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

740 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesdiger le texte, comme d’ailleurs ceux quil’ont adopté, ont fait preuve d’un espritde bonne compréhension.La parole est à la délégation des Pays-Bas.as those who have adopted it have showna spirit of good understanding.The floor is now given to the Netherlands.Mr. Scheffer (Netherlands). I should like to give an explanation of the vote of theNetherlands delegation in favour of the text that has been submitted to this assembly.We voted in favour of this text not because we admired the beauty or the elegance ofit; we did not vote for it because we adhere to the basic conception at the root of thistext, because we realise there is a fundamental difference of opinion on the characterof international uniform law which in our view supersedes and puts aside rules of conflictsof law, but we know from the long discussions we have had that we have not beenable to convince those who do not adhere to this conception; they maintain anotherconception, and in these circumstances we have to accept the realities of the situation.Therefore, the only reason we have voted for this text is because the Conventionon Bills of Lading and the Protocol we are trying to make now are of such importancefor maritime navigation that we should not take the risk of a text being adopted whichdoes not have the approval of all maritime nations. If the Belgian-Netherlands amendment,which in our view is a much better one, had been put to the vote, there was arisk that this text would not have been approved by important maritime nations, andthen we would have had to face a difficult and unpleasant situation. Because we wantedto be realistic and to face all possibilities, we thought it was better not to press thepoint any further and to accept matters as they stand today.We still think the text which has now been adopted is open to severe criticism, andcommentators in the future will not fail to point this out, but practical wisdom has ledus to accept the compromise that has just been reached.[92]M. de Bresson (France). Monsieur lePrésident, mon intention n’est pas demotiver le vote de la délégation françaisemais bien de vous demander quelquesprécisions concernant la traduction française.Tout en ayant voté le texte, je ne suispas sûr de son libellé. C’est la raison demon interrogation.Je rappelle que le améliorations rédactionnellesque j’évoquais il y a un instant,portaient sur deux points. Je nepensais pas changer le sens du texte françaisen remplaçant “n’empêche” par “neporte pas atteinte au droit d’un Etatcontractant...”, et, d’autre part, les mots“les règles” par “les dispositions”.En suggérant ces deux améliorationsqui d’ailleurs ont été soufflées par[92]Mr. de Bresson (France). Mr. Chairman,my intention is not to explain thevote of the French delegation but to askyou for further explanation on theFrench translation.Even if we voted for the text, I amnot sure about its wording. This is thereason for my question.I would like to mention that thedrafting improvements that I evokedearlier dealt with two points. I did notthink I was changing the meaning of theFrench text by replacing “n’empêche”(shall not prevent) by “ne porte pas atteinteau droit d’un Etat contractant...”(shall not affect the right of a contractingState...) and the words “les règles” (therules) by “les dispositions” (the provisions).