-GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME TATIVE ORGANIZATION

nmAlNM,'IONll.L CONFJimENCE ON Lll1ITllTION OF LIADILITY :ron lWU'J.lIMll CLAl11S, 1916

Cocoittee o~ the Whole IMCO

r~/co}tF.5/0.1/SR.24 4 L~l)rl1 1970 Oricinal s Flll!lNClI

SUMWJ.~y rw..cOllD OF ~,~m..Jl'OtlUTIl I·D..?l!nlG

held at the Cunard Intei'inL\tio:tlll.l lIotel, I!o.I::Irlorsni th, Lonc.on, "1.6; on Tuasc1.o\\r, 11 Novaobar 1916, at 10.50 o..~l.

Me. B, :BLOM (Sweden),

Seoreto.:cy: Hr. T.S. :BUSIl(). (000 Sacrata.rio.t)

Agenda i teo p - Conaic1emtion of c1ra.f't International Convention on L1r.li to.t'ion of Lio.bili ty for Morlt1oe C1aioa (oontinued)

@ - --------·-----1 For re8sons of economy. thl. document is prlntod in ., limited numbf.!r. Delegates are kindly asked to bring thoir copillS frj ml)8till9S and not to ,equost adciitional r.opi"~.

______________ . ____ .... _._ ..... _ .... _ ... _ .....•.•.• ___ .. _ .. _ .... _ .• ~ ... -.. _ .... __ ........... __ .. J

LliD/ooNr. 5/C.l/fJU. 24

f~GEN.IlA IT:r!Jtt 6 - CONSIDErJ~TION OF Jl1.1APYl' nr.I!ElllNATIOltt..L COl1V'.cll'1TIOl~ ON WllTATION OF LIAB:o:.ITY :ron r-wrrTn~ CUDm (rm/CONF.5/4; rm/CONF./C.lj\II\4', \¥i).49ftlev.l, \f.i? 70, ii:).74 9JlCl UP,8S .• rJlXi/coNF.5/c.,/l)(ccnt1nued) . .

Ae]tol! e - Unit ot ~ccount (oontinued)

The OlIAInMllN sto.ted that the Coooi ttee bOO been in fo.vour of clelet!ne

the phro.se lithe dtlte of the oocurrenoe", inolud1rlg the squa.re bro.ckets, in

Artiole 8(1), oo.k::l.nB oert~ o.lterations to the worc'lJ.n5 of p~Ool?b 2 in

order to bring it into line with the new text tor llrtiolE\a 6 c..nd. 7; und

oo.c1inB to Artiole 8 BOOS new po.roeraphs contnin1.ne the sontonoo proposed by

the United K:1nadoo delc(3tl.tion :(pll8'G 20 of doounent rm/cONF.5/4h together

with the text pro!)os~d by the l'feth,erland.8 d,oleeatioll (IiIllG/COliDr.5/C.l,A1l).43).

The CHAIRMAN oalled for 0. vote on llrtiole 8(1) as ooenc1ec1.

A;rtioM eCl} )lilA llm?1Pvod (21 VOt.AS i; fe.vcu;t'.l ;1IJ}l2. ~!....,~

1 a.bstentions).

P~h2

The CEAILID~ called for a vote on llrtiole 8(2), as a.dtlptod to

correspond to the new provisions contained in J~iole 6(1).

~ole 8(2)'tM e;OJ)i!-'Oved (21 xotes ip fa.vour. PAne !¥pJ.n9t. a.nq 10 o.bstentions ll'

The CIIll.mMlIN oaJ.led for 0. vote on the aoendnent proposed by the

United Kingdoo delesetion (POBe 20 of LEG/CONF.5/4).

b propo@i(l cnendpent 1M approved (22 votes in J.a...y'OJli£a. !pm Ss,."t'.1nAt.

§lld 10 Abstentions).

The CHAIRMAN oalled for a vote on the aoendoent proposed ~y the

Netherlo.nds deleantiOll (LnG/CONF. 5/0.l,l\'il). 43).

