ENTAL MARITIME '"" ... ".: ... JI ATIV.e . ORGAN IZA TION .

IN'SNATlONAL' OONJI$RENCJf ON LIMITATION OF LmnITY FOR MARITrlofE OLllDJS, 1976 Oamm1ttee of tbe Whole

.' " I ','

tMeo.

rm,/ooNJ'.·5/c.l/.sIW.2. '.... 4· A;pril 1918

Orig.inaJ., ENGLISlVbEilNCH

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 'l'WELFl'R MEETING

.held at the CUnard International Botel, BAwmertmdth, London, W.6, on Tuesday, 9 November 1976, at 9.45 a.m.

S&oret~neralt

Seo:retS1'71

" i~

. .

Me. :B. BLOM (Sweden)

Mr. O,F, SRIVASTAVA (SGC'rotary-General of 000)

Mr.T.~. ;BUSHA (000 Seoretariat)

~ i198 6 - Oonsiderntion of draft International Oonvention on Idruitation of Liability for Maritime Olaims (oontinued)

. .' ~

For rtulOns of economy. this document is printlJd In 8 limited number. Delegates are kindly alked to bring their copies to meetings and n('~ to request additional copie;,

-2-

AGEl.mA. I1!t!lU ,6 .. CONSlllImATION OJ' 1l1UJ'l.' IN"J.'ERNllTION.\L OONVEN!l'IGN ON LIMITATION OF LIhBILITr FOR MJUUTDtm OLAIMS (LEG/OONF.5/5, LEG/OONF.5/0.l/WP.'9) (oontinued)

J6!;,aft artiole on revilion ~ t4! lim1tQt1on amou.ptl

Mr. J.llUlNNEL (F.ra.noe) introduoed the draft artiole on the ra"iaion o£'~

l1.I:d.tation 800unts proposed bY' the French delesntion (LEG/OONF.5/0.lj\iP.39).

Reoolling that tho 1951 Oonvention hod provided for a method of oalculating

tha ooounts in the vurious national currencies and ensuring balanoed tra.nafore

froD one ourrenoY' to another, with indexatiof.1 on the basis of paritY' with

gold. he noted that in prinoiple tho li:l:l1 ts fixed bY' thai! Oonvent:1Qn had, in

oonsequenoe, oaintained considerable stability.

Sinoa that tiDe, however, in the wake of the diffioul ties experienoed bY'

the intor.n£l.tiol1ll.l Donetary s:yaten and the .f\mda.r;)entaJ. ohanges that ha.d

ooourred with regard to the linkage of currenoies with gold, it had proved

iqposs~ble to 'apply the ~rovi$ione r~latin8 the liabilitY' l1Dits to the

Poinoar6 £'ranc. and. those 110:1. ts had aooord.insly reoained fixed at 1957 values. Developoents in the intemo.tiolllll ooneta.r:y sY'stao had led the IMP'

oeober oountries to frena a new transfer systeo, namelY', that of the Speoial

Dro.w1ng lti.ght, as i:l"l.oorporated in .Artiole a of the new draft Oonvention. :But

while that eyeteo oet one of the requirEtOenta whioh had diotated the adoption

of the Poinoare frano. in the senae that it provided a oethod of oonversion

of currenoies, it did not oeat the desired a.ic of oaintaining the real value

of the linitation aoounta. What the SDR systeo did was to establish the vnlue

of a W'lit of aooount in relation 1;9 a bo.sket or ourrenpies. However, thore

,faa a high level of inflation in a good oany oountries and a oodernte ueeree

of inflation even in those with stable oonditions, with the result tbAt the

wlues of the nationa.l ourrenoies, and hence of the SDRs, were stead:.lly­

decreasing, jnvolving a real da.nger tMt, in a few years' tiDe the situation

would be book to what it was at present. It was essential, therefore, it the

SDn l'lOoB to be adopted as the un! t of Moount, to find a formuln for revising

the lirl1ts laid down in the Oonvention, preferablY' at regular intervals.

The Frenoh delegation proposed that they- be revised every five years, o.n

intervol it re5Q.1':'ded as adequate seeing that the strong currencies in the

basket ooopensated, at least to sone extent, for the loss of value of the

weaker ones. It also proposed that the intervaJ.e be oalculated, not :£'ron the

-~-

dnte of tile outry into f'oroa of' tho Convention 'but !:roo that of ~ ~s siBJlO.ture.

Experienoo had shown tho.t the prooess of ratifioo.tion oould be a lollS' one, with

a period of, perhaps, five years elo.psin{3' between the date of oooption o.nd that

of entry into foroe; and durina' all tho.t tioe the am c1e,ht lose in value.

~e ne.1n thing was to. oot1;PoJlQate for the fall in value of the nstiom:U

o'Ul.'rQnoias, but there oould bo other rsQSons for rovisioll also. It night provo

neoeeee.:ry not nerely to oainta.1n the value of the aoounts previously ostablished

but actually to inorease thee.

ih'. WIIITAKEll1 (Un! ted Kinedon) explained that the reason his deleeo.tion had

not presented epeoific p:roposals on the subjeot in its aubc.i.seion in doouoElnt

LEG/C01~.5/5 was beoause of the diffiou1t1~s which had been experienoed ~t

previous oonferenoes. It "met oloarly essential to provide foro. quioker and

mrs :t·l~·i ble oetbod of revision thAn. th.o.t eoployed for ao.ending the

substantive prOVisions of the Convention, and it ought not to be necessary

to have to 0.0.11' 0. spocial revision oonferenoe. If Mti.ole a We adopted !l.1'1d

i to pr~viaions inoorporated in the t.ha:oe other couventions to be oonsidered a.t

the rovision oonf'e:l:'enoea the followiXli8' week, any subsequent aoendoents to the

four ConvenUons oould be adopted eil:llllta.neoualy. It was with that objeot in

view Md for reasons of oonvenienoe 1::hat the Un! ted Kingdon had sut.meF.lted that

!MOOts LoBDl OoDDittee oiBht"becade responsible for icplenenttng the

prooedure for adoptine acenClnents. J:.f tho French delegation's' proposal were

adopted, it would Dean oonveninB' foUl~ conferenoes at the aooe tiDe. It would

be o.pprop:riate, therefore, to decide whioh body should be oonpatent to aO.opt

atlendoQnts.

