-GOVERNMENTAL MARITIf"IE ...... 'IJI'"., .. , TATIVE ORGANIZATION

LEG/CONF.5/0.1/SR~19 4 April 1918

Original a llNGLISH

INTERNATIONAL CONF:E.RE}!CE ON I

LlMl'TA'J.'ION OF LI.Al3lhITY. :ron MARITIMlIl CLAIMS, 191~

CODmi ttee of the ~lhole IMCO

held at the CUl'laX'd Inte1ne.tional Rotel, Haumersm.1th, London, w.6, on Fridaf, 12 November 1976, at 2.50 p.m.

ChaJ.;r.wvu Me. 13. :atOM (Sweden)

Seoretar~r-Gel1e1-al & 11r. O.P. SRIVAS'1'AVA (Seoretary-General of ;nIX))

Seoretary: l.fr. T.S. BUSHA (000 Secretariat)

qONTENTS

ASiPda ~t~~ - Consideration of draft International Comrention on Limi te.tion of Liability for 1m! time Claims' ( oontinu.ed)

For re.sons of economy. this document is printecl in a limited number. Oelllget8. are kindly asked to hring thei, copies to meetinQ< and not to '.'lU.51 addition31 copies.

~

2

Lm/00la'. 5/0 .l/SR.19 - 2 -

AGllHDA ITm 6 - COl'WrMRl.TION OF nRllFI' I.NTERN.tlTIONAL CONVEl~T!ON OH LIMITATION OF LIl~BILITY FOR MAlUTlMIll CLAmS (LBD/CONF. 5/t'/P.1 , Im/CONF.5/4 and Add.l-" OO/CONJ)'.5/6 and :~dd.1J Jm/OONF.~t1'I.P.IJ rm/COITh'.5/C.l/WP.l9, WP.21, wp.26, WP.;l, VJP.46, WP.58, , tf.P.64/Rev.l, WP.13-76) (oontinued) ,.

~igle 15 (oontinued)

The ClIAIRMt.J.q reverted to the report of the Working Group on the

drn£ting of 0. new pe..t'agl."O.ph of Artiole 15 dealing "d 11'1 ships oonstruoted

for and ~d in dr.tll1ng (too/CON]'. 5/0.JjwP .14) • She doubtecl whether

it was neoessary to oontinue the disoussion on drilling vessels o.t the

present stage, and eugs'osted that delegations wiehing to speck on the report

should oonmunicote their comments to member&' ot the Working Group and that

the latter ahould meet Q.6."6\in at tile begizu1Wg of the tollowing weak to

prepare a. new dra..ft p in tho light of those oOIllIlenta and suggestions made

at the previous meeting.

It WAs so de~hded.

A#tb21e 3 - C1stma excepted from lim.itat~on (oontinued)

Pa.rp.grJU?h (b)

The CHi,.D1NllN invited the Committee to turn to the report of the Working

Group set up to provi.de a. new tormula.tion ot Artiole ~(b) of the bosio text

(LEG/CON]'. 5/C.llvp. 64/Rev. 1). Earlier proposals to amend Artiole ;(b) had

been subm.itted by Cant.\dn (IJin/CONF.5/C.ljwP.l9) and the Federo.1 Republio ot Germany (Lm/C01'n<'. 5/C .l/WP. 21) • The Committee had decidod to tranarni t the

report to the Working Group on Basio Issues for considera.tion, but the latter

had not oonsidered it for look of time. The Committee at the v/hole should

therefore disouss it. The Working Group on Article ;(b) had prepa.~.'ed the

text set out in the report, and the delesation of the German Demoora.tio

Republio had crubmi tted on amendment thereto (LOO/CONi'. 5/C .1;11!P. 7;) •

Mr. TR~it (GeI"'.Jan Demoora.tio Republio) explained that his delegation

would have preferred to retain the text ot Artiole ;(b) as set out in the

} original draft (LEG/CONF.5/WP.l), perhaps amended by the proposal submitted

by the Federal Republio of Germany (Lm/CONF. 5/c .1;1JP. 21) or by

New Zealand (LJiG/CONF. 5/41 Add. ;) • His delegation t s seoond preferenoe would

be tor the position expressed by Sweden (LEG/COliF.5/4) with regard to

pollution mc..tters. It Sweden were to submit a proposal on those lines, his

delega.tion oould support it and would not insist on its own proposal.

- .3 - LlirJ/C01'!F. 5/C .l/Sn .19

Intl.'Oduoing :lis cl(:llego.t1.on 10 Pl:oposaJ. (~/COl~. 5/C.lj\lP. 7.3), he

rei terated his delegation's view t~tr. ola.ims for pollution do.mD.ge should form

part of the global 1itU.'~o.tion system and tho.t it was regrotta.ble that

regulations oonoot1ling pollution dnmo.ge had formed the subjoot ot a spaoial

oonvention. His delegation oonsidered that in drafting the Convention on

Lind tation of Lil;\b1li ty .for Mari UL'le ClaiLlS, the l'elo.tionahip between the

general rulas oontained therein end the speoial rules o.f other oonventions

shbuld be defined. so as to ensure that the uniform oonoept o.f limitation was caintained. The text produoed by the Working Group on Artiole 3{b). would

destroy that COljOept by lellving olc.ir.la .for oil pollution dc.t:lO.ge to national

legislation, ,.,hich oiGht inoorporo.te unliI:li ted 11abili ty or a wide range of

different liobili t-,f tU.."lounts, with sorious oonaequences .for tho global aystep1. , .