The proposed geenaneJ?.t was o.pw:oved (23 vo1i.v. ¥!. fo.v,.9U1', .ll£>.P.G. Af$O:iIIstl.

o.nd 11 g.bstepUops) •

Artiole 6_-:-.J2>! ~ .~:11@ (09Qtinued,)

The OIl!lIr.:MAl; before prooeedillff to oonsideration of the nm Ji.:t"tio1e,

drew attention to the proposal by the delegations of the Foderc~ nel1Ublio

- , - LlOCl/CO!TJ1\5/C .l/en. 24

of Ge~, the Nethorlanc1s, the United ·K'Ul@loL o.nd the United states

(rm/CONF.5/C.ljwP.65) which btJ.d just bean distributed ant1 wh1chdea.lt with

the mtio of the US <.1011a.r to t~ un! t of Speoio.l. ~w1rl81/.;LGht. '.l.Mt

dooUIJant sta.ted toot on the basis of 31.20 ". 1 SDll, "a.ny dolltl.'C :t'ic;uree

o.Br8ed for the lini ts of Ua.bili ty should be Do£llod clo"lll in the ~£lot1~.q :, 5 to obtain acounts in SDll's for insertion in Artioloa 6 anu 7, and scalod up

in the ro.tio 1 1121~ to obtllinQDOunta 1il fronos for insertion ill Artiole 8, paraer1lph 2."

b'he saw no noed to oonsider thnt propoeo.l in detail o.t. the present eta.a'e

of diaouo.sionB, and sU&.,70sted that it be referred to the Drc.ft.:ln8' Corm ttoe,

whioh oould then insert the w:t'ious fi(JUros 1ntoth9 texts. 'The Com1ttee

ooul1 oonfino itself for the tlQuent to ooooptin8' the p:roposo.l in prinoiple.

It,was so deotd~.

Mr. I'llmUl.KIS (Greeoe) WM preporod toa.coept that solution

provisionally. ne WQ.S not in a. poS! t10n to verify those fi[,'I.U'oa on the

spot, rut reserved the rieht to return to then once he ha.d Clem!. so.

Artiole 9 - .Li.werntion of o..J.a.ir..1B (oontinued)

The 0IIAIBMt.N inVited the Cornl1 ttee, to ta.ke a deoision on J...rtiole 9, and

reoalled tba t it hD.d provision£llly ag:r:ood to anend the teJt1; in oooorda.noe

with the llorwa6ion proposal (LEG/COl'IF.5/4, pQ8'e 21) to devote a epeoial

~ph to salvers.

Artiole 9. tlB a.r.ymdod. WM a.pproved (39 votes 1n.Lo.vour..a. W .. D;o ;ra1n,et,

end 1 abstentions). ,",'

The C1IAnw.uu~ oa.;Llec1. for 0. :vot~ .on Arf;~cle' 10, wh.1oh·hcd not boen ~

eubjeot of any- aoendoent.;

.Artiole 10 liM qpp.roveu(35 votes infavow.'b IlOna ~ji., sad 2 Qbstentions). '

.AFt101e 11 - Cgt1:t;uUou of the fung, (oontinued)

The 0I:1:A.'IDlW'l oo.lled for a. vote on .ll.rtiole 11, \mioh hAd l1keuise been

o.ooepted without ooendDent.

-4'"

,6E.U2~' ~J!V 1:\PPi9m. ';U :m~la W ,~,R9&W1 ~j;._ i.9btt S t .t2sa.) • ,

Artlg1, 12,- ~1tr11l!:lti91! Qf' thefunst (oont1nusd) , ,.

~. SELVIG (Norway) requested that a separa.te wte be 'taken on the

fn:et four p~o.plls of' ll:rtiole 12.

The CHAIRMAN inn ted the ~omr:o.it~ee ~to 'rote on the !1rst four pa.rogmphs

of Artiole 12, subjeot to the referenoe made in ~ph 1 to the

provisions of .t1rtiole 6, for \1Ih1oh the Dra£t1ng Committee hod not so fo:r

produced. a text.

:I'lJ.e fs..",.n1.l.'2.I~_ 2£ aUgl! 19 SEl lmS?1PA, (26 voji~ ft1 !avol.F£. l')On8 St,ilfp'1't).

The CHAIRMAN reoalled tMt there ho.d been 0. proposo.l to delete

pa.ra.g:t'aph 5, but that the Committee bad provisionally a.greed otherwise by

15 votes 1n !a.vour to 12 oga.inet, ,and 7 abstentions.

