Objection with regard to the reservation and statement made by Qatar upon accession: (May 15, 2019)
"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation and the statement made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the 1966 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
The Republic of Latvia considers that Article 3 of the Covenant forms the very basis of the Covenant and its main purpose, thus no derogations from those obligations can be made. In addition, the statement regarding the provisions of Article 8 of the Covenant making the application of these provisions subject to national law is in its own nature also a reservation.
The reservations made by the State of Qatar regarding Article 3 and Article 8 [exclude] the legal effect of central provision[s] of the Covenant, thus the reservations are incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the State of Qatar. Thus, the Covenant will become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations."
Objection with regard to the declaration made by Myanmar upon ratification (October 5, 2018):
"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In the view of the Government of the Republic of Latvia, this declaration amounts to a reservation. Article 1 of the Covenant forms the very basis of the Covenant and its main purpose, thus no derogations from those obligations can be made.
Moreover, a reservation which subordinates any provision of the Covenant in general to the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar constitutes a reservation of general scope which is likely to cast doubt on the full commitment of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Reservation made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis thus the reservation is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to this reservation.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two States without the Republic of the Union of Myanmar benefitting from its declaration."
2005年11月10日提出的反对意见：
“拉托维亚共和国政府认真审查了巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国在加入时对《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》作出的声明。
拉托维亚共和国政府认为，这个声明载有对国家法律的一般提及，促使国际公约的规定服从巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国国家法律的规定。
因此，拉托维亚共和国政府认为，这种声明其实是一种单方面行为，被认为限制了国际公约的适用范围，因此应被视为保留意见。
此外，拉托维亚共和国政府指出，该保留意见没有说清楚巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国认为其受国际公约的规定约束的程度，也没有阐明履行国际公约的规定时是否要遵守国际公约的目标和宗旨。
拉托维亚共和国政府回顾到，《维也纳条约法公约》中编撰的国际习惯法，特别是第19条 (c)项规定，不得提出违反条约的目标和宗旨的保留意见。
因此，拉托维亚共和国政府反对巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国对《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》提出的上述保留意见。
但是，这种反对意见并不妨碍拉托维亚共和国政府与巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国之间的国际公约生效。因此，国际公约将在巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国不能从保留意见中获益的情况下生效。”
鸣谢：译文由WIPO提供。© 2014 WIPO