Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019 - Legislation Guide
Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019
Legislation Overview
- Full title: Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019.
- Gazette / notification number: No. S 893.
- Current status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026.
- Commencement date: 1 January 2020, as stated in the Notification’s operative provision.
- Enabling provision: The Notification is made in exercise of the powers conferred by the definition of “Protocol country” in section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act.
- Subject matter: Declaration of which countries are treated as “Protocol countries” for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act, by reference to ratification, accession, and denunciation status under the Montreal Protocol.
- Key international instrument referenced: The Montreal Protocol, including Article XVIII and Article XIX.
- Administrative source for status verification: The International Civil Aviation Organisation website at
http://www.icao.int/partiestotreatiesunder “Treaty Collection”.
Summary
The Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019 is a short but legally important subsidiary instrument made under the Tokyo Convention Act. Its function is not to create a broad regulatory scheme or impose a detailed set of operational duties. Instead, it performs a definitional role: it declares, for the purposes of the definition of “Protocol country” in section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act, how countries are to be treated depending on their status under the Montreal Protocol. The Notification states that a country for which the Montreal Protocol has come into force in accordance with Article XVIII of the Montreal Protocol, and which has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX of the Montreal Protocol, is a country that has ratified the Montreal Protocol. It also states that a country whose accession to the Montreal Protocol has taken effect in accordance with Article XVIII of the Montreal Protocol, and which has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX of the Montreal Protocol, is a country that has acceded to the Montreal Protocol. These declarations are made expressly for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act. [s 1] [s 2]
The practical effect is that the Singapore legal meaning of “Protocol country” depends on the international treaty status of the relevant country under the Montreal Protocol, and the Notification provides an official domestic-law bridge between the treaty status of a country and the statutory definition in the Tokyo Convention Act. The Notification also provides a mechanism for verifying that status: the list of countries that have ratified, acceded to, or denounced the Montreal Protocol, and the dates on which the Montreal Protocol has come into force or taken effect for those countries, may be found on the ICAO Treaty Collection website. If doubt arises about the accuracy or currency of that online information, or if the information cannot be obtained from the website, an ICAO certificate stating the relevant status or date is to be treated as a correct statement of the certified information. [s 2]
Because the Notification is definitional rather than punitive, it contains no offence provisions and no penalty provisions. Its legal significance lies in determining the scope of the Tokyo Convention Act’s reference to “Protocol country” and thereby affecting the operation of the Act wherever that term is used. The Notification came into operation on 1 January 2020. [s 1]
What is the purpose?
The purpose of the Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019 is expressly stated in its opening words. It is made “in exercise of the powers conferred by the definition of ‘Protocol country’ in section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act,” and it declares, for the purposes of that definition, how countries are to be classified by reference to the Montreal Protocol. [s 2]
In practical terms, the Notification serves three connected purposes. First, it identifies the treaty-status criteria that determine whether a country falls within the statutory concept of a “Protocol country” under section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act. Second, it provides a domestic legal statement that a country is treated as having ratified or acceded to the Montreal Protocol if the relevant treaty event has occurred under Article XVIII and the country has not denounced the Protocol under Article XIX. Third, it establishes an evidential and administrative method for confirming those facts by reference to the ICAO Treaty Collection website, and, where necessary, by ICAO certificate. [s 2]
The Notification therefore does not operate as a stand-alone regulatory code. Rather, it clarifies the meaning of a term used in the parent Act. That clarification is important because the Tokyo Convention Act uses the concept of “Protocol country” as a legal trigger for the Act’s operation in relation to particular states. The Notification ensures that the domestic statutory definition is aligned with the international status of states under the Montreal Protocol. [s 2]
The reference to the Montreal Protocol’s Article XVIII and Article XIX shows that the Notification is concerned with the formal international-law events of entry into force, accession, and denunciation. A country is treated as a country that has ratified the Montreal Protocol if the Protocol has come into force for that country in accordance with Article XVIII and the country has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX. A country is treated as a country that has acceded to the Montreal Protocol if its accession has taken effect in accordance with Article XVIII and it has not denounced the Protocol in accordance with Article XIX. [s 2]
What are the key provisions?