Mr. LYON (Ca.t:ltl.ClA) oollell a.ttentiqn to the fact that bie delesation

bod ro.iaed strong objeotions reso.rding po:ra.gt'aph 5 and. pointed out that the

vot:f.ng had been very olose. lI1e deleg6.t1on hod mo.do grant efforts to tr,y

to rea.oh a. oolDpromise; but it ~ 5 wer& reta.1ned, it would be very

d1!f'iou1t to transpose its provisi.;;.ns into Ca.na.d1on 1a.w. lIe therofore

requested that the proposlll to delete p~ph 5 be pt1.t to the vote o.ga.in.

, '

The CHAIRMAN oalled !or a vote on the Canadian proposal to delete

pamgrl!Lph,5.

There were 11 vote@! in !avour of the Ca.IlIld1an proposal&. J..l.¥'g:inSt. a.n§ 10 abstentions "the pfOR9sal Was ·ejeoted.

i ,

The CHAIBMAN noted that pa:mgr:o.ph 5 was rete.1ned. With rego.rd to the

bracketed' words' rema1n1ns, in the last 'part o! the p~ph, a.nd ill view of

the deoision which bad been taken to establish twol1m1tntion fundS ~ on&

!or pol:SQ~ olo.tms. and ~ otber tor'pJ:operty olaitls -.she pro~set,1 the de1et10~ o! ~ "bro.oketed wordS Ii [such , a]" in the t1n£lJ. sentence. t~ be

followed by a vote on paraarnph 5.

There tollowed on exoh.<lnge of views in whioh Mr. BURSLEY (United

States), LordDIPLOCK (United !C1ngdom), lofr. VONt..U (Poland) anu. the

CltA.IBMAN took port.

- 5 -

\ .u wH d201(.e4 to clolete the wait'S! "[wop 0.1" frog pp;tpfj£!lgh: 5 ,eng. ~

wt the ~e to the vote. ; ? 1, {

St.1;91i l,,~) as !£W.lldedl .. o.pavY.P~ (;J,2 :t2~~I.~ 'C':Y.9~.I_;'O wNpst. &1 16 abstswtio;a).. "

i Mr •. &DA (Egypt)wonc1erod whether tb.e text \lJbioh'the OollItliosion

had juSt approved for pa:ragt'eph 5 was not a.t odds with· the 'text it had

adoptQd the pr.1vious <W.;r oonoerning the priori t1 to be 61. von to claims

,~,reapao:t of ~ to barb.:>ur wo~ka • ... ..

Mr. SELVIG (Norway) supported that view. It would be bet;fiQl! to" ;

specify that, in the case of aggregated ola.!IJa, account should be taken

, of the provisions of Artiole ,6(1)(0).

The ~~l reo9gnized the validity of those observat19na, and said '. ,'" . . . '. ~ "

that the question would be referred to the Dra£tine CoDBittee.

, Artiole 1.L- :ear to other o.ot!,2 (oontinued)

The CHAIRMAN oalled for e. vote on paragra.ph 1, wl;d.Q1~ the CoDO.i ttoe

bnd,already prov~a1ona+ly approved.

~ 1 W9@ o,p'i,roved (3§ yojge in ,favour .. PR~ ·W'M't. NIl 2 abeteptfpns).

The CHAIRMIlN reoo.lled that the CotlOi ttee, by 9 votes 1p. favour" , ..

1 against o.n,d. 12 abstentions, ho.d o.pp;oved the a.dc1i tion to po.ro.gmph 2 of . ~ . .

e new sub-paragt'E\.ph (e) with the follo~ wording: "(e) in the State .' " , \

wpare tJ:le shipowner ha.e his Ilrino1pal plooe ot business". ,

~. BELVIG (Norway) l1e.quested. that, t~t sub-p~oeroph oe voted on

separately at th.a.t junoture. There wall· no '~9h provision whatsoever in

the ,)'951 Convention, and;~ 4t+'Od1lot~op. of ,t~e oonoep.t of. the shipowner's . .' ',:, ~ .' . " , ':, ' . ~. ' :' . ., .. :

place of business Il1sht destroy the balance re£1eote,d by au"J:),..PF~~

(8) to (d) and oreate d1£f'ioulties. Furthermore, that provision waS too : .')' ~ , I ~. . ~, .. ~: :,,'

rigid. The oonstitution ot a .t'und in theSta.te in wblOh-tlUf shipownar )'. '.' ,'," '. I " . ,'. > • , "

had his prinCipal. plooe of bUsiness, irrei:Jpeotiveof the plE:\.C~ 'Where the " ,.' ',I. ,,":' i • I " .' ,