~s to the aooeptance·prooedure, he recalled that a general preferenoe

for on explicit acoeptanoe prooedure had. euergod froD the Athena Conferenoe.

Tho United Iri.n8don, in e;ny event, wan in fa.vour of the latter, since a taoit

acoeptance prooeclure would in its onue as in that of nany other ootmtries,

involve l\ nunber of legislativo and pa.rlionentary problens.

wetly, he had always understood. that 000 would be the depositary of the

nOll Convention, and would like to knl~W how the torn "Depositary Governoent"

in the F.r:encJ;l proposal was to be 1nt';)rpreted.

LEG/CONl'.5/0.1jsn.12 -4-

lIre :Bur~LEY (United etates) expressed. etq>porl in pr~e .for the-viewe

of the Frenoh and United KinGdom representatives. It was neoessary to adopt a

prooedure that would enable the limitation aoounts to be altered in the liBbt

of intlation and the evolution of the insuro.noe market. The proo&dure for

tacit acoeptanoe would need to be oo.retully studied, sinoe fuiiu:t'e ~fJ to

be ma.de would involve teo.lm1oal pointe rather than matters of substance.

The LeaaJ, CoIlll1 tte9 could uoe.t'ully exooine the question of whe~ JOOdii'ica.tio~

of the litlitation amounts we.s desi.ra.ble, and he 81l8'89sted that the subsequent

procedure DiSht be eioilo.r to that provided for by the Gua.tEmllll.o. Frotoool to

the W4~saw Convention. Bis deleantion ~ld be presenti~ a proposal along

those lines.

llr. ROTH (FederoJ. Republio of Geroo.ny') shared the oonoern of the Jrrenoh

delesntion. ..an aooelerated prooedure should be provided for nltorinB' the

lio.bil.1ty- onounts, sepsmte t'l.'oo tl:ls.t for aoanding other provisions of the

Conve.ntion. However, t..~e Frenllh proposoJ. wc.s too rigid, there WEI no point

in oonvonil18' reviBion oonferenoes o.t re@ll.a.r intervals, because the neeu for

revision would depend on the situation at any given tiDe, and that wo,a

iIJpossiblo to foreoaat. It would be better if suoh oonferenoes were oonvefV:Jd

at the :t'oquest 0; !l, speoified, but very soaJ.l t 1llU'.1ber of states. He was not

in fo.vour of tooi t acoeptanoe; sinoe an:r changes in l1a.bili t1' QCOunts

a.ffeoted the basio provisiOns of the Oonvention, .an explioit prooedure was

oalloc.1 for • .. Nr. r1ULLER (Sw! tzerland) said that he oould, in prinoiple, support

adoption of Dtlohinory for revising lia.bili ty aoounts whioh would dispense with

the need toacand ,the Convent:J.on itself •. He would, have supported tho Frenoh

proPOGaJ., but 'for the fact that the French representative ~''l.d l'e£erred to

possible revision for "other reasons". !1'hat was not sa.tisfactory to

N tzerla.nd. His Gov01'IlOent ws prepo.red to o.ooept a. siDpl1fied :t'evision

syeteo for teohnical oa.ttera, and to consider, fo~ exacple, tha.t a. deoision

taken by two-thirds of the ~a.rtieB Mould bind the reoa.inder. When, however,

it oo.ne to aoendoents affeoting a. ba.sic issue, suoh a. prooedure 1me

difficult to acoept, since any fund~ental a.lterations required legisla.tion or

ro.tifioa.tion by Po.rl10.0ent. In his vie'il, the sole purpose of 0. revision

conferenoe WB W a.l ter or adapt lim to.t10n ooounts in omer to reflect

chan{,"es in the value of the un! t of a.ooount.

- 5 - rmjeONll' .. 5/C .1/SL:.12

Mr. MAKOVSKY (ussn) o.{3Teed tha.t it would beooDO necessary at a future

date, to revise the licitation 'noounts stipulated by the new Oonvention, but

wtI llB'fl.!l,nst an aooelerated and amplified aoendtlent prooedure. The purpose

of the present Oonfe~noe wa.a 110 prodUoe a. OorMmtion which, al tboU6h not

pe1'.feot !:roo the loaaJ. point of view, would be acoeptable to !lOst oount:ciel9

and oa widely a.pplioable as possible. Ten St&tes ba.d acoeded to the

1924 Convention, and twenty to that of 1957, but t:l8.DY oountries bt.l.d not signed

either instrunent and had wid~ly differing logiela.tion. In oonsequenoe, the

oa.in oonoer.n should be to strive for un1foroity. Adoption of a siQplified

anenClDont procedure would be a D<.'VO in the oppod te direotion and would 51 VEl

rise to a. plethora of licitation systena and rules. If a revision oonferenoe

''1ere to Deet after a lapse of five years, sooe oountries would a.ooept the new

linita.tion llDOunta, while others would not. There would then be a. nuobor of

oonvontions, whioh W'Juld not all ho,ve the sane sisnatories; for that reason,

IMCO should follow the auetocary prooedure and ~onvene an international

oonference with the task of reVisinG lini ta.tion a.oounts.. The proposed fivG­

year interval. we, in a.n:y event', far'too short.

11r" EllIRMlilS (Australia) favqured a revision oeoha.niso, whether periodio

or not •. He agreed with the re~resenta.tive of the Federal Republio of Ger.oaoy

that a. oonferenoe for that purpose should be oonvened at the request of a.

certa.in nunber of oountries" He su,pported in principle the proposals ou.de

by the United KinBdoo, but not the sugB~stion oonoernina the role of the

Lel)Pl CoIJO! ttee of moo, beo£l.uso Booe oeobers of tha.t Com! ttee oi@lt not be

oOOJ.)letely fao.1Ua.:r with the issue: involved, He was strollgly opposed to eo

tacit acoeptanoe prooedure; e:x:plioi t acoeptanoe by a no.jori ty, of Sta.tes w.a

nooofJso.ry.

