- in other words, inter alia, the latter may in no case be interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with the competence of the Colombian State to apply those principles and other norms of its internal rule to its land area (including the subsoil), air space, territorial sea, submarine continental shelf and exclusive economic maritime zone, in accordance with international law.

Upon ratification:

The Government of Colombia, pursuant to article 26, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention], declares, for the purposes of implementing this international instrument, that article 81 of the Political Constitution of Colombia prohibits the bringing of nuclear residues and toxic wastes into the national territory.

 

Cuba

 

Declaration:

The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares, with regard to article 20 of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, that any disputes between Parties as to the interpreta- tion or application of, or compliance with, this Convention or any protocol thereto, shall be settled through negotiation through the diplomatic channel or submitted to arbitration under the conditions set out in Annex VI on arbitration.

 

Denmark

 

Upon signature:

"Denmark's signature of the Global Convention of the Con- trol of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal does not apply to Greenland and the Faroe Islands."

 

Ecuador

 

Upon signature:

The elements contained in the Convention which has been signed may in no way be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the domestic legal norms of the Ecuadorian State, or with the exercise of its national sovereignty.

 

Germany 7

 

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

"It is the understanding of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that the provisions in article 4, paragraph 12 of this Convention shall in no way affect the exercise of navigation rights and freedoms as provided for in international law. Accordingly, it is the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to require the giving of notice to or the consent of any State for the passage of hazardous wastes on a vessel under the flag of a party exercising its right of innocent passage through the territorial sea or the freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone under international law."

 

Indonesia

 

Declaration:

Mindful of the need to adjust the existing national laws and regulations, the provisions of article 3 (1) of this Convention shall only be implemented by Indonesia after the new revised laws and regulations have been enacted and entered into force.

 

Italy

 

Declaration made on 30 March 1990 and confirmed upon ratification:

The Government of Italy declares . . . that it is in favour of the establishment of a global control system for the environmentally sound management of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.

 

Japan

 

Declaration:

The Government of Japan declares that nothing in the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal be interpreted as requiring notice to or consent of any State for the mere passage of hazardous wastes or other wastes on a vessel exercising navigational rights and freedoms, as paragraph 12 of article 4 of the said Convention stipulates that nothing in the Convention shall affect in any way the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms as provided for in international law and as reflected in relevant international instruments.

 

Lebanon

 

Upon signature:

"[Lebanon] declares that [it] can under no circumstances permit burial of toxic and other wastes in any of the areas subject to its legal authority which they have entered illegally. In 1988, Lebanon announced a total ban on the import of such wastes and adopted Act No. 64/88 of 12 August 1988 to that end. In all such situations, Lebanon will endeavour to co-operate with the States concerned, and with the other States parties, in accordance with the provisions of this treaty."

 

Mexico

 

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

Mexico is signing ad referendum the Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal because it duly protects its rights as a coastal State in the areas subject to its national jurisdiction, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and, in so far as it is relevant, its airspace, and the exercise in those areas of its legislative and administrative competence in relation to the protection and preservation of the environment, as recognized by international law and, in particular, the law of the sea. Mexico considers that, by means of this Convention, important progress has been made in protection of the environment through the legal regulation of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes. A framework of general obligations for States parties has been established, fundamentally with a view to reducing to a minimum the generation and transboundary movement of dangerous wastes and ensuring their environmentally rational management, promoting international co-operation for those purposes, establishing co-ordination and follow-up machinery and regulating the implementation of procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Mexico further hopes that, as an essential supplement to the standard-setting character of the Convention, a protocol will be adopted as soon as possible, establishing, in accordance with the principles and provisions of international law, appropriate procedures in the matter of responsibility and compensation for damage resulting from the transboundary movement and management of dangerous wastes.

The Netherlands (Declaration made on 17 February 2010)

"The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, that it accepts both means of dispute settlement referred to in that paragraph as compulsory in relation to any Party accepting one or both means of dispute settlement."

 

Norway

 

"Norway accepts the binding means of settling disputes set out in Article 20, paragraphs 3 (a) and (b), of the Convention, by (a) submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice and/or (b) arbitration in accordance with the procedures set out in Annex VI."

