Travaux Preparatoires of the Convention on Salvage 1989.pdf

THE TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES OF THE 1989 SALVAGE CONVENTION 247Article 8 - Duties <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> salvor and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> owner and masterdone in <strong>the</strong> Legal Committee, we’ve done a good job, no need to change anything.Well I can accept <strong>the</strong> fact that we worked very well and we took a long time over it,but never<strong>the</strong>less this text is far from being a marvel and here all we are trying to do isfill in a few gaps and loopholes. All we are saying is that <strong>the</strong> text is a good one but afew things could be added here and <strong>the</strong>re, some additional obligations which wouldmake this text even more perfect. This is why we can’t understand <strong>the</strong> attitude <strong>of</strong> a lot<strong>of</strong> delegations including that <strong>of</strong> our friend from <strong>the</strong> USSR who declares opposition toany new proposal and tells us, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> basic text, that even if <strong>the</strong>re are a few loopholesand difficulties it is better to keep it as it is. Far from it we are in a diplomaticconference with <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> improving <strong>the</strong> basic text and certainly we are notsuggesting anything very revolutionary. We are certainly not modifying <strong>the</strong> structure<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> basic text. All we are doing is to introduce a few additional elements where afew points are lacking. This is <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposal put forward by <strong>the</strong> FRG onone point, this is <strong>the</strong> French proposal on two o<strong>the</strong>r points, Poland is just suggestingmoving a paragraph from one place to ano<strong>the</strong>r, well, Mr. Chairman, all this is perfectlyreasonable, and I don’t think it would be a very good idea to come and spend 15 daysin a diplomatic conference and turn down every new proposal by saying we keep <strong>the</strong>basic text, without thinking <strong>the</strong> matter over carefully and without seeing <strong>the</strong>advantages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se modifications. Thank you Mr. Chairman.The Chairman. I thank you. May I ask <strong>the</strong> delegation <strong>of</strong> France and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FederalRepublic <strong>of</strong> Germany whe<strong>the</strong>r one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se delegations would be ready to withdrawits proposal in order to simplify <strong>the</strong> situation. Ei<strong>the</strong>r from <strong>the</strong> Federal Republic <strong>of</strong>Germany or France, so that we have only one proposal on <strong>the</strong> same item, bothproposals are very similar. Yes, Federal Republic <strong>of</strong> Germany.Federal Republic <strong>of</strong> Germany. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Of course we would beready to have both our proposal and <strong>the</strong> distinguished French delegation merged on<strong>the</strong> first point, our proposal is only on <strong>the</strong> first point <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> French proposal, and wewould agree to have “all charterers” deleted and <strong>the</strong> rest might be subject ei<strong>the</strong>r todrafting or taking in <strong>the</strong> draft <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> French. We are not quite sure what would be <strong>the</strong>best draft <strong>of</strong> it, but we would like to have only one proposal to talk about.The Chairman. I’m going to propose an indicative vote and it must simplify <strong>the</strong>situation when we only vote on one text. If we have two texts which say <strong>the</strong> same isvery difficult for delegations to make <strong>the</strong>ir decision, would it be possible that bothdelegations, <strong>the</strong> Federal Republic <strong>of</strong> Germany is open-minded as I understand.Federal Republic <strong>of</strong> Germany. Well, we would agree that on this first point <strong>the</strong>French proposal would prevail.The Chairman. OK <strong>the</strong>n your proposal is withdrawn. Well I must say that it is agood example, that delegation was open-minded and well, so we have only <strong>the</strong> Frenchproposal on paragraph 2 <strong>the</strong> proposal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Federal Republic <strong>of</strong> Germany has beenwithdrawn. The next speaker on my list <strong>the</strong> delegation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom.United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman may I briefly come to <strong>the</strong> wider public lawaspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suggested amendment. In particular that <strong>of</strong> ACOPS in 7/6 and <strong>of</strong> Polandin working paper 8. I’m not going to take up time in submitting why we submit thatthis is essentially and should remain a private law convention. As we understand it thathas been debated, I mustn’t say ad nauseam, I wasn’t present but it has been very fullyconsidered and our position in that regard is unashamedly precisely <strong>the</strong> same as that<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> USSR. But I would just make three points, I hope quite shortly. First, I wouldsubmit that <strong>the</strong> speakers which we have already heard on this topic show <strong>the</strong> great