'Itfto. OLETON (Netherlands) supported the: ,proposal to esta.blish speoiru.

cachinerr for revising linitation aoounts; he also thoUBbt thAt the Conferenoe

would do wall to provide for the possible revieion of the unit of £I.Ooount,

slmuld, the sna no longer be able to pla.y the role assignod to it. ilia

deleBCtion rego.rdocl IMOO as' the bou7 ooopetent to oarry out suoh revision;

but all Contro.oting stf:l.tee, whether l1eo.bere ,of INCO or not, shoul(l. be

lllvited to partioipate. lIe ha.d. no objeotion to a taoite.ooeptanoa proceC.~e;

but 0::.':100 it did not seeD to satisfy SOrlO delegations, it would be best to try , to rea.ch a ooqprooise solution. Any revieion prooedure ouBht to be initiated

-6.w

at the reqU/Vst Q,f a oertain l'l\lQbsr ot oount .. ;iejiJ - aay three, tor exqle.

It wa 1Xl1ld,'iea.ble tode~!de on peJ;'iod1o~vif;,l1pnsf .. 't>eoaUS$ experienoe hat\. shown tbD.t wah a eyetetl ~~Md OO~tra1nt8. It I;U.@1t prove neoesso.ry. as

the ~ del,esaUon .Qad ~poBed', to take B;ianature .of the Oo~tiol'l ~

the point ot d,pa;t'tu;re, mtbe;r than if. tu entry into foroe.

nevision should be of a. teohnioal nature only and not invol va olwla'es

of SllIJata.noe.' 'l!ha.t distinotion had not been olearly cade in the proposals

beforo the Concittee. If licitation aoounts had to be alt~~d, the

re&!,ootive positions o.r those states which had acoepted the new aoounts

end those which had. not oust be oa.c.o olear.

Mr. nOGNLJEN (Norway) sa.1d that, .in prinvi:ple, he was in fa.vour of the

French l:J1'Oposal. Pl'ovieion had ~o be oa.de ~or revisins lir.li tation ooounts, , ' !. .

and a. siD.plified prooedure we therefore required; any euoh prooedure

should, however, deal with teohnioa.l :Qa,tters .only. 11'or that reason, no

preoise teros of referenoe should be inposed on any future review oonferenoes;

it wna, ooreover, unwise to speoify toot such oonferenoas had to be held

every tive years. IIe' Wbuld B'U.g6Gst tmt a ocinferenoe should be oonvenod at

tho request off'our Meoher Sta.tes of IMCO, fo~ e.xanple, followine' whioh

the Seo:reta:r,--General would take the nooossEl.'t'Y lilOaB11res. 1J. revision

oonferenoe could be osked to take appro:priate steps to define rela.tionships

between oountries Which had aooepted the revised aoounts and those which

retc.inod the or;f.~ allO'WltS. To reduoe the dif.fioul ties invol ved, the

revieocl nuounts should be a.pprovea by c.: lal:'ge cajorit;y; that meant, for

axnqpla, thnt at least half the nuober'of States Parties to the new Convention

would have to attend such a conferenoe end a two-thirds oajori ty of the

pa.rtioipo.tinB Bta.tes would be req~a.. ne did not think that the tc.oit

ll.Ooepto.noe prooed'Ur.(!! pro,oeed by Fr~o w,s realistic; it was neoaseory to

find 0. fomula. which Oontraotins states oould acoept without undue (".j,ftic:mlty'.

r,h'. ZmOVIC (YUGOslavia.) 8ul,Jported the Frenoh proposal. The new

Convention should inolude an Artiol.e on the periodic revision of liDi ta.tion

aoountc, ouch revisiofi to be oarried cut by a oonferenoe of Parties to ~1a

ConventiollF whiohwould be oohoQrned m.th'the effeots of inflation.

~ir. w'ISWALL (Liberia.) sait'!. that the ElOOunts laid down in the new Convention " :, , .

would have to be revised in the li/1ttt not only of ohanBea in OUl."l.'Gnoy vnlues

- 1 - LEG/CONF.5/C.l/SR.l2

but aleo of developments affeoting the capacity ot the insuranoe market. A diplomatio oonf.'~rence Bho~d b~ given the taak of revision, not because be

waDted to depriwtbe 000 Le6$l Cot:JJl'l.:1ttee of an Ilppropriate role in the

revision of internationnl inQtruLlGlltO" ()r tha.t he doubted the Com1tteel.~

oompetence, but tor pre,oticalrea.oons ~ In the first place, the Oomitt,ee

was required to prepare ita work progrOl!lIlle far in advance, and secondly ~ t

alreany had a. heavy work progracce. Another reaoon was that Governcents would

need to send finanoial experts to a meeting of the Cocm1ttee dealing with

revisionJ that would save neither t1m~ nor tioney. That'e wo.a no nead for -, ,

revision conf.'erenoee to be held at regular intervals. ~ , . . "

Re did not favour, a taoit aooeptanoe p~o~dure for revising limitation

amounts, beoause tbe ohanges .in -the l1D1tation amounts were so ic.po.l'ioa.nt that

gove1'!Ullents should,be allowed ,toJdeoideiexplici.tly whether they acoepted any

such Cthanges. Tile tacit aoceptl;lllCe procedure might be used, on the other

hand, when it came merely to ohanging the unit ot tlCcount Dinoe, on that

issue, an adequate de€1'ee ot tle%ibilitywouldbe requ1rQd it the position ot the SDR were to ollMga abruptly.

Mr., llENTEIN (Belgium) eupp<:>rted a specUio revision clause designed a.t

least to adjust the acounts stipulated by tho new Convention, partioularly

Since tho insertion of the SnR was not oompletely satistactor,y where

maintenanoe of currenoy values was oono.erned. Inclusion of suoh a. olause

did,how~ver, raise difficulties, beoause the probleo of adjusting li~te was

not confined to the present Oonvention. Tbe Belgian delegation had no

preoise toroula to 0.££01', but was willing to; seek a solution whic.h would go

beyond the scope of the Convention and thereby avoid t4~equa1 troatment.

