source
stringclasses 1
value | document_id
stringlengths 11
11
| title
stringlengths 4
531
| short_title
stringlengths 0
109
| author
stringclasses 941
values | date
stringlengths 3
10
| type_of_document
stringclasses 5
values | identifier
stringlengths 0
1.19k
| link
stringlengths 54
54
| file
stringlengths 0
25
| folder
stringclasses 157
values | word_count
int64 0
373k
| character_count
int64 0
3.12M
| text
stringlengths 0
3.12M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GATT Library | nt700nr9233 | Summary record of the Thirteenth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 14 September 1948, at 10 a.m | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, September 17, 1948 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) and Executive Committee | 17/09/1948 | official documents | ICITO/EC./SR.13 and ICITO/EC.2/SR.10-ICITO/EC.2/SR.16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nt700nr9233 | nt700nr9233_90060241.xml | GATT_148 | 1,665 | 10,742 | UNRESTRICTED
INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE ICITO/EC./SR. 13
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE 17 September 1948
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Executive Committee
Second Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 14 September 1948, at 10 a.m.
CHAIRMAN: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 3 ON ADMINISTRATION
The Chairman of the Sub-Committee, Mr. TONKIN (Australia),
presented the Report. There had been general agreement among
members of the Sub-Committee on all the matters under
consideration except that relating to the expenses of the
Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Employment and of the Havana Conference. On
this matter members had been equally divided in their
opinions on all of the three suggested courses of action.
The other subjects dealt with were the draft Agreements
of relationships between the United Nations, the International
Monetary Fund, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the
International Labour Organization and the International
Civil Aviation Organization on the one hand, and the
International Trade Organization on the other; the
International Customs Tariff Bureau; non-governmental
organizations; budget estimates for ICITO, and Draft
Financial and Personnel Regulations for I.T.O.
He pointed out that the understanding of the Sub-Committee
with regard to Article 7 of the Agreement with the FAO was
that under this Article and under Article 1, the FAO should ICITO/EC. 2/SR. 13
Page 2
consult with the ITO and keep the latter currently informed
with respect to relationships developed between the FAO and
commodity study groups and councils.
A special working party had been set up to deal with
the question of the International Customs Tariff Bureau.
With regard to the latter, there were three points in the
Report to which he wished to draw the attention of the
Executive Committee:
a) A proposal that the Executive Board set up a
committee of N.G O.'s, although unopposed, was
left for later consideration by the ITO in the
light of experience;
b) The Director-General should have full discretion to
consult N.GO's whenever necessary; such
consultative arrangements should not be formalized
by the creation of a permanent advisory committee;
c) A suggestion had been made that it might eventually
prove desirable that circulation by the Director-
General of documents submitted by N.G.O 's might
be made subject to prior authorization by the
Executive Board after consultation with the Executive
Board.
The second section of the Report was concerned with
the Budget Estimates for the Interim Commission from
October 1, 1948 to December 31, 1949. It was recommended
that the Secretariat make efforts to secure reductions in
charges for common services furnished by the United
Nations.
Finance and other regulations were dealt with in
Section 3 of the Report. ICITO/EC. 2/SR. 13
Page 3
I. DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE ITO
Mr. el RIFAI BEY (Egypt) proposed the deletion of the
second part of paragraph 3 of Article XVI of the Draft
Agreement which he felt would commit the ITO too far
towards the acceptance of the principle of a consolidated
budget with the United Nations.
Mr. STIINEBOWER (U.S.) felt that nothing was
prejudiced by the present wording of Article XVI.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) expressed his agreement with
the view of Mr. Stinebower that the Article represented
no commitment on the part of the ITO and mentioned that
a similar clause could be found in the agreements of other
organizations.
Mr. el RIFAI BEY (Egypt) said he would not insist in his
proposal but reserved his position.
The Draft Agreement was approved.
DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FAO AND THE ITO
Mr TONKIN (Australia) called the attention of the
Executive Committee to the recommendation of the Sub-Committee,
that if the new draft of Article III of the Agreement were
accepted, it should be pointed out in the report of the
Interim Commission to the Conference that a substantive
ruling under Article 67 of the Charter would be involved.
The Executive Committee agreed that this rocommendation
should be made to the Conference.
Mr. SMITH (Australia) proposed and the Executive
Committee accepted the substitution of the word ''inter-
governmental" for the word international" in paragraph 3
of Article III of the Draft Agreement.
The Draft Agremeent submitted by the Sub-Cmoimttee
was approved. ICITO/EC. 2/SR. 13
Page 4
DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ILO AND THE ITO
As in the case of the FAO the Excutive Committee
agreed to recommend that it be pointed out to the
Conference of the ITO that a substantive ruling would be
involved in the approval of Article III of the Agreemment.
The Agreement was approved.
V. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ICAO : AND ITO
The Executitve Committee agreed to the recommendations
of the Sub-Committee for an exchange of letters with the
ICAO as suggested in Document ICITO/EC.2/SC. 3/2.
VI. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMS TARIFF
BUREAU AND THE ITO
Mr. STINEBOWER (U.S.) was asked, as Chairman of the
Working Party set up by the Sub-Committee, to comment on
the recommendations made.
He referred to the very
helpful discussions with the Director of the Bureau, and
expressed his admiration for the amount of work done by the
Bureau with such limited means.
The first recommendation was that the Executive
Secretary be instructed to consult the Bureau and work out
details for bringing the Bureau under the direct supervision
of the ITO.
The Executive Secretary should be requested to report
to the Executive Committee on the possible means of
effecting at a later stage a transfer of the functions and
resources of the Bureau to the ITO.
It was further felt that it would be appropriate for
the Executive Committee to give moral support to the
Bureau in its efforts to overcome its financial difficulties,
in particular to collect arrears due to it. iCITO/EC.2/SR. 13
Page 5
Mr. WOULBROUN (Benelux) thought the Executive Secretary
might also be instructed to discuss under Article 39,
paragraph (f) the possibility of collaboration with the
Bureau in achieving uniformity of nomenclature and
standards.
The CHAIRMAN said that could be borne in mind by the
Executive Secretary.
Mr. LECUYER (France) mentioned the fact that a
conference was at present being held in Brussels for this
purpose and that it was necessary to avoid duplication.
He agreed to the usefulness of the work.
The CHAIRMAN said that all the Executive Secretary
could do would be to ascertain with the officials of
the Bureau in what manner the Bureau could be of assistance
to the ITO in the event that a study of the matter should
be undertaken.
The Report and the Draft Resolution were approved
by the Executive Committee.
V II . RELATIONSHIP WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. PEDROSA (Philippines), in connection with
paragraph 4 (a) of the Sub-Committee's report, said he would
like it to be understood the Conference would not be
prevented from excluding such organizations from attendance
when it so decided.
The CHAIRMAN did not think it would be necessary to
insert such a proviso, because it was a generally understood
principle that such a right existed as a consequence of
the right of the Organization to hold closed meetings.
Account would be taken of the point when the Secretariat
drafted the rules of procedure for the Conference. ICITO/EC. 2/SR. 13
Page 6
Mr. PEDROSA (Philippines) suggested that not all but
only "pertinent" unrestricted documents should be sent to
N. G .O' s.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY said this would be difficult
as the selection of the documenents would involve a great
deal of work by the Director-General and his staff which
would more than offset the advantage of sending to each
organization only the papers which were of interest to it.
BUDGET ESTIMATES OF THE INTERIM COMMISSION
Mr. TOINKIN (Australia) recalled the recommendation of
the Sub-Committee that the Secretariat make efforts to obtain
a reduction of some of the charges in the Budget, particularly
those for common services provided by the European Office
of the United Nations.
Dr. SZE (United Nations' Representative) said he would
welcome conversations on the question of charges for common
services.
The matter was also of interest to other
organizations which availed themselves of such services and
the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions
would weIcome the attendance of representatives of the
Secretariat for discussion of the matter.
He would point out that on this question the United
Nations had certain rules which had been set by the Assembly
and by the Advisory Committee.
The Executive Committee accepted the recommendation
to support the efforts of the Secretariat towards obtaining
a reduction of these charges.
The arrangements proposed for the financing of the
Secretariat services to the Contracting Parties, and
defraying the expenses of the Second Session of the Contract-
ing Parties were approved by the Executive Committee with ICITO/EC. 2/SR. 13
Page 7
the reservation of Mr. POLITIS (Greece) who required the
approval of his Government.
The Executive Secretary was instructed by the Executive
Committee to make arrangements for the auditing of the
accounts of the Interim Commission.
The Budget Estimates contained in Annex B of the Report
were approved.
DRAFT FINANCIAL AND STAFF REGULATIONS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. VINCENT (U.K.) as Chairman of the Working Party of
the Sub-Committee commented on the salient points of the
Report. On the question of the creation of an Administrative
Tribunal, covered by Regulation 28, (which should have been
in square brackets), he recalled that the United Nations
were still giving consideration to the matter, but if no
such Tribunal were to be set up by the United Nations, then
the Working Party thought the Executive Board might be
instructed to take such action for the settlement of internal
administrative questions.
A discussion followed on Regulations 28 and 29. The
maintenance of Regulatlon 28 was supported by Mr. LECUYER (France),
Mr. WOULBROM (Benelux) and Mr. PEDROSA (Philippines). After
some further discussion in which Mr. STINEBOWER (U.S.),
Mr. VINCENT (U.K.), Mr. WOULBROUN (Benelux) and Mr. PEDROSA
(Philippines) took part, the Draft Financial and Staff
Regulations were approved,
The meeting rose at 2 p.m. |
GATT Library | nx383zn6475 | Summary Record of the Thirteenth Plenary Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Ciba, Wednesday, 4 February 1948 at 11.00 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 4, 1948 | 04/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/SR.13 and E/CONF.2/SR.1-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nx383zn6475 | nx383zn6475_90180140.xml | GATT_148 | 858 | 5,677 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE UNRESTRICTED
ON DU E/CONF.2/SR.13
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 4 February 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Ciba,
Wednesday, 4 February 1948 at 11.00 a.m.
President: Mr. Sergio I. CLARK (Cuba)
CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION TO THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL RELATING
TO EMPLOYMENT (Documents E/CONF. 2/27, 34 and 35).
The PRESIDENT declaring the meeting open, pointed out that the
general economic debate in the Economic and Social Council was likely to
begin on or about 9 February, and unless the resolution relating to
employment, which had been approved by the First Committee, was received
in New York within the next two or three days, it would not be possible for
the Economic and Social Council to consider it during its present session.
Two questions should be considered by the Plenary Meeting. Firstly,
is it desirable that a resolution on employment from the Conference should
be studied by the current session of the Economic and Social Council, or
is it satisfactory to have consideration of such a resolution deferred until
the next session of the Council in July? Secondly, if such a resolution
should be submitted to the Economic and Social Council at its present
session, should the text of that resolution as it appeared in document
E/CONF. 2/27 be approved?
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) said the reason why he had objected to the
procedure suggested in the Note by the Executive Secretary document
E/CONF.2/34) was because he considered that the rules of procedure of the
Conference would be infringed if that procedure were followed.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY wished to make it clear that there was never
any intention on the part of the Secretariat to by-pass or to attempt to
dispense with the approval by all delegations of any document emanating from
the Conference.
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) supported the resolution, and considered that
it should be submitted to the Economic and Social Council without delay.
He emphasized the importance of paragraph (a) under which non-Members of the
United Nations who had taken part in the ITO Conference would be requested to
/supply E/CONF. 2/SR.13
Page 2
supply: information regarding present and future plans in connection with
the achievement or maintenance of full employment and economic stability,
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) considered that the resolution should
be adopted and forwarded immediately to the Economic and Social Council and,
requested that his delegation be recorded as the mover of a motion to that
effect.
Mr. D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) supported the resolution, but suggested that
it should be redrafted before it was submitted to the Economic and Social.
Council, by deleting the phrase "Recognizing that inflationary
combatted,".
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) said that, as the resolution had already been
unanimously approved by members of the First Committee, his delegation felt
that any matters connected with the interpretation of the text should be
left to the Economic and Social Council, to which the resolution should be
submitted as soon as possible.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) supported the resolution, but suggested that the
phrase "Recognizing that inflationary ....... combatted" should be redrafted
to read:: "Recognizing that it is necessary to combat tendencies whichwWould
unbalance world economy as wel las the economies of different countries."
