Objection with regard to the reservation and statement made by Qatar upon accession: (May 15, 2019)
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation and the statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as communicated by the Secretary-General via depositary notification C.N.260.2018.TREATIES-IV.3 of 21 May 2018, and wishes to communicate the following.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that Qatar does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for they contravene the Islamic Sharia with regard to questions of inheritance and birth.
Further, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the statement made by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 8 of the Covenant in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the rights of trade unions in Article 8 of the Covenant, by applying that provision only in conformity with the national legislation of the State of Qatar.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Covenant by invoking provisions of the Islamic Sharia and national legislation, are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservations of the State of Qatar to the Covenant.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the State of Qatar."
Objection with regard to the declaration made by Myanmar upon ratification (October 3, 2018):
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification on 6 October 2017 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the right of self-determination of all peoples in Article 1 of the Covenant, by applying that provision only in conformity with the Constitution of Myanmar.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Covenant by invoking provisions of its domestic law, is likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar."
With regard to the reservation made by Pakistan upon ratification, the Secetary-General received the following communication from the Netherlands (April 15, 2009):
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of Pakistan upon ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is the understanding of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the reservation of Pakistan does not exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant in their application to Pakistan."
2005年10月7日提出的反对意见：
“荷兰王国政府审查了巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国2004年11月3日在签署1966年12月16日于纽约缔结的《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》时作出的声明。
荷兰王国政府希望回顾，声明的状态并不是由指定名称决定的。适用《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》的规定时是受《巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国宪法》的规定制约的。
这会让人不明白，巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国认为其受条约义务约束的程度如何。各国均希望各方都尊重他们选择加入的条约，各国也准备在必要时对立法作出修改，以与条约规定的义务保持一致。因此，巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国提出的保留意见可能会损害国际条约法的基础。
荷兰王国政府认为，巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国对《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》作出的声明实质上构成了保留意见。
因此，荷兰王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》作出的声明。
这个反对意见并不妨碍荷兰王国与巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国之间的公约生效，巴基斯坦也不能从其声明中享受到益处。”
鸣谢：译文由WIPO提供。© 2014 WIPO
2002年4月23日提出的反对意见：
“……中华人民共和国政府对《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第8条第1款(a)项作出了声明。
荷兰王国政府审查了这份声明，并希望回顾到，根据公认的国际条约法，借助声明使用的名称使一部条约中某些规定的法律效力被排除或修改的，则不能根据这一名称来确定声明是否属于条约的保留意见。荷兰王国政府认为，中华人民共和国政府对《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第8条第1款(a)项作出的声明实质上构成了保留意见。
荷兰王国政府注意到，适用公约第8条第1款(a)项时要受涉及国家立法规定的声明制约。根据《维也纳条约法公约》，加入一部条约的缔约方不可援引其国内法作为其不遵守条约的理由。此外，人人有权组织工会和参加他所选择的工会是公约的基本原则之一。
因此，荷兰王国政府反对中华人民共和国对《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》提出的保留意见。这种反对意见并不妨碍荷兰王国与中国之间的公约生效。”
鸣谢：译文由WIPO提供。© 2014 WIPO
1999年12月20日提出的反对意见：
“荷兰王国政府审查了孟加拉国政府在加入《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》时作出的声明，并认为关于第1条、第2条和第3条以及第7条和第8条的声明为保留意见。
荷兰王国政府反对孟加拉国政府对上述公约第1条发表的保留意见，因为公约体现的自决权是赋予所有人的。不仅两部公约共同的第1条的文字如此规定，有关法律的最权威的声明也作出了这样的规定，如《关于各国依联合国宪章建立友好关系和合作的国际法原则宣言》。任何限制权利的范围或附加相关文书未曾规定的条件的行为均会损害自决这一概念，由此也会严重削弱其被普遍接受的特性。
此外，荷兰王国政府反对孟加拉国政府对上述公约第2条、第3条、第7条和第8条提出的保留意见。
荷兰王国政府认为，这些保留意见在通过援引国内法律试图限制保留国对公约的责任，因此可能对该国对公约的目标和宗旨的承诺提出质疑，而且也会损害国际条约法的基础。各国都期望它们选择加入的条约之目标和宗旨得到各方的尊重。
因此 荷兰王国政府反对孟加拉国政府提出的上述保留意见。
这些反对意见并不妨碍荷兰王国与孟加拉国之间的公约生效。”
鸣谢：译文由WIPO提供。© 2014 WIPO
Objection with regard to the declarations and the reservations made by Kuwait upon accession (July 22, 1997):
[Same objection identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, as the one made for Algeria.]
1991年3月18日提出的反对意见：
“荷兰王国政府认为，关于《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第13条第3款和第4款的解释性声明须被视为对公约的保留意见。从公约的案文和历史可以看出，阿尔及利亚政府对第13条第3款和第4款发表的保留意见与公约的目标和宗旨不符。因此，荷兰王国政府认为该保留意见不可接受，并对其正式提出反对。
这种反对意见并不妨碍荷兰王国与阿尔及利亚之间的[公约]生效。”
鸣谢：译文由WIPO提供。© 2014 WIPO
1981年1月12日提出的反对意见：
“荷兰王国政府反对印度共和国政府对《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第1条和《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第1条作出的声明，因为公约体现的自决权是赋予给所有人的。不仅两部公约共同的第1条的文字如此规定，有关法律的最权威的声明也作出了这样的规定，如《关于各国依联合国宪章建立友好关系和合作的国际法原则宣言》。任何限制权利的范围或附加相关文书未曾规定的条件的行为均会损害自决这一概念，由此也会严重削弱其被普遍接受的特性。”
鸣谢：译文由WIPO提供。© 2014 WIPO
On 6 July 2017, the Kingdom of the Netherlands notified the Secretary-General as follows of its decision to withdraw its reservation with respect to article 8 (1) (d) of the Covenant made upon ratification:
"… the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), withdraws the reservation made with respect to Article 8, paragraph 1, under d, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights…"
The reservation made upon ratification read as follows:
"Article 8, paragraph l(d)
The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept this provision in the case of the Netherlands Antilles with regard to the latter's central and local government bodies."
Territorial Application to Netherlands Antilles notified on December 11, 1978.
批准时的保留意见：
“关于第8条第1款(d)项，荷兰王国不接受该规定适用荷属安的列斯群岛的中央和地方政府机构。“荷兰王国解释说，尽管尚不确定是否应发表保留意见，但是它更希望采用保留意见的形式，而不是声明的形式。为此，荷兰王国希望确保，就荷属安的列斯群岛而言，公约规定的相关义务不适用于其王国。”
鸣谢：译文由WIPO提供。© 2014 WIPO