 

Poland

 

Declaration:

With respect to article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Polish Republic declares that it recognizes submission to arbitration in accordance with the procedures and under the conditions set out in Annex VI to the Convention, as compulsory ipso facto.

 

Romania

 

Declaration:

In conformity with article 26, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Romania declares that the import and the disposal on its national territory of hazardous wastes and other wastes can take place only with the prior approval of the competent Romanian authorities.

 

Russian Federation

 

Understanding:

The definition of "Territory" in the Cairo Guidelines and Principles for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes (UNEP Governing Council decision 14/30 of 17 June 1987) to which reference is made in the preamble to the Convention is a special formulation and cannot be used for purposes of interpreting the present Convention or any of its provisions in the light of article 31, paragraph 2, or article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or on any other basis.

 

Saint Kitts and Nevis

 

Declaration:

"With respect to article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis declares that it recognizes submission to arbitration in accordance with the procedures and the conditions set out in Annex VI to the Convention, as compulsory ipso facto ."

 

Singapore

 

Declaration:

"The Government of Singapore declares that, in accordance with article 4 (12), the provisions of the Convention do not in any way affect the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms as provided in international law. Accordingly, nothing in this Convention requires notice to or consent of any State for the passage of a vessel under the flag of a party, exercising rights of passage through the territorial sea or freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone under international law."

 

Spain

 

Declaration:

The Spanish Government declares, in accordance with article 26.2 of the Convention, that the criminal characterization of illegal traffic in hazardous wastes or other wastes, established as an obligation of States Parties under article 4.3, will in future take place within the general framework of reform of the substantive criminal legal order.

 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

 

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declare that, in accordance with article 4 (12), the provisions of the Convention do not affect in any way the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms as provided for in international law. Accordingly, nothing in this Convention requires notice to or consent of any state for the passage of hazardous wastes on a vessel under the flag of a party, exercising rights of passage through the territorial sea or freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone under international law."

 

Uruguay

 

Upon signature:

Uruguay is signing ad referendum the Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal because it is duly protecting its rights as a riparian State in the areas subject to its national jurisdiction, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and, as appropriate, the superjacent air space as well as the exercise in such areas of its standard-setting and administrative competence in connection with the protection and preservation of the environment as recognized by international law and, in particular, by the law of the sea.

 

Venezuela

 

Upon signature:

Venezuela considers that the Convention [as] adopted properly protects its sovereign rights as a riparian State over the areas under its national jurisdiction, including its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and, as appropriate, its air space. The Convention also safeguards the exercise in such areas of its standard-setting and administrative jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting and preserving the environment and its natural resources in accordance with international law, and in particular the law of the sea.

 

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were received upon formal confirmation, ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or succession.)

 

Italy

 

The Government of Italy, in expressing its objections vis-à-vis the declarations made, upon signature, by the Governments of Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela, as well as other declarations of similar tenor that might be made in the future, considers that no provision of this Convention should be interpreted as restricting navigational rights recognized by international law. Consequently, a State party is not obliged to notify any other State or obtain authorization from it for simple passage through the territorial sea or the exercise of freedom of navigation in the exclusive economic zone by a vessel showing its flag and carrying a cargo of hazardous wastes.

Note: Information provided by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, New York. For more information on the status of the Convention, its amendments and related declarations as well as background information of key terms please check the website of the Treaty Section of the United Nations (which is now a pay site).



Notes

1. On 16 September 1992, i.e., after the expiry of the 90-day period from the date of its circulation (i.e., 10 June 1992), the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland communicated the following with respect to the corrections proposed by the Government of Japan to article 7 of the Convention:

"The United Kingdom Government has no objection to the first of the . . . suggested amendments since this represents the correction of a typographical error rather than a substantive change. With regard to the second proposed change, however, the UK Government would wish to lodge an objection on the following grounds:

i) Since the Convention was negotiated predominantly through the English language version of the draft Convention, to amend the text of this version to accord with the text of the other language versions would be to align the original version with translations, rather than vice-versa, which would appear to be more appropriate;

ii) Tthere is a general presumption that a legislative provision should be construed, if at all possible, so as to give it meaning and substance. If the amendment proposed by the Japanese Government was to be accepted, article 7 would confirm what is already explicit in article 6.1 of the Convention (as read in conjunction with article 2.13 which defines the term `the states concerned'). If, however, article 7 remains un-amended, it will continue to add to the scope of article 6.2 and therefore retain a specific meaning;

