Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime

added reservation
06-03-2026
1. The State of Qatar is not a party to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, referred to in paragraph (1) of Article (19) of this Protocol. 2. The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article (20) of this Protocol, relating to the settlement of disputes.

added reservation
25-03-2025
The Federal Republic of Somalia declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of [Article 20(2)] of the Protocol regarding the settlement of disputes by arbitration or referral to the International Court of Justice, unless there is a separate agreement between the parties concerned.

added reservation
10-09-2024
[…] has the honour to transmit the following Communication of the Republic of Belarus concerning the communications of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the European Union with regard to the interpretive declaration of the Republic of Belarus on the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Conventions against Transnational Organized Crime of 15 November 2000 (C.N.318.2024.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b; C.N.317.2024.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b; C.N.320.2024.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b): ‘The communication of the Republic of Belarus on its interpretive declaration concerning Article 20 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of 15 November 2000, (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol) and the legal qualification and effect of the objections of some States Parties to the Protocol against this declaration is fully extended to the objections and interpretations of the relevant dispute settlement clauses of the Protocol made by the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the European Union (C.N.320.2024.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b; C.N.317.2024.TREATIESXVIII.12.b; C.N.318.2024.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b) and to all similar cases of the subsequent communications of other States Parties to the Protocol. With regard to the communication of the European Union (C.N.320.2024.TREATIESXVIII.12.b), the Republic of Belarus states that some of its provisions constitute an example of biased assessments of purely political nature that are inappropriate for such a type of treaty declarations and can be regarded as a misrepresentation of the basics and implementation of the Protocol as well as the manifestation of the conduct contrary to the principles of international law enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.’ The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Belarus to the United Nations would appreciate it if the Communication of the Republic of Belarus could be circulated to the States parties to the Protocol. […]

added reservation
31-07-2023
The Republic of Belarus proceeds from the assumption that the provisions of paragraphs 2 – 4 of Article 20 of the Protocol shall be interpreted in good faith as not binding for the States Parties to the Protocol with the obligations to settle disputes in the International Court of Justice with that State Party to the Protocol which withdraws its reservation on non-recognition of its jurisdiction, in situations when disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol have arisen from and/or become the subject of peaceful settlement, inter alia through negotiations and/or arbitration, before, on, or immediately after the withdrawal of such a reservation.

added objection to reservation

added reservation
13-06-2024
The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares, with reference to Article 8, paragraph 6, of the Protocol, that the authority of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for Curaçao, is: Het Bureau voor Mensenhandel en Mensensmokkel (PATH) Wilhelminaplein 4, Curaçao path@minjustcur.com