As it was important that the work of ITO should be as effective as possible,
would any studies now being carried out by organs of the Economic and SociaI
Council, but which really came within the purview of ITO, be continued by
those organs or would they be handed over to the ITO?
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) in supporting the resolution, pointed out that
the Chairman of the First Committee was at present attending the session
of the Economic and Social Council, and suggested that the resolution should
be forwarded to that body immediately with a request that it be placed on
the agenda of the Council forthwith. He agreed with the remarks of the
representative of Switzerland regarding the importance of paragraph (a),
and hoped that every nation would become a member of ITO.
Mr. WOULBROUN (Luxembourg) considered that the phrase regarding
inflationary and deflationary tendencies should be retained, and that the
resolution should be submitted as soon as possible to the Economic and
Social Council.
Mr. D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) supported the amendment proposed by the
representative of Chile, but suggested that it should be redrafted as
follows: "Recognizing that it is necessary to combat inflationary as well
as deflationary tendencies which might cause economic maladjustments (or
economic unbalance)". He felt that that text would cover the objections
he had raised. in connection with the original text.
/Mr. POLIITIS E/CONF . 2/SR. 13
Page 3
Mr. POLITIS (Greece) while supporting the resolution, suggested that
the word "may" should be inserted after the word "tendencies" in the phrase
"Recognizing that inflationary as well as deflationary tendencies need to
be combatted."
Mr. D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) and Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) supported the
amendment suggested by the representative of Greece.
The text of the resolution to the Economic and Social Council relating
to employment was approved with the amendment suggested by the representative
of Greece.
The meeting rose at 11.30 a.m. |
|
GATT Library | pt253gm9674 | Summary Record of the Thirtieth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 31 January 1948; 10.30, a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 31, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 31/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.30 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pt253gm9674 | pt253gm9674_90190262.xml | GATT_148 | 3,026 | 19,711 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERECE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.30
ON DU 31 January 1948
TRDE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTI?H MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba,
31 January 1948; 10.30, a.m.
Chairman: Mr. D. L.WILGRESS (Canada)
1. REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE C (E/CONF.2/C.3/38 and Add.1)
Mr. MORTON (Australia) as its Chaurman, presented the report of
Sub-Committee C (E/CONF .2/C .3/38), recommending that Committee III should
approve the revised text of the Articles of Section E of Chapter IV, as well
as the proposed Interpretative Notes. Concerning Item 3 of Addendum ? to
the report presented by the delegation of Argentina, special attention had
been already paid to the expression "fees and charges" in the Spanish
translation of the Report. In order to make clear the intention of Article 35
paragraph 1 included the phrase "other than import and exort duties, and
othar than taxes within the gurview of Article 18 of the Genev draft".
The Sub-Committee had given the fullest attention to the wishes of the
General Committee regarding the possible elimination of Interpr tative Notes
appearing in the Geneva Draft. A masterly compromise had been achieved as
regards Article 33; the Committee might wish to hold in suspense final
consideration of the last sentence of paragraph 6 pending the established
text of paragraph 1 of Article 27. Concerning the proposed Interpretative
Note (ii) to paragraph 3 of Article 34, it was the opinion of the
Sub-Committee that when, in the circumstances indicated, a Member proposed
to change the estblished value of a given product, the Member should either
Change the ad valoram duty to a specific duty, or should assess the actual
value of each individual importation in accordance vith that paragraph. A
new paragaph (No. 6) had been tentatively added to the proqosed text of
Article 35. The deletion of Article 39 was recommended.
The subject matter of Section E of Chapter IV dealt with matters of
administrstion and practice of various governmental Deparments generally,
and of ?? Departments principally; the success of the work of the
Drafting Committee in New York could be measured by the little change in
substance deemed necessary both in Geneva and Havana.
/The CHAIRMAN E/CONF.2/C.3 /SR. 30
Page 2
The CHAIRMANcongratulated the Sub-Committee and its Chairman on their
excellent work, and moved the second reading of Section E of Chapter IV.
ARTICLE 32 - Paragraph 1
Mr. PeLLIZA (Argentina) stated that his delegation maintained its
reservation to paragraph 1. Discussions in Sub-Committee had not clarified
the full scope of the provision. The complicated matters of transport in
general could best be dealt with by a special international conference to be
called for that purpose. However, in view of the discussions of the
Sub-Committee, the amendment to delete paragraph 2 could be withdrawn.
Paragraph 1 Interpretative Note - approved without comment.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) said that although in Sub-Committee it had been
stated that his amendment was covered by the Article itself, the reservation
of his delegation to Paragraph 2 should be maintained ponding instructions
from his Government.
The CHAIRMAN asked the representative of Chile to inform the Secretariat
as to his position.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) approved the deletion of the Note appended to
paragraph 5 of the Geneva Draft. Transportation charges should not be
included in an Article on Freedom of Transit; he also thought that the new
paragraph 8 was superfluous.
The CHAIRMAN stated that paragraphs 3 and 8 should be examined by the
full Committee after the text of Article 18 was established.
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 - approved without comment.
New Paragraph 9
Mr. MULLER (Chile) stated that with a view to clarifying paragraph 9,
he had suggested an Interpretative Note to tho effect that if, as a result
of the negotiations with a country which had no access to the sea, a Member
granted broader facilities of transit, such facilities could only be claimed
by countries in the same geographical situation. The Note had not been
accepted by the Sub-Committee although there would have been no limitation to
freedom of transit, no breach of the most-favoured-nations clause, nor
discrimination, but equality of treatment under equal conditions. If that
interpretation were not accepted, the delegation of Chile reserved its
position to the whole of Article 32 pending instructions from its
Government,
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) supported the representative of Chile, The
purpose of paragraph 9 was to favour countries which had no access to the
sea, but it would be difficult to grant the same privilage to others not
in a similar geographical situation. If the Chiloan Note were not included,
the reaction would be to withdraw, limit, or not to expand some of the present
agreements by which special facilities were granted to land-locked countries.
/Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.30
Page 3
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) felt that while paragraph 9 did not entirely
satisfy the conditions of countries like his own, it was a compromise which
contemplated favourably the important and significant situation of a
land-locked country. Bolivia imported and exported through Chilean ports,
benefiting from advantages granted by special treaties through the good-will
of Chile; however, if paragraph 9 were applied under the concept of the
most-favoured-nation clause, Chile would be forced to give identical favours
to others not in the same geographical situation. Land-locked countries should
not have existing treaties annulled by the new contradictory, self-defeating
paragraph 9 which might place such countries at a disadvantage when
negotiating now agreements.
Mr. HAI AZIZ (Afghanistan) said that the question of freedom of transit
was of vital importance to his country. Paragraph 9 should not be obscured;
he supported the statement of the Bolivian delegate and stated the the
Afghanistan delegation could not accept any restrictive interpretation of
Article 32 that would in any way limit freedom of transit.
Mr. MORTON (Australia) stated that Article 32 clearly specified that,
subject to the restrictions of paragraph 3, there should be full freedom of
transit through all countries. It had been realized that certain factors
beyond the scope of full freedom of transit might involve the most-favoured-
nation principle; paragraph 9 authorized studies by the Organization. It was
within the province of the Organization, when dealing with agreements
granting special facilities, to say that such privileges could not be obtained
by other countries; nor would another but a land-locked country probably ask
for them.
Mr. MARTIN (United States of America) supported the representative of
Australia. The suggestion that paragraph 9 especially favoured land-locked
countries might lead to the implication that it was disadvantageous to seaport
countries. The paragraph stated that the Organization might udertake studies.
but said nothing about negotiating, noting the necessity of direct negotiation
between Members. "Equitable use" was a flexible term underlying many
principles of Chapter IV. It had always been the understanding of the
Preparatory Committee that, concerning this Article, equitable use meant the
fair and reasonable use of transit facilities in the particular circumstance,
that is, equitable to the country which needed the transit facilities,
equitable to the country through which the transit passed, and equitable to
third countries.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) reiterated that he was not in opposition to freedom
of transit but if a precise definition of the special privilages were not
given, other nations would be able to claim special privilages granted to
land-locked countries. The purpose of his proposed Note was to limit special
/privilages to E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.30
Page 4
privilages to land-locked countries but no infringement of the principle
of freedom of transit was intended.
Mr. TERRA (Uruguay) supported the representative of Chile,
Mr. HAI AZIZ. (Afghanistan) thought that the Sub-Committee's
interpretation of "equitable use" precluded the necessity of the Chilean
Interpretative Note.
Mr. NORIEGA-MORALES (Guatemala) felt that the Chilean Note established
more clearly that more favourable treatment could be given a. Member in a
peculiar geographical situation. Guatemala granted El Sa_vador the use of
an Atlantic port but it would not be inclined to make a similar concession
to another country if it were not in a similar geographic situation.
Mr. MORTON (Australia) said the Charter was founded on tthe principle of
most-favoured-natlon treatment. If agreements between countries granted
certain favours which in the opinion of the Organization did not contravene
the most-favoured-nation principle, there would be no objection; if such
were the case, the Organization would certainly wish to protect a complaining
Member.
Mr. ASHFORD (United Kingdom) supported the remarks of the representatives
of Australia and the United States. The Article provided for the general
principle of freedom of transit and called for studies to be made by the
Organization; this was all that could be required.
Mr. CHANG (China) said that China had entered into an agreement with
the USSR which had gone beyond the scope of freedom of transit. There was
a great deal of merit in the Chilean Interpretative Note that such special
facilities should not be considered according to the requirements of the
most-favoured-nation treatment.
Mr.MULLER (Chile) said that after the statements of the
representatives of Australia and the United Kingdom, the inclusion of his
Interpretative Note was of even more importance. Political implications
which might be involved in granting special facilities were outside the
province of the Organization.
Mr. SPEEKENBRINK(Netherlands) supported the remarks of the
representatives of Australia, United Kingdom and United States that it
would be dangerous to dispense with the most-favoured-nation aspect.
Agreemts between two countries were understandable but factors involving
third and fourth countries should not be overlooked.
After discussion, it was agreed to establish Working Party No. 1to
consider the proposal of the representative of Chile and the advisability
of adding an Interpretative Note or altering the-text of Article 32, taking
/into account any E/CNF.2/C.3/SR.30
Page 5
into account any other, Articles considered advisable; the Working party to
consist of the representatives of Afghanistan, Australia, Bolivia, Chile,
China, Nethelands,. United Kingdom and the United States.
The CHAIRMAN stated that Article 32 was passed in second reading with
the reservations of Argentina and Chile, and subject to consideration of
paragraphs 3 and 8 after Article 18 had been established, and to the report
of Working Party No. 1 on the Interpretative Note proposed by the delegation
of Chile.
ARTICLE 33
Mr. McLIAM (Ireland) asked whether an anti-dumping or countervailing
duty could be imposed upon a duty which had been bound. He suggested the
inclusion of a clause similar to Article II, paragraph 2 (b) of the
General Agreement.
Mr. MORTON (Australia) replied that anti-dumping duties had no relation
to normal customs duties, bound or otherwise.
Mr. MARTIN (United States of America) said there was no need to include
the clause from the General Agreement since the Charter did not contain
schedules of duties which were included in the General Agreement.
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) remarked that when a duty was not bound, rates
could be increased freely with no reference to dumping.
Upon the request of the representative of Ireland that the interpretation
be included in the Committee Report, the CHAIRMAN said it would be sufficient
to take note of the subject matter in the Summary Record.
Upon the request of Mr. COREA (Ceylon) for a definition of "for the
like products", Mr.-MORTON (Australia) said it meant in this instance the
same product.
Mr. TlNOCO (Costa Rica) requested that the Drafting Committee should note
that "similar" was the word used in the Spanish text. This was not the
equivalent of "the same".
To the question of Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) as to whether a Member had only
to prove dumping or had also to prove that dumping caused or threatamed to
cause mterial injury, Mr. MORTON (Australia) replied that paragraph 6
required determination that the effect of dumping or subsidization was to
caused or threaten to cause material injury.