In his view, a flexible revision formula was required, whioh would steer

clear ot fixed regular intervals end leave Contracting States free to a.l ter

aDlOlintSas ciroUI:lstanoes Qisht dicta.te. For that reason, he supported the

suggestion made by the representative of tha Federal Republic ot Germ~. The Belg1.sn delegation would find it dift10ul t to &.coept a taoi t acoeptance

prooedure; adjustment of amounts was a fundamental issue requiring explioit

consent by States. In addition, the reasons:£or the revision woUld have to

be' given, and due heed ps:ld 'not only to lnflation but also to the CA1)acity

of the j,uau:canoe ma~ket. He did not soe how the question of the unit of

I,

LOO/OONli'.5/0.l/SU.l~

account ooulc:. be tlIlode to fit into a. revision of l.itli tat10n ooounta; he hoped

that a; 'eolution would be .round which did. not otlll for altemtion of the

unit ot'llOoount. Speoial attention ShOuld be' e;:I.ven, in Qddition, to the

diSpUtes that tliBbt -beoaused bt' thO 'ld.nul tc.neOWJ existenoe ot orieJ,.naJ. e.nd

revised do:>unts~' In oonblwd.Ot1,. he suPPorted the Jranoli P1'01>oso.1to take

aianntciri of tho Oonventi0I1'08tho '];>Oint ot depM"bui'e.

lfr. IWAT.il (Jtlpa.n) fully tlP~e,o.1Cl.ted the reasons underlyina the FJ:tonoh ,

pro;}OsaJ. 'but reBQrd,ad the question of lioi tation anounta as of pr:i.na':t'y , , I

ioportanoe in the senee tho.t it iopineed dil:eotly on the riBbts a.nd "

obliGltioIlS of nations; it therefore occupied a. vitol position in the 'new

Convention, requiring oone1ci~ra.tion 01' pa.i:ollaoant. That Wl\S ~ he oould not

endorse 0. ta.o1t 4Ooeptonoe 'P1'OoGdu:re, BlthoU8h a oethod ofrtlVis:ing lll.Dounts

whioh would neet the oha:nB:J.na'.GQQnomo s1tua.tio» sbo\'lld 1"09 developed.

, !!he 'JQ.ptI.Ilese dGleant±on wQ\1Jld' ~ly liubm1 1;- 'allt.liler1i"Il9J1t to' the :,:D'::Nnoh

propoeol.

Mr. :BUllIDIIOLT (Denoa:t'k) supporled. the icteo. of holdirlg periodio revision

oonferenoes. as proposed bytilJ Frenoh deleGQ.tion; he we reMy' to oooepto.

oOOQ)rooise solution baaed on the sueaast10ns Dade by the' represent~tivo of

the Federo.l nelJUblio of Ge~, who wo.s opposed to a. .tixed-intervnlrov1sion

syPtoo, advooa.ting il'lsteo.d theoonv8n1.n,1! ot a revision oonferenoe lmenevor;

nooosso.ry, at the a:"equeet of &,1101 ted nunber of States'. ne, like1lhe

represantD.tive o£'Norway, favoured ,tbG" adoption of revised atlGIunts by a.

two-thtrds mjority, of which at !least ball'were Pn:IHlies to the origU»:\l

Convention. . .

Mr. l'ElllMlrrS (Greece) stressod the oonpleXity of the prcbloo. SoDa , deloantions thoueht that the revision oonferenoe oould be oonvened 'by 0. oerto.in

nuober of States, but they stillfha.d ,to decU.de how'!l8llY, and which States.

Revision Iliabt toke place before' the Gonvention had even oODe into foroe and

t.hGt wa.s 1lt)QCoept~ble to his Gov~~t. Such t:L prooedure was unlmown in both

publ:io o.nd P1'iw:te internatioml, la.~., The, Greek dolegnt1on wished to nake 0.

tlUIlber of praoti:Qo.l SUB8'e8,t1one' Q.W reVidon, whatever the p1'OcedUl.~

a.do~ted, should be oont1Jled, to, teObrJ.caJ. natters, and bifi1 deleeat10n endorsed

the Views of the Sw.f.Be deleGl\1!oll on toot point. ,MorEt)ver, such :r:evision

ooulc1lliilt b~, envisaaed befol;G'~, pre~ont C?JlVQntion ho.d ontere<l into foroe.

,"';/ , '

- 9 - L'OO/CONJ]'. 5/C~1/Sll.12

The revision oonferenoe should beoonvcmed b;r two or core l?tlrties to the

Convention, and the QCoeptanoe procedure should not be tacit.

Sinoe untowa.t'd events n:laht oall for speedy o.doption of new provisions -

for insto.noe it the SDIl we no loricer quoted on the interna.t1onoJ. m~ket, o;c

if the D'IF oeased £'unotionin(~ - 1 t would be advisable to oonsider the

inolusion of a safeguard olause in the Convention.

Ur. mOTZ (Gel.'tlOon DeIIIOoratio Republio) fa.voured inolusion of a. review

ola:use in the dra.£t, but tboue;h.t tho.t probleos would then arise. A dipJ.oootio

revision oonferenoe should be oonvenod at the request of a. nuober of States,

or of an 000 body, but without EJ:l1.y fixed tiDe-table J 1 t shoul(l be held 1f

oirounstanoes w.t.':l'Wlted. The results of suoh n oonferenoe should not enter

inteforoe in the Contmotin6 States until a~proved by each of those Sta.tes.

It had been sugaested that revision of the unit of acoount should be

oonsidered as a technioal natter, and toot therefore a tao1 t acoeptanoe

prooedure should be ndopted. Uowev~r, he reool.led that the Conference we

eoing to ~e upon a very sensi t1 ve oooprooise regurd.ing the unit of

account. For thntreason, his delesation ~ld prefer that question also to

be e:rounds £01' oonveni.na' a. revis10n oonferenoe and should be subjeot to an

explioit oooeptunoe prooedure.

