Declaración formulada en el momento de la ratificación:
"En lo referente a la aplicación de las disposiciones del párrafo 3 de la Sección I del Protocolo, Japón cumplirá con sus obligaciones en virtud de dichas disposiciones de manera compatible con su legislación nacional, incluido el código civil. Japón se considerará por ende obligado por las disposiciones de la Sección I del Protocolo en la medida en que su observancia sea compatible con la legislación nacional antes mencionada."
Traducción facilitada por la OMPI, © 2014
Reserva formulada en el momento de la ratificación:
"... la restitución de los bienes culturales, de conformidad con las cláusulas de la Sección I y II del Protocolo, puede exigirse únicamente una vez vencido el plazo de 20 años a partir de la fecha en que el bien en cuestión quedó en posesión de un tenedor de buena fe."
Bulgaria, República Socialista Soviética Bielorrusa, Chad, Checoslovaquia, India, Italia, Madagascar, México, Países Bajos, Polonia, Rumania, San Marino, España, República Árabe Unida y la Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas formularon observaciones respecto de la reserva que antecede.
En una nota verbal con fecha de 3 de octubre de 1973, Noruega anunció su decisión de retirar la reserva, con efecto a partir del 24 de agosto de 1979.
Traducción facilitada por la OMPI, © 2014
Declaration made upon accession:
"[…] DECLARES that, consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, this accession shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory;"
The instruments were accompanied by the following declarations:
"Hereby Declare that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland makes the following declarations in relation to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954 and the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1999 done at the Hague on 14 May 1954, 14 May 1954 and 26 March 1999 respectively:
1. It is the understanding of the United Kingdom that military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources which is reasonably available to them at the relevant time.
2. The United Kingdom understands the term "feasible" as used in the Second Protocol to mean that which is practicable or practically possible, taking into account all circumstances ruling at that time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
3. It is the view of the United Kingdom that, when referred to in the Second Protocol, the military advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack.
4. The United Kingdom recalls the Declaration made by the Republic of Mauritius on its accession to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954 as to the purported territorial application of the Convention.
The United Kingdom rejects the claim contained in the Declaration made by Mauritius that the territorial application of the Convention extends to the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia. In particular, the United Kingdom rejects the claim by the Republic of Mauritius that the Chagos Archipelago, which the United Kingdom administers as the British Indian Ocean Territory, is part of Mauritius. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory/Chagos Archipelago. Mauritius' purported extension of the Convention to this territory is unfounded and does not have any legal effect."[Original: English]