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) asked whether "materially retards" meant that an
industry might become economically unprofitable because of dumping, to
which Mr. MORTON (Australia) replied that might be one of the 12 interpretations.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) asked whether provision was made for possible injury
to a third party exporting a product at normal prices to a country where
there was no like industry in the event a country was dumping in that
/Mr. MORTON (Australia) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.30
Page 6
Mr. MORTON (Australia) said that as a rule a country having no domestic
industry would not objoct to selling goods at a lower price; but in the event
that dumping caused injury to a thidr country, paragraph 6 authorized the
Organization to waive the requirements of that parrgraph so as to permit a
Member to impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties if material injury
resulted to a.third Member country.
Paragraph 1, Interpretative Note . approved without comment.
Paragraph 2
At the suggestion of the representative of Ireland, the Chairman agreed
that the Drafting Committee should examine the second sentence concerning
margin of dumping.
Paragraph 2, Interpretative Note; Paragraph 3; Paragraph 3. Interpretative
Note and Paragraphs 4 and 5 - approved without comment.
Paragraph 6 - final acceptance was postponed pending any major alteration
to paragraph 1 of Article 27.
Deletion of Former Paragraph 6
To the request of Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) for an explanation of
paragraph 1, page 8 of the Sub-Committee Report, Mr. MORTON (Australia)
referring to the two reports of the Working Party (document E/CONF.2/C.3/18),
replied that paragraph 6 of the Geneva text limited a country's rights
regarding Articles 13 and 14. Opinion was divided, so the Sub-Committee
recommended deletion of the paragraph on the expressed understanding that
no measures other than anti-dumping or countervailing duties should be
applied to counteract dumping except as such measures might appear in the
Charter, for instance, as regards economic development under Article 13.
Reservation of Argentina to Article 33
Mr. PEILIZA (Argentina) said that the report of tho Working Party was
conciliatory but the text remained insufficient, particularly regarding
penalties; he had proposed a new paragraph to the effect that if the
exceptional circumstance in which measures were contemplated were insufficient
to counteract dumping, the countries affected by dumping might adopt other
measures provided for by their legislation, bringing such measures to the
attention of the Organization.
The report of Committeo III should take note of the reservation of
Argentina,
ARTICLE 34
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (a) and 3 (b) (- approved without comment.
Paragraphs 3 (b) -Interpretative Notes
Mr. BANERJI (India) said that India's system of tariff valuation had
been explained at Geneva and his delegation had been told that altlough
/Article 34, E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.30
Page 7
Article 34, paragraph 3 (b) dealt with actual valuation, a system like
India's would not be affected. The Interpretative Note seemed to be a
recognition of that right, but the Report of the Sub-Committee (page 9,
paragraph 4) noted that it should not be compatible with the letter or spirit
of Article 34 to accept the principle of variable schedules of fixed values
for products as a basis of ad valorem rates of duty, Did Note (ii) mean
the system remained unchanged, or that the value remained unchanged?
Mr. MORTON (Australia) stated that the Sub-Committee had given
considerable attention to the position of countries which had established
values for certain products as the basis of their ad valorem duties. When an
ad valorem duty was applied to a long established value, it had all the
elements of a specific duty, and usually there was no objection to that,
until such time as a change in the value was effected. Then the country
had a choice of change-over to a specific duty or of assessing the actual
value for duty purposes of each shipment, in accordance with the terms of
paragraph 3. This appeared the only course of action in the case of ordinary
products the value of which could be easily ascertained.
However, in Geneva when India's fixation of values in regard to certain
products had been discussed, it was considered that the method of valuation
by India for non-ordinary products was in order insofar as the actual value
could not be readily ascertained under paragraph 3 (b), and that
paragraph 3 (c) met the problem of India in respect of those particular
products for which they found it necessary periodically to fix a value.
Upon the request of the representative of India that the
interpretation be included in the Report of the Committee, the CHAIRMAN
said it would be sufficient for the purpose to note it in the Summary Record.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) said that his amendment had the purpose of bringing
into agreement with Article, 34 legal provisions of Chile and other countries.
The reservation would be maintained pending instructions from his Government,
unless the following Interpretative Note could be added to Interpretative
Note (ii):
"In future, the continuance of the system referred to in this
Note shall be permitted, provided that, on the request of interested
parties or Members, periodically established values for a specified
product will be adjusted according to actual value".
Mr. BANERJI (India) supported amendment proposed by the representative
of Chile, The Indian and Chilean systems had practical advantages under the
peculiar circumstances of administration. The Chilean proposal, or a modified
version, should be considered by a Working Party.
/The representativen Page 8
The representatives of Afghanistan and Venezuela supported the
representative of Chile.
By vote of 16 to 15, the.Chairman noted a distinct division of opinion
concerning the proposed Interpretative Note and it was agreed that
Working Party No. 2 composed of the representatives of Afghanistan, Belgium,
Chile; India, United Kingdom and the United States should consider the
proposal of the delegation of Chile.
Mr. MacLIAM (Ireland) asked the purpose of Interpretative Note (1) and
whether it would give advantage to a government over private industry.
Mr. MORTON (Australia) replied that if a government made a contract to
import a particular primary product, the price would form the basis for the
duty, which would then be added; there would be no distinction between the
private contractor and the government except that in the case of a government
the duty was a bcok entry. He had seen no value of or objection to the
insertion of the clause.
Paragraph 3 (c) - approved without coment.
The meeting rose at 1.20 p.m. |
GATT Library | pg807kw4618 | Summary Record of the Thirty-Eighth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba Tuesday, 1 February 1948 at 4.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 19, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 19/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR./38 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pg807kw4618 | pg807kw4618_90190281.xml | GATT_148 | 1,939 | 12,731 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR38
19 February 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY -EIGHTH MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba
Tuesday, 17 February 1948 at 4.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE F ON ARTICLE 21 (document)
E/CONF.2/C.57)
Mr. MELANDER (Norway,p Chairma ofuSb-Comtmitee, Fn i prenseting. the
Report of the Sub-Committee, called attention to one important change which
had been made in the Article, the addition of a new paragraph 1 as a preamble
to the Article. The other changes made by the Sub-Committee were minor ones
and, in substance, the Geneva text had been maintained.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) stated that although his delegation would
have wanted more elasticity in paragraph 3(a) (i) it had withdrawn its
amendment to that paragraph
Referring to the amendments to paragraph 4(a) and 5 of Article 21,
which were proposed by the delegation of Argentina but not accepted by the
Sub-Committee, he said that his delegation maintained its reservation
regarding Article 21 with respect to these paragraph
Dr .CHARLONE (Uruguay) reserved his country's position on Article 21
pending the establishment of the definitive text of Article 24. He based
his reservation on the fact that his country was a member of the International
Monetary Fund and as such did not feel inclined to accept provisions which
might limit the rights reserved to members by the Articles of Agreement of
the International Monatary Fund as regards import regulations applied by
means of exchange conrols.
If, when Article 24 was considered, it was decided that the Orgnization
should accept the determinations of the International Monetary Fund in
exchange matters, the delegation of Uruguay would withdraw its general
reservation regarding Article 21.
Dr. Charlone added that he was obliged to make a specific reservation
regarding the last part of paragraph 3 (a),which deals with Members needs
/for monetary E/CONF. 2/C.3/SR.38
Page 2
for monetary reserves.
in this connection he recalled that according to the paragraph
referred to, in assessing any Member's need for monetary reserves, due
regard world be paid "to any special factors which might be effecting the
Members reserves or need for reserves."
In the London draft of the Charter various examples of the factors
which were to be taken into account were set forth. As none of these
covered the economies of those countries which, like Uruguay, obtained
their foreign exchange from a few lines of exports the value of which was
subject to periodical fluctuations, he thought that it should be put on
record that the term "special factors" was applicable to a case of this
Dr. Charlone pointed out that the International Monetary Fund would
not supply countries in Uruguay's position with sufficient resources to
enable them to avoid deflationary policies during periodical slumps caused
by fluctuations in the value of exports .The availability of monetary
reserves sufficient to meet difficulties of this kind was an essential
part of Uruguay's economic policy.
In conclusion, Dr. Charlone said that he would withdraw his reservation
if it was noted in the minutes of the meeting that the term "special factors"
satisfactorily covered the case he had brought forward.
Mr. MULIER (Chile) stated that in the Working Party which had been
formed to discuss the Chilean amendment to Article 20, the United Kingdom
and the United States of America had said that they would accept certain
changes in Article 21 on the condition that the Chilean amendment to
Article 20 was withdrawn. Although agreeing in principle, Chile did not
want to withdraw until a decision had been taken upon the final draft of
Article 13 owing to its close relation to Article 20. The delegation of
Chile therefore reserved its position concerning Article 21.
The representatives of the United States of America and the
United Kingdom concurred with the statement by the representative of Chile.
The Committee decided to proceed on the basis of the text submitted
by the Sub-Committee on the understanding that the question of a further
amendment to Article 21 could be re-opened at a later stage by the Members
of the Working Party to which the representative of Chile referred.
Article 21.
Paragraphs 1 and 2
Approved without comment
Paragraph 3)
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) supported by Mr. FOLlT (Mexico and
/Mr. BRIGNOLI E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.38
Page 3.
Mr.BRIGNOLI(Argentina) said that as a thret" indicated a cer ai n-ange,r
and no one could be asked to wait until that daengr wa si"mminent"b efore
acting ,he propode thed eeltioin of "mminror" fmro paeaagrph 3 (a) (i).
Dr. ACHR1LO E (Urug ad) an rM.IBRGONIL r(Aegntian) supportedt eh
Venezuel anamendment.
The representative of RUUG UAYalsot sated that itwas ainppropriate
for a country not to be able to apply quantitative restrictinou ntil its
monet ary ersreves were very low. "Very" might be deleted.
In reply to au qestion by Mr. AHA(DER aIrq:e the rpresnetative of the
ThITED aATESS 'F AMERICotatad d ha sumeds tha the-defn ition.f
net remoervaryes swould conform tothat i n the Articles of Agreement ofth
International Monetary Fund which was in terms of convertible currency.
In repleoru.-RIT M "im ugz(elae) he upoimnn o that dthute 1r -".i
wasitessetalss ipr vetn rveent tth othnt e Article from being frustrated.
Otherwise there would be a danger that a remote " threat" mightlead to
imediate restrmgcg ivetivoen with damain,elts.. g
Mr. HASNI (mPakistan) said that he interpreted "i Q i
obviou wusd scessary ilmd edinate . "Pitive"by ieatituted
for n#tdertomeet a case which a coun"i,,mmitrey m" in orderight be faced
w a hreat tow itmonetary reservesowi intwto or three ysears time eg
to long delivery dates for certain classes of capital goods.
Mr.N om) ctors"ND (LVi"tttc the ac "eoed-ngdotor ;
aragraph 3 (a) was intended to supeplyte flexsbiity in thei-cause in sub-
iterpr)atat-sb.issra3h ( Adf ch-teelegae 'r
Urugy ad asked- o his first statement. .
In reply to a remr$eseateprntatie vtive ofChi rproaoe
term "i minem treat"fqualified "decine" amdo9eq"l a" s te andtt thrW
nnt""mrey qasalify '.threat" ugste
hai teetedeale w" htined -
PHILLIPSO(AuOMr tal d oui in answerto tponquestion tht tn aser..
HNAitt Q an4 lAUI harilens of ecUi -
n rescrves depended anumbr of faccountrto size of the il
ts need vory- oftstade, end he size ut
reseres. eecine nor thle=mnt ofthe.det
auntuwou~lbe -a.eri ofnteeriosns of;
the decie-,
Paraaph 3 roved. .
-'
Mr. GOM-RBIES(uatemala) believed that the second part of: :
. . /pargraph - (b) E/CONF.2/C .3/SR.38
Page 4
paragraph 3 (b) was redundant and proposed its deletion.
The representatives of NORWAY and AUSTRALIA supported by the
representative of CHILE, pointed out that the paragraph "this provision
shall not be interpreted..... under sub-paragraph (a)" had been inserted
at the suggestion of the representative of Austrilia solely in order to
make clear beyond doubt, the intent of the provision.
Paragraph 3 (b) was approved.