His dolegation's p=oposo.l was not identioal with the text in the original

draft, whioh norely referred to the International Convention on Civil

Liability for Oil Pollution Dm:::lage and legislo.tion giving effect to it, but

attenpted to foroulate 0. conprooise aooeptable to States not P~~ties to that

Convention by allowing them to use their own legislation, provided it was

equivalent in offect to the ne\ol· Convontion t S provision.s. The propoaul could

be an addition to the original text of ~rticle 3(b); but if the Coooittee

aooeptadthe toxt 8uboi ttad by the Working Group, his delego.tiol'l would propose

it as on 6ILlondr.\ont to the latter.

Mr. CJ.J:1ll0N (Netherlands) was afraid that the text proposed by the

Working Group Lrlght lead to ineuranoe diffioulties, and assooio.tod his

delegation with the proposal of the German Dexaooratic Ropublio, making

provision as it did for States not Parties to the 1969 Civil Liability

Convention which had their own legiBl~tion regurding oii pollution olaims.

Mr. LYOlr (Canada) supported the Working Group's text but not the

ottIondment aubIJi ttod by the Gemsn DeIllocratio Republio, for to hie nind the

wo:to.s "subjeot to" went too far in attempting to define the situatj,.on.

Mr. 6UCII0RZEUSKI (Poland) shared the views expressed by tho representatives

of the Ge:t'tlOl1 l>araocratic Republio end the Netherlands. He regretted that the

alilendI:lent subtLttted by the forcer did not deal with other pollutants. His

oountr.1, with its ooaatljne on the ~a1tio Sea, was partioularly conoerned

with the danger represented not only by oil mtt by all pollutcnts. He would

have preferred Artiole 3(b) to be extended to oover other pollutants as

proposed by C~o.da (I~/CONF.5/C.l/WP.19) subject, of oourse, to ~y other

international conventions relating to them.

LJIll/oom'. 5/C .l/sn.19 - 4 -

Mr. WHITAlOilR (United IUllgdom), CbeJorman .01' the Working Group on

Art1.o1e ,(b) , d.tsmia,ed any idea tba11.the Work1%lS Group had failed i.o ~~~Q:r:e

the posaibiJ.1ty of e solution based .. on natio~ ledslation equivalentt9 .

the Oonvention. However, it had been .dtW. of the 1'aot the:\; Artiole 3(b)'

re1'e~ed only to the limitation provisions of the 1969 Oivil Lia.bility

OolX'tention. It was very di1'fioUlt, moreover, to a~ what was equivalen,tin

national law. was it e. provision more or less favoura.ble than. in a oonv~tion?

Some members of the; Wox'king Group mie;ht :b.ave agreed to a. text admitting

national linli ts not higher than those provj,ded for in the Oonvention, while

others might have preferred a referanol9 to national law havipg limits not ,

J.cmer thau· those of the Convention. The text in dooument

~/CONf.5/~.1/VP.6</Rev.1 was a oqmpr,omise, and henoe foiled to sa.t1,Sfy' any

poaitiop. oomplet~ly, but an amendment on the lines of rm/CONF.5/C.ljwP.73 would be nooompromis e.

The OHAIRI1AN :pointed outtha.t .the Com ttee b..'ld. disoussed the question at

length at an earlier meeting (rm/OONF.5/0.l/SR.6) and should seriouely

oonsider whether to ,reoommend the oompromise text.

Mr. lIRUNN (Federal Republio ot Ge:tma.ny) so.:l.d that his oountry was well

a.ware of the dangers of pollution and generally allo\fed no limi ta.tion of

l1n.bili ty for many kinds of pollution damage. At the earlier meeting his·'

delegation had expressed sympathy with the or1~ina.1 Oanadian proposal and

still preferred it. In a. spirit of oompromise, however, his delegation was prepared to support the new text eubmi tted by the Work.ing Group sinoe during

disouseions in the Grou.p it had emerged that the wider .formu.la. \-Iould no.t

get suffioient support in the OoIIJlllittee.