111'. S.ll.IlRAOUl (Aleeria) endorsed the views of thec

reprasentat1ve of the

Ge1Uln Deoooro.t1o Republio. It would be loBJ,oal to inolude in the Convention

D. olause toJd.l16 o,ocount of possible ourronQY fluotuations. A fairly s:f.I:.l:ple

oethod niGht be ndopted, but his dele~tion wished to noke its own poBi tiou

olear in two respeots. First, it oonaidere.d that D. request for revision

oould hardly be oaQ.e by only four o:r; five States; the nuober should be Gbout

ten. Seoond, it agraed·with Mr. Perra.kis as to the need to specify whioh

States could oonvene a revision conferenoe, and that they should be States

Parties to the Convention. The a.uanc1nents to be nade oi~t wall (:;0 beyond

the naraly technical, affeotinG' the very prinoiples of the Convention. The

body DOst OODpotant to undertake the revision was a diplonatio oonference

brinc:f.ne to{3ether a lares Il1l.Llber of States. Finally, the explioit acooptonoe

proceduro seened best, since it could take aooount of Sto.tes' di:f'ferant

lEleislCltiOl1S and allow their sovereianty to be preserved.

- 10 -

lrl'u. ,de ~ (Spe.1n) r~eBn.be~ the cle8G 1lOWlexian b~ o.doptPle a now un:1. t .of aooount end o.oend.1tlc ,the JJ.ab.:f.J,i ty JJn1 ta. Wl)Gthor ,tho 8n11,

the l'o~ tranc 01' anothor ,unit ot Q.Oooun~ wns adopted, ~s in ,the • , ~ ,~ . " • I ~ .' ;

ooOIlOllj.o, ond ~IlGta.r:y s~ tutJ,t~oll ment require i ta reV1s~en. :f\Joreovoo;~

dependin5 en tho o?~e,t~an by, events ando~ whether inflation oontinued

or WM rep1Q.Ood bY' deflation, . the c.ooun~s wQuld need to be ollan{:39d~ IIis'

delocution ac:read with the SWiSB ele1el... ...... tioll that the aooepta.noe prooedure

should not 'be ta.cit. 'P'ew oountrios woUld 'bo ablo to persuade thetr parliaoents to seroe to ooqplete treedoD at action by Bn'1Hternationnl

oonferonoe. Moroo"V'e1-, in SODe oetmtrios, tho Deroimnt navy -was epemtod bY'

state or sem-ato.te bodies, and inorensinB the 'llOOunte weuld. be Q.bu(l.eet~'r

ooti:or. The l)rboedure for revisitlB those aOotints nisht be nodel1Gd onthB.t·

of tho 1974 Ath~ Convention, i.o. at the request of n nuohlaraer nunbor

or Sta.tes. His de1eea.tion hoped thtvt th.e. two-tPirds~Jol'1t7 reootltlen~Gd bY' the'.Norwegian deleention wuld b .• 0.000pta.b].8 .• , .~ fer the :1.nsuro.noe

t.18r.t, olo.rifioo:bien and intoroation \rould be n~ded with respeot to it~J.

developoent durinG' tho Ii ve-yoo.r perioel. The nutlbe~ of Cqn·~tinB State,s

*om Which :r:equests oust.:. be received 1::eforo '0. revision oollferenoe w.e

oonvened oust be olearly speoified, and. the inte~ between revisions

should not o.utomtioallY' be five yoara.

ThoCIIADlMAN recalled toot .. at ,the end of the previous dAY" S ooetine',

a: consensus bad been :t'8D.Ohed on the question of i;htl un1 t .of, _count It .'

Hr. ANATSUI (GbMll.) reco~2ied the IlGGd for prov1d.inl!for revision of

l1DitAtion aoounts.' Tho rovia1on oOnference' :Bhould be oonvened bY' nICO or

bY' A snall nULiber of States ,o.fter entry'into f01'Oe of the Convention, and the

aooeptanoe prooec1Ul:'G shoUld be explioit.' The Frenoh proposal would involve'

preolobs of 0. oonsti tuticno.J. natu:re for Glm.r1a.. ,.e·

I'fr. IlELt..ijlJ)XJ: (Finla.n~), sD.id toot he ws able to endorse theviaw

expro~sedbY' the DajoritY' of sparucers. neviaion,oust be possible, thoueh not

naoecB~ily at reBU1~ intervals. A f1v~year period was too lona in any case.

nesu~p;~tec1'~ e~st:l.o~ ~t the' Norwecr1a.n representative that the • -" ,J • \ P,' ~ I ~ , , '

Seoret~-G$ne~al,ot lMCO,should oonvene the revision conferenoe' at tho

request of foUl:' '01' ti.VfJ MeDber States ot the Orcunizo.tion. FintlllY', he ,did ,. I

not t~c that the tacit acoeptance prooodure would involve Bny problecis.

;.., i~

-ll- LEG/CONF.5/C.1/.su.12

at'. 1"l't7RBALDS (Argentina) said that revision would be ntoeeeu.:L"Y if

interna.tional ()vents led to ohe.nges 1n the value of the amounts as laid down

by ,common D.{Jreemont in the, Oonvention. Nevertheless t the sole purpose of a. rovision oleuaosbould be toro-establish the real equivalent vaues of the

vatious amounts tued when the Convention \m.& signed. /my other revision of

the 1uatrumont would be an intesral one, lllld DICO should oonvene ,a, oon.t'erenoe

o.t tbf'! roquest of four or &1.."( Sto.tes. The Qonpotent authority should be the

!MOO ~ss~abl~. not the Lo~l Committeo. Ftnally, his deleaation was in

favour 1£ o~lioit aooeptanoe.

Hr. l'AGES (Observe:', IAl'II), speaJ.dJ.1g nt the 0haJ.ma.n' s1nvi tation, so.id

that the IAP'.J Woe one of those pel."'IllM.ont vict1to.s of shipping aooiclente tl1£l.t

had helplessly to watch while the va.lue of the ~ounts fixed at the,Drussols

Conferenoe went on deolining; ,that docline hIld etn:rted a.a soon as tho'

Convention htld been signed; ~f..~Eh long batore its entry into foroe. The

prosent Oonf~:enco BSveit hope, but also oaused it oonoern. The acounts

should bo revisod autooatioally sud poriodioally by oeane of a diplooatio

oonforonoo. Tho amplo:t', Dore ro.pid anu oo:t'El effootive the irJpleoentati(.m

proooduro s, the better • .. Ur. HULLIim (Sw1tze:t'land) reoo..rked toot the present general disouaaicn

oonoemocl only pa.rt101patin{l Sta tee.