added reservation
28-11-2023
[…] has the honour to refer to Communication No. 02-24/1318 by the Republic of Belarus (“Belarus”) (C.N.473.2023.TREATIESXVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)) dated 13 November 2023, concerning Lithuania’s Communication (C.N.374.2023.TREA TIES-XVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)) objecting to Belarus’ Interpretative Declaration on Article 20 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted on 15 November 2000 (“Protocol”) (C.N.225.2023.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)). Lithuania reiterates its strong objection to Belarus’ attempt to involve the Secretary-General, in his function as depositary of multilateral treaties, in a bilateral disagreement over the legal effects of Lithuania’s withdrawal of its reservation vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (“Court”). Lithuania has no intention to protract this exchange with Belarus in this forum, but it nonetheless feels compelled to raise the following in response to Belarus’ latest communication. Article 20(3) of the Protocol affirms that States may submit a reservation to Article 20(2) “at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession” to the Protocol. For its part, Article 20(4) of the Protocol provides that “[a]ny State Party that has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.” Lithuania submitted its reservation when it ratified the Protocol on 12 May 2003.1 On 12 May 2023, Lithuania exercised its right to withdraw that reservation. Consequently, Article 20(2) became binding between Lithuania and all other State Parties that had ratified the Protocol with no reservation to it, including Belarus, with immediate and full effect.2 Because pursuant to the terms of Article 20(4), no consent by the State Parties was required for Lithuania’s withdrawal to be valid and to produce its effect, Belarus’ objection to Lithuania’s withdrawal can also not change the applicability of Article 20(2) as between the two State Parties. The so-called Interpretative Declaration of Belarus of 31 July 2023 (C.N.225.2023.TREATIESXVIII. 12.b (Depositary Notification)) purports to modify the legal effect of Article 20(2) of the Protocol by excluding from the jurisdiction of the Court “situations when disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol have arisen from and/or become the subject of peaceful settlement, inter alia through negotiations and/or arbitration, before, on, or immediately after the withdrawal of such a reservation.” As such, the so-called Interpretative Declaration is in fact a reservation which would be permissible pursuant to Article 20(3) only when made “at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to this Protocol.” Had it wished to limit the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in this manner, Belarus should have submitted a reservation, at the latest, when it ratified the Protocol on 25 June 2003.3 Belarus did not do so then, and it cannot do so now under the guise of its “Interpretative Declaration”. Belarus’ Communication of 13 November 2023 states that the wording of Article 20(3) has been “widely used in similar provisions of many other United Nations multilateral treaties.” An example of such a treaty is the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988). The commentary of that convention confirms that the withdrawal of a reservation to the dispute settlement clause brings the latter “into operation between the State [] withdrawing the declaration and all other States [] that have not made such declarations.”4 Article 20(2) is thus immediately applicable in the relations between Belarus – as a State that ratified the Protocol with no reservation to it – and Lithuania – as a State that withdrew its reservation to the dispute settlement clause. Finally, in its Communication of 13 November 2023, Belarus seeks to deflect attention from its impermissible reservation by casting Lithuania’s withdrawal of its reservation as an “attempt ... to extend the jurisdiction of the [Court] to the application of the Protocol in the relations with other States Parties which took place prior to that kind of withdrawal (jurisdiction ratione temporis).” However, there can be no question that the Protocol did apply in the relations between Lithuania and the other States Parties to it, irrespective of Lithuania’s reservation to Article 20(2). The immediate applicability of that provision after the withdrawal of Lithuania’s reservation should not be conflated with a retroactive application of Article 20(2) or the other provisions of the Protocol. It cannot also be denied that whether “disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol [that] have arisen from and/or become the subject of peaceful settlement, inter alia through negotiations and/or arbitration, before, on, or immediately after the withdrawal of such a reservation” fall within the jurisdiction of the Court is a matter to be determined by the Court itself pursuant to its compétence de la compétence. Insofar as Belarus’ “Interpretive Declaration” seeks to usurp that authority, this is yet another reason why it is in essence an impermissible reservation. In light of the foregoing, Lithuania requests the Secretary General of the UN as the Depositary to disseminate this statement and clarifications of Lithuania among all Parties to the Protocol. […] Voetnoten: 1. United Nations Treaty Collection, Status of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime <https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-12-b&chapter=18&clang=_en#8> 2. International Law Commission, “Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties” (2011) <https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/1_8_2011.pdf>, ¶2.5.7(1) (“The withdrawal of a reservation entails the full application of the provisions to which the reservation relates in the relations between the State or international organization which withdraws the reservation and all the other parties, whether they had accepted the reservation or objected to it.”) 3. United Nations Treaty Collection, Status of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime <https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-12-&chapter=18&clang=_en#8>. 4. Commentary on the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (20 December 1988), <https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/organized_crime/Drug%20Convention/Commentary_on_the_united_nations_convention_1988_E.pdf>, p. 418, ¶32.5 .

added reservation
20-11-2023
[The aforementioned treaty is] implemented on the territory of Ukraine in full, with the exception of the territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, on which it is impossible to fully guarantee the Ukrainian Party’s fulfillment of its obligations under [this treaty] as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, as well as the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine until the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of Ukraine. The regularly updated list of territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation is at the link below: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1668-22#Text ...