Mr. TANIY.AW1... (Ja.pan) was unable to support the text in

LlID/OONF.5/C.ljwP.64/Rev.l. on· aooount ot~ tpe oonoluding phrp.s<H "or in~ . . ,

amendment· or P:rotoool-thereto which is inforoe". Any Brletldrlent or Prot()ool

tq the 196~ Civjl Liability Convention would be Q. oompletely independent . ,

. ~t:mu:;lent, ~d his Government oould, not oommi:b itself to err:! convention ., ohea.d of tine. Suhjeot to deletion of the words placed in square bra.okets in

the proposal of the .Geroan Demoorat~o iepublio J he would not oppose it. o • ~." _" ~ , 1 I ,

- 5 - rm/OONF. 5/C .1/sa.19

Ml:. J'l!lt\NNE.l. (J'rt.moe) .tressed the point alrea.q mad_ that the WorJdJ::aB

Group's text wna & oompromi... It vas eat1ataoto:t7 to his delesat10n .in

that 1t" had touud amiddla wa:y b.tween the two opposing viewpoints. Hi.

delesation oould not support the amendment proposed by the Germon DemoOl."&tio

Repu.blio, which wc.o the same as the or1s1nol dra1't text and wa.a not a.

oompromise. The time had now oome for delasations to a.ak thomselves it they

were ready to oompromise. It they were, they ahould o.ooept the Working

Group's proposal.

Mr. LliX5N MONTmUlO (Cuba.) said that sinoe the text in

W/CONF.5/0.1!wp.64!nev.l was a. oompromise, his delegation oould only acoept

it if it wo.s o.ooompanied by the amendment in rm/CONF. 5/0 .lj\tlP. 73.

Mr. :ntlIlliR (Liberia.) sa.1d that in seneral, his delegation supported the

proposal of the German DeL'lOorat:l.o lieJlU.bHo but oonsidered, in view of ilhe

oomments mo.de by' the United Kingdom reprettentative, that it eight be

improved - if the proposer would agree - by' the add! tion a.t'ter the word

"subjeot", of the phrase "as to lim! ta.t:l.on".

Mr. TROTZ (Ge:t'tlatl Detlooratio Republio) was preperod to oooept that

amendment.

Mr. :.au:asr.JllY (United States) said tha.t ru.though tho ~lorldllg Group's text

was loss than his delegation had hoped tor, it was preparod to acoept it in

a. spirit of oocprooisa. It was sn.tistaotor,r itl. that it had (\J."r:l.ved at a.

fortJUla. which would be acoeptable to those Sta.tos which were Parties to the

1969 Civil Lia.bility Convention and those which 'fera not •

. Mr. SELVIG (No~) agreed ~t the basic purpose of the ~lorld.ng GX'OU.p's

text WllS to enablo Sta.tes not Parties to the 1969 Civil Liability Oonvention

to aooeda to the now Oonvention without acending their national legisla.tion

or ratitytng the 1969 Convention. It should be possible to acoept it as a.

oomprotilise.

The ~stion oode by the. :representn.tiv6' ot the Federal Republio of

~ to delete tho word "oil" was one of substanoe ana. not Dore11' ~t

dra.f'ting, and he wo\1ld oppose it.

He oould not: ~oep:f; .:f;he B\j)enclrJent.· p+'OPQsed by the Ge:z:mo.n Decoomtio

Republio, Q8.it :"oUJ,d tlean thL\t the purpose of exoludillg oil pollution r:'l.a1:loB'e

;r..m./com'. 5/C • lisa .19 - 6 ...

!roo lim totiOll, \o1Ould bo d&faatQd Olld that: thole Qountries \'Ii th a bie;hel'

Hoi t wbuld not be; o.blCl to beoooa Parties t'o the newConvontion unless they

lowered ,their liI:d,ts. .tt the tm oouldbe n4>ditiec1 to ooko it olear that

0. l1l18her l:J.cit we allowoble, it eight beaooe:pted.

The CHAIlWm ov.llod for an indica.tive vote, first on the proposalot

the Geroa.n Der::.ocro.tio Republio and then on the text of the Vlorking Group.

Mr. LYON (Co.tUl.c,o.) asked whether there would be a vote on the p:copo,sal

by the Federal Republio of Geroany to delete tho word "oil".

The CHAIBMl.JT soJ,d that there would not, as the question had been vaiaed

0.0 0. point of c1ra.ftiJ?B' and no defini tEl proposal ,had been 0049.

Th@rji tl,~i£!2,_ll v2t(~a i,n t~xour of ,the OOi3lfJgent W1bffi~tgd £r....tijqG~GB

.Deooc~ti2 n~l&~_~qON.F ,,~Lc, l,blE. 7, ~. 14 pnst and 10 r.bstonti2nS,i.

the propoa~ w~~ rGjpcte~~

1.bi text .Ilr.9..E0~_ by the Workinrs Group on.,lu."tigle ~(b)

CLEXflCONF t ~L£:..:tL!oJP. 64/II.ev.1) was approved '21 votes in fo.voux.J 7 MfWlat g.nd

The c"'lI["IIU-U.N said toot in oonsequenoe the latter te:lo."t would ropla.oe

toot in the oriGinal cb.'a.!t for Artiole 3(b). '

Hap~@i~~G~p on ;§ga~!Q IsIlQ~s ruatine; t9 th!j) L~nttd.\t~on Systi::l {LB!J20~,5i\J!_ ...!~.~ .. ..