~10 cna!m~ felt that oontrioutions f:t'oo observers eight be of ~ssistanoe

to tho Coonittee.

Nr. IIODNETT (Obsorver, I'OMI), speo.:dns at the Cbaima.n's inVitation and

in ro~ly te the Spanish rap:t'esenta.tivet said that norcally thore should not

be on u:pheavo.1 every five years in the insuranoe oarket. Every year, efferle

wero no.do to uso to the omdnun tho oo.po.ci ty of r and I insuranoo. The

problan wo.a norely one of sending the relevant inforoo.tion to IMCO. rossibly,

after so~o yee~a, experienoe would show whether, en the basis of e1obo.1

sto.tistios, the ccxket's oo.~aoity could be put to even bettor use t~~ in ~le

ptist.

1-1:r. tmIT.lJCElR (Ulli ted Kingdon) re0Q..11ed his in! tio.1 statenent tllD.t the

Lesn1 Cow! tteo of !MCO should be asked to ooend the final olauses by

inolucling an a.dd! tional artiole :relatinG to ooandnent of the liDi to of

LEG/COIlF.S/O.l/sa.12 - 12 ...

110.bil.:!.ty (LEG/CONF.S/S). Siuoo ,tbc.t P1'OPOSIU ho.d reooivedllttl.o D1.l,Pl)Ort,

hie <leloGQotion was preparad to wi thdrflw it. A revisior oonferanoe should be

hel<.l et the roquost of Il. soa.ll nunbor of Con't:reot1ne StD.tes, if the DUQbeZ'

WIiIoS tQ he as ouch as ten, he would prote::l: toot tho revision of tho C.o01.U1ts

should tnke pla.oe a.t fixed interveJ.s, as the F.rGnoh delego.t1on had proPQliJeu

(Lm/comr. 5/C.ljwP.;9).

lJr. .JF.t\NNEL (France) replied to the· questions m.1aed in Oo.DD.extol1 ,d th

his doleaation's aoendoont (LEG/CONF.5/C.l/WP.'9). In answer to the query

of tho Unitod K:i.rladoIl representa.tive raea;rding the expression "depositary

8'Over.u::lont". ho so.1d that it had not boen the intention of. the p:r:oposo.l to

take thedepos:lta.%.'Y funotions £:I:ot1..OOO. To Ollkl) the point olear he J,iI.'JPosod

that the word "BQvernoent" be deleted. ne then explained the difference '

bet,'1OOil tho ,oxpl1oit and the ta.oit QOonclr.1ent proced\ma. For an ODonclo.ont

o.d(.'ptou by the tmdi tional two-thirds m&jol'lt)' t6 . be a.pplioable by the

Sta.tea :i?o.rt1es to the Convention, it would eitha::l: havo to be a.dopted by thoeo

sta.tos ond they would then have to :co.ke known . their aooeptanoe e:1.."1>lio! tly

to tho depository (and that oiaht involve long del~, sinoe adcinistro.tivG

procodures were not a.1.wnys very swift), or olse bo given I.l poriod in l'Thioh

tv aOCoD"t or rejeot the c.oenclIJGnt. \Vhon that period had expired, tU1Y

Sta.te ldtioh hAd not coke its position olear WOul~ be <lepped to have accopted

the ODondnont. The taoit acoeptanoe procedure for ooendoanta tUld the

advo~t~ of ~.pid1ty and also of givine States an opportunity of reJection.

IIe l'laS very well aware of the problen rEused by the Swiss deleentio1'l, o.nd

woUld.' bo p:topared to a.g:roG that rGv1sicin shoul<1 delll only with o.djustnont

of tho ODounts so alii to brin~ than into line with the real va.lue of the SDR,

leavinc; othe1' oonsiderations aSide, it that 'uould a,llow of a eenero.l oonsensus

Iltld tho o.doption of' 0. rA.pid and effootive prooedure.

On the question whethor rov!sion should be undertaken by a special

conforence or by !MOO, and in po.rtioular the Legal OoDoittee, h1s delecrntion

boliovo<l toot 1 t was for a oonferenoe to perfom that teohnical task whioh

uns Dore finnncial than le6£ll. Thus the Le@l1 00001 ttoe, deep! te its

ql.Ullii'ica tiona,. did not eeGn to be tho o.ppropria. te body.

- 13 - uoo.,lnow .. 5/0.1/sn.12

\Ii th rospoot to tho 1n~rvo.le tot\lOon raviair:.nt;1, his delec'Ction mel

pro~o6od a !ivo-J~ar ultarvol 60 as to avoid whnt had been desoribed aa POrp(ifru..-U ravioQn. IIowover, hie C.oleeo.t!".1n wee pre~Cll'eJ tv aocopt the ideo.

of Q oonference oonveMd upon notifiootion to the depcsito.:r,y, but in tlmt

oeso o.t relatively short intervalfh

It l.ro.S true, as the De1gia.n representative had l)o1llted out, toot tho

pro'blen of r0viaill8' the OD0unts would arise 1'or other oonvontions o.e \'1011;

o.s it hn~p~lad, rovision oonferenoes for the 1974 Athens Conventicn r~d tho

1971 Oivil Lia.bil1ty Convention were 'to be hald the f~)lluwing weele, but he

foerod tha.t oerto.in diffioul ties woulQ. arise if the problec were P'ut in such·

brond teJ."DS. There wo.e ncthing to stop States requesting a. revisi(;n froD

sto.t~t~t they would liko their reque~t axtended to other oonventions,

or '~ho Soorotcry...QoneraJ., in eonc:l.1nc out not1tioo.tion of such 0. roquest,

:f'rv::.:l intlica.ting the desi%'3.bili tyof extencing tho. revisi6n to other

oonventions.