db.rnage bad b.~ oo.u'sed, .1tq:)eded the exeroise ot all othor riabts, which

was tortious, espeoially it the ple.oe in question wasrenote~

Mr. Hf:fL.LIm (Switzerland) ,resretted that tbe repreaentat1ve of Norw8¥ had

... , reverted to that question, espeoially 88 hi~ own: a.el~go.tion"had alre~ dwelt . at length on the land-looked oountries' poei tion. .. '!he state where the arrest

was ~(sU~ph· (d» m!6ht it .. l! be 1'9I»te, Ud 11'1 the OODe of a

sUZlken ship, DO arrest oould have been cad. a.t a.ll. .1'$ bad. ~O be P1'Oteotion

of the shipowner's interests.i and 'the ClOst oonvenient. tribtulal was undoubtedly

the one in the sta.te where he had his pr.tno1paJ. plaoe ot b\\Q1,ne/J'h

The CRAIRMIlN asked the Committee whether they we~ prepared to approve

the add! tion to the text of the new sub-paragraph (e) Whioh she had already ~. '\

,. ~. t

. '," • . t ' '

Whe com tt.ee decided to add Djw sub-pa.ra&rnm . (e) t2 the ballio text

(17 votes is favour. l~ ~t and 1 abetenUons).

The cBA.J:Rltf.AN 1nvi ted the Com ttee members to Vata "on paragraph 2 as a whole. " ,. .

Paragraph 2 as a. wh2li was a;PP1'9ved (20 votes in !'f4V9U$. noao {lSSnet. §!Dd I '

11 a.bstentions).

The C~ reoalled that the Committee had provisionally deoided to add the

words "and freely transferable" o.fter the words "actually available" in para­

g:ca.ph ,. She invited the Col'Jl)tlttee to vote on that Md1t1on to. the text.

The addition was approved (25 votes in favour. none pB!1nBt, an~

13 8batenti9n~}.

The CEA1llMAN drew attention to the fu:I:.other proposal to repla.oe the phrase

"if the cla.1mant has acoess to the Court" by the words "1f the ola.1tla.nt I'ila.)" bring

~tion before the Court", and asked the Commi t·tee whether they were prepared to

approve the text of paragnapb' , as just amended. and to refer th4t last

sU8!9Stion to the Drafting Committee.

PAragraph ~! as _dedi was' APProved (25 votes 1p favour, nOne MNw.1. cd 12 abstentions)'

: .• ; ! ,

~~S?l! 14'- qo~!(!?,1jn, la!{(o01'lt1z'UEld). ' . ••..• " . . '" .... " I l,' '" '

.. The 0Bl1.IBMAN oal11il,tl.l?r ~vo;te on .Article 14,.a.e 8Qend~~ ~ .~~ .~ofKD1ttee, ~Q!1 ~. decided _. sgn. ,.t,Q .1nsert. the ,.word. "Coni;ract~' ,b~forEt th~ word

... ~ . . .. . .' .,... .".' , , ,,' ,

"State" in the last line.

~e t@xt of Article 14..t...as _Mid. Was approved (37 yotes in favOV.

;gue against. and 1 abstenta,gnl.

- 7 ~

Mr. w.rSWJJtL (Liberia.) pointed out toot the text a.s IlPI)roved w:>u1d

need to be oonoorded ·with thAt uubJ:l1.tted"y tha D:r:ott1ng Oormtteo I.',

(IJOO/OOlU'.5/0.,/1, pEl8e 9) wh10huaed the tfm:l "Sta.to Po:rtyt".

Article 15 (oont1aued) l •

The ClIAlRMtll: Qru.lod for a vote' on pore.aro.Ph 1.

The tert: of' p~ph 1 we approved (~5 yot2! #D favoBlk noAA 8B9:inst , and 2 abstentions l.

4

~ CHAIRMAN reoall~d the deoisions provisionally t~~en by the

Cooc1 ttee with reaard to p~o.ph 2; to replace the words "used for" by

the words "intend~d ,torI! in the English text of uub-p~aro.:J,h (a.), and to

repl.a.oe sub-paragra.phs (b) Emd (0) by a sin(a.e p~ph :t;:'e~: "shipe

of iess than ~ (9Xlss tons". eross tol'lllf.l.8'e b~inG defined in a.ocorc1D.noa

, ,with the provisions of . .Artiole 6, pa.re.~ph 4.

