the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

PART II - VISBY RULES 535Article 4 (5) - Limits of liability[39]M. le Président. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nous savons maintenant quels sontles textes de base et les amendements àexaminer.Il me paraït souhaitable que nousexaminions séparément les trois sujetsqui nous sont soumis. Nous pourrions, sivous le souhaitez, échanger d’abordquelques idées générales. Je vous suggèrede [40] constituer pour chacun dessujets un groupe de travail séparé chargéde trouver, à la lumière des idées peutêtrenouvelles qui peuvent encore avoirsurgi, un accord sur les nombreuses suggestionsdont nous sommes saisis à proposde ces textes.Je propose à la conférence d’entamerdès à présent, la discussion générale surl’article 2, § 1 er . L’assemblée est-elle d’accordpour que nous procédions dès cematin à cet échange de vues général?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[39]The Chairman. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .We know now which are the basictexts and the amendments to be studied.It seems to me preferable that we examineseparately these three subjectsthat have been submitted to us. Wecould, if you wish, first exchange somegeneral views. I suggest that you [40] organizefor each of these subjects a separateworking group whose main task is tofind, in light of the perhaps new ideasthat may have emerged, an agreement onthe numerous suggestions we have concerningthese texts.I propose to the Conference to startnow the general discussion on article2(1). Does the Assembly agree that weproceed this morning to this exchange ofgeneral views?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[41]Mr. Pineus (Sweden). Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen, we are faced with a subjectwhich draws always great attention from all parties, and perhaps the legal aspect of itis drawing more attention than it deserves because the investigation we have made inour country which is Sweden is a very thorough investigation of the economical aspectof the limitation problem and shows that, seen from the practical and economical aspect,it has not that importance that some of you, perhaps, may believe. We know thatthe figures that appeared in the present Hague Rules were always intended to be farabove the average value on cargo transported on shipboard. The idea behind the limitationintroduced in the 1924 Convention was to protect the carrier against excessiveand extraordinary claims, but not to give the average value of the cargo. For that reasonI think we should approach this subject with some calm and try to find practicaland workable solutions that will facilitate international conformity. My delegation, theSwedish, the delegation of Finland and the delegation of Norway have submitted Document4 which contains an amendment, and at a later stage [42] apparently I am supposedto speak on behalf of that and explain what it is. But I think as we are openingwith the general debate and I am here, I should try to underline that, from an economicalpoint of view, the whole subject of limitation has been slightly over-valued, ifI may say so, and I think I am allowed to do so because of the careful study of the businessside of it we have made at home. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I will come back ata later stage.M. le Président. Quelqu’un demande-tilla parole en ce qui concerne l’article 2,(1)?La parole est à la délégation irlandaise.The Chairman. Is somebody asking forthe floor with respect to article 2(1)?The Irish delegation may have thefloor.