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

PART II - VISBY RULES 775Final clausespour éclaircir notre vote concernant lesclauses finales. Je vous remercie.M. le Président. Puis-je demander àla délégation de Pologne si elle déposeun amendement au texte proposé à lacommission?M. Matysik (Pologne). Non.M. le Président. La parole est à la délégationdes Etats-Unis.delegation if they are submitting anamendment to the text put forward bythe Committee?Mr. Matysik (Poland). No.The Chairman. The United Statesdelegation has the floor.Mr. Mendelsohn (U.S.A.). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I should like to thankthe Chairman of our small commission for his patience and endurance on the many argumentsand interesting point of public international law that were raised during ourcommission meetings. Second, I should like to speak for just a few moments on theproblem of denunciation which became something of a major issue in the course ofour discussions.It seemed to the delegation of the United States that there were three possible alternatives.One was to say nothing about denunciation of the 1924 Convention. Twowas to say something about it, perhaps in the form of a recommendation that States dodenounce the 1924 Convention when they ratify the Convention as amended by theProtocol. And the third system was to have incorporated [136] in the Convention amandatory requirement that States “denounce the 1924 Convention at the time theyratify the Protocol”.I think it was largely due to the fact that we just have not had sufficient time tostudy the public international law ramifications of a denunciation that we did not incorporateeither of the last two systems, and we preferred to leave the draft relativelyopen on the question of denunciation.The only clause that really is directed to the issue is Article 10 and that is neither arecommendation nor a requirement.The point that I wish to make is that if a State or if several States decide that it isin their interests both from a public international law point of view and a private internationallaw point of view to denounce the 1924 Convention when they ratify theProtocol, I hope that this would not be considered an unfriendly act. Denunciation inthis kind of a circumstance - and I may be saying this only for the record - should beconsidered as anything but an unfriendly act. Indeed, it may turn out to be a step forwardin the direction of uniformity of law. Thank you very much.M. le Président. La parole est à la délégationfrançaise.M. de Bresson. Je vous remercie, M.le Président. Je voudrais, tout d’abord,rendre hommage au groupe de travailsur les clauses finales qui me paraît avoirréalisé une œuvre tout à fait remarquabledans un temps limité. Je dois dire que ladélégation française, pour sa part, adhèretout-à-fait au projet qui nous est soumisaujourd’hui.Je voudrais me permettre simplementdeux brèves remarques.The Chairman. The French delegationhas the floor.Mr. de Bresson. Thank you, Mr.Chairman. First, I would like to payhomage to the working group on the finalclauses, which has done a remarkablejob in such a short time. I must say thatthe French delegation, for its part, fullyadheres to the draft that has been submittedto us today.I would like to make two brief observations.The first one, I think, from a drafting