:J:Ihe text as £JfWldt9t wns APproved (33 voto@ in !qVOU.1'.'. ~AA p.gg.1nst,

nod 4 ab@tentioae).

Mr. WlIlTAXER (Un! ted Kinedoo) subo! tt8d the anerlc.1uents to the text

of the oX'iBinal report of the Working Group on the c1.mf'tine of a. new

po.ra.e,raph of .Artiole 15 dea.l1.nB with shipe oonstruotod for and ~d

in drilling (LEG/CONF.5/C.lj\a'.74), whioh the Worl.d.ll8' Group Dropoeed. to cake in order to O&ot the o~1tioiSDS levelled at oertain expressions in

that report. In the introduotory' sentence, thophro.se "before tho oO\1rte

of eo Contraotin13 State" would be inserted. nfter the wordS "shnll not

apply", and. 1neub-P~Dha (a.) end. (b) the words "when a. Cont1:'Mtinl3'

statEI" would be replaced by the words "when that State".

, Mr. LYON (Cana.da) pointed out that the enpht:.s:is in the c1iaouseions

that had previOUsly taken place had. been Ofl the operational a.s:r;>octof the

problt-m, and that it had been a question first and foreoost of abipt:J'Usec1.

tor .drilling operat.ions. The p:r.'8a~nt wording, ybioh rel~ted on tho one

~. to the ship .itseJJ;", anQ.,Qn t~ other to the situAtion in whioh it

found· ,1 t8el£, did.not cq~;r:. e1 ther t~ oas,e of ships oonstructed for

~ill1ng operations but not used tor that pulr,QOse, ortho.t ofslU:pa

GClI1I:rlrructed tor other pu:t'P,Oses and adapted for pOIiI.1ble use tor dulJ~M

LlIn/COD. 5/0 .l/sn. 24 -8-

opera;tJ.ou" lIe 81.1BPstctd tbo.t· a tom· o~ .'W9rdi ~ :used 8\\ob as "sh:l.ps

o0D8two~ ~o;e or ~te4 to 1114 ~-iD4ri+liDl ~.CII:W" •. 1Cr.'. WBITAEliIR (United Xir.I8dom) f.lt able to accept the Camdian

SUG8'8stion on bobalf of the Working Gr.o~. 'Which !md. o.t no title ~stJ.B'Od

the interpretation 1n ani3.r:row sense' ot the expression usad.

Mr. MAKUvSKY (ussn) .hl:I.d no objGotion to sub-~o.ph (0.), but

questioned the need tor sub-par~ph (b). In po1nt of taot, the

Oonvention would not a.pply in the oa.ee of a Sta. to PD.rty whioh had

oonoluded ~th other states non-Parties & separato Oonventi0n speoif'yfnB

1\ ooop1otoly dif'terent ByBteo ot l1abiH ty 1101 tation. . , ' ,

Mr. ])QUAY (Fmnoe) sa.id that, while he. had no 1ntentiol1 ot onlling 1nto

question theWorlcl.nB Groupls deoisions, be wished to l)oint out that tho French

version of' the draft Artioles prepared by the Draf'tin6 donoittea oontained

a. nuober of' .errors. The a.oendtlent proposod by the Cha1ro.atl of' the Wor]dng

Group whereby the words "betore the oourts 01' a. StC'.te Po.rty" ,o(ould be

wertod in the introduotory sentenoe disposed 01' the first ot the points

troubling hio. IIowever, the wording 01' pa.ra.gre.ph 4 01' t];lQ hench tex1i

(Jmnax to LEG/CONF.5/C. '/1) did not tVJ.l;r render the o9ru'l.in() 01'. the

Epe'l1sh word.s lIonanaed in". ilis deleGBtion oonsidered that it w'Uld be

~visa.ble. to rel)la.ce those worda by "a.UX Movires oonstruits pour les

op~rationa de f'ora.ae et lo:csqu'ils sont util1s6s pour ces op6:rat1ons", ·;(hioh

was Q. core ta.i thtul renderin8 01' the oriBinal Engl1ah. SiDilo.rly, in

sub-paragraph (a), ~ worda "under its no.tiona.1 leGislation" oU01t not to be translated by "do.ns Ie cadre dG sQ.. l$gislat.ion no.·~~onoJ.en"

IIis deleBBti0ll hopedt~t the Im~tingCoDDittoe youlll boOll:' those

ClOOOeptS izJ. d,,nd. when .f'rmJ.1.ne the detip1 ti ve text 01'. t~ ptn'Q.6Z'tlJ?h ,1n

que8t~on.

