unitex@rubbs.fidonet.org (unitex) (09/03/89)
satisfy would be referred to the Council, which would require the Enterprise
to explain the matter in writing. If the Council, in conjunction with the
auditors, was still not satisfied, the Assembly could be the final authority
and resolve the problems which remained. Only then could certification take
place.
The CHAIRMAN said the Council was required under the rules to appoint the
auditors. The Commission had scope to recommend an expanded role for the
Council, in which it might be required to include the annual audit in its
report to the Assembly.
The representative of Pakistan said it was implicitly understood that
when the auditors' report came to the Council, the Council had the authority
to take corrective measures, to guarantee that the Enterprise was operating
under sound commercial practices. Otherwise, the very purpose of having an
audit would be lost. An explanatory note might be added, but he did not think
it was necessary.
The representative of Zambia was convinced that the Convention required
that an audit report be submitted to the Council, which was required to study
the report and make appropriate recommendations to the Assembly. He referred
to paragraph 2 (g) of article 162 as support for that view.
The CHAIRMAN said that the paragraph cited calls upon the Council to
"consider the reports of the Enterprise and submit them to the Assembly with
its recommendations". That referred to reports "of" the Enterprise, but not
necessarily reports "on" the Enterprise.
The representative of France said that the report in question was
understood to include an audited and certified report on the Enterprise. To
say that auditors did not have the reponsibility to submit their reports to
the body that appointed them was a contradiction at best, or a lacuna.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that there was a lacuna. An annotation should be
added to reflect the understanding that the annual audit should be submitted
to the Council.
Article 31
Beginning section 11 on the settlement of disputes, article 31 provides
that the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber would have jurisdication in disputes with
respect to activities in the area between parties to a contract, concerning
the interpretation or application of a relevant contract or plan of work, or
acts or omissions of a party to the contract relating to activities in the
area and directed to the other party or directly affecting its legitimate
interests.
Article 32
Article 32 would provide that such disputes be submitted, at the request
of any party to the dispute, to binding commercial arbitration, unless the
parties agree otherwise. If the arbitral tribunal were then to determine that
its decision depended on a ruling of the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber, it would
refer the question to that Chamber for a ruling, and then proceed to render
its award in conformity with that ruling. In the absence of provision in the
contract on the arbitration procedure to be applied, it would be conducted in
accordance with the Arbitration Rules of United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), or other rules as prescribed in the rules,
regulations and procedures of the Authority, unless the parties to the dispute
agree otherwise.
Article 33
Beginning section 12 on liability, article 33 provides that the
Enterprise would not be liable for the acts or obligations of the Authority,
nor would the Authority be so liable for the Enterprise.
Article 34
Article 34 would provide that no member of the Authority would be liable
by reason only of its membership for the acts or obligations of the Enterprise
Article 35
Beginning section 13 on privileges and immunities, Article 35 would
provide that actions could only be brought against the Enterprise in a court
of competent jurisdiction in the territory of a State party in which the
Enterprise: had an office or facility; had appointed an agent for accepting
service or notice of process; had entered into a contract for goods and
services; had issued securities; or was otherwise engaged in commercial
activity.
Article 36
Article 36 would provide for the property and assets of the Enterprise to
be immune from seizure, attachment or execution before delivery of a final
judgement against it. Such property and assets would also be immune from
requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure by
executive or legislative action.
Article 37
Article 37 would provide for property and assets of the Enterprise to be
free from discriminatory restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of
any nature.
Article 38
Article 38 would provide for the Enterprise and its employees to respect
local laws and regulations in any State or territory in which it or its
employees might do business or otherwise act.
The representative of India said that if the employees of the Enterprise
* 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. -=-