Section 1: Citation and commencement
Section 1 provides the formal title and commencement rule. It states: “This Notification is the Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019 and comes into operation on 1 January 2020.” [s 1]
This provision performs two functions. First, it identifies the instrument by its short title, which is the name by which it is cited in legal and administrative contexts. Second, it fixes the commencement date, meaning the date from which the Notification has legal effect. The commencement date is 1 January 2020. [s 1]
The commencement clause is important because the Notification affects the interpretation of “Protocol country” under section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act from that date onward. Any assessment of whether a country falls within the definition must therefore be made by reference to the Notification as in force from 1 January 2020. [s 1] [s 2]
Section 2: Declaration of Protocol countries and evidential source
Section 2 is the substantive provision of the Notification. It begins by stating: “It is declared that for the purposes of the definition of ‘Protocol country’ in section 2(1) of the Act —” [s 2]
The first declaration in section 2 provides that “any country for which the Montreal Protocol has come into force in accordance with Article XVIII of the Montreal Protocol and which has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX of the Montreal Protocol is a country that has ratified the Montreal Protocol.” [s 2]
The second declaration in section 2 provides that “any country whose accession to the Montreal Protocol has taken effect in accordance with Article XVIII of the Montreal Protocol and which has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX of the Montreal Protocol is a country that has acceded to the Montreal Protocol.” [s 2]
These two declarations are the core legal mechanism of the Notification. They translate treaty status into domestic statutory meaning. The first declaration covers countries whose relationship to the Montreal Protocol is characterised as ratification, while the second covers countries whose relationship is characterised as accession. In both cases, the country must not have denounced the Protocol under Article XIX. [s 2]
Section 2 also contains an administrative reference point for verifying treaty status. It states that “The list of countries that have ratified, acceded to or denounced the Montreal Protocol and the dates on which the Montreal Protocol has come into force or taken effect for such countries may be found on the official website of the International Civil Aviation Organisation at http://www.icao.int/partiestotreaties (under ‘Treaty Collection’).” [s 2]
This provision is significant because it identifies an official public source for the relevant treaty-status information. It does not itself create the status; rather, it points users to the ICAO Treaty Collection for the list of countries and dates. The legal effect of the Notification still depends on the treaty-status criteria stated in the declarations. [s 2]
Section 2 further provides a fallback rule for situations where the website information is doubtful, outdated, unavailable, or otherwise inaccessible. It states: “If any doubt arises in relation to the accuracy or currency of the information published on the website mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) as to whether a country has ratified, acceded to or denounced the Montreal Protocol or the date on which the Montreal Protocol has come into force or taken effect for such country, or if any such information cannot, for any reason, be obtained from the website, a certificate issued by the International Civil Aviation Organisation stating whether that country has ratified, acceded to or denounced the Montreal Protocol or the date on which the Montreal Protocol has come into force or taken effect for such country is to be treated as a correct statement of the information so certified.” [s 2]
This is an evidential provision. It establishes that an ICAO certificate is to be treated as a correct statement of the certified information where there is doubt about the website information or where the information cannot be obtained from the website. The provision therefore gives legal reliability to ICAO certification as a substitute or confirmatory source of treaty-status information. [s 2]
Read together, the sub-paragraphs in section 2 create a complete framework for identifying Protocol countries for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act: the substantive criteria are ratification or accession under Article XVIII and non-denunciation under Article XIX, while the evidential mechanism is the ICAO Treaty Collection website or, if necessary, an ICAO certificate. [s 2]
What are the penalties/obligations?
The Notification contains no offence-creating provision and no express penalty provision. No section of the Notification prescribes a fine, imprisonment term, civil liability, or other sanction. The extracted text indicates “PENALTIES — NOT IN TEXT,” and the operative provisions in sections 1 and 2 are confined to citation, commencement, declaration, and evidential status. [s 1] [s 2]
Accordingly, the Notification does not impose direct behavioural obligations on private persons in the way that a regulatory instrument might. Its legal effect is classificatory and interpretive: it determines which countries are treated as “Protocol countries” for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act. That classification may, in turn, affect the operation of the parent Act, but any such consequences arise through the Act’s own structure rather than through a penalty clause in the Notification itself. [s 2]
The only practical obligations created by the Notification are institutional and interpretive. Users of the Tokyo Convention Act must apply the definition of “Protocol country” consistently with section 2(1) of the Act as clarified by the Notification. Where treaty status is uncertain, they must have regard to the ICAO Treaty Collection website, and if doubt remains or the information is unavailable, they may rely on an ICAO certificate treated as a correct statement of the certified information. These are not penalties, but they are legally relevant obligations in the sense that they govern how the relevant status is to be ascertained. [s 2]
The exclusion of countries that have denounced the Montreal Protocol is also important. The declarations in section 2 apply only to countries “which has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX of the Montreal Protocol.” That means denunciation removes a country from the class described in the Notification for the purposes of the statutory definition. This is a substantive legal condition, not a penalty, but it is a key limitation on the scope of the Notification. [s 2]
When did it come into effect?