Mr. SUCllOHZEWSKI (Poland), Ch.airoan of the vlorldllg Group on Basic

Issues relating to tho Liui tu.tion Syateo, introduo<:ld the report. 1.1 tl1oU(3'h

the Working Group, dasp! te strenuous efforts, had. u;ntortuno.te1y not a.ohieved

the results the Chairoan had hopec1 for ~ pu.rtio~erly in respeot of definite .' _', J

figures for liability linits, where it ~ enoountered the SQDe ,diffioulties

as the co~ttee of tho l'lhole - it had neverthel~ss had soue sucooss. A

DUnbar of widely differing positions were now reoonoiled and thore ~os a

olecrer ideo. ot attitudos on the question of figuros. It. was beoause of the

very diffiCulties that'hadarisen in the CoIJtlitte6 and the lTorlci.n6 Group· that

the queati~l~ of fisures ho.d not· been touohed' on in the preparo.tory work 'in

the Legal COrJr.".i ttee. It had been faIt that the genaral fee1in.'3' wo.s in favoUr

of inc'·u:l4.ng in thQ Convent1on.i a ;J.j1rlitatiofl" an~unt douole· that 'in the 1957 Convent~on. Sino(;l oostde1egationa to the p~eeent Conferenoe had aOUG with

- 7 - LllXI/COlili'. 5/C .1/Sl~.l9

governoent instruotion:;; 'based on. that iden, the reiiJ~ of the question of

fic;urea had pluood -thau in n diffioult l)Qsi tion. !I.'bo d1ffiouJ. ty WQ.lil not

look of goodwill or reodinesa to oooproDise, but the new oirounatanoea.

The probleo 'tIllS end would reuaiil the cost diffioult one before the Conferenoe.

The' rel'ort wile conoernod [cloly with the probloo of fiaures, sinoe the

Working Group h£'..c1. not had tine to disouos 0.11 the questions rO,ferred to it.

Suggestions reanrdiUB figureo were set forth in differ~ groups, 6Cl.Ch group

oonto.inincr sugsee"tiona of a siollar fl£l.ture. He hoped thnt the olarification

of the 01 tuation wC"J.1d faoiU tote the' Ooor:d. tteo' s work.

He dr€l\'I attention to an ed! toria.l oorrection to the repol-t: the last

two aentencos of ~o.ruaraph 9 shoul('L be transposed.

Th~ CIlAIHMt.N felt toot the ~'Clrki~1 Group had perfomed 0. very uaa.t\U

task. Its cla:t'if,i.cation of the situation and the possiblo solutions, and

the harnonizution of views on oe:ctain aspoots, would Greatly help the

Cooni ttee in 1 to warlc.

Mr. NEQUZO (Brazil) apoloGimed for his earlier absenoe and said that

i.l::lportont CirCUD:3toooes had prevented hio frOD partioipatinJ' in the ",ork of

the CoDDittee and the Working Group.

The CHl..ImU;.N St!6ffoeted that the Coooi ttee should rever'!; to ..:\rt,iole 7, on whioh the viorkinc Group had oade SODe pro,:srese.

Artiole 7 - T~ lir.lit fo;:,.rJ8.ss9000r clains (oontinued)

Mr. CHOOK (Unitoc1. StD.tee), introduoing his delecation's Pl."Oposal

(LED/CONF. 5/C.lj\1P. 75), e,:lid that his delecration had advocated a ouoh hiGher

licit for passanG~r olaine than soeued aoceptable by other delocations, Rinoe

the oattor "1(1S one of particular oonoern to hi,s oountry. He roclizeu. that

hie deleention's ea.rlieX' attitude, that either there should be very hi.gh

lioits or tho provisions relatinG to passengers should be deleted froo the

Convention, ha.d 11 ttle chanoe of acceptanoe; and baorine in nind the reaul t

of th0 \,lorkine Gl.'OUP f s discussions, he felt that a tund established on the

basis of the levels in the ~'l:~hens Convention wns likely to find e>enera.1

support. His dalecration hIld been assurad that in Dost co.sas suoh a £'und

would oeat the foreSE/sable ro.nco of paesenger olaios for oosual ties. It t'iOS

deSirable, hot-Tever, 1;0 inolude a provision in the Convention that passenger

Lm/OONl!' .5/0 .1/SU.19 - 8 -,

oln.i.t:;s to%: whioh the fund undo:J: .li.:r.tiolG 7 wue not sutfioient should ho.vo

0.00988 to any unspent balanoe in the personal fund under j~tiolo 6 after

other personal 01£'.1:'.18 ho.d b:(!~n oovered. He eave f'iauree, ba.sad on C\. ~O,OOO

ton ship with 500 j,JMSElllL\Elre', to ehow how q\u.okly the o.va.11uble funds could

be used up. Vith t'0C'OX'd to SU8'G'6l3tions that such n situo.t1on was unlikely

and need not be ooverad, he said that the l~o~sibili ty existed and was a

oottar of oonoern. in his Qountry, ond ehould :thoreforo be provided .f'Qr .•

In ~ oase, the 1)osa1011i ty of usin8' up the t..mcl under .Artiole. 7 we-a flO

unlikely, insuranoo oosts ".'Culd be low.