Uo wished to reo.asurG the Greek ueleJl3.ticn, which had feo.recltluvt:tho

French l)ropollJal would allow tho Convontion to be rQvisacl even betoro .1 ts

ent~ ~to ,force, tbnt that was not hie dolegation's intention: ~

porio,~ ot oneyeo:J: troc the entry into foroe of the Convention hEl.cl. ~ocm

la.iC. <lown. Tho problEm would no 10l"l.ti'Gr o.rise, however, if the prmoipl0

of ~;erioclioi·ty were abandoned and provision ca.de for the reviSion c;:..nforonoo

to bo convonod at the request cf St.c.tos I'ru.."ties to the Convention~ that

Vrosup~osecl the ontry mt~ force of the Oonvontion.

Hr. l1Ul"LSLEY (United Sto.tes), on 0. point of order, Bllid thD.t in his

deloCt'.tionls ;ro:;;loso.l (LEG/dONll\5/C.l/U?62) just clistributod, the \'rord

"l'CiflEl:!."Vec1", in the third line tron the botton of the first Pc.tJO, shoulcl be

roj/laced by "rejeoted".

The crJf.~~ notoc that tho Cco1ittoohad held a oonstruotivo c.ouato on

the s~steo of revising liability l:i.rJi ts, "/hioh ho.d net with the o.::):)r~vcJ. '- s: the. ·tlCLjority of dele~t1ona, but that clivoreent opinions on points of eletc..il

ho.d c.::'isen.

She thorefore proposed to o.ak a nun bar ot quostions so as to tind Gut

doleco;tione I preferenoes_en the basis ot that intoroat!Orl; e. text "lOtucl bo

dra.ftOf;' by a. "'orking Group.

Ial/OOUll'. 5/0 .1/Sli.12 - 14 -

Fi~t of c.ll, she asked for v.n inclloo.ticn of proferunoa as to tho pl.u~.i)OSO

uf tho revisicn of tho Conventiun.

23 ~:elowt~oaa W9~ in !nY9J1tsL.;;,cy:1,§;l.cn !VpcKd,W\ oQa.naeli' ,»l ~9Z vplues, 10 e.ole{)O.tiona ware in fo..v0¥iF of.a nq1 mew i£2v~@!C'n. i.e.:.

~),ll()",;ipa clmnaps in the oo.pao! tz \)f the iOOUjntloG i:lf$ltet t ana. 14 C..ole.1t',Uons

b~liovod t~~t revision WO! neo2es&Sl follolGDC eBgb gbqnaee §! aqdo i~

Citfioul,t to apply the rlil.es· en tbe upJ.t of a.ooount.

Ut'. IlOGJILJ;JilN (Norway) tlSkod how, 1f /l, oha.tl8e in the purohasing power of

ourr~ies w.s . the sole requ1~nt for a revision, oaloula.tions woulc:l be Ilt\C':.a

with sms an<l lIhj.oh oountry's puroho.Qin€ power would be talcen .1~to n.ooount.

The OIJAIIUwIll..N agreed tho:b the"'World:n8 Ch-oup vould be a.sked to draft a

text tho.t ws not too striot, and that interpX'eting the results of a

revision of the unit of acoount would be rtlther dJ.f't1oult.

Hr. \'JIm-!lILL (Liberia.) thoU(sbt that it would be cliffioult to drI:l.i't a text

on the ba.sis of the replies to those questions. !t'lw essential llOint· wa.s

whothar thGrG shouldbQ a special revisiOll oonferenoe. Ilia dolegc.tion <lid

001; ':Jolieve that euch a ocnferenoe WQ.S neoeeeo.ry, but had voteclin fQ.vour of

it by nisto.ke, M the result of a ·tU.£IunderllJto.ndinl3'. The results of the

prEloedina vote should thereforo be onendod. Only delegations in favour of a.

apooial revision oonference should toke l~ in the oonsultation.

The ~~~ asked for an ulclioation of preferenoes on a nuobar of

questions.

,2!le Corm ttee of the Villo1e w@ in favour of foroulo.t!!¥\ proWJ..Q.W3 for

~ho vosaible revision of the unit of aoooHUt (14 votes ~ favour. 8 gap4nst).

:J1lo Conni. ttee of ,the Whole we in favou't' 2f revidon only g.t:,ta].' tllEt

eRt;:y; into, foro2..Sf the Oonvention (1'2 votes in favOltt'L 6 a.ga.inpt) •

. ga ~ionlj! me Ml, fwoS 0', conyepipg a reVigi2n con.fJtrenoe ~r&

aj; the Ejl9lW!jIt ,of a. nupber ot: St,,~.w. 4 C!.e.ermtt2Ali. oonsidoraCl.1b£lt fBoh revisiol1 oonte,£ences shoUld b~ held at ree9lar intervals.

g§ dO.i~tioM )fen 1Q 'IY0l;1k of ogJlY8llimr reyisio.n. oopte;:se§ 9lllZ

BEQn ,;:sgueg~ RY i ~ta:tis lart!es. ~o th§' Qonyon:,ti2lu § delemtigns were i:n f§X9lU' of allowing other ~ta.tes not PW::es to 1m. tide oonferonce.s.

-15- Lm/GONF. 5/0.1/sn.12

X8U1::Q. '1<Q! ~ ygteB in fGY2Y* g! &iYW thq SewtQFY:92Mn:J. of J1!CQ

tho risht to t9gyest the gopvening 2f oo~iQ19n oopferepgee gpd 2 ~t, 1ll~_J2roDOllnl_ we x:sdeoted:

l~. JEANNEL' (Franoe) wished to olarity his delegation's position on tho

rolo of the Seoreta.ry-Gonaral of :moO, AlthoU8h acoording to the

irlilioction just g:l. ven the Sooreta.ry-GcnoraJ. 0.£ IMCO oould not OOl'lVeIlO a.

revision oonferenoe, there was noobjeotion to the SQoretary-Genernl drawing

the o.ttontion of Sta'tee to the nead for oonvening suoh Q. oonferenoe.

lrlr., BElmJENNA (Aleeria) aelted how m.o.ny states .would ne~d to request the

ooll'Vell.ing of euob a oonf'erenc.e beforQ it oould be held.

The CHAIRMAN thoU8ht it beat to defer a reply to that question: she

oonsiderod that there misht be a ralo.tio:nahip between the number of

Contracting States necessary to brins a. oonvention into foroe and the

number neoessary to. oonvene ~'oonferanoo for the revision of that oonvention.

