Finland

In favour: A/HRC/RES/1/2, A/HRC/RES/2/4, A/HRC/2/L.48 (rejected)

Against: A/HRC/DEC/1/106, A/HRC/DEC/1/107, A/HRC/RES/S-1/1, A/HRC/RES/S-2/1, A/HRC/RES/S-3/1, A/HRC/DEC/2/109, A/HRC/DEC/2/115, A/HRC/DEC/3/103, A/HRC/RES/4/5, A/HRC/RES/4/9, A/HRC/DEC/4/103

Abstained: A/HRC/RES/2/3, A/HRC/RES/3/1

No vote:

Source: www.ilo.org

Reservations, Declarations and Objections

Reservations:

4. “With respect to article 10, paragraph 2(b) and 3, of the Covenant, Finland declares that although juvenile offenders are, as a rule, segregated from adults, it does not deem appropriate to adopt an absolute prohibition not allowing for more flexible arrangements;

With respect to article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, Finland declares that it is going to pursue its present practice, according to which a sentence can be changed to the detriment of the convicted person, if it is established that a member or an official of the court, the prosecutor or the legal counsel have through criminal or fraudulent activities obtained the acquittal of the defendant or a substantially more lenient penalty, or if false evidence has been presented with the same effect, and according to which an aggravated criminal case may be taken up for reconsideration if within a year until then unknown evidence is presented, which would have led to conviction or a substantially more severe penalty;

With respect to article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, Finland declares that it will not apply the provisions of this paragraph, this being compatible with the standpoint Finland already expressed at the 16th United Nations General Assembly by voting against the prohibition of propaganda of war, on the grounds that this might endanger the freedom of expression referred in article 19 of the Covenant."

Declarations:

2. 16 November 1994: "Finland recognizes the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within the jurisdiction of Finland claiming to be victims of a violation by Finland of any of the rights set forth in the said Convention, with the reservation that the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual or a group of individuals unless the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."

4. Finland declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Covenant."¨

9. "Finland declares that it recognizes fully the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in article 21, paragraph 1 and article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention."

11.b. "The Government of Finland declares in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the minimum age for any recruitment of persons into its national armed forces is 18 years. The minimum age applies equally to the military service of men and to the voluntary service of women."

Objections:

1. 22 December 1989: With respect to reservation made by the United States of America: "In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty."

2. 7 July 1989: With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii):"The Government of Finland formally, and in accordance with article 20 (2) of the Convention, objects to the reservations made by Yemen to the above provisions.
In the first place, the reservations concern matters which are of fundamental importance in the Convention. The first paragraph of article 5 clearly brings this out. According to it, the Parties have undertaken to guarantee the rights listed in that article "In compliance with fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the Convention". Clearly, provisions prohibiting racial discrimination in the granting of such fundamental political rights and civil liberties as the right to participate in public life, to marry and choose a spouse, to inherit and to enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion are central in a convention against racial discrimination. Therefore, the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as specified in paragraph 20 (2) thereof and in article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Moreover, it is the view of the Government of Finland that it would be unthinkable that merely by making a reservation to the said provisions, a State could achieve the liberty to start discriminatory practices on the grounds of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin in regard to such fundamental political rights and civil liberties as the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, the right of marriage and choice of spouse, the right of inheritance and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Any racial discrimination in respect of those fundamental rights and liberties is clearly against the general principles of human rights law as reflected in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the practice of States and international organizations. By making a reservation a State cannot contract out from universally binding human rights standards.
For the above reasons, the Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by Yemen are devoid of legal effect. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this fact is an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Yemen."

6 February 1998: With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession:
"The Government of Finland is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that according to paragraph 2 of article 20 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Finland would also like to recall that according to the said paragraph a reservation shall be considered incompatible or inhibitive if at least two thirds of the States Parties to the Convention object to it. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by Saudi Arabia, which do not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the [Convention].

3. 25 July 1997: With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait upon accession:
"The Government of Finland notes that according to the interpretative declaration regarding article 2, paragraph 2, and article 3 the application of these articles of the Covenant is in a general way subjected to national law. The Government of Finland considers this interpretative declaration as a reservation of a general kind. The Government of Finland is of the view that such a general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted.
The Government of Finland also considers the interpretative declaration to article 9 as a reservation and regards this reservation as well as the reservation to article 8, paragraph 1(d), as problematic in view of the object and purpose of the Covenant.
It is in the common interests of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Kuwait, which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the Covenant, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Kuwait to the [said Covenant].
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Kuwait and Finland."

13 December 1999: With regard to the declarations to Articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 13 made by Bangladesh upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the declarations made by the Government of Bangladesh to Articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 13 and notes that the declarations constitute reservations as they seem to modify the obligations of Bangladesh under the said articles.
A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving state commits itself to the Convention and therefore may raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Bangladesh. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Bangladesh and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Bangladesh benefitting from these reservations".

13 October 2004: With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification:
"The Government of Finland has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of the paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 13 of the Covenant in accordance with the provisions under articles 3, 14 and 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.
The Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the rights provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The reference to certain provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is of a general nature and does not clearly specify the content of the reservation. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Turkey will ensure the implementation of the rights recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Finland."

