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

768 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules[58]Au cours de la première session decette Conférence nous évoquions déjà cefait. J’attire l’attention des délégués surles objections de principe que nous formulonscontre l’insertion dans le Protocolede clauses à portée coloniale, quelleque soit la rédaction de ces clauses.[58]During the first session of this Conference,we already alluded to this fact. Idraw the attention of the delegates to theobjections of principle that we formulatedagainst the insertion in the Protocol ofany clauses of colonial significance, nomatter how these clauses are drafted.Mr. M. J. Kerry (United Kingdom). Mr. Chairman, I would like to state very brieflythe attitude of the United Kingdom towards the number of members or the numberof States whose ratification will bring the Protocol into force.We consider that it is most important, from a commercial point of view, that weshould avoid the position in which there are two sets of Hague Rules in operation simultaneously.We consider that a low number of ratifications for the Protocol will bebound to produce that effect.Consequently, in line with the attitude adopted when the Hague Protocol to theWarsaw Convention on carriage by air was agreed, we consider that the number of accessionsand ratifications to the Protocol before it comes into force should be at least50 per cent of the number of States which are parties to the existing rules. Consequently,we hope to be able to put down an amendment suggesting that at least 25States should have to accede to the Protocol before it comes into operation, of whichat least ten will be countries with one million tons of shipping.Furthermore, we consider that it should be made clear that States will be able torenounce the existing Convention so that they are not compelled to be in treaty relationsboth with old Hague Rule states and with Protocol states. We think that Statesshould be given time to give effect to this.Consequently, we feel that a period of one year will be the appropriate one fromthe date of the delivery of the necessary number of ratifications to the coming intoforce of the Protocol.Mr. H. E. Scheffer (Netherlands). Mr. Chairman, I would like to make clear theviews of the Netherlands delegation on the points that are made with regard to the finalclauses.Firstly, in regard to the number of ratifications necessary for the coming into forceof the Protocol, I fully appreciate the reasons why various delegations want to increasethe number, because they think we should not have a double regime, and we shouldtry to have a large group of nations who switch over to the new regime.[59]However, I would like to remind you that ratifications take a very long time. Wehave just had the experience concerning the Convention of 1957 on the limitation ofshipowners’ liability. This Convention has now been ratified by ten States, and after 11years, in the course of 1968 this Convention will come into force. So it took 11 yearsto bring about this result.As the United Kingdom now proposes 25 nations, if history develops in the sameway we shall have to wait for 25 years before the Protocol come into force. I am wonderingwhether we are being realistic in making provisions which delay for a very longtime the new system which at this moment we think is already necessary to be broughtinto force.