iii) The United Kingdom is of the view that the Basel Convention should require of Parties the maximum level of prior notification possible. In the case of a proposed movement of a consignment of hazardous waste from the Basel Party to a second Basel Party via a non-Party, we would wish the second Basel Party to send a copy of its final response regarding movement to the non-Party. Article 7, as presently worded, ensures that this takes place. The amendment proposed by the Government of Japan would, however, have the effect of limiting, albeit to a small extent, the amount of prior notification by Parties to the agreement in question.

In view of these objections the government of the United Kingdom agrees to the first of the proposed adjustments of the English text, but not to the second."

On 11 January 1993, the Government of the United Kingdom notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the objection to the second modification proposed by the Government of Japan to article 7 of the Convention.

2. At the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, held in Kuching, Malaysia, from 23 to 27 February 1998, the Parties proposed an amendment to Annex I and adopted two new Annexes (VIII and IX).

In accordance with paragraphs 2 (c) and 3 of article 18, on the expiry of six months from the date of their circulation (on 6 May 1998), the amendment to Annex I and the adoption of Annexes VIII and IX became effective for all Parties to the Convention which had not submitted a notification in accordance with the provisions of article 18, paragraph 2 (b), that is to say on 6 November 1998.

In this connection, the Secretary-General had received from the Governments of the following States, notifications on the dates indicated hereinafter:

Austria (30 October 1998):

"Austria is not in a position to accept the amendment and the annexes to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention) which were adopted by decision IV/9 of the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention.

This objection under Article 18 para. 2 (b) of the said Convention has to be raised on purely technical grounds, due to the necessary parliamentary procedure in Austria, and will be lifted immediately once Parliament has accepted the amendment to Annex I as well as the new annexes VIII and IX.

In this context, due note should be taken of the fact that Austria is legally bound by the "Council Regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Union". An amendment to Annex V of this Council Regulation has been decided with the support of Austria on 30 September 1998 in order to take into full consideration those wastes featuring on any lists of wastes characterized as hazardous for the purposes of the Basel Convention."

The amendment to Annex I and the adoption of Annexes VIII and IX took effect for Austria on 26 October 1999, the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance with the Secretary-General.

Germany (4 November 1998):

At the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention held in Kuching, Malaysia from 23 to 27 February 1998, Germany agreed to the amendments and the new Annexes. However, under the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany formal approval by the legislative bodies is required before the amendments to the Convention enter into force. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to conclude this process within the six-month deadline.

For this reason and in conformity with Article 18 (2) (b) of the Basel Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it cannot at present accept the amendments to Annex I and the new Annexes VIII and IX to the Basel Convention.

The amendment to Annex I and the adoption of Annexes VIII and IX took effect for Germany on 24 May 2002, the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance with the Secretary-General.

3. Such an organization is defined under article 2, paragraph 20, of the said Convention as "an organization constituted by sovereign States to which its member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Convention and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve, formally confirm or accede to it".

4. On 6 and 10 June 1997, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from the Governments of the United Kingdom and China. Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. For more detailed historical information please consult the United Nations Teatry Collection which is a subscription site.

5. Czechoslovakia had acceded to the Convention on 24 July 1991.In a letter dated 16 February 1993, received by the Secretary-General on 22 February 1993 and accompanied by a list of multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General, the Government of the Czech Republic notified that :
"In conformity with the valid principles of international law and to the extent defined by it, the Czech Republic, as a successor State to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considers itself bound, as of 1 January 1993, i.e., the date of the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, by multilateral international treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party on that date, including reservations and declarations to their provisions made earlier by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
The Government of the Czech Republic have examined multilateral treaties the list of which is attached to this letter. [The Government of the Czech Republic] considers to be bound by these treaties as well as by all reservations and declarations to them by virtue of succession as of 1 January 1993.
The Czech Republic, in accordance with the well established principles of international law, recognizes signatures made by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic in respect of all signed treaties as if they were made by itself."