Paragraph 3 (c)
Mr. GOMEZ-ROBLES (Guatemala) asked whether there was not a contradiction
in referring to "regular" channels of trade in connection with "minimum"
commercial quantities.
DER Mr. MELANDER (Norway) replied that minimum as well as maximum quantities
of goods could pass through regular channels of trade. The import of
minimum quantities was designed to keep open those regular channels.
Paragraph 3 (c) was approved.
Paragraph 4(a) was approved without comment.
Paragraph 4 (b).
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) proposed that the Geneva text should be
retained. The text recommended by the Sub-Committee linked this sub-pragraph
with sub-pargraph 3 (a) and thus restricted the scope of the Geneva text.
Mr.MELANDER (Norway) replied that sub-paragraph 4 (b) was subject to
sub-paragraph 3 (a) although the Geneva text had made no specific reference
to the latter sub-paragraph. The text recommended by the Sub-Comittee was
designed to recognize the fact that a country might as a result of its
domestic policies not only experience a high level of demand for imports
but also a high domestic demand from products which it normally exported
and that its reserve of foreign exchange might be depleted for either of
these reasons. -
Mr .PHILLIPS (Australia) agreed that the Geneva text did not give more
power teo impose restrictions, and added that the criteria in sub-paragraph 3(a)
included the forestalling of a decline in reserves as well as very low
reserves .
Mr. GOMEZ-ROBLES(Guatemala) thougt that the text of sub-paragraph 4 (b)
proposed by the Sub-Committe represented an improvement both in clarity
and flexibility over the Genevaat text and was a defense for under developed
countries. A country fulfilght use a part of its monstary reserves to fulfil
the aims of Articlesn3 and 9 and then if faced by a,serious decline in
those reserves, could impose restrictions and gisvee preference to essential
imports.
/Paragraph 4 (b) E/CONF.2/C. 3/SR. 38
Page 5
Paragraph 4 (b) was approved
Paragraph 4 (c) approved without comment.
Paragraph 5 (a) appoved without comment.
Paragraph 5(b)
Mr. GOMEZ.ROBLES(Guatemala) suggested inclusion of the phrase
"or unnecessarily prolonging " after the phrase "substantially intensifying"
Mr. BRONZ (Ute States) agreedngatioga should not be undue prolorion
of estriqons but felt tagraphhat )tgrphe f)irst sentence o su -par (b .
covered thpont.
Mr. GO-'.R uateaaAla). Heaccpted this explantion,:E the ask
whether the phrase "any otherc Mnember" should cnot be haged to some suh
phra".se as"affected Membersa
Mr. B(nitedStates) replied that the imposition of a restriction
by a a country mightffMeect evIery other mber p. t would be morractical
to allow the Organizationequer to decide tstion a.t its discretion
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) agreed, and added that in Geneva the
Sub-Comittee discussing the subject also felt that a Member might be
invited to participate in the discussion if there was a presumption that
its action might be contributing to the difficulties of trnedhe Member conce.
Paragraph 5 (b) was approved.
(d)and (e) (e) approvedwithout comment.Paraph 5 (c) _ w
mmcenmetP axout bomnt.
Interpretative Note to Article 21
Mr. ALDAfsgiohntan) asked whetisheor in the odm8snnte footnote
of reference to a threat to balance of payments had substainn,tive meang and
whether all countries were equally covereds as long atheir domestic policies
resulted in a high level of imports, and as long as an excessive monetary
reserve was not accumulated.
Mewr. SH n(Nw ealamdreplied that Artaile 21 of the Draft aCharter nd
thipropeo sed noowoot-nte were the sIae as the GATT ArtiIclne XI1 d itas
footnote. The note was appended to Article 31 of the Geneva Draft as a
matter of convenience since the necessiety for it arose froem an amndment to
Article 33 of the New York Draft which was submitted by the New Zealand
delegation at Geneva and subsequently, subject to reservation, was withheld
when the note in question was approved. Article 33 of the New York Draft
was omitted from the text in the Geneva Draft. The note was general: any
country which as a result of its domestic policies experienced such a high
level of imports that it was brought into balance of payment difficulties
had access to Article 21 and could not be challenged as to those domestic
policies.
/The Interpretative E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 38Page 6
The Interpretative Note to Article 21 was approved.
Dr. CHARLONE (Uruguay) Stated that in view of the statement of the
representative of the United Kingdom regarding special factors as they
related to a judgment of adequate monetary reserves, his delegation withdrew
its reservation on sub-paragraph 3 (a) which as made earlier at the meeting.
The CHAIRMAN stated that Article 21 had been approved in second reading,
subject to the reservations as recorded. Both the Chairman and the Members
of Sub-Committee F were to be congratulated for their excellent work on
Article 21.
Th meeting rose at 5.50 p.m. |
GATT Library | kq759zj5222 | Summary Record of the Thirty-Fifth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 13 February 1948, 10.3oa.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 14, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 14/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.35 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kq759zj5222 | kq759zj5222_90190275.xml | GATT_148 | 2,635 | 17,212 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2 /C.3/SR .35
ON DU 14 February 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-FIFTH MEETING ..
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cub a, 13 February 1948, 10.30a.m.
Chairman; Mr. D. L. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. ARTICLE40: REPORT OF WORKINDG PARTY NO. 3 ON THE WORL"CHAPTER IN
.PARAGRAPH 1 (a) (E/CONF2/C.3/52)
The CHAIRMAN stated that during the second reading of Article 40 and
consideration eof Report of Sub-Committe D, the delegate for Venezula had
suggested that the word "Chapter" in paragraph 1 (a) might be changed to
"Charter", on the ground that injury, such as that envisagod in Article 40,
might result from obligations incurred underl other Chapters, particuarly
under Articles 3 and 9.
The Committee agreed to endorse the view of the Working Party that
situations dereriving from the fulfilnt by a Member of its obligations under
Articles 3 or 9 might constitute an "unforeseen development" for the purpose
of paragraph 1(a) or Article 40.
2. ARTICLE 31A: DISCUSSION OF THE NEW ARTICLCE ON "LIQUIDATION OF STOKS"
(TEXT PROPOSED BY SUB-COMMITTEE J, (E/CONF.2/C.3/43), AND OF THE REVISED
ARTICLE PRPOSED BY THE DELIGATION OF CUBA (E/CONF.2/C.3/9/Add.2)
Mr. GUERRA, (Cuba) stated that the revised text of Article 31A was
proposed by the delegtion of Cuba because, in their opinion, the text
submittied by Sub-Committee J did not deal completely with the very
important matter of liquidatiion of stocks and might n practice have on
ofecst contrary to the purpoes sought in creating the Article i.e, to
prevent the injurious effect the liquidation of stocks might otherwise have
on the economies of other countries. However, the only protective provision
was that public notice should be given; unless an orderly procedure was
esta;blished for liquidation public notice might cause the effect it was
sought to avoid. The Cuban proposal was justified on the grounds that an
accumulation of stocks of a product or their liquidation was not a problem
of great concern to thecountry holding them but might be to the countries
producing or .trading in that product Because of its impact on international
trade the charter should providefor orderly liquidat.ion by mutual agreement
/Furthermore, if E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.35
Furthermore, if a satisfactory agreement was not reached, the Organization
should be able to ensure orderly liquidation, taking into account the interests
of affected countries. Article 43 did not provide for international
concerted action and was limited to stocks accumulated in World War II. The
accumulation of stock piles was a phenomenon of permanent character in
international trade, and provision for the future as to agreement and
intervention by the Organization was indispensable.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) supported the Cuban proposal.
Mr. EVANS (United States) doubted that the United States authorities
responsible for stock rules could accept the Cuban Proposal. It was a normal,
frequent procedure for governments supplying and buying stocks to arrange in
their contracts for their liquidation. The United States had not sought the
new Article 31A, proposed by the Sub-Committee, and in accepting it, it had
gone farther than any previous international agreement. Article 31A was a
reasonable obligation for the United States to accept, but to demand more
would be unreasonable. Despite the wilingness of the United States to have
Article 31A in the Charter, if it was considered injurious, the United States
delegation would be willing to see it omitted. Without committing the
United States delegation, the Cuban proposal might be considered reasonable
if the phrase "non-commercial stocks" were removed, so that all stocks held
by Members or their agencies were included and the obligations thus more
evenly distributed. Mr. Evans suggested that the new Article 31A be accepted
as submitted by the Sub-Committee, or that it be omitted entirely, or that
it be amended the deletion of the phrase "non-commercial stocks".
Mr.FORTHOMME (Belgium) felt that the Cuban proposal omitted the
interests of the consumers which were dealt with in the Charter equally
with those of producers. Moreover, it was unrealistic to expect a
Government which had paid for stocks bought, to have its right of ownership
excessively curtailed. The draft of the Sub-Committee already represented
a sacrifice on the part of a purchasing country; it would be quite
unreasonable to expect such a country still further to renounce its right
of ownership and to have the method of disposal dictated to it.
Mr. LLORENTE (Phillippines) said that his delegation was not opposed to
Article 31A, which was a matter of international, not unilateral concern.
As experienced in the case of the gold speculation during the '30's, the
procedure for public notice was to be feared, although there would be no
objection to prior notice being given to the Organization. Public notice
should be required only for the routine disposal of stocks, that is, where
the volume was not substantial. Prior notice and consultation concerning
substantial quantities, either with the Organization or through it with
/Members, should E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.35
Page 3
Members, should be made in complete secrecy in order to prevent speculation,
The position of the representative of the United States was creditable, but
without doubt he would be receptive to suggestions for the improvement of
liquidation procedure.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) agreed that public notice might have an adverse
effect on prices of commodities, but it could be counter-acted by the
requirement for consultation with all governments substantially interested.
The obligations under Article 31A were greater than any asked of a Member
in any other part of the Charter. Rights of ownership also implied
responsibility and obligation. The effect of a disorderly disposal of a
commodity upon a country which produced very few commodities must be
considered. The experience of disposing of large stocks of wool after
World War I need not be repeated if Members co-operated as was proposed in
Article 31A. The text submitted by the Sub-Committee represented a great
advance.
Mr. MORTON (Australia) said that the acquisition of stocks for whatever
purpose gave a country certain rights of disposal. The Cuban amendment did
not specify the length of time over which consultations might take place
and which could delay disposal of stocks. He agreed with the representative
of the Philippines regarding the dangers of public notice and suggested
the deletion of sub-paragraph 1 (a) of the Sub-Committee text. The obligtion
of the holding country for consultation should be through the Organization
or directly and confidentially to Members, always preserving their autonomy,
to discuss the best method of disposal with a view to as little financial
loss as possible to both parties.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) said that there were procedures for various
purposes throughout the Charter which restricted the liberty and freedom
of operation on the part of all Members, and it appeared strange that there
was objection to limiting freedom of action concerning liquidation of stocks.
The Charter condemned dumping and it was logical to think that any rapid
liquidation of stocks occuring without consultation was a kind of dumping.
The Cuban text proposed a procedure similar to other Article in the Charter
consultation where international trade was affected. Countries which
insisted upon measures which made the modification of the Constitution of
Government necessary should themselves be ready to accept certain
limitations required to control fluctuations that might be caused by the
liquidation of large stocks. The period of consultation might be defined.
Subject to certain changes of form the Cuban proposal was acceptable.
/Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.35 Page 4
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) pointed out that the matter under discussion
had been put forward originally by the United Kingdom, and that his delegation
had always considered it to be of great importance. The attitude of the
United Kingdom was not that of a country holding stocks, as she could not
afford the luxury retaining any which were not needed for current
consumption.
The ideal solution to the problem might lie along the lines of the Cuban
amendment, but that proposal had no real balance. The governments which
legally held stocks were asked to limit their form of action in disposing of
those stocks.
The intention certainly should not be to ask governments to limit their
national sovereignty without an equal return of advantages under the charter.
In Article 31A, the only advantage accruing to governments assuming the
obligation was a moral one. The correct approach was that they would take
an intelligent and reasonable view of the repercussions that their own action
might have an other. The representative of Belgium had rightly stressed
the importance of the obligation to consult in order to avoid substantial
injury to consumer and producer alike. Four months was substantial period
of time during, which the situation would be dealt with on the basis of the
repercussions that might result from the public notification of the intention
to liquidate stocks. It was important to be realistic, and that there would
be no guarantee of secrecy was not simply because of the form of words used
in the Article. Some countries were already bound by their own legislation
to make public announcement of their governments intentions.