15 November 2005: With regard to declaration made by Pakistan upon signature:
"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regarding the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Finland takes note that the provisions of the Covenant shall, according to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, be subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying the contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its declaration."

4. 28 September 1993: With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United State of America:
"…It is recalled that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Understanding (1) pertaining to articles 2, 4 and 26 of the Covenant, is therefore considered to constitute in substance a reservation to the Covenant, directed at some of its most essential provision, namely those concerning the prohibition of discrimination. In the view of the Government of Finland, a reservation of this kind is contrary to the object and the purpose of the Covenant, as specified in article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

As regards reservation (2) concerning article 6 of the Covenant, if is recalled that according to article 4(2), no restrictions of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are allowed for. In the view of the Government of Finland, the right to life is of fundamental importance in the Covenant and the said reservation therefore is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant.

As regards reservation (3), it is in the view of the Government of Finland subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

For the above reasons, the Government of Finland objects to reservations made by the United States to articles 2, 4, and 26 (cf. Understanding (1)), to article 6 (cf. Reservation (2)) and to article 7 (cf. Reservation (3)). However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Finland and the United States of America.

25 July 1997: With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait:
"The Government of Finland notes that according to the interpretative declarations the application of certain articles of the Covenant is in a general way subjected to national law. The Government of Finland considers these interpretative declarations as reservations of a general kind.
The Government of Finland is of the view that such general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. As regards the reservation made to article 25(b), the Government of Finland wishes to refer to its objection to the reservation made by Kuwait to article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discriminations Against Women.
It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and States prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Kuwait, which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the Covenant, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Kuwait to the said Covenant which are considered to be inadmissible.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Finland."

13 October 2004: With regard to declarations and reservations made by Turkey upon ratification:
"The Government of Finland has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Turkey reserves the rights to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the rights of minorities provided in Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is of a general nature and does not clearly specify the content of the reservation. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Turkey will ensure the implementation of the rights of the minorities recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Finland.

15 November 2005: With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification:
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligation under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of the treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by the Government of Mauritania, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under the provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above mentioned declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania benefiting from its declarations."

14 September 2007: "With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Maldives reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant in accordance with related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic aw as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
Furthermore, the Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which is provided for in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Maldives will ensure the implementation of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation.
This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Maldives and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation."

8. 8 June 1990
With regard to the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya upon accession (see also objection made on 16 October 1996, hereinafter, with regard to the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya upon accession, as modified on 5 July 1995):
"The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Finland therefore enters its formal objection to this reservation.
"This objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya."

5 May 1994
With regard to the reservations made by Maldives upon accession: In the view of the Government of Finland, the unlimited and undefined character of the said reservations create serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In their extensive formulation, they are clearly contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to such reservations.
The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservations are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as a justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland does not, however, consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and Maldives."

17 January 1996
With regard to the reservations made by Kuwait upon accession:
"The Government of Finland recalls that by acceding to the Convention, a State commits itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination, in all its forms and manifestations, against women. In particular, article 7 requires States Parties to undertake actions to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country. This is a fundamental provision of the Convention the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
Reservations to article 7 (a) and article 9 paragraph 2 are both subject to the general principle of the observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfill the object and purpose of the treaty.
Furthermore, in the view of the Government of Finland, the unlimited and undefined character of the reservation to article 16 (f) leaves open to what extent the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties. In their present formulation the reservations are clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 28 paragraph 2, of the said Convention.
Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservations made by the Government of Kuwait are devoid of legal effect.
The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Kuwait to reconsider its reservations to the [said] Convention."

16 October 1996
With regard to the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya upon accession, as modified (see objection under 8 June 1990 and note 28):
"A reservation which consists of a general reference to religious law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may cast doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland, subject to the general principle of the observance of treaties according to which a Party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty." With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession:
"The reservations made by Malaysia, consisting of a general reference to religious and national law without specifying the contents thereof and without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that the reservations of Malaysia are subject to the general principles of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.
Furthermore, the reservations made by Malaysia, in particular to articles 2 (f) and 5 (a), are two fundamental provisions of the Convention the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation the reservations made by Malaysia are clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 28, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect."

1 November 1996
With regard to the reservations made by Lesotho upon ratification: [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made for Malaysia.]

21 November 1996
With regard to the reservations made by Singapore upon accession:
[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made for Malaysia.]

6 June 1997
With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:
[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made for Malaysia.]

24 October 2000
With regard to the reservations made by Niger upon accession:
" The Government of Finland notes that the reservations [..] are not in conformity with the object and purpose of the Convention. By acceding to the Convention, a State commits itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination against women, in all its forms and manifestations. This includes taking appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish i.e. customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women.
As it appears evident that the Government of the Republic of Niger will not apply the Convention with a view to fulfilling its treaty obligations to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and submits reservations to some of the most essential provisions of the Convention, the above-mentioned reservations are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention according to which reservations incompatible with object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of Niger to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Niger and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without benefitting from the reservations."

