Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

Japan

Declaration made upon ratification:
"In applying the provisions of paragraph 3 of I of the Protocol, Japan will fulfill the obligation under those provisions in a manner consistent with its domestic laws including the civil code. Japan will be, therefore, bound by the provisions of Section I of the Protocol to the extent that their fulfillment is compatible with the above-mentioned domestic laws."

New Zealand

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;"

Norway

Reservation made upon ratification:
"…that restitution of cultural property, in accordance with the terms of Sections I and II of the Protocol, can be demanded only after the expiration of a period of 20 years, after the date on which the property in question came into the possession of a good-faith holder."
Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chad, Czechoslovakia, India, Italy, Madagascar, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Spain, United Arab Republic and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics issued observations as regards this reservation.
By a note verbale dated 3 October 1973, Norway announced its decision, effective 24 August 1979, to withdraw that reservation.

United Kingdom

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]