The representative of New Zealand had referred to Dominion Wool.
Disposals Limited the action had been taken by the governments concernd
without any stimulus from Article 31A. The Cuban proposal suggested that, in
the absence of that Article, governments would proceed without responsibility.
The matter was not one which imposed an equal obligation on all
countries; as few were in a position to store large stocks of primar
commodities. There was a possibility of considerable demage being done to
Members of the ITO if some period of notice and consultation were not given
to avoid injury and this point and others should be included in the draft
charter. The Cuban text could not be defended as placing a reasonable
obligation upon governments nor would they under it receive mutual.
advtantages.
There was also a tendency to overlook the fact referred to by Belgium,
that stocks were built up on a hard cash basis, and often countries arranged
contracts between themselves. All countries would see to it that their
interests were protected.
/The United Kingdom. E/CONF.2/C .3/SR .35
Page 5
The United Kingdom delegation could not support the Cuban text.
Mr. BAGAART (Netherlands) supported the statement by the representative
of the United Kingdom.
Mr. FORTHMOMME (Belgium) said that the fears of the representative of
the Philippines were justified as regards the possibility of speculation.
The best way to ensure harmful speculation was to restrict information; it
could be defeated through prior notice and consultation.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) said that Article 31A was necessary after the exception
of security measures which had been inserted in Article 94. "Non-commercial
purposes" could not be deleted, as, if a government had accumulated a stock
pile it would have to be for non-commercial purposes.
As the representatives of Australia and the Philippines had stated, the
four-months notice would be bound to stimulate speculation.
He would support the Sub-Committee text if sub-paragraph (a) were
deleted, but otherwise he would agree to the Cuban proposal.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) believed that any provision for agreement in the
Charter would inevitably mean limitation of the right of ownership. If this
principle were not accepted many articles of the Charter would have to be
re-written.
It was not the intention of Cuba that terms should be dictated on the
disposal of stock piles, nor was it the intention to impose on any country
unilateral obligations. Orderly disposal of the stocks would compensate
governments through improving international trade. Any drafting change
would be accepted which might make it clearer that consultation was provided
for with a view to reaching agreement.
The operation of Article 31A had been confined to non-commercial or
national defense purposes because it was thought that in all practical cases
when the stores had been accumulated, by the simple fact that there was no
market for the product, the country which accumulated them would be the
one mainly-intereste in reaching agreement, and the procedure provided for
in Chapter VI would be invoked. Article 31A covered a different case;
the initial purchases were not related in a direct way to market situations,
and the liquidation of stocks would affect other countries.
The country holding the stock would have an interest in seeing that
prices did not drop, and for this reason the obligation placed upon the
country concerned was more imposing in appearance than in practical
application.
It was not the intention to create difficulties at the Conference, and
the Cuban delegation would welcome any changes in its amendment which would
meet the objections that had been raised.
/Mr. EVANS (United States) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.35
Page 6
Mr. EVANS (United States) suggested that if it was desired to give the
word "consultation" the definition given in the Cuban text, it might be
explained in another part of the Charter in order to cover all the cases in
which it was mentioned. If the Article applied to all stocks the Cuban
amendment might be more acceptable to the United States of America.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) agreed that drafting changes could be made to meet
the objections of the representative of the United States, but the main
difference between the Cuban and Sub-Committee drafts was the latter
provided for nothing more than consultation, while the former followed up
any failure in consultation with intervention by the Organization.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) pointed out that the law in one of the major
countries required public notice of liquidation of stock, and therefore if
the Cuban amendment were accepted they would virtually be asking that
Country to amend its legislation.
It was agreed by a vote of 22 to 21 that a working party should be set
up to consider and make recommendations upon the Sub-Committee and Cuban
drafts of the new Article 31A, in the light of discussion in Committee.
Upon the proposal of the Chairman it was agreed that the working party should
consist of the representatives of Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, New Zealand,
the Philippines, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and
that the representative of New Zealand should be Chairman of the Working Party
3. ARTICLE 41 - Addition of Interpretative Note (Proposal of Delegations
of Agentina, Ecuador, Guatemala and Uruguay, E/OCNF.2/C.3/46, Corr.1
and Rev.1)
It was agreed that the interpretative Note as proposed in document
E/CONF.2/C.3/46/Rev.1 should be attached to Article 41, and that the
following passage, related to sub-paragraph 1 (a) (iii) of Article 43,
should be included in the Summary Record of Committee III:
"The Committee agreed that quarantine and other sanitary
regulations as well as other types of regulations must be published
under Article 37 and that the provisions for consultation in
Article 41 required Members to supply full information as to the
reasons for and operation of such regulations.
The Committee agreed that quarantine and other sanitary
regulations are a subject to which the Organization should give
careful attention with a view to preventing measures 'necessary to
protect human, animal or plant life or health' from being applied
in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade and to advising Members how they can maintain
such measures without causing such prejudice.
/"In view of this, E/CONF.2/C .3/SR .35
Page 7
"In view of this, the Committee assumes that the Organization
will establish a regular procedure with a view to investigating
(in consultation when it considers this advisable, with other inter-
governmental Specialized Agencies of recognized scientific and
technical competence, such as the FAO) any complaints that might
be brought by a Member as to the use of the exception in
sub-paragraph 1 (a) (iii) of Article 43 in a manner inconsistent
with the provisions of the preamble to that paragraph."
The meeting rose at 1.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | zp806vm2660 | Summary Record of the Thirty-First Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba Wednesday, 4 February 1948 at 3.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 4, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 04/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.31 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zp806vm2660 | zp806vm2660_90190263.xml | GATT_148 | 1,574 | 10,330 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 31
CONFERECE CONFERECE 4 February 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-FIRST MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba
Wednesday, 4 February 1948 at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr LLERAS RESTREPO (Colombia)
1. REPORT OF WORKING PARTY NO.1 CONCERNING THE PROPOGED INTERPRETATIVE
NOTE ON PARAGRAPH 9 OF ARTICLE 32. (Document 3/CONF.2/C.3/41)
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) suggested that, in the first line of the
Interpretative Note, the word "special" should be amended to read "specific"
and should be deleted in the fourth line. The words "....the special,
facilities" in the seventh line should be amended to read: "these
facilities". -This was to avoid any conflict with the word "equitable" in
paragraph 9 of Article 32, if the Note were to appear in the actual text
of that Article.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) at first had no objection to the Pakistan proposal,
but suggested that "specific facilities" should also replace "special
facilities" in the seventh line of the paragraph. In view of later remarks,
he supported the Interpretative Note as it stood.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia). Mr. LECUYER (France) and Mr. AZIZ (Afghanistan)
supported the text of the Inte pretative Note as it stood. Changing the word
"special" would destroy the sense of the paragraph.
Mr. MORTON (Australia) as Chairman of the Working Party pointed out
that Article 32 paragraph 9 together with the Interpretative Note could not
as such compel a country to grant special facilities to any other country.
If, however, by virtue of a special arrangement a land-locked country was
granted-special privileges then the Note to paragraph 9 would apply.
It was agreed that the Interpretativa Note as drafted by the Working
Party should be appended to paragraph 9 of Article 32.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) reserved his right to request that the French
text of Articles 32 to 39 inclusive should be examined carefully by the
Central Drafting Comittee to make it conform to the English text which had
been accepted by his delegation as the basis. E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.31
Page2
Mr. MULLER (Chile) stated that although he maintained his reservation
with regard to the text of paragraph 9, he hoped to be able to withdraw it
as soon as he received instructions from his Government.
2. REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE C (E/CONF.2/C.3/38 and Add.1)
Article 34
Paragraph 4, paragraph 5 (a), paragraph 5 (b), paragraph 5 (c) and
Interpretative Note to paragraph 5 approved without comment.
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) reserved his position provisionally pending
presentation of the final text of Article 24.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 approved without comment.
Article 36
Paragraph 1
Mr. MULLER (Chils) wanted It specified in an Interpretative Note that
countries which adced certain existing imposts to customs duties should not
be considered as raising their customs duties. In the meantime he maintained
his reservation. Paragraph 1 was approved.
Paragraph - 2
Mr. DOMOND (Haiti) said he would maintain his reservation with regard
to Article 35 unless the second sentence of the second paragraph should
be amended to read: "Moreover, they shall, upon request by the Organization
review ...."
Mr. EAKIM (Lebanon) supported the Haitian proposal as it would not
change the substance of the Article.
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) said that as the Organization could ask for
reports from Members on steps taken, he did not agree that the Organization
should make the original request. He supported the text of theReport.
Mr. BANERJI (India) suggested that the sentence, should read: "upon
request by the Organization at the instance of another Member directly
affected...."
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) wished to retain the wording of the
Report because he thought the ITO should only be approached if the problem
had failed to be resolved through normal diplomatic means of Members.
Mr. MARTIN (Uhited States of America) shared the views of the
representative of Czechoslovakia. The action should be on a more informal
basis than that suggested. by the representative of Haiti.
Mr. DOMOND (Haiti) stated that if the text presented by the Sub-
Committee was accepted, he would have to maintain his reservation. He
Supported the proposal of the representative of India.
/Mr. BLUSZTAJN E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR.31
Page 3
Mr. BLUSZTAJN (Poland) thought the general procedure for the settlement
of differences in Article 35 should not differ from that set forth in
Chapter VIII.
Mr. BANERJI (India) said the proposal of the representative of Haiti
would alleviate the organizational work both of the Members and the
Organization.
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) noted that paragraph 2 of Article 34 also
contained the same phrase as that under discussion. Perhaps adding "of
which the Organization shall be informed" wold clarify the intent, but he
did not think it necessary.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) agreed with the representative of Czechoslovakia
that the subject was within the province of normal diplomatic channels. It
was doubtful whether intervention by the Organization would simplify
procedure; moreover, the Organization should not act as a censor or judge
in such matters.
Mr. DUNAWAY (Liberia) supported the proposal of the representative of
India.
The CHAIRMAN noting no strong support for the proposals of the
representatives of Haiti and India, the text of paragraph 2 as submitted
by the Sub-Committee was agreed.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) asked for a more precise interpretation of
Article 35 than was contained in the Report of the Sub-Committee. Was it
possible for a country, under Article 35, to add existing special charges
to customs duties without violating the Charter or any negotiated treatises?
Mr. MORTON (Australia) called attention to page 11 of the Report of the
Sub-Committee (E/CONF.2/C.3/38). It was the opinion of the Sub-Committee;
also expressed during the Conference at Geneva, that a country having a
number of imposts on customs duties was at liberty to make the tariff rate
equivalent to duties plus combined imposts, thus enabling a trader to know
the exact amount of charges imposed.
Paragraph 3, Interpretative Note to paragraph 3, paragraphs 4 and 5
agreed without comment.
New paragraph 6
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Sub-Committee recommended the addition of
a sixth paragraph taking note of the fact that tariff descriptions based
on distinctive regional or geographical names could be used to discriminate
aginst products of Member countries and called for co-operation toward
the elimination of such practices. The question had also been referred to
Sub-Committee A as a part of the broader problem of safeguards against the
/circumvention E/CONF.2/C . 3/SR . 31
Page 4
circumvantion of the most-favoured-nation clause by means of tariff
descriptioms. Sub-Committee A recommended that Article 16 should not be
altered and that the new paragraph 6 be included in Article 35.
Mr. LECUYER (France) withdraw his previous reservation although his
Goverment felt that it was premature to insert such provision In the Charter
before a complete study had been made. The new paragraph should be included
in Article 16 since the principle of most-favoured-nation treatment was
involved.
The representatives of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, United Kingdom,
Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg also suggested that the paragraph belonged
in Article 16.
The CHAIRMAN asked Members for their opinion and it was found that the
sense of the meeting was in favour of the paragraph being transferred to
Article 16.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) provisionally reserved his position to Article 35
pending instructions from his Government.
Article. 3?
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were apprroved without comment;
paragraph 7. was approved, noting the reservation of the delegation of Chile.
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) temporarily reserved his position on Article 36.
Article 38
Paragraph1 - approved without comment.