Mr. WHlTAKER (United F'.:f.nedoo) reoalled.· that there ha.d in tact been a.

difference of' opinion at'the·t1oe that· p1'Opoeal had been· discussed, and

that one delegaUonha.d been aga;I.rlSt retentioh' ot mlb-pa:t'ag:t'o.ph (b), ..

while flllCItber wiehEid to ·reto.1n it. 'In the event· of the Un! ted Ir:.I..n8doo

beooa:1ng Pariy·to a· new ,Convention on' ships engti.eoCl in dril1in8. ill '1 t

would do would be to specify in its lee;lelation the lia.blli ty 1101 ts la.1d

down in that Convention.

- 9 - LEG/C01IT.Ii' ~ 5/0 .l/sn. 24

:represent«l.ti va of the USSIl. ond W8 tharafora unable, to ~. to

BUb-~~ (b) ot the new p~ph ~ •.

"The mlAmMliB oalled fora vote on the Wo:t'k1MG~U:k?IS Prol)Q"ol ,

oonoeming sub-p~ph (0,) ot the new ~pb 'Q.S qnencle<l 1n the

oo~e, of t~ ooet1n8'.,.

The prowso.t WQ@".tZ~g (28 Et,s 1p. f'axeUfM noW,h?tm4net· opd

9 abstent1o!¥!).

~ CHAIRMAN,oalled for a vote on the Workin5 ~oupta prol)Qsal +',- • : ,,'

oonoernine sub-pa.ro.araph (b) of the neW' p~ph ~ tl8 ol.lenc1ecl in the

oou;se of ~e neet1ne,.

The plOPgsgJ. ,N twl?f.2yed (9 votes in fg.you;. 5 g.eg.i,ngt. gad

23,o.b,t2ntioppl. The C1J.llInMt..N drew o.ttention to the proposal in LF.G/COliJj'.5/C.ljwP~.74

to a.oend sub-paroeraph (b) of pa.r~aph 3 of the dr~t text (the

providon oonoe~ £1oQ.~ill8' Pla.:f'oros) and; to. renunber' the lo.tter

pa.:r86rQ.ph Q.8 pa.r~ph 4.

Mr. VON,4.U, (Po;Land) wondered whether tue wo:JKling ol'Lhe pro.l?osed

sub-pa.rogro.ph was ~.t'ioienUy oooprehensi ve, and. whether it I.u6iJ,t not

g1 va rise to r::dsinterpretation·· by speoialists on the lo.w of 'the seD.,

since it eight be resnrdec1 Q.8 exoluding the subsoil of' the sea-bau.

It would: be a.dvieab!l.e·to etipulo.teexpressl;y that the provisions relo.ted

to the 'exploration or exploi tat1oD: of the ~turo.1 resouroes of the

sea-bed e.nd its 'BU9aol1, thus oor:rpleting sub-paraero.ph 4(1,) ill tMt sense •

. ··H!l.s delega,t4.on also deeued.1t dasU"ab1e:'.to.inolu<:1.8, floo.t1ng. '

pla.t1'oros used for soient1f'io ~sea.roh in sub-pa.rac:ro.yh ('ti).

~. ~(un1tad Rlrladoo)' belie~ he was expressing tb~ views .:" .'. 'Oltha 6th9r o.enb~rsot the W6rk.1ng Group iii 'a8reein6 tho.t referono&' to

the subQQUo.,f, ~ , •• c,4>Cil4 qoulq ~eil be ~~ned in fJUb-l)~P.~ph (b).

M;)reover, spea.1d.lle for his delecation, ~i1o.w ,DO ol;>.t~~ .. too. ~f~oe

to the inolus~on of,the floo.t~ plattorca Dentio~d by ~he Polish

~presente.tive, .. he' SU88'Gsted. that that end 'woUld be o.ohieved· by not beine

- 10 ""

speoUl0 IIb4 iDstn4, ~lo~ the ail!u>lot tom, of .spree.Lon, namely,

"noat1ng platfozme". '

Mr. llNlO'm (iAuatra.lla) pointed out that it eight be better t·~"reta.:1n the words

"tor the pu1'pO$eot uploring or explo! t1na"', lIh10h ha4~ been used

in & text appl:Oftd b7 tba' '00mm1 tt" and relat.tnsto ah1ps.