Mt'. ROGNLImN (Norwny) a.greed that the mntter should be postponed until

later. His own view WIlS tho.t thore wos no rela.tionship between the

nunbor of Contracting States neoessary to bring a oonvention into forcoand

that nooosoary to oonvene 0. revision oonferenoe.

Hr .. WItITJt.K1!m (Un! ted K:l,ngdom) did not share tbo.t view. In reply to 0.

question from theCh.airma.n, he oonfirmed that his delegation oould. withdraw

ita cnel1dmont.

Hr. D:1L.Tll.. (Ja.pan) reoalled toot it was COIJIJon practioe to invite to a.

revision oonferenoe those oountries whioh had taken part in the diploma.t.'Lo

conforonoe at whioh the inatrunent had boen drcwn up •

.1Jlo Comi ttee of the ""hole was of the opinion that the Convention should

bg revisod by aspecial~sion conter~ce, rather than by the n~o

As£e::lbly (2£1 in lavoNa 1 ~t),

The OHAIRMAN asked whether the ~lle for the najority required for

o.doption of an abendoent should 8ti~ate sioply a two-thirds oo.jority or

two-thirds with hDJ.f the States oonce~d being Contro.oting States.

LmG/OONF. 5/0.1/Sll.12 - 16 -

Mr. MENSAH (Exeoutive seortttary) ob8t;1~d that whors A oonvention Me

aJ.re~ QUte%'t;ld into toroa. a oCintel'enoe to reVise 1 t wp.s no:t'fll8lJ,y open to Contraot1ng Ps.rties only, w:l th perhaps tho risbt to partioipate Q.I

cibfilerver& granted to npn-Po.rti~s. Unless the Cont'erenoe wanted to adopt an

approach clitter1n6 from that '1l81l£U pmotioe, there wuld be no need to ~ve

a provision on the lines EtllV'j,s.d, i.e. the seoond P1'OPOS£\l •.

The OHAIBMAN oonoluded that tht;l second proPOStll f1h01Jld then be diaregEJ.;l:ded.

Mr. 1l.00NLIlilN (Norway) rt;loognized that, in international law, Q. prooedure

tor revision did exist, but wondered whether practioally speaking, only

states whioh had ratified the Convention shoUld bEt invited to te.ke pm:t in

ito revision. . It would in taotbe a "JOud tl:l.ing it sta.tes not Parties to

the Convention but Wbioh were Members ot !MOO ware ~bleto ~e their

influenoe telt when the text wns revised.

Mr. JEANNlllL (Franoe) reoollad that, on the question ot entit1emant to

take ths initia.tive ot oalling tor a revision, the OomQittee had nlraadY

indioa.ted that only st~tes Ptlrtioa to the OonvQUtion wera empowered to do eo.

Under the prooadure adopted, states Parties to the Oonvention would trq.nsmi t

their request to the SGoretary...Qenel~al ot lMCO.

He f'ully agreed with the Exeoutive Seoretaryl s remarks. ~lle prooedure

adopted should, moreover, bo simple and ra.pid. Intervention by sta.tes not

Parties to the Convention night hooper that prooedure. A revision oonferenoe

was of oourse free to deoide that sta.tes not Pa~ies to the Oonvention should

take part in such a. oOnferenoe; but his delegation believed tha.t the present

Conferenoe should follow the nornnl prooedure and proYi(le that r€vision

oonferenoes would be oonferenoes of Sta.tes Parties to the Convention.

The CHAIRMI'.N i::onfimed that tho overwhelming IJIljori ty of partioipants ws

in favour of leaving the initiative ot oonvening the revision oonferenoe to

the Contraoting Parties. As to whioh States would b& authorized to attend

tha revision oonferenoe, the OoDDittee might ask· the Working Group to look

into the mtter, bearing in ·oind similar rules in other Oonventions.

Tho Oha..:f.roan called tor a series of iudivo.tive votes, end noted the

tollowing results:

- 11 -

17 dQl9.ll~tiopa bolAoV;0!L:tl1.ttL<:>~\ly St~. P.r~£L!~

£,ol1voption ohq,\!Lcl q,o .a.,ble to .. vO,to At. tho revioion o0rif0x:,0llq,o"a ,"I~ilc

11 dol,ogc.ti"OllS hold tho _o~osite vit"m.

l.l dologn.tions "oro )..11 fe.your of a t\,lo-thirds mo.jorit:r vote,

",hila 2 del.Elgntions wo:t;,O i!1 fa.vo,ur •• qf tAE?. u:¥ ted Sta.tes 12roposcl,

~,oo:)rdi.l-?& to , ... h10b thq, lini. ts would a.utomatioally b~ raised bl C'.

~2.rtc.i.n l'or,gentc£5'G unless t\'1o-t!¥-rdo voted a.~lOt suoh D.11 ,1norec.oo.

2;t de1Gt:l?tiono ""er~ ~l'l: fayour of_th~ o=tplioi t o.oooptcw.oo

E'ocedura, uhiJe.5. wprp ~11. fp:your_o£ ~p..!?Jt a.c9.2:r~,to.noe.

2 dolelE-tiollfl thoUfffi~ ,tI:-"'.t the ':0.01 t o.ooopt01.100 .Rrooodur~

oo~d bo C.doEtod for enan£jp~ tpo ~l~t of acco~t.

11 dolo.z,nt1,?l1o c0l1sido~~~.:tl10.F0. ",o.s v. noed to $iF.a.fj;

!]los ost.:l.bliohiM th,!3 .. roJ.o.tiono!uJ?, between §.t.o.too pound by ,tho,

oo:rli.er liui to $:"1-. tll0o_~...k2...ul1cl by._tl1.0w rlO~1 H::ni ts, ond 2..h!1a tho O;!?}ilooi to viGw.

Tho CRAIRlJ1Uf eaid tho.t t11000 inc"..ico.tivo votes would ollO.blo 0. s1IIIlll

World.lg Grott,;? to dro.ft t~le :relevant provisions. She would revert later

to tho oomposi tiOl1 of tho \iorlcing Group.