At the request by the representative of India for a clarifioation of the
report of the Sub-Committee (page 14), Mr MARTIN (United States of America)
stated that "an official announcement made in the legislature of the country
concerned" was not always required but was simply one of possible procedure
of publicity. It was also permissible to publicize by documentation; the
main idea was that, there should be wide end prompt publicity.
Paragraph 3(a)
Mr. BANERJI (India) suggested replacing the word "facilities" by the
word "opportunities".
Mr. MORTON (Australia) said that the second sentence of paragraph 3 (a)
meant no more nor less than that a trader should have at his disposal all
information necessary to enter goods properly for duties.
Mr. AUGENT?ALER (Czechoslovakia) requested that the Central Drafting
Committee find a better choice of words for the paragraph. As for the second
sentence, the suitable facilities could best be obtained through norr 1
diplomatic channels.
/Mr. MacLIAM E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 31
Page 5
Mr. MacLIAM (Ireland) supported the proposal of the representative of
India; the intention was to protect the trader, but the use of the word
"facilities" might be construed in a broader sense then was intended.
Mr. BANERJI (Indla) agreed with a remark of the representative of
Australia that normal facilities were contemplated, and with the representative
of Czechoslovakia concerning normal diplomatic channels, but thought that
the phrase "suitable facilities shall be afforded...." was too mandatory,
and that the word. "opportunities" limited the implication to the desirability
of a government giving information and help in a normal maner.
Mr. TINOCO (Costa Rica) supported the suggestion of the representative
of Czechoslovakia that the Central Drafting Committee consider a wording of
the paragraph which would be more in keeping with the dignity of states.
It was agreed that the Central Drafting Committee should examine the
text in the light of the discussion.
The meeting rose at 5.10 p.m. |
GATT Library | cx648gw8296 | Summary Record of the Thirty-Ninth Meeting : Held on Wednesday, 18 February 1948, at 4.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 18, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 18/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cx648gw8296 | cx648gw8296_90190284.xml | GATT_148 | 4,864 | 32,840 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39
ON DU 18 February 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-NINTH MEETING
Held on Wednesday, 18 February 1948, at 4.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WIIGRESS (Canada)
CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE A ON ARTICLES 16, 17, 18 AND
19 (E/CONF.2/C. 3/59)
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands), as Chairman of Sub-Committee A, presented
the Report.
ARTICLE 16
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) provisionally reserved his position on
Article 16 pending the presentation of the Report of the Study Group on
the Venezuelan proposal.
Paragraph 1.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) maintained provisionally his reservation until a
decision had been taken on the text of Article 15 to which the delegation
of Chile had presented an amendment which might necessitate a change in
paragraph 1 of Article 16.
Mr. SCARPATI (Argentina) reserved his position on paragraph 1 of
Article 16 pending a decision on the final text of the whole Article and
other Articles relating to preferences.
Mr. KUNTER (Turkey) and Mr. HAIDER (Iraq), reserved their positions
on paragraph 1 of Article 16 pending the submission of the Report of the
Joint Sub-Committee of the Second and Third Committees, particular
regarding the Ottoman Empire Clause.
Mr. JIMENEZ (El Salvador) also reserved his position on paragraph 1
of Article 16 pending the Report of the Joint Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that in dealing with paragraph 1of Article 16
they were in no way prejudicing the Third Committee's consideration of the
Report of the Joint Sub-Committee of the Second and Third Committees which
was dealing with amendments relating to new preferential arrangements.
Paragraph 1 was approved on second reading
New Sub-Paragraph 2 (c) bis
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines) referred to the transferal of the reference
/to the Republic E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR.39
Page 2
to the Republic of the Philippines from Annex D to paragraph 2 of Article 16.
Sub-Committee A had accepted the Philippine proposal in this regard.
The representative of the Philippines also drew attention to the Notes
of the Seventh Meeting os Sub-Committee A, 22 December 1947, in which it
was stated that the Philippine proposal to insert the word "gradual" before
the phrase "elimination of the preferences referred to in paragraph 2 of
Article 16" in para graph 1 was discussed and substantial agreement reached
that there are no exceptions to the obligation to enter into negotiations
directed to the elimination of the preferences referred to in paragraph 2
of Article 16; however, the present text of Article 17 should not be
construed to mean that such preferences must necessarily be eliminated
abruptly.
The Third Committee concurred in the conclusions reached by Sub-
Committee A referred to by the representative of the Philippines.
New Sub-Paragraph 2 (c) bis was approved.
New Paragraph 4
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the substance of paragraph 4 had
previously been contained in Annexes A and D.
Mr. CHAVEZ (Peru) maintained his reservation on paragraphs 2 ,3 and
4 and the Interpretative Note to Article 16 pending a decision on the text
of Article 15.
Paragraph 4 was approved.
Paragraph 5
The CHAIRMAN recalled that at the Thirty-First Meeting of the Third
Committee on 4 February, it had been decided that paragraph 5, recommended
by Sub-Committee C, should be inserted in Article 16 instead of in
Article 35, and Sub-Committee A had been instructed accordingly.
Mr. STUCKT (Switzerland commented that Switzerland had a very limited
tobacco cultivation, and with her local product combined with imported
tobacco manufactured a cigar which only the poorer people smoked. It was
unfair that the people who could afford the best imported cigars should
pay little more them than the price paid for a Swiss cigar of poor
quality.
Suppoaing Switzerland required a large sum of money to carry out an
extensive schem off social insurance, the scheme might have to be paid for
by those people who indulged in the luxury of amoking good quality cigars
Would it be prohibited for a State in the situation sketched to impose
higher duties upon certain imported products for the reasons given
/If paragraph 5 E/CONF .2/C.3/SR. 39
Page 3
If paragraph 5 precluded that, the Swiss delegation wishod to
reserve its position. It would be fairer, in his view, to change a
specific tariff to an ad valorem tariff in such cases.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) supported by Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) stated
that paragraph 5 was a recognition by Members that they should not
discriminate by means of tariff classifications based on regional or
geographical names. If the classification were based on general
criteria such as price brackets, then more expensive cigars such as
"Havana" would bear a higher duty. Such general criteria would not
be contrary to paragraph 5.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) asked if the Committee would bePrepared
to reverse its decision regarding the location of paragraph 5. If
retained in Article 16it might be construed to limit the scope of the
most-favoured-nation clause in paragraph 1, rather than to supplement
it, and he would wish to propose the addition of a phrase such as:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to qualify the provisions
of paragraph 1 of this Article."
The representatives of the NETHERLANDS and the UNITED KINGDOM
agreed.
In answer to Mr.FORTHOMME (Belgium) , the representative of
UNITED STATES said that in his view, tariff descriptions which provided
a lower rate of duty for products which can be produced only in one
geographical area or which mention a particular regional name would be
contrary to the most-favoured-nation clause. If paragraph 5 were
retained in Article 16, paragraph 1 might be construed as permitting a
tariff concession on, say, "Havana" cigars as distinct from, say, cigars
valued at so much per thousand.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) preferred that paragraph 5 be deleted for
the reasons put forward by the representative of the United states, but
if it were incorporated into the Charter, Article 35 was the appropriate
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) said that in the event the paragraph was
retained, he would have to reserve the position of his delegation.
Mr .LECUYER (France) pointed out that his delegation had originally
made a reservation in Sub-Committee regarding paragraph 5, but had
withdrawn it in order that a compromise solution might be reached. If
other delegations, however, reserved their positions vis-a-vis the
paragraph,then the French delegation would. have to maintain its
reservation.
/Paragraph 5 E/CONF.2/C. 3/SR. 39
Page 4
Paragraph 5 was approved, the delegations of Switzerland and France
reserving their positions.
It was decided that paragraph 5 should be transferred to Article 35.
Article 16 was approved on second reading.
Mr.GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) said his delegation reserved its position
regarding Article 16 pending the report of the Joint Sub-Committee
which was studying the question of preferences. He felt it would be
difficult to say that Article 16, as presented in the Report of Sub-
Committee A, had been adopted by the Third Committee as there had been
such a large number of reservations.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Third Committee had only approved
on second reading those aspects of Article 16 which were within the
terms of reference of Sub-Committee A.The question of existing
preferential arrangements came under paragraphs 2 and 3 which were within
the terms of reference of the Joint Sub-Committee of Committee II and
III.
Interpretative Note
Mr. CHAVEZ (Peru) said his delegation maintained its reservation
regarding the interpretative Note until a final decision had been reached
regarding Article 15.
The Interpretative Note was approved.
ANNEX A - List of territories referred to in Paragraph 2 (a) of Article 16
Mr. ALMEIDA (Brazil) said that his delegation maintained its
reservation regarding paragraph 5 (b) of Article 23 relating to Annex A
pending the report of the Joint Sub-Committee of Committees II and III
on preferences.
Mr. CHOUHY TERRA (Uruguay) also maintained provisionally his
delegation's reservation regarding Annex A.
Mr. NARAGHI (Iran) provisionally reserved the position of his
delegation regarding Annex A pending a final decision on Article 15 and
on paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 16.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) suggested that the word "Pakistan" should be
inserted in the list of territories appearing in Annex A after the word
"Newfoundland".
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the proposal made by the
representative of Pakistan would involve the deletion of the words
."as at 10 April 1947" which appeared in parentheses after the word
: "India". E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39
Page 5
Mr. LEDDY (United States of America) felt that this proposal
might raise a legal question, namely whether this change would
require the complete elimination of all preferences between Pakistan
and the other territories listed in Annex A.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) said that as paragraph 3 of Article 16
fixed the margin of preference on any product respect of which
a preference is permitted under paragraph 2 as of a prescribed
date, the Committee would have to consider, at the time that
paragraphs 2 wnd 3 were discussed,whether the change proposed by
the representative of Pakistan would give rise to any difficulties
in this connection.
The proposal to add Pakistan to the list of territories in
Annex A and to delete thile words "as apt 10d Apr 1947" was aprove
p rovisioanlly, sub jeectto examination byth Joint Sub-Committee
of Commttees II and III in connection with paragraphs 2 and 3.
Mr. SRAPTI (Argentina) said that his delegation wished to
resegrve iy position reaading AAnex A until a decision had been
re i stp oistoni adhbeenm
eacre drgrdiange w peferential agreements.
TehCAIR AN pteeed out that Annex A as a whole had not ebne
referred to Sub-Committee A. That Sub-Committee had simply to take
ihnto account thos esasges of the Annex hwch dealt with the
ipmsiion of amargin of tariff preference to replace am arin of
preferene n cmectaini exsitig internal taxes or to replace ecrtni
prefeentai lunttaitiv arragneents desribed therein. Therefore
ht enex, xecet for the latst two paragraphs, was within the ermst
of reference of ethe Joint Sub-Committee of Committes II and III.
The Third Committee ewonuld have an opportunity of considrig the
emianetr tf nne A'f w.n rtd Sub-Committee.eat with 'he Reort o,.the int
The last two paragraphs of Annex A were approved.
ANNEX D-List of Territories of the United States of America referred
to in paragraph 2 (b) of Article 16.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that two changes had been made in
Annex D;the first was the deletion of the reference to the Republic
of the Philippines, and the second was the removal of the provision
marging of preference in internal taxes. The latter
relating to margins of preference in internal taxes. The latter
change was within the terms of reference of Sub-Committee A, and the
Sub-Committee had also recommended the former.
/Annex D was E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 39
Page 6
Annex D was approved without comment
Recommended Consequential Change in Sub-Paragraph 5 (b) of Article 23
The change recommended in paragraph 5(b) of article 23 was
approved and it was agreed to bring it to the attention of the
Sub-Committee dealing with Article 23.
Article 17 - Reduction of Tariffs and Elimination of Preferences
Paragraph 1
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) asked whether the phrase "substantial
reduction of the general levels of tariffs" would apply to tariffs
which were already low.
Mr. LEDDY (United States of America) felt that it was clear
that the phrase referred to was a broad and general one. It did not
mean that each country, no matter how low its tariffs might be,
must nevertheless being about a substantial reduction in the general
level of those tariffs.
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) said his delegation fully supported
the principles underlying Article 17, but considered that the wording
of paragraph 1 needed clarification. It should be made clear that
mutual tariff reductions were expected only between countries
granting each other like facilities regarding the import and export
of goods, particularly with respect to import restrictions, etc.