The ClIAmrAtr called tor a vote on the text of 8\\b-pa.rae:raph (b)' of

the or1g:h:wil ~pb. ,. WhiCh now 'tt8Olmit ,~ 4. .., anaended in the

oourae ot the meeting bY' the representative of Polazld.

b text ot @\Jb=pa.ne;t'!ph (b) W¥ app.roytd (19 von.1n fayour.

1 M!1p!!t M4 17 abet811tionsl.

The CBAIBl1:AN called for a. vote on the new ~ph '4 (paragraph"

of thebaaic text) as amended. in the course of the meC;)t~g. ~ a whole.

1'he new 1?8f!l{!f!ph 4 W 8.p;proved (25 votes in !:a.vour..bJ~_ap.1nst"!.t!4 1, abstpntioIB,l. '

The CBAIB:r:11U~ calloed ,i'or 8. vote on the new pa.ngraph proposed by the

Japanese delegaUon (roo/COltF.5/C.lftl P.49/Rev.l) , which had been "

proVisionally ap:proved and. was to be found. on pace 10 of the Draft

Articles drawn U)~ by the Dra.ftingOoxmnittee (r.m/OOltJi' .. 5/C.,jl).

~ ,JtpNl8SEI proposal was amz;rovtd. C26votes ~ l&vo.$. nODI Wllst.

apd 11 apst!ptiot~.

The CHA.IRrW~ called for a vote ontbe p:t'Opos~lJ. bY' the Uorwegian •• " j

delegation (rm/oomr.5/C.1/v?P.10) which appeared on paae 9 of the

,.' ,JP:alt A,rtlc],e,o.

TAft lJorweg1M P;OPOWW IESDd (26 yo~ee ;La 'Iwar. 4 ""ll8t~ ,aM 1 "blteAU.>.

~. ,,~ (t11l1~dR"t;Wlom) nquest.a. that the wo~ ot. Artiole 15(3) be ~ w1th t~t ~ approved for the speoial. llm1. ~s of 1iabil1 V.

b 0ltAmMA.N put tb&t proposal 'to the vote att* JiOtinB ,that it lIU

~ 'b1 o'tihe ~lega.tions_

abe Uu,1. tid Jt1pBdO; pr9pgsaJ. wy aQ.'Q#OYOd (26 yo;tl, '1ji tlWW' ' 4 yaiMt W 7 abstent1onfl. " ., -', ,.

-11- rm/OOlijJl. 5/c • lisa. 24

b CBAIBMAll acoordingly invited the Dra.!tin8 Com ttee ~o act on that

proposal.

She invited the Ccmmittee to oonsider the question ot the Final Clause

relating to entry into foroe.

Mr. STORMS (Netherla.nde) wondered whether oonsideration of the Final

Clauses did not oome, ra.ther, within the oompetenoe of tho Plenary

Conf'erenoo.

The CHAIBMAN oonsidered that the questions were of a fJUbstantivo

natura whioh oame within tho provinoe of the Committoo, whioh had a.lready

examinod the Reservations Clnuse, fo~ instanoe.

I-h'. JEA.NNEt, (Fro.noe) agreed entirely with the Chairman. The Committee

wo.s fUlly competent in the mo.tter, even thou.sh the Committeo on Final

Clauses boil been Bet up by tho Plenary Conf'orenoe and reported book to the

lntter. The problem of the olnuse for revision or tho limitntion amounts

on the loss in rooJ. vo.lue or the unH of o.ooount - on whioh bis dEllegation

hnd nlrea.dy introduced n proposo.l (LEG/CONF.5/Wl.'.4) - WDS a fJUbsto.ntive

issue whioh htld been referrod to the Comm ttee on FincJ. Clauses, bu:t came

within the competenoe of tho Corranittee of the Whole. TlIDt proposal,

inoidentally, had. neither boen oooeptad for disouaaioll by the Comcittee

on F1.:rlal C1nuses nor oonsidered by the Comni ttee of the lThole, oJ. though

hie dGlaga.tion a.ttAChed oonsiderablG :fJ.1;POrto.noe to it. Yet it wo.s a

typical axaop10 of the aubeto.ntive questions with which the CoDDittee of

the Whole wo.o ooopetont to deoJ..

Tile ooe~1ng rose at 1.05 p.o,