The CHl:J:.J1.."JJ smd that the CODDi ttee ha.cl approved the bc..sio idea. in the

oriC'ina.l draft of' !.rticle 7 that thore ahould be a separate fund for

passenaors with 0. lini.t based on the aoount per passen[S'Elr r.uthoriBod on tho

ship's oerti£ioo.te. The "'orkinG Group (Lm/CONF.5/C.1j\1P.76, po.rO(!l.'aph 19)

raoomanded that the .£.2£ cOiRi to. lin! t for passellGer olains shoul"- be

equivalent to the one oonto.inod III ~io~e 1(1) of' the 1914 4~lens Convention,

with 0. I:.lllXllnm lini. t of $30 JJillion. .As indioated in tho SODe po.r8£P.·a.ph,

two delegations had not ~ported the reooonendation and had advoo~ted

hi5h~r pnaserl(3'er Units, and 0. further deleGation hncl prol)OSeU a lower Hnit.

The Coooitteo MJ. surlier considered a Polish proposal. (L.1OO-/COlJ]\5/C.ljw:P.26)

but, o.s indioo.ted in pcr06Taph 20 of 'the repol't, the 1l0rk:.il1e Group had not

reached a.11Y dooioion on it due to lo,ok of tiDe.

Mr. :BUTISwr (United Sto.tes) a.sked whether the wOrUs "~,2£lopitg. Hoit"

in the seoond line of po.roera.ph 19 and the words ",Eer OWi t~ oaloulation

f'o.otor" in the ponul tinate line had the sona Deo.nine.

lilt'. SUCHOl1ZE\lSKI (Poland), Cho.im.o.n of' the Vorking Group, ~ex>liod in

the a!f'iroative.

Mr. SELVIG (l~orwcq) agreed with the Chn.iroan of the '·lork.i..ng Group and

thQ\Jght that theoorrect word.ine sbould be ",l2E gapi tG oo.loulat1na footor".

Mr. Gl!llt'ml (Foderal Republio of' Ge:t'rJa.ny) wished to explain his . '.

dif'feronoa of view ill th~ \'lorking Group. \-T!thout repeatinG the roasons for

his deleBation fa };>roposll1 (LOO/CONF. 5/C .l/WP. 31), he said that

one argunent in favour of a .l2.2t oOJ?ije. oaloulat1ne f'o.otor of ~;20,OOO rather

than tha.t of the 1974 t..thens Convention was that eXlierionoo shol'led that that

suo, whioh was 0. little bver one-third of the !lt1ount in the Athens Convention,

- 9 - r.oo/OOlrF.5/0.1/sn.19

was su.ffioiont for nnccr 0. global lir.::i ta:tion. Paaeen&"Or 010.1,08 were rare, ond it woo :i.Ll',JoJ.'ta.nt not to fix a.tl unneoosaarily high lin! t, in order to

keep down insuranoo costa. Sinoe the eoount he proposod WIle 1m'lor than the

A thena Convention Urn t, 0. oiniPun would be neoessary, whioh he liNB8'ested

should be e2 oi1liGn.

Mr. PHILIP (D(~rG'll~) said tho.t he hOod not been a. oeober of the WorkinB'

Group, but supported the reoonoendatione in par~aph 19 of its report.

Mr. T.tlNI.K.A\·IA (Ja.pDJ'l) Daid that he supported the World.na Group's

reoool.1endations, aJ. tho'Uu""11 he ha.d not supported theo in tho 'vorkine Group.

Mr. SEINIG (norway) SUCG'Gsted that the Coooittee should postpone

con,eiderQ.tion of the United Sta.tes proposal (LEn/CONF.5/C.lj\·lP.75) until

it bI.':\d dealt \'1Hh 1.,t'1;1010 6.

Mr. :am1SIEY (United States) concurred.

Lord DIPI,oClC (United Kint3'doo) re/jllorded the Un! ted States proposal a.s

bein6 very relevant to .Article 7. In the case of 0. vessel of 60-70,000 tons,

the oa.xiouo for 0. presont··dO\r po.eseIlB't3r veaaal, i te effect would be to Q.dd

028 o111ion to the :t'und available for pasaElll6'Ore whioh tho Conn.i ttee had

aereed should be Z:;O Dillion. The £iaure a(5reod for po.esallB'Grs would Mve

to be reconsidered if it ware to be su:.mleoented by an o.lU013't I.1quiva.lent SUD.

Mr. JEi'JlUm (honce) tho\'{$llt i+ preferabl .. to defer considera.tion of

the United States p~oposal until ~~~iole 6 had been dealt with. In any oo.se,

the United Stetes ropre~entative had ooncurred.