8 October 2002
With regard to the reservations made by Saudi Arabia upon ratification:
"The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Government of Finland recalls that by acceding to the Convention, a State commits itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination, in all its forms and manifestations, against women.
A reservation which consists of a general reference to religious law and national law without specifying its contents, as the first part of the reservation made by Saudi Arabia, does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
Furthermore, reservations are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
As the reservation to Paragraph 2 of Article 9 aims to exclude one of the fundamental obligations under the Convention, it is the view of the Government of Finland that the reservation is not compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland also recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention according to which reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Saudi Arabia benefiting from the reservations."

5 March 2002
With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Government of Finland recalls that by acceding to the Convention, a State commit itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination, in all its forms and manifestations, against women.
The Government of Finland notes that the reservation to paragraph (f) of Article 2 aims at excluding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the obligations to adopt necessary measures, including those of a legislative character, to eliminate any form of discrimination against women. This provision touches upon a key element for effective elimination of discrimination against women. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention aims to exclude an obligation of non-discrimination, which is the aim of the Convention.
The Government of Finland also recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention according to which reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland finds that the reservations made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are not in conformity with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to the said reservations.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States with the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea benefiting from the reservations."

20 May 2002
With regard to the reservation made by Mauritania upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of Mauritania to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
Furthermore, reservations are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention according to which reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of Mauritania to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Mauritania and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Mauritania benefiting from the reservations."

10 March 2003
With regard to the reservations made by Bahrain upon accession: "The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Bahrain to Article 2, paragraph 2 of Article 9, paragraph 4 of Article 15 and to Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland further notes that the reservations made by Bahrain, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Convention, and aiming to exclude some of the fundamental obligations under it, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland also recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention according to which reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of Bahrain to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Bahrain and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Bahrain benefiting from its reservations."

17 June 2003
With regard to the reservations made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to Article 2, paragraph 2 of Article 9, paragraph 4 of Article 15 and to paragraphs 1(c), (d), (f) and (g) of Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland further notes that the reservations made by the Syrian Arab Republic, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Convention, and aiming to exclude some of the fundamental obligations under it, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland also recalls Part VI, Article 28, of the Convention, according to which reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the afore-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservations."

7 September 2005
With regard to the reservations made by Micronesia (Federated States of) upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia to paragraph (f) of Article 2, Article 5, paragraphs 1 (d) and 2 (b) of Article 11 and Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Government of Finland recalls that by acceding to the Convention, a State commit itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination, in all its forms and manifestations, against women.
The Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by Micronesia, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Convention, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland also recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention according to which reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the ab0ve-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia to the Convention. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Micronesia and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Micronesia benefiting from its reservations".

15 November 2005
With regard to the reservations made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates to paragraph (f) of Article 2, Article 9, paragraph (2) of Article 15 and Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
The Government of Finland recalls that by acceding to the Convention, a State commits itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination, in all its forms and manifestations, against women.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by the United Arab Emirates, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Convention, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland also recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention according to which reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates to the Convention. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the United Arab Emirates benefiting from its reservations."

9. 27 February 1996
With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America upon ratification:
"A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may cast doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland, subject to the general principle to treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the United States to article 16 of the Convention [(cf. Reservation I.(1)]. In this connection the Government of Finland would also like to refer to its objection to the reservation entered by the United States with regard to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [For the text of the objection see under "Objections" in chapter IV.4].

13 December 1999
With regard to the declaration made by Bangladesh upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the declaration made by the Government of Bangladesh to Article 14 paragraph 1 to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and notes that the declaration constitutes a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of Bangladesh under the said article.
A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation to Article 14 paragraph 1 made by the Government of Bangladesh. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Bangladesh and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Bangladesh benefitting from these reservations".

16 January 2001
With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession:
"The Government of Finland has examined the context of the reservation made by the Government of Qatar regarding any interpretation incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and may therefore raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation, in the view of the Government of Finland, is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland also notes that the reservation of Qatar, being of such a general nature, raises doubts as to the full commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
For the above-mentioned reasons the Government of Finland objects to the reservation made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Qatar and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Qatar benefiting from this reservation."

11. 25 July 1991
With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia upon ratification concerning articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29:
"In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Republic of Indonesia."
Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, from the Government of Finland, objections of the same nature as the one above with regard to reservations made by the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter:
 25 July 1991: with regard to the reservation made by Pakistan upon signature and confirmed upon ratification;
 9 June 1993: with regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon signature;
 24 June 1994: with regard to the reservations made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification;
 5 September 1995: with regard to the reservation made by Iran (Islamic Republic of) upon ratification.

14 June 1996
With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession:
"The reservation made by Malaysia covers several central provisions of the [said Convention]. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Malaysia commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of the States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.
In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention]. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia is devoid of legal effect.
The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the [said Convention]."

With regard to the reservations made by Qatar upon ratification: [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Malaysia.]

26 November 1996
With regard to the reservations made by Singapore upon accession:
"The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by the Republic of Singapore, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of the Republic of Singapore are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by the Republic of Singapore are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect"

6 February 1998
With regard to the reservations made by Oman upon accession: [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Singapore.]

Sources: www.ohchr.org