unitex@rubbs.fidonet.org (unitex) (08/29/89)
SPECIAL COMMISSION ON SEA-LAW TRIBUNAL
HEARS DIFFERING VIEWS ON WAIVER OF IMMUNITIES OF TRIBUNAL
The Special Commission on the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea heard differing views yesterday on whether the court itself should
determine its own rules on waiver of immunities or whether directions should
be given to it in a draft protocol on privileges and immunities being written
by the Commission.
The Secretariat was requested to study the International Court of Justice
model on the subject and report back. The Commission, known as Special
Commission 4, is working on the protocol for the future Tribunal which would
be based in the Federal Republic of Germany. It is preparing recommendations
on practical arrangements for the establishment of the Tribunal.
The Commission has been debating a French proposal -- for inclusion in
the protocol -- providing that the Tribunal alone should be competent to waive
the immunities and that it had the right and duty to do so.
Also this afternoon, the Commission resumed discussion of another French
proposal covering the reimbursement of duty or tax on purchases of goods and
services by the Tribunal.
The Commission will next meet at 3 p.m. on Monday, 28 August, to continue
consideration of the two issues and the question of definitions in the
headquarters agreement between the Tribunal and the Federal Republic of
Germany.
French Amendment to Article 8 on Waiver
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said the position
of the International Court of Justice in the matter of waiver of immunity
could be adopted. The Court had no express rules on waiver. The feeling of
the Group of 77 developing countries was that the World Court's line could be
applied. It seemed adequate and had stood the test of time.
The representative of Australia said the Tribunal should not be allowed
to formulate rules on waiver of immunity.
The representative of China said the French proposal should be reframed
in such a way that it would not appear as if the Tribunal had a duty to
institute a waiver.
The representative of the Netherlands supported the Tanzanian position,
adding that there was no need for an explicit provision in the protocol for a
waiver.
The representative of the Ukraine said the Tribunal should be on an equal
footing with similar bodies and that it should be in a position to formulate
its own rules on a waiver.
The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said she could go
along with the views of Tanzania.
The representative of Sudan said the Tribunal should be able to make
specific rules for specific purposes. The existing practice of the
International Court of Justice was good.
The representative of Colombia said the French proposal was necessary and
should be included in the protocol. He said there had been in the past 40
years a gradual abuse of international conventions on privileges and
immunities. The preparation of the protocol provided an opportunity for the
Commission to tighten rules on the subject.
The representative of Switzerland said she could not support the French
text and that the world court model should be followed.
The representative of France said the amendment was aimed at enabling the
Tribunal to waive immunity in cases where any of its members committed a
* Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
---
Patt Haring | UNITEX : United Nations
patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | Information
patth@ccnysci.BITNET | Transfer Exchange
-=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-unitex@rubbs.fidonet.org (unitex) (09/03/89)
SPECIAL COMMISSION ON SEA-LAW TRIBUNAL
CONSIDERS RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENTS WITH UN AND OTHER BODIES
The Special Commission on the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea yesterday afternoon began considering relationship agreements the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should have with the
United Nations and other international bodies.
In that connection, the Commission requested the Secretariat to draw up
for its consideration an indicative list of issues which could form the basis
of the Tribunal's relationship with the United Nations.
The Commission, also known as Special Commission 4, is preparing
recommendations on practical arrangements for the establishment of the
Tribunal. It meets again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 August.
Use of Terms
On the question of use of terms in the Protocol, the Commission decided
to incorporate, after the necessary adjustments, the provisions of Article 1
of the Headquarters Agreement into the Protocol.
Headquarters Agreement and Protocol on Privileges
The Chairman invited comments on a statement made last Friday by the
representative of the Federal Republic of Germany in which she urged
harmonization of the Headquarters agreement and the Protocol on Privileges.
The representative of Tanzania said the provisions of the Protocol on
Privileges and Immunities should be in line with those of the Headquarters
Agreement between the Tribunal and the Federal Republic of Germany and not the
other way around. The Headquarters Agreement should be supreme and not
subordinated to that of the Protocol. That was his delegation's view that to
some extent reflected the feeling of the "Group of 77", which was yet to
discuss the issue in detail. He did not foresee any contradiction in the
future with regard to the provisions of the two instruments. If that should
happen, he said, the Headquarters Agreement should take precedence over the
Protocol.
The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany repeated the points
made in her earlier statement. She said there were two categories of
agreements on privileges and immunities: international instruments on the
subject and those to be negotiated by the Tribunal and the host country.
The Chairman said the two instruments had different specific purposes.
The protocol, for instance, would be very relevant when the Tribunal sat
outside its headquarters.
Amended Article 6
At the request of the Chairman, the Secretary to the Commission read out
the amendment to Article 6 of the Protocol concerning reimbursement of duty or
tax, the final language of which had been worked out by the representatives of
France and Australia. Under its provisions, the Tribunal, as a general rule,
would not claim exemption from duties and taxes included in the price of
movable and immovable property and of services. However, States parties would
make appropriate administrative arrangements for the remission or return of
the amount of duty or tax when important purchases were made for official use
of property on which duties and taxes had been charged or were chargeable.
The Chairman said the Commission should return to the subject at its next
meeting.
Tribunal's Relationship Agreements
The Chairman said the Secretariat's background paper on the subject
(document LOS/PCN/SCN.4/WP.7) would greatly benefit the Commission in its
work. The Tribunal had to co-operate with other bodies to fulfil the
functions assigned to it. Relevant provisions of the Convention on the Law of
the Sea indicated the need for such co-operation, in particular with the
United Nations, the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International
Court of Justice. Co-operation with the three organizations was a
prerequisite for several specific inter-related activities deriving, in
particular from the different functions of those bodies in connection with the
interpretation or application of the Law of the Sea Convention.
There was also a need for co-operation between the Tribunal and other
international bodies and organizations undertaking specific activities in
ocean affairs such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Inter-governmental Oceanographic
Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
* Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
---
Patt Haring | UNITEX : United Nations
patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | Information
patth@ccnysci.BITNET | Transfer Exchange
-=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-