Mr.~UKIS (Greeoe) had no views on when the United Statos proposal

should be discussed, but would like clo.rifioation on' one point. In the case

of llll incident with a paaesl1B'Elr vessel, would the el3tablishnent of a. fund

under Artiole 7 entail the esto.blishoent of a., !'Ilnd under llXtiole 6? 'f..t

there wer~ no fund under Artiole 6, he did not see how there oould be a

spillover.

Mr. C1100K (Unitod Sta.te's) said tha.t his delogation had hoped that the

\fork~ Group would aarea that in a oase where the provisions of Artiole 6 ware not invoked but, there were sUll paseel1i!er olaios exceoc1ine tile fund

und.er Artiole 7, there could sti.ll be El bala.n.oe of olaios aeuinst the owner

up to the lioit for personal claine under Artiole 6.

LEXVOONl'. ,5/0. ysn.19 - 10-

Mr. SUCllOr~ZE\'.16;:a (Poland) ~od wi tb the SUGlJGstion by p:t'GV:iOUB

sp,'ekere that (liaOUASion of t~e. U~t.ct StQ.tes proposal should be deferred

untU /..rtiole 6 h.c.d baM o.)usidered.

Lord DIPLOCK (United Y.J.1lBdoo) indioa.ted his aereooent.

It Was ~2~d to d~fQ~ digous§ion of tue United StRtee proposal

(wp(CONF .~/c ,l/Vp .15.1 I-:.E!nd1Jla e. deoi!l!!on on 4riiole 6.

The ~~ asked for a show of handa on the Polish proposal

(Lm/CONF. 5/0 .1j\fP. 26) •

Then WOiESt !?_votElf 111 rg.voHE .. ~7 mn§t. gmt 8 abstsmtions.

Tho CHl~ ooked for a. show of handa on the Workir16 Group I a reooI:ll:loodll;tl.on that the .PS 0il2.t ~ lioi t for paas&n8'Gr clo.ioa should be

equ1va.lent to the one oontained in Artiole 7(1) of the 1974 Athens Convention.

a'be \vo.Mi .9IQUp l£l rQcolD~t!On.1P~Wl19 0;: JimLcONF.5/c,lM,76} wM &Pproved (2!J:..J;Ql9Un favour. , .wJ,net and 7 ¥>JltmtaaorW,.

The CHiJ1I1·U.N asked for a show of hands on the WorkinG Group's

roooOtlenc1.o.tion tha.t the on.xiIJUD Unit be fixed a.t a. SUD equo.lU11G ~~ o111ion.

Tee W.o~~ GrQu~is reoQ~dqt!oB (ParQBIq~ 12 Q{ HmGICQl$F.5'C.~~.19l l'H QiPmi0yed (g4 x<lios in fuYQllj£. U9119 ae:aJ.nst and 11 AA~t§Ption§).

~rti9.e 6:- T~ ~~ql lip4~ (oontinued)

The CHAIl~~ sUGGested that the Connittoe should have a eaneral

disousaion of that port of theWorkinB Group's report ralntina to Artiole 6

(paragraphs 1 to 18 of un/CQNF.5/C.1/Wl'.16). It night be holpful 11' the

Coca:U. tt.ee had before it tables of figures indioa.t~.{s· what would be the

iD.pli:9a.~ions frpr ships of vnri.oua. tODllages of the vaJ.uea SUGBested.

Mr. SUCHOnzE\tlSKI (Poland) thouBht it would be difficult to produoe e. single set ot fiaurea, since there weraa nuuber ot different proposals.

It oight be prefora.bla for the CoI:JIJittee to be5in by disoussing the two' propo~t4S, ,that hD.d been aubo! tted in reBQ.rd to Artiole 6(b), ond. were .. , ~

oontained in paraa.rGPh 8 of the Group I s report.

Lo~ DIPLOCK (United K1ned-oo) approved that SU{;Gestion. ne 06'1'.t'eed·wl tho

the Chaitoan that!t WOUld be helpful if the OoI:JIJittea oould have beiore it

- 11 - rm/OONF. 5/0.l/SU.19

sone relevant fiG\U'oo, c.'.ld. 8UC';Jaatod tbo;t 'the tables used in the oourse of

the vlor.k'..i.n8 Group' a disoussions oiGht be reproduoed end distributed to the

Cou:li ttee.

The CIIAIlU1t.N Baid that those fiG\U'ee would be oa.de availcble shortly

by the Seoretn:rio.t.

Mr. SELVIG (Nor-way) l'.\6Xged that !twould be usef'ul for the OotlDittoe to

be a.ble to refer to a table of ficrurea, but pointed out tlu:l.t the table used

during the Worr~ Group'e disoussions was now eODewhat outdated. The key

fiaures, as far os ~rt!ole 6 wos oonoerned, were eet out on pOG~ 5 of the

Group's report (LED/CON]'. 5/0 .ljwr. 76) • He suegested that the Seoretariat

should convert thO(lG fiBUrea ,into 0. table to faoH! tate the CoDO! ttee ' s

oonsidero.tion of the subjeot.