In a letter dated 19 May 1993 and also accompanied by a list of multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General, received by the Secretary-General on 28 May 1993, the Government of the Slovak Republic notified that:;

"In accordance with the relevant principles and rules of international law and to the extent defined by it, the Slovak Republic, as a successor State, born from the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considers itself bound, as of January 1, 1993, i.e., the date on which the Slovak Republic assumed responsibility for its international relations, by multilateral treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party as of 31 December 1992, including reservations and declarations made earlier by Czechoslovakia, as well as objections by Czechoslovakia to reservations formulated by other treaty-parties.

The Slovak Republic wishes further to maintain its status as a contracting State of the treaties to which Czechoslovakia was a contracting State and which were not yet in force at the date of the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, as well as the status of a signatory State of the treaties which were previously signed but not ratified by Czechoslovakia as listed in the Annex to this letter."

6. On 31 January 1995, the Government of Egypt informed the Secretary-General that its instrument of accession should have been accompanied by the following declarations:

First declaration: passage of ships carrying hazardous wastes through the Egyptian territorial sea:

The Arab Republic of Egypt, upon acceding to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which was done on 22 March 1989 and is referred to hereafter as "the Convention", and, in accordance with article 26 of the Convention, declares that:

In accordance with the provisions of the Convention and the rules of international law regarding the sovereign right of the State over its territorial sea and its obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, since the passage of foreign ships carrying hazardous or other wastes entails many risks which constitute a fundamental threat to human health and the environment; and

In conformity with Egypt's position on the passage of ships carrying inherently dangerous or noxious substances through its territorial sea (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1983), the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that

1. Foreign ships carrying hazardous or other wastes will be required to obtain prior permission from the Egyptian authorities for passage through its territorial sea.

2. Prior notification must be given of the movement of any hazardous wastes through areas under its national jurisdiction, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 9, of the Convention.

Second declaration: imposition of a complete ban on the import of hazardous wastes:

The Arab Republic of Egypt, upon acceding to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which was signed on 22 March 1989 and is referred to below as "the Convention", and

In accordance with article 26 of the Convention, declares that:

In accordance with its sovereign rights and with article 4, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention, a complete ban is imposed on the import of all hazardous or other wastes and on their disposal on the territory of the Arab Republic of Egypt. This confirms Egypt's position that the transportation of such wastes constitutes a fundamental threat to the health of people, animals and plants and to the environment.

Third declaration:

The Governments of Bahrain, Belgium, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Denmark, Egypt, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as the Commission of the European Union, which will sign the Convention and/or the final document referring to the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (referred to hereinafter as "the Convention"),

Concerned that the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes constitutes a great danger to the health of both humans and the environment,

Considering that the developing countries have a limited ability to manage wastes, especially hazardous wastes, in an environmentally sound manner,

Believing that a reduction in the production of hazardous wastes and their disposal in environmentally sound conditions in the country which exports them must be the goal of waste management policy,

Convinced that the gradual cessation of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes will undoubtedly be a major incentive to the development of appropriate national facilities for the disposal of wastes,

Recognizing the right of every State to ban the import to or export from its territory of hazardous wastes,

Welcoming the signature of the Convention,

Believing it necessary, before applying the provisions of the Convention, to impose immediate and effective control on transboundary movement operations, especially to developing countries, and to reduce them,

Declare the following:

1. The signatories to this Convention affirm their strong determina-tion that wastes should be disposed of in the country of production.

2. The signatories to this Convention request States which accede to the Convention to do so, by making every possible effort to effect a gradual cessation of the import and export of wastes for reasons other than their disposal in facilities which will be set up within the framework of regional cooperation.

3. The signatories to this Convention will not permit wastes to be imported to or exported from countries deficient in the technical, administrative and legal expertise in administering wastes and disposing of them in an environmentally sound manner.

4. The signatories to this Convention affirm the importance of assistance to develop appropriate facilities intended for the final disposal of wastes produced by countries referred to in paragraph 3 above.

5. The signatories to this Convention stress the need to take effective measures within the framework of the Convention to enable wastes to be reduced to the lowest possible level and to be recycled.

Note:

Belgium considers that its declaration does not prejudice the import to its territory of wastes classified as primary or secondary materials.

These declarations were not transmitted to the Secretary-General at the time the instrument of accession. In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the declarations in question for deposit in the absence of any objection on the part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged, within a period of 90 days from the date of their circulation (i.e., 17 July 1995).