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) agreed with the remarks of the
representative of the United States of America. He also drew the
attention of the representative of Switzerland to the phrase in
paragraph 4 of Article 17 beginning "having regard to all relevant
circumstances, etc.", which he felt was broad enough to cover the
point mentioned by the Swiss delegate.
Mr. BURGESS (united Kingdom) considered that the point raised
by the representative of Switzerland was covered by the phrase in
paragraph 1 referring to the reduction of tariffs and elimination of
preferences on a "reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis."
Mr.LA ROSA (Italy) stated that during the first reading of
Article 17 he had pointed out that his Government reserved the
right to establish a new customs tariff to replace the existing one
in force since 1921. The new customs tariff would be adjusted in
accordance with the level of protection existing before the currency
depreciation of 1936.
/Mr.GOMEZ ROBLES E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 39
Page 7
Mr. GOMEZ ROBIES (Guatemale) said his country was also
reviewing its customs legislation, ##d, there fore, his
delegation wished to reserve provisionally its position
regarding Article 17.
Mr. LLERAS (Colombia) said that although his country
was also carrying out a revision of its tariffs, his
delegation did not consider it necessary to make any
reservation, since Article 17 and the interpretative note
to sub-paragraph 2 (d) clearly contemplated that countries
had the right to adjust their tariffs.
Mr. CHOUHY TERRA (Uruguay) stated, that in tariff
negotiations countries had different points of departure.
Some proceeded from high tariff levels, among them being
the more highly industrialized countries. Among the less
developed countries were those like Uruguay which had not
readjusted their tariffs to the new p#r value of their
currencies resulting from devaluation. This devaluation
was effected in view of the war and subsequent events, but
had had little practical effect owing to the impossibility
of importation. Now, however, Uruguay must conduct tariff
negotiations which must proceed on the basis of readjusted
rates. This claim was all the move justified when it was
considered that certain counrtries' tariffs were based on
the gold value of their currencies When such currencies
were devalued, readjustment of tariffs took place automatically,
which was not the case with Uruguay. He considered, however,
that the point was adequately covered by sub-paragraph 2 (d)
which must be interpreted as referring to readjusted values.
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) said unless the Committee
considered that the term "mutually advantageous" was to be
construed as covering both tariffs and other related matters,
he would-be compelled to reserve the position of his
delegation regarding Article 17
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) said the tariff system of his country
was based on specific duties which had been in force since
1931; and it would therefore be necessary to adjust some of
those duties before entering into negotiations.
Paragraph 1 was approved.
/Paragraph 2 (a) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39
Pages 8
Paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) ((i) (ii) (iii) (iv)): approved without
comment.
Paragraph 2 (d)
Mr.HAIDE (Iraq) sugtgested adding, asfr thee phrase "duty froe
treatment", the phrase "or the undertaking not t o raise them abovea
spelc.ified higherleve'
Mr. LYSVTL (etherlands) pointed out that sub-paragraph 2 (d)
deaolt only with cncessions which could be considered as equivalent in
nature to substantial reductions in tariffs and th ought it wouldbe
idxnisble to etxen that meaning to an undertaking not to raise tariff s
above a specified higher level.
Mr. H ADIR (Iraq)saidt h reason for his propo sal was t oover the
rt oea pd istten9peific duties in order to re-store the eprotectiv.
incicde nce reduedthrough a rise in prices prior to tariff negotiations.
MOr. GO MEZRBLES(Guatemala) said th e problemw s one of specific
as opposed to ad valorem tariffs. There seemed to be nothing in
sub-parbagrhaph 2(s) wich jutified the previous statemeents of th
s opreporoesentativf Clmbia and Uruguay with reispect tfo a revsion o
tIai trf elel. ft er interpretation was correct, he awished tofahv
it noltred particualy with respect to the position ofl kecountries i
Iteq land Guat.aa
The CHAedIMAN ca.l;attention to the interpretative note to
Sb-para graph 2(d), mtoS b-Cmmittee A's interpretation given at the
top 4 oofi page f ts Report, and to the followring except from the notes
of the meetuingo of Sb-Cm mittee Aheld 27 December 1947
(E/.CON/W.1F/R.2/C3/A8ev.2, page 2): "The Sub-Committede reache
sub asrtantialgheement tat it was not necessary tto Mwrite heexican
proporsal into Aticle 17 because nothingr in thios A ticlle w uledprecudeth
oncersion of specific intoa ad valorm autitoesne otprioos."r gnatt
S MCrlomb. ALs.Eicm ft that the pon oas itiawso.m clear by t he
interpreetatti v nobe tosu-paragraph 2 (d) a nud Commithee'seSb-tt
interponretati men tionedby the Chairman.
Mesr. HAIDE(Ira Rqte shunesgthat hoisprop osed mendmentt.
sub-pragraph (d) be added to the interpretagrativenote to sub-parLpa 2 (d).
Mr. WE-Cua)_pboiedout t hathi theinre wasnotb ng h he Crter
to pirevent countres readjusting tariffs on ufor the nurpbsound items poes
men tioned byther-pre entatives of Guatema la andcc Iraq;specif refercnce
to redjustmant might imply that it was precluded.
/Mrk D E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.#9 Page 9
Mr. LEDDY (united States) felt that the Irag amendment to the
interpretative note or to sub-paragraph (d) would be undesirable. since
it would iwply that substantial reductions in high duties should be
forthcoming in return for an undertaking not to increase low duties
above any specified higher level. He suggested that paragraph 2 (d) might
be amended to read: '"The binding of duties at low levels or of duty-free
treatment shall in principle be recognized as a concession equivalent in
value to the substantial reduction of high duties." He believed this would
meet the point raised by the delegate of Iraq.
Mr HAIDER (Iraq) replied that his point was whether a Member could
raise a duty which was artificially low due to a rise in prices before
binding it as in sub-paragraph 2 (d).
Mr.BURGESS (United Kingdom) suggested that the points raised by
the representatives of Guatemala and Iraq would be met by the proposed.
United States amendment plus including in the summary record the
Sub-Committee's interpretation set forth on page 4 of the Report of
Sub-Committee A, as follows:
"....(a)prior to negotiations, a Member would be free to
increase the specific duty on any unbound item since Article 17
does not provide for a general binding of all items."
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) said that that passage appeared to relate to
currency devaluation, not to price inflation, and that only unbound items
could be increased.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) stated that there was no provision in the
Charter for the binding against increase of any rate of duty -the freedom
to increase a duty on any individual item was dependent upon instruments
other than the Charter. A Member, after accepting the ITO Charter, would
be free to increase its tariffs prior to signing the General Agreement,
unless bound in existing bilateral agreements. However, increasing tariffs
to enhance one's bargaining position might well be challenged in
negotiations; but changing from specific to ad valorem duties or adjusting
tariffs to compensate for a rise in prices or currency devaluation would be
taken into account during negotiations. Therefore, no change in Article 17
was required, in his view.
Mr.GOMEZ-ROBLES (Guatemala) indicated that he was satisfied with the
explanation given by members of the Sub-Committee and in the Sub-Committee's
Report end could accept the paragraph if this explanation was included in
the summary record.
/Mr. LAMSVELT E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39
Page 10
Mr.LAMSVELT (Netherlands)pointed out that Article II, Paragraph 6 (a)
of the General Agreement permitted the readJustment of specific duties on
bound items to take account of devaluation,as noted on page 4 of the
Report of Sub-Committee A,
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) expressed his satisfaction with the explanation
given, provided that devaluation could also interpretecd to cover arise
in prices.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) reiterated that if a country raised its tariffs,
other countries would take the reasons for doing so into consideration at
the time of negotiations, but that in no way limited the rigbt to raise
tariffs.
Paragraph 2 (d) was approved.
The Interpretative Note to Sub-Paragraph 2 (d) was approved.
paragraph 2 ( e): approved without comment.
Paragraph 3
The CHAIRMAN called attention to the Sub-Committee's suggestion,
on page 6 of its Report, that the beat method of eliminating any
difficulties arising from a possible conflict between the provisions of
the Charter and the general provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade would be for the Government that signal the Final Act at
Geneva to holds meeting before the signing of the Final Act of this
Conference"in order to agree with respect to the supersession of the
general provisions of the General Agreement by the corresponding provisions
of the Charter"', so that "Members of the Conference would then be in a
position to know the provisions of the final text of the General Agreement,
referred to in paragraph 3 of Article17, prior to signing the Final Act
in Havana". TheSub-Committee had suggested further that the desirability
of amending the unanimity requirement with respect to a agreement on the
terms of accession to the General Agreement migbt also be considered at such
a meeting.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article XXV of the General Agreement,
the Secretary-General of the United Nations had called a formal meeting of
the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement,to be held in Havana on
28 February 1948. A meeting had also been arraged of.the signatories to
the Final Act at Havana, at which time the suggestions of the Sub-Committee
would be taken into consideration.
Mr. SAENZ (Mexico-) reserved his position, pro forme, on paragraph 3
until the definitive text of the General Agreement was known.
/Mr. MacLIAM E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39
Page 11
Mr.MacLIAM (Ireland) asked for a clarification of the second
sentence of paragraph 3.
Mr. LEDDY(United States) said the purpose of the sentence was to
make it clear that the concessions resulting from negotiations under
Article 17 would be incorporated into the General Agreement. A schedule
of concessions granted by each now Member negotiating under Article17
would be added to those already contained in the Generel Agreement, with
appropriate amendments in the existing schedules to provide for the
concessions granted to the new Member. Bilateral agreements were not
precluded by Article 17, although they would not be considered as giving
effect to the obligations of Article 17, and should be governed by
paragraph 2 (c) insofar as they related to the reduction of a margin
of preference by negotiation.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) asked how a meeting of Contracting Parties on
28 February to agree on supersession was consistent with the right of
Contracting Parties to object to such supersession within sixty days after
the Trade Conference, including signatories which might become contracting
parties within that sixty day period.
Mr. LEDDY(United States) replied that the Sub-Committee had been
aware of that problem and had contemplated an arrangement where by all
signatories of the Final Act in Geneva entitled to become contracting
parties would agree not to object within the allotted time period to the
supersession of the general provisions of the G.A.T.T. by the relevant
parts of the Charter, so that the countries signing the Final Act of this
Conference would know when they did so the situation with respect to the
G.A.T.T.
Mr. MacLIAM (Ireland) asked: (1) if a country not a party to the
General Agreement concluded negotiations with a contracting party, would it
be required to approach all the other parties to the General Agreement before
the results were incorporated and to negotiate with them; (2) if so could
the other parties to the General Agreement request it to make further
concessions, especially on products on which concession had already been
granted; (3) could a party to the General Agreement refuse to make any
further concessions than it had initially made in order to become a
contracting party,and, if so, could a complaint be brought against it
under paragraph 4?
Mr.LEDDY (united States)replied (1) the present text of the
General Agreement required unanimous agreement by the Contracting Partiss
to the accession of a new Member, but an amendment requiring only a two-thirds
/majority E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39 Page 12 .
majority had been proposed Although it was to be expected that negotiations
under Article 17 would oridinarily take place with all or almost all the
parties, this could not be necessarily the case;(2) at Geneva the procedure
had been to grant concessions on those products of which the other
negotiating parties were the principal suppliers, either together or singly.
if a potential party were a principle supplier of a product, concessions on
which were not incorporated in the General Agreement, the contracting parties
would be expected to grant concessions to the potential party; (3)a
potential party would be required to offer concessions return for
conceesions alreay incorporated in the G.A.T.T. on products of which the
potential party was a principal supplier. Up to the time a new Member
became party to the General Agreement,it enjoyed concessions indirectly
through the most-fevoured-nation clause; after that time the concessions
would be direct and a payment would be expected. On the other hand,
concessions a new Member was willing to make directly, even though
previously enjoyed in bilateral agreements, would have to be taken into
account.
After the representative of Ireland had restate his third question,
Mr. LEEDY (United States)said that if the concessions on the product
in question were not already included in the General Agreement, the
contracting parties would be expected to consider concessions but under
Article 17 a Member was not required to negotiate on all products ,since
negotiations were on a selective basis. FaiIure to grant certain concessions,
however, Could be considered as a failure to negotiate on a "mutually
advantageous besis" in which case a complaint could be made under paragraph 4.