Lord DIPLOCK (Un! ted ltingdou) suggested that the tE'.ble produoed by the

Seoretariat should jndioo.te the rate per .. ton on whioh the tonnD.ge fi(3'Urea were

bosed. It ''1ould save the Coo.'Ji ttee tine if it could oonsider 0. si1l81e tlllswar

instead ofeevernl.

Mr. UNICLllE (f ... us'hralia) po:1nted out that it would be iDpossible to provide

a. single anS\lo'er by oor.no of a. single sinple arithoetioal oalculation. The

World.rl(.s Group's report oontained several ideas reenrcli.ne' Llinimm tOnnL1.(Je as

well as several iaco.s recardinff break-points, and henoe there wero as oany

different answers os there were different ideas oooted. It would faoilitote

the Seoretariat's task if the CorDittee oouldf!rst reduoe the nuober of

ointouu tonnages and the nunbor of break-points proposed before requestincr

toot the various ffeur<;:e be sot out in tabular foro.

Mr. SELVIG (Norwt3¥) supportGd that sll8'B'estion, and proposed that the

various alte~~tives should be rGduoed to a single overage per ton figure for

eochof the three tonno.ge J."lll'l6as nentionGd. That prooedure would oake it

possible to provide an e.pproxioa.te solution ,for each oate30ry, thouGh not one

whioh was oorrect ill aJ.l deta.Hs.

The CillI.IHM1..N Stl8'B'8sted that the representativt:is of Nor'tlEl\Y, United Kingdou

and Australia should oontact the Exeoutive Seoretary to disouss how the table

should be ooopiled, so that ole~ instruotions could be B'iven to the

Seoretaria.t. The ta.ble would be oode a.vailable to the CoDOi ttee the followinB

~.

LliO!CJO.N1II.5/0.1/SH.19 - 12 -

She oalled att(!)ntion to the two l'ro~OStJ.s tor aoendoent of Artiole 6(b)

(Pe8e , ot 1m/CONF u5/C .1j\,'P. 76). Tboro was also a Japanese Pl"Ol)osal.

(LEG/OONF.5/C.l/WP.46) anu a proposal bT tho United Statos (LEG/OONF.5/C.~.5a). It woq;J.d be ooro Elppropria.t.~ to discuss tbe United Statoe proposal at a. later

staee.

Mr. TANlXl~W.A (Jc.pc.n), introducing his dolegt\tionte proJ,'losal

(LE&/CONP'.5/C.l/WP.46) desoribed its am as beine to olarify' tha oeaniJ.'la ot the

proviso a·t the end ot pnr%Taph 1. It should be possible to IJD.ke USCI' ot the

unpe.1d balanoe ot 01E'JI,ls under eub-pc.rll6l'aph (a) ever. it the suo atlOUllt of

olo.ioe under eub-parl.\Cl"Goph (b) had not oxoeeded ita linit.

Mr. NlJ.RM (Frnnoe), introduc1..r1e hie deleeation's proposDJ. (pa.ro.sro:Ph 8 ot

rm/ooN.F. 5/0.1/HI:'. 76), sni.d tho.t hie oount;t7 1mS alive to the need to protoot

the. interests ot its. uerchant .fleet, butwae also aware of' the ir.morianoe at 8o.fe~ its ooasts LUld h.e.X'boUl.'s. '!'he proposal aioed at l)roviding adequate

ooopensation for both those interests, Disoussions in the Worleina' Group a.nd in

the Coooittoe of. the Whole ~d indioated a. praferanoo tor the a.lternative text

ao I'.aninst the basio to:r.t, and hance ]i'ranoe was prepared, althoUGh it favoured

the bnsio text, to work on the basis of the alternative text tor the sake of

0001)1'Oo1se. It would not be practioable for Ax~iole 6 to lay down extrooalT

hieh lltlounts for tl'.o personal injury !'und whioh would not often be utilized,

it would be better to speoify a nethod whereby the overall tot~l in bothtunde

could be used ,in tho boot interest~ otoll oonoemed.

Mr. M'nROSO (Italy), in1;roduo1:ne the proposal of whioh he wa.s oo-sponsor

with .8.ustralia and Norway (po.ro.gra.ph 8 of LllX}/CcmF. 5/C .l,J\.1P. 76), explained that the jOUlt proj?osal was fomnlcted on preoiselT tho SD.!Je lines as the French

J,'lroposef' ,nlthow;h tho t.teures it oontaJ.ned wl;lre ,different. The French proposal

referred to two-thirds qf t~e total anount, speoified in eub-parreraJ,'lh (0.),

wheroas. the joint proposal left !t to the Confe~enco to deoide on the acount

onoe it, had approved the undorlyina principle. .