In this connexion, the Secretary-General received the following objections on the dates indicated hereinafter:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (9 October 1995):

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cannot accept the first declaration of Egypt (passage of ships carrying hazardous wastes through the Egyptian territorial sea) [...]. Not only was this declaration out of time, but like all other declarations to similar effect, it is unacceptable in substance. In this connection the United Kingdom Government recalls its own statement upon signature confirmed upon ratification:

[For the text of the statement, see under "Reservations and Declarations".]

Finland (13 October 1995):

... "In the view of the Government of Finland the declarations of Egypt raise certain legal questions. Article 26.1 of the Basel Convention prohibits any reservation or exception to the Convention. However, according to article 26.2 a State can, when acceding to the Convention, make declarations or statements `with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention ...'.

Without taking any stand to the content of the declarations, which appear to be reservations in nature, the Government of Finland refers to article 26.2 of the Basel Convention and notes that the declarations of Egypt have been made too late. For this reason the Government of Finland objects to the declarations and considers them devoid of legal effect."

Italy (13 October 1995):

... The Italian Government objects to the deposit of the aforementioned declarations since, in its opinion, they should be considered as reservations to the Basel Convention and the possibility of making reservations is excluded under article 26, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In any event, article 26, paragraph 2, stipulates that a State may, within certain limits, formulate declarations only "when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, ... confirming or acceding to this Convention".

For these reasons, the deposit of the aforementioned declarations cannot be allowed, regardless of their content.

Netherlands (13 October 1995):

"While the second and the third declarations do not call for observations by the Kingdom, the first declaration establishing the requirement of prior permission for passage through the Egyptian territorial sea is not acceptable.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the first declaration to be a reservation to the (Basel) Convention. The Convention explicitly prohibits the making of reservations in article 26 par. 1. Moreover, this reservation has been made two years after the accession of Egypt to the (Basel) Convention, and therefore too late.

Consequently the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the declaration on the requirement of prior permission for passage through the territorial sea made by Egypt a reservation which is null and void."

Sweden (16 October 1995):

"The Government of Sweden cannot accept the declarations made by the Government of Egypt [...].

First, these declarations were made almost two years after the accession by Egypt contrary to the rule laid down in article 26, paragraph 2 of the Basel Convention.

Second, the content of the first of these declarations must be understood to constitute a reservation to the Convention, whereas the Basel Convention explicitly prohibits reservations (article 26, paragraph 1).

Thus, the Government of Sweden considers these declarations null and void."

In view of the above and in keeping with the depositary practice followed in such cases, the Secretary-general has taken the view that he is not in a position to accept these declarations for deposit.

7. The German Democratic Republic had signed the Convention on 19 March 1989. See also note 2 under "Germany" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

8. Information Note on Serbia and Montenegro:

The National Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro adopted its Declaration of Independence on 3 June 2006, following the referendum in the Republic of Montenegro on 21 May 2006, which took place pursuant to Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro. The Republic of Serbia continued the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the United Nations, including all organs and organizations of the United Nations system, on the basis of Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro, activated by the Declaration of Independence adopted by the National Assembly of Montenegro on 3 June 2006. Accordingly, by a letter dated 3 June 2006, the President of the Republic of Serbia notified the Secretary-General that "membership of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro is continued by the Republic of Serbia in the United Nations, including all organs and organizations of the United Nations system".

Subsequently, in a letter dated 16 June 2006, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia informed the Secretary-General that "the Republic of Serbia continues to exercise its rights and honour its commitments deriving from international treaties concluded by Serbia and Montenegro. Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requests that the Republic of Serbia be considered a party to all international agreements in force, instead of Serbia and Montenegro. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Serbia will perform the functions formerly performed by the Council of ministers of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro as depositary for the corresponding multilateral treaties." Moreover, in a letter dated 30 June 2006, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia confirmed that "all treaty actions undertaken by Serbia and Montenegro will continue in force with respect to the Republic of Serbia with effect from 3 June 2006. Therefore, all declarations, reservations and notifications made by Serbia and Montenegro will be maintained by the Republic of Serbia until the Secretary-General, as depositary, is duly notified otherwise."

