Travaux Preparatoires of the Convention on Salvage 1989.pdf

THE TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES OF THE 1989 SALVAGE CONVENTION 515Article 28 - Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accessionwould like to draw your attention to <strong>the</strong> second document LEG/CONF.7/5 214 isclosely connected with <strong>the</strong> first article on signature ratification and acceptance andalso closely related to <strong>the</strong> denunciation article. I would suggest that we start withdocument 7/4, <strong>the</strong> first article and when we finish paragraph 3, we go into document7/5 and deal with <strong>the</strong> proposal <strong>the</strong>re which is suggested to be paragraph 4 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firstarticle. Seeing no disagreement to that proposal I would ask <strong>the</strong> Secretariat tointroduce <strong>the</strong> first article.The Secretary. Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to suggest that for <strong>the</strong>convenience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Committee, you may wish to number provisionally <strong>the</strong> articles andI would suggest that <strong>the</strong> article on signature should be article (a), <strong>the</strong> article on entryinto force should be article (b), <strong>the</strong> article on denunciation should be article (c), <strong>the</strong>article on revision and amendment to be article (d), <strong>the</strong> article on depository shouldbe article (e) and <strong>the</strong> article on languages to be article (f).(214) Document LEG/CONF.7/5Draft Final ClausesNote by <strong>the</strong> Secretariat1 The draft final clauses for <strong>the</strong> draft convention on salvage which had been prepared by <strong>the</strong>Secretariat (document LEG/CONF.7/4) were considered by <strong>the</strong> Legal Committee at itssixtieth session (October 1988).2 In <strong>the</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Committee it was noted that <strong>the</strong> draft provision relating todenunciation would not appear to permit a Contracting State to denounce <strong>the</strong> conventionprior to <strong>the</strong> entry into force <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> convention. The delegation which raised <strong>the</strong> matter felt thatthis could create problems for States if, after having ratified <strong>the</strong> convention, it became clearthat <strong>the</strong> convention was not likely to enter into force in <strong>the</strong> near future. In such a situation aContracting State should be able to denounce <strong>the</strong> convention, if it wished to.3 In this connection <strong>the</strong> suggestion was made that, prior to <strong>the</strong> entry into force <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>convention, <strong>the</strong> issue would be one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> withdrawal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> consent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State to be bound,and not <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provision on denunciation, which would only become applicableafter <strong>the</strong> convention itself had entered into force. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, it was noted that <strong>the</strong> question<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> withdrawal by a State <strong>of</strong> its consent to be bound by a treaty which had not yet enteredinto force appeared to be best settled by reference to depositary practice and general treaty law,ra<strong>the</strong>r than on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interpretation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> a convention which was not yet inforce.4 It was, however, noted by some delegations that <strong>the</strong> denunciation <strong>of</strong> a convention whichwas not yet in force might be necessary in some cases. It was also pointed out that <strong>the</strong> absence<strong>of</strong> clear and generally accepted international law rules on <strong>the</strong> subject had, in <strong>the</strong> past, createdproblems for some States.5 Accordingly <strong>the</strong> Legal Committee requested <strong>the</strong> Secretariat to consider <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong>including some draft provisions in <strong>the</strong> final clauses <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> salvage convention to deal with <strong>the</strong>problem. In this connection, <strong>the</strong> suggestion was made that a provision might be included tostate that instruments <strong>of</strong> denunciation deposited before <strong>the</strong> entry into force <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conventionwould become effective from <strong>the</strong> date <strong>of</strong> entry into force <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> convention, and would not besubject to <strong>the</strong> normal one-year delay period.6 In accordance with <strong>the</strong> request <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legal Committee and in <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> viewsexpressed in <strong>the</strong> Committee, <strong>the</strong> Secretariat has prepared an additional draft provisionregarding <strong>the</strong> withdrawal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> consent <strong>of</strong> a State to be bound by <strong>the</strong> convention prior to <strong>the</strong>entry into force <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> convention. The new provision to be added to <strong>the</strong> draft article (A),Signature, ratification, acceptance, or approval would read as follows:4. A state which has expressed its consent to be bound by this <strong>Convention</strong> may withdraw