3. For the text of a reservation or declaration, see Section III.Google Scholar

4. For the text of a reservation, declaration or statement, see Section III.Google Scholar

5. The signature on behalf of the United Kingdom is in respect of:Google Scholar

Bailiwick of JerseyGoogle Scholar

Bailiwick of Guernsey Isle of ManGoogle Scholar

St. Christopher-Nevis*-AnguillaGoogle Scholar

Belize*Google Scholar

BermudaGoogle Scholar

British Virgin IslandsGoogle Scholar

GibraltarGoogle Scholar

Hong KongGoogle Scholar

* Has since become an independent State to which the Convention will apply provisionally.Google Scholar

6. The depositary received a communication dated 20 December 1982 from the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The communication, the full text of which was circulated by the depositary, includes the following:Google Scholar

(translation)Google Scholar

“In accordance with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971 (Annex IV AB, paragraph 2(b)) the Federal Republic of Germany has no right to extend to West Berlin international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany affecting matters of security and status. The SAR Convention…relate[s], as is seen from [its] contents, to just that sort of agreement.Google Scholar

“The said Convention[s] regulate[s] matters relating to the activities of States Parties within the limits of their jurisdiction or control.Google Scholar

“The SAR Convention provides for States Parties to make necessary arrangements for the provision of search and rescue services for persons in distress at sea “round their coasts”, including the establishment of “a national machinery”. Each State Party also undertakes to co-operate for these purposes with other States Parties “[in] or over its territorial sea or territory”.Google Scholar

“It is quite obvious that the Federal Republic of Germany cannot assume such obligations in respect of West Berlin because, as is known, West Berlin is not a constituent part of the Federal Republic of Germany and is not governed by it.Google Scholar

“Bearing in mind the above, the USSR considers the statement[s] made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in depositing [an] Instrument[s] of Ratification to the Convention[s] extending [its] application to West Berlin as unlawful and void of legal force.”Google Scholar

The depositary received the following communication dated 19 May 1983 from the Government of the United Kingdom:Google Scholar

“In a communication to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is an integral part (Annex IVA) of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States, without prejudice to the maintenance of their rights and responsibilities relating to the representation abroad of the interests of the Western Sectors of Berlin, confirmed that, provided that matters of status and security are not affected and provided that the extension is specified in each case, international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany may be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin in accordance with established procedures. For its part, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in a communication to the Governments of the Three Powers which is similarly an integral part (Annex IVB) of the Quadripartite Agreement, affirmed that it would raise no objections to such extension.Google Scholar

“The established procedures referred to above, which were endorsed in the Quadripartite Agreement, are designed inter alia to afford the authorities of the Three Powers the opportunity to ensure that international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany which are to be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin are extended in such a way that matters of status and security are not affected.Google Scholar

“When authorizing the extension of … the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, to the Western Sectors of Berlin, the authorities of the Three Powers took such steps as were necessary to ensure that matters of security and status were not affected. Accordingly, the validity of the Berlin declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with established procedures in unaffected and the application of… the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue to the Western Sectors of Berlin continues in full force and effect.”Google Scholar

The depositary received a communication dated 3 June 1983 from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany stating:Google Scholar

“By its note of 19 May 1983 … the Government of the United Kingdom answered the asertions made in the [communication dated 20 December 1982 from the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Kingdom].Google Scholar

“The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of the legal situation set out in the note of 19 May 1983 wishes to confirm that the application to Berlin (West) of the …[Convention] extended by it under the established procedures continues in full force and effect.Google Scholar

“The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to point out that the absence of a response to further communications of a similar nature should not be taken to imply any change of its position in this matter.”Google Scholar

7. The depositary received the following communication dated 30 December 1980 from the Ambassador of Turkey in London:Google Scholar

“… the Government of Turkey would like to record its formal objection to the reservation made by the Government of Greece on 20 August 1980 at the time of the signature of the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979.Google Scholar

“The Government of Turkey is of the opinon that the Greek reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and thus cannot be construed as a reservation under the international law.”Google Scholar