J.1r. 'ONKlJiS (.8.us·tralia) pointed out that his delegation in foot pret'erred _ r.. I , • J ~ •

the basio teXt :for .artiole 6; but sinoe it· eeaoedprobable that tho Oonferenoe

would prefer the alternative text, 1.t boo .oeroed to aot as oo-sponsor ,0£ the

joint proposal, o~ tho b~s1s ot the alternative text.

- 13 -

Mr. lIllm.'InN (Ilelg:1.uo) {SIlthered fron whnt ho.d b~en snid that tho two propor:>als

wt)re Qssentimlly the SE'...I:a ond differQd only in the ODOunts or peroent~s wbich

thoT oontained. Be wcndored why', in that onse, tho delecro.'tions oonoerned had

not put t08'Other 0. s;Lnele proposal, loo.vin8' the question of ClDounts to be

decided by the CotlO1ttee of the 'Whole.

Mr. NmJ..C (Frro.l'l.oo) aGreod toot the intent of the two lJroposals Wo.s tio

sane, but expla.ined that there he.d been inautfioient tiDe in the oourso of the

Working Group f a discussions to work out a single ooobint')d proposal. There wore

oertain ditfe1'cncos botween the two toxte, relatille' to the proportion of the

1\md for p€lraonal inju.ry whioh oould be allooo.ted -to the property:f'und. In the

French t~xt, the prODorticn ooncerned was 0. proportion of the total speoified

in sub-parcgro.ph (a), whereas in the joint proposal that proportion w~s 0.

proportion of the resicue onlY'.

Mr • .t.MOHOSO (Italy) l3aid toot that had not in foot been tho intention of

the joint proposal. The phraso "not exceeding ,LOne-hD.l.fl Gne-tb.i:rU of tho.t

portion, shall be o.c1ilod to the portion under sub-pr.ro.grnph (b)", rolo.ted to the

total und not to tho residue. lie rei temted that the two proposnls we:;:e

eubsto.ntio.l1y the ocne.

The Cru.II7Mt.N astinlDad that thointontion of both proposals wae that if

property claiDs ·did not cat .full oonpensation under the property fund, then a

certain proportion of tho personal injury tund should be oode available for tho

coveraee of such ela1os.

Mr. SELVIG (Norway) oonfirued toot thn.t was the intention. The increase in

the property tund wee to b~ effeoted by first tokine aooount of personal cla1cs

ond then tro:nsferr:tne o.ny residue to the property :f\md, however, the anount to

be transferred should not exoeod (\, oertoJ.n proportion. If -there were no

personal ola.1os, for 9JWnple, it was SU[\'crested in the joint propnso.l that the

oax1.ouD to be added should be one-half or one-third; but it would be for the

Cowittee to deoide woot the fra.otion should be. The intention 'itlae to provide

a eystou for ino~ons1nc the property fund in oertain oases where there was no

oa.l1 on the personnJ. fund. The ODount oonoerned would be distributed equally

arJOne' all pl"Operty 01o.in8.

Llln/OOtO'.5/C.l/Sll. .. 19 -14-

The CIUllatftJ'l noted thct the OOJ..1OittoQ had now renched tonta.t1ve

'prel1n.1nery' oonolua;f.ono on sev()ro.l ~uastiono, but (l nuober of Ut)orliant

prol>lQPQ rooain<.ld to be' sol veel. It should 'be borne in nind, when diIJOUSB~

the quaetion of whether t,o C'.dopt the ba.sio text or the l.'.ltornative toxt,

that tho Dajori ty hnel favoured the latter but tllat there was still e.

subetantial ninority whioh fo.voured the tartler. Tho CalDittee ood roo.ohed

a pral1ninar,y deoision thrx passeneer olaine should be subjeot to a

seJ?aro.te liDit. FoUowulG 0. disoussion on tho oontent ot Artiole 4, the

cajol'ity had Leon in f::lvour ot the l1rinoil1le ot unbreakabllity and bad.

been opposed ta tho inolusion of tJ1lY' referenoe to 61'OklS negligenoe. 011

tho subjeot ot olo.ins for dacaBo to harbour works end tor ~ relating

to wreok l'eDOvo.l, the Ll!\jc,rity hnd supported the inolusion of all suoh

elains within the acoDo of tho Convention, and BoDe had oonsidered thoy

s...'lould be aooorded priority. Eowever, the Conference would have to

oonsider whether undor a. olear-out alternative eyuteo it ,~ould be possible

to jnolude such olaies in th~ Convontion. A nuober af representatives,

on tho other hand, had thouc;ht suoh olo.ir:1a should be, exoludod or mdG the

subj eot ot a reservation. A substontio.l preference lmd been shown tor

havinB speoial rules on l~tation for VGssala of laas than 300 tonse

All those ooneidorati,ons needed to be 'bome in o:I.nd 1t the Conforence

w~s ovontunlly to.a.r.riv~ at a supoessfUl oODproo1se solution.

Tho DcetinC rose ro 5.45 PeO,