Mr. ADAKAR (India), reverting to the Sub-Committee's recommendation
regarding a meeting of the signatories to the Final Act in Geneva,suggested
that the word "general' before "provicions" be deleted so that sunh a
meeting could consider questions arising out of provisions othert than the
"general provision"" of the G.A.T.T. . -
tThe iIRMANoC Saitahtthii point had bene aennint cniderationc ni
dawing rptheAgneda orf tht meeintg.
Pargraph3 was approve.
Parergph 4
M.BURG tWS Unrte iKgdm)o propsed teh insrtion o fthewodr
"reconstructo on ftit develothatt" in Paragraph 4 makeo clear ahat
accountw s wedo as en of tde rtconmtraltiop a swllsaof the developmentt
needsfocountrie s Page 13
Mr.LEDDY (United States),considered that it was not necessaary to
specify "reconstruction" in paragraph .4, since the term "and other needs"
would clearly cover it, as well as the needs of other countries, not
specified in paragraph 4. In reply to Mr. LECUYER (France) and supported
by the representative of the Netherlands, he added, that the question in
Chapter III was whether the term "development" should be held to included
reconstruction or whether legally it was necessary to add the actual word.
In Artlcle 17 it was not neceseary to include the word, in order to cover
the substantive point. Its omission, in no way placed "reconstruction"
needs below those of "developmental" needs.
The representatives of ITALY, FRANCE and RELGIUM supported the proposal
of the representative of the United Kingdom. ..
After the proposal of Mr. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Afrilosca) for cure
of the debate had been approved, it was agreed by a vots of 28 to 8 that
the word "reconstruction" should be inserted after "developmental" in
paragranh 4 of Article 17, as proposed by the Unitad Kingdom.
The de7legationof CUB maintained its reservation on paragraph 4 of
Article 17 pending the outcome of the consideration of its amendment to
insert the words "and/or the provisions of the General Agnreement o
Tariffs and Trade", and pending also the final decision of the contracting
parties in respect of the amendnent toII Article of the G.A.T.T. suggested
by the Tripartite Working Party of Sub-Committee A of Committee III,
Sub-Committee D of Committee VI, and the Joint Sub-Committee of Committees
II and VI.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out, in reply to a question by the representative
of Argentina, that paragraph 4, if accepted at the present meeting, would
be re-opened only for the consideration by Committee III of any changes
recommended by the Tripartite Working Party.
Paregeaph 4 was approved on this understanding.
TNhe MXIECAKand PRUVIAN delegathions eacbmaintained provisionally its
reservation on paragraph 5 of Article 17, on purely technical grounds,
pending the report of the Tripartite Working Party.
Paragaphp 5 was aproved.
Interretative Note to Article 17
NDERMr.MMIM rway) indicated that heh migt later be able to
withdraw his reservation on the Interpretative Note to Article 17 depending
on the Committ ee's interpretation of several points rdregaing Article 18.
Mr.IDENFADENR SE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.39
Page 14
Mr.SEIDHNFADEN(Denmark) and Mr.BURGESS ( United Kingdom) each
maintained provisinally a reservation on the Interpretati ve Note.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.
was apphe Idteretb- te w_-pove
ilmmaintainedAhIs reservaDioneon rtiBrra17ii)servat Aicle
rocedure partiruslrcy-tce*eith iepett o the eliminances,of preferezo,-
pending the Report of the Joint Sub-Committee of the Second and Third
Committeesew relating to n preferences.
ES (GuatgGOMEZ-RLE: GOemala) withdrew his provisionals reservation a
dit lhadbeen-ae t-car duringE e meeting that nothing in the Charter
should be construed as hindering any country from adjusting or raisingits
tarifr. - ~-; .
Article 17 was approved at second reading.
Meeting roeet7.20 p.m. |
GATT Library | fp516fc5351 | Summary Record Of The Thirty-Second Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 5 February 1948, 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 5, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 05/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fp516fc5351 | fp516fc5351_90190264.xml | GATT_148 | 2,522 | 16,393 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFRENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32 5 February 1948
ON DU ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 5 February 1948, 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Carlos LlERAS (Colombia)
1. REPORT OF SUB-COMMTTEE C - ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 3, ARTICLE 38 and
ARTICLE 39 (E/CONF .2/C.3/38 and Add.1)
Paragraph 3 (a) was approved.
Paragraph 3 (b) - approved without comment.
Paragraph 3 (c)
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) maintained his reservation. The Argentine
delegation proposed the deletion of the last two lines of paragraph .3 (c)
beccaise it felt the provision was impractical and inappropriate; intervention
by the Organization would conflict with the sovereighty of Members
Implementation of Article 37 would be fully insured by submitting the
information requested, wiithout the Organization having to determine whether
the procedures conformed to the requirements of the sub-paragraph.
Mr. TERRA (Uruguay) supported the Argentine amendment.
ARTICLE. 39
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 - approved without comment.
ARTICLE 39
Mr. HRUDZINSKI (Poland) said that if the recomnendation to delete
Article 39 was accepted, it was accepted, it should be clearly stated, that boycotts were against
the spirit of the Charter
Mr. MORTON (Australia) agreed that it should be recorded that boycotts
as such were contrary to the Charter and a Member affected by their use had
the right to complaint under various Sections of the Charter. Article 39 had
been modified to a state of complete ineffectiveness from its original
intention to prevent campaigns for use of home products, and its deletion was
recommended inasmuch as no Member was prepared to give up slogans like
"Buy-national goods."
/The CHAIRMAN E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32
Page 2
The CHAIRMAN remarkerd that in case of boycotting, a Member had recourse
to Articles 89 and 90.
The Report of Sub-Committeee C was approved, subject to outstanding
decisions awaiting actions of other Sub-Committees, and rvations recorded
by various delegations.
2. REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE D - ARTICLES 40, 41 and 43 (E/CONF.2/C.3/37
and Corr.1)
ARTICLE 40
The delegation of Peru maintained its reservation to Article 40.
The delegation of Argentina maintained its Provisional reservation to
Article 40 pending the final text of Articles 22 and 23.
Paragraph 1 (a)
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) suggested substituting "Charter" in place of
"Chapterr" in tho second line of paragraph 1 (a) in order to include all other
obligations of the Charter which might cause or threaten to cause injury.
He Particularly referred to Articles 3 and 9, as mentioned in Article 21,
Paragraph 3 (b).
Mr. SAENZ (Mexico) supported the proposal of the representative of
Venezuela. Domestic policies designed to stimulate industries could create
injurious abnormal demands for imports; therefore, either by accepting the
amendment or by so stating in the Report, Articles 3 and 9 should be included..
Mr. S?ACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that Article 21 provided the'remedy
sougt but suggested the point deserved special investigation.
Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) called attention to a discrepancy which
would occur in paragraph 4 if paragraph 1 (a) were altered. He thought that
the proposal of Venezuela was too sweeping.
It was agreed that the matter should be considered by Working Party No. 3
composed of the representatives of Venezuela, Mexico, United Kingdom and
United States of America.
Paragraphs 1 (b) and 2 -approved without comment.
Paragraph 3 (a)
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentin maintained his reservation consistently with the
general attitude of his delegation concerning the limitations of the powers
and, fnctions of the Organization.
Paragraphs 3 (b) and 4 - approved without comment.
Footnote to Article 40
Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia) requested the deletion of the footnote
because Article 40 concerned emorgency action on imports of particular
products and was therefore an exception from the general principle of
non-discrimination. The application of Article 40 would in many cases be E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32
Page 3
discriminatory and the footnote might create a chain of withdrawals of
concessions. Moreover, if the footnote was retained, Article 40 provided
no defense measure in the case of social dumping; the non-discriminatory
application of quantitative restrictions in that instance would cause
hardship to other Members.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) stated that the intention of the Article
was set forth in the Footnote. Paragraph 3 (a) offered counter-action against
emergency actions; the phrase "to the trade of the Member" showed a
discriminatory characteristic not evident in the other paragraphs. Before
altering their non-discriminatory concept thorough consideration should be
given to a written proposal.
The Sub-Ccmmittee considered (E/CONF.2/C.3/37, page 4, paragraph 20)
that if there was a flood of imports due to social dumping, under
paragraph 1 of Article 40 a non-discriminatory measure, could be invoked
for short-term purposes. For longer-term purposes, if another Member was
not compl; ing with the provisions of Article 40, complaint could be made under
Articles 89 and 90.
The general intent of Article 40 was to provide time to roctify possible
miscalculations of a concession. Since concessions were negotiated on a
non-discriminatory and most-favoured-nation basis, their withdrawal should
also be on that basis.
Mr. MARTIN (United States of America) added that the footnote did not
preclude the allocation of quotas provided for in Article 22.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) agreed with the statement of the representative
of the United Kingdom but suggested a drafting change in the footnote to
ensure that the intention of the action was non-discriminatory.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said the intent of the footnote was that
any action, except that taken under paragraph 3 (a), should be in conformity
with the most-favoured-nation concept.
It was agreed that the proposals of the delegations of Czechoslovakia
and of Brazil should be considered by Working Party No. 4 composed of the
representatives of Brazil, Czechoslovakia, United Kingdom, and the
United States of America.
ARTICLE 41
It was agreed to draw the attention of the Central Drafting Committee
to the addition of the words relating to practices affecting transit.
The Article was approved.
ARTICLE 43
Paragraph 1 - Preamble (a) (i) and (ii) - approved without c=mment
/Sub-paragraph (a) (iii) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32
Page 4
Sub-paragraph (a) (iii)
Mr. SAENZ (Mexico) asked whether Article 43 would permit any country
which had already entered into bilateral agreements with other countries
regarding the import or export of gold and silver to apply certain restrictions
to the free import or export of those metals which were not provided for in tho
bilateral agreement,
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), Chairman of Sub-Committee D, said that it
was his understanding that if Countrics A and B had entered into a bilateral
agreement which did not provide an exception in respect of restrictions on
gold and silver, and those two countries became parties to a subsequent
multilateral convention which did permit import restrictions regarding those
goods, then the provisions of the later agreement would be held to override
the earlier one. He felt however that this was a purely legal point of
general treaty interpretation on which he hesitated to express any definite
opinion.
Mr. SAENZ (Mexico) whodered whether the interpretation given by the
representativo of the United Kingdom would apply in the case of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and whether that Agreement would be superseded
by the Charter of the ITO.
Mr. MARTIN (United States of America) referred to the words "nothing in
this Chaptcr shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by
any Member of measures," appearing in paragraph 1, and said that if there
was an agreement between Country A and Country B that there should be no
restriction and no prohibition of the movement of gold and silver, and the
two countries subsequently subscribed to the Charter he felt that the
agreement would not be superseded by the Charter. So far as the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was concerned, it was his understanding that
the parties to that Agreement would meet to determine which provisions
should be modified in accordance with the Charter adopted at Havana.
Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) said it had always been his understanding
that existing bilateral treaties would have to be modified to bring them
into harmony with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade. This will not be done automatically; a Member, party to such treaty,
will have to approach the other party with the view to negotiate on such
existing treaty. If the treaties could not be so modified, then they
would have to terminated.
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) felt that paragraph 1 of Article 43 might be
interpreted as freeing members from the obligations laid down in Chapter IV
and did not relate in any way to the previous obligations inburred by Members
in any bilateral agreements which they might have concluded. If no bilateral
agreement existed then a Member was free, in the specific cascs laid down
in Article 43, from the obligations of Chapter IV. If, however, there was
/in existence E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32
Page 5
in existence a bilateral agreement whose provisions curtailed the general
exceptions to Chapter IV laid down in Article 43, then that agreement should
not be superseded by the Charter.
Mr. IGONET (France) endorsed the statement made by the representative
of the Netherlands, and said that there should be no discrepancy between
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the corresponding Articles
of the Charter. He also supported the remarks of the representative of Cuba.
The Charter had a general scope and any bilateral agreements between Members
might bind the parties concerned without entering into conflict with the
general text of the Charter.
The CHAIRMAN shared the opinions expressed by the representative of
