Financial Crime World

Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism: Country Statements

The Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism was a significant international agreement aimed at combating terrorism financing. In this article, we will summarize the statements made by various countries regarding their interpretation and application of the Convention.

Holy See

  • The Holy See declared that it is not party to any of the treaties listed in the Annex and therefore, none of them should be deemed to be included within the scope of the Convention.
  • However, if the Holy See ratifies or accedes to any of these treaties in the future, they will be considered part of the Convention.
  • The Holy See noted that it does not have criminal liability for legal persons under its domestic law and therefore, Article 5 of the Convention does not apply.
  • Regarding extradition, the Holy See declared that it will cooperate on extradition with other parties to the Convention, subject to limitations provided by its domestic law.
  • Finally, the Holy See interpreted Articles 15 and 2.1(a) of the Convention in light of its legal doctrine and sources of law.

Indonesia

  • Indonesia declared that the treaties listed in the Annex are not included in the scope of the Convention.
  • The country also reserved the right to implement Article 7 of the Convention in compliance with its principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
  • Additionally, Indonesia did not consider itself bound by Article 24 of the Convention and would only refer disputes related to the interpretation and application of the Convention to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all parties involved.

Israel

  • Israel declared that treaties to which it is not a party will be deemed not included in the Annex of the Convention.
  • The country also did not consider itself bound by Article 24 of the Convention.
  • Regarding Article 21 of the Convention, Israel understood “international humanitarian law” to mean the same as “the law of war”. However, this does not include the provisions of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Convention of 1977 which Israel is not a party to.

Japan

  • Japan declared that it did not consider a reservation made by Pakistan regarding Article 14 of the Convention to be valid.
  • The country argued that such a reservation was incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore, had no effect on the application of the Convention between Japan and Pakistan.

Jordan

  • Jordan declared that acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in exercise of people’s right to self-determination were not terrorist acts within the context of Article 2(1)(b) of the Convention.
  • The country also listed several treaties to which it is not a party, including the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

Conclusion

The statements made by these countries highlight the diverse views and reservations expressed regarding the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Convention aimed to combat terrorism financing globally, but the varying interpretations and implementations of the treaty demonstrate the complexities involved in international cooperation.