9. For the Kingdom in Europe.

10. With a declaration of non-application to Tokelau "until the date of notification by the Government of New Zealand that the Convention shall so extend to Tokelau".

11. On 28 June 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General the the Convention would also apply to Macau.

Subsequently, on 9 and 15 December 1999, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Macau from the Governments of the Portugal and China (see also note 3 under "China" and note 1 under "Portugal" regarding Macao in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with the will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

12. In respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British Antarctic Territory.

Subsequently, on 30 October 1995, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General that the Convention shall apply to Hong Kong (see also note 4 ), being a territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible.

On 6 July 2001, the Secretary-general received from the Government of Argentina, the following communication:

Following the notification by the Environment Agency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the possible transit of a cargo of hazardous wastes, the Government of Argentina rejected the British attempt to apply the above-mentioned Convention to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as to the surrounding maritime spaces and to the Argentine Antarctic Sector.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces and rejects any British attempt to apply the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989 to the said Territories and maritime spaces.

It also wishes to recall that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, which recognize the existence of a dispute over sovereignty and request the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the pending problems between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Further, on 12 December 2001, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the Secretary-General that "the Convention shall extend to the Isle of Man for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible" (on 27 November 2002: designation of authority: Department of Local Government and the Environment, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF).

On 27 November 2002: on behalf of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. (designation of authority: "Board of Health, David Hughes, Chief Executive, States of Guernsey Board of Health, John Henry House, Le Vauquiedor, St Martin's, Guernsey, GY4 6UU).

On 6 September 2006: in respect of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

"In accordance with Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Convention, the competent authorities designated by the United Kingdom for the Sovereign Base Areas of Dhekelia and Akrotiri are:

Sovereign Base Areas:

Competent Authority for the Western Sovereign Base Area: Area Officer (Mr Kyprianos Matheou), Area Office, Akrotiri, BFPO 57 (telephone 00357 2527 7290).

Competent Authoriy for Eastern Sovereign Base Area: Area Officer (Mr Christakis Athanasiou), Area Office, Dhekelia, BFPO 58 (telephone 00357 2474 4558).

British Forces Cyprus:

Competent Authority: Defence Estates Support Manager (Mr P Pashas), Block D, Headquarters, British Forces Cyprus, Episkopi, BFPO 53 (telephone 00357 2596 2329).

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom, is the focal point for the purposes of Article 5 of the Convention."



13. On 13 March 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America, the following communication:

"(1) It is the understanding of the United States of America that, as the Convention does not apply to vessels and aircraft that are entitled to sovereign immunity under international law, in particular to any warship, naval auxiliary, and other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by a State and in use on government, non-commercial service, each State shall ensure that such vessels or aircraft act in a manner consistent with this Convention, so far as is practicable and reasonable, by adopting appropriate measures that do not impair the operations or operational capabilities of sovereign immune vessels.

(2) It is the understanding of the United States of America that a State is a `Transit State' within the meaning of the Convention only if wastes are moved, or are planned to be moved, through its inland waterways, inland waters, or land territory.

(3) It is the understanding of the United States of America that an exporting State may decide that it lacks the capacity to dispose of wastes in an `environmentally sound and efficient manner' if disposal in the importing country would be both environmentally sound and economically efficient.

(4) It is the understanding of the United States of America that article 9 (2) does not create obligations for the exporting State with regard to cleanup, beyond taking such wastes back or otherwise disposing of them in accordance with the Convention. Further obligations may be determined by the parties pursuant to article 12.

Further, at the time the United States of America deposits its instrument of ratification of the Basel Convention, the United States will formally object to the declaration of any State which asserts the right to require its prior permission or authorization for the passage of vessels transporting hazardous wastes while exercising, under international law, its right of innocent passage through the territorial sea or freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone."


15. On 14 September 2007, "... the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wishes the United Kingdom's Ratification of the Convention ... to be extended to Jersey for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland considers the extension of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal ... to Jersey to take effect from the date of deposit of this notification , ... ."

"In accordance with Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the competent authorities designated by the United Kingdom for Jersey are:

Minister for Planning and Environment: Assistant Director, Environmental Protection, Howard Davis Farm, La Rue de la Trinite, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5JP."

 
 
Site Map Seach Home