The Notification came into operation on 1 January 2020. This is expressly stated in section 1: “This Notification is the Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019 and comes into operation on 1 January 2020.” [s 1]
The commencement date is legally significant because the Notification’s declarations about Protocol countries apply from that date. Any use of the term “Protocol country” in section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act, insofar as it depends on this Notification, must be read in light of the Notification’s operative date. [s 1] [s 2]
The extracted metadata also states that the current version is as at 27 Mar 2026. That status note is administrative rather than operative, but it indicates that the Notification remains in force in the version cited. The legal commencement date, however, remains 1 January 2020. [s 1]
Legislation Referenced
- Tokyo Convention Act — the enabling Act whose section 2(1) contains the definition of “Protocol country” referenced by the Notification. [s 2]
- Section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act — the specific statutory definition to which the Notification applies. [s 2]
- The Montreal Protocol — the international instrument used to determine whether a country is treated as having ratified or acceded, and whether it has denounced the Protocol. [s 2]
- Article XVIII of the Montreal Protocol — the article governing when the Protocol has come into force or taken effect for a country, as referenced in the Notification. [s 2]
- Article XIX of the Montreal Protocol — the article governing denunciation, as referenced in the Notification. [s 2]
- International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) — the organisation whose Treaty Collection website and certificates are identified as authoritative sources for treaty-status information. [s 2]
Detailed Legislative Analysis
Although the Notification is brief, it performs an important legal function within the framework of the Tokyo Convention Act. The Act’s definition of “Protocol country” in section 2(1) is not left to be determined solely by general international-law understanding or by informal diplomatic practice. Instead, the Notification supplies a domestic legal declaration that ties the statutory concept to specific treaty events under the Montreal Protocol. [s 2]
The first declaration in section 2 is framed in terms of ratification. It states that any country for which the Montreal Protocol has come into force in accordance with Article XVIII, and which has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX, is a country that has ratified the Montreal Protocol. This wording is important because it does not merely say that ratification is relevant; it positively declares the legal consequence for the purposes of the Act. The country is treated as one that has ratified the Protocol if the specified treaty conditions are met. [s 2]
The second declaration in section 2 mirrors the first but addresses accession. It states that any country whose accession to the Montreal Protocol has taken effect in accordance with Article XVIII, and which has not denounced it in accordance with Article XIX, is a country that has acceded to the Montreal Protocol. This ensures that both principal modes by which a state may become bound by the Protocol are captured for the purposes of the statutory definition. [s 2]
The repeated reference to non-denunciation is a deliberate limiting condition. A country may have ratified or acceded, but if it has denounced the Protocol in accordance with Article XIX, it is excluded from the class described by the Notification. This means the Notification is not static in the sense of freezing a list of countries at a single point in time. Rather, it is dynamic and treaty-status based, because the relevant status can change if a country denounces the Protocol. [s 2]
The website reference in section 2 is also significant. By directing users to the ICAO Treaty Collection, the Notification identifies a practical and official source for checking whether a country has ratified, acceded to, or denounced the Montreal Protocol, and for determining the dates on which the Protocol has come into force or taken effect for that country. This supports legal certainty and administrative efficiency. [s 2]
The fallback certificate mechanism further strengthens certainty. If there is doubt about the accuracy or currency of the website information, or if the information cannot be obtained from the website for any reason, an ICAO certificate is to be treated as a correct statement of the certified information. This means the Notification anticipates evidential disputes and provides a clear hierarchy of proof. The certificate does not merely assist; it is to be treated as correct for the certified matters. [s 2]
In legislative terms, the Notification is therefore both definitional and evidential. It defines the relevant class of countries for the parent Act and specifies how the relevant facts are to be verified. It does not amend the Tokyo Convention Act text directly, but it operates under the authority of the Act’s definition of “Protocol country” in section 2(1). [s 2]
For readers applying the law, the practical approach is straightforward. First, identify whether the country in question has ratified or acceded to the Montreal Protocol. Second, confirm that the Protocol has come into force or taken effect for that country in accordance with Article XVIII. Third, confirm that the country has not denounced the Protocol under Article XIX. Fourth, if there is uncertainty, consult the ICAO Treaty Collection website, and if necessary rely on an ICAO certificate as correct evidence of the certified status or date. Each of these steps is grounded in section 2 of the Notification. [s 2]
Because the Notification contains no penalties, compliance analysis is limited to correct legal classification and correct use of the designated sources of information. The legal consequence of misclassification would arise only indirectly, through any misapplication of the Tokyo Convention Act that depends on the meaning of “Protocol country.” The Notification itself does not prescribe sanctions. [s 1] [s 2]
In summary, the Tokyo Convention (Protocol Countries) Notification 2019 is a concise but essential interpretive instrument. It came into operation on 1 January 2020, and from that date it has provided the domestic-law criteria and evidential framework for identifying “Protocol countries” under section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act by reference to the Montreal Protocol and ICAO sources. [s 1] [s 2]
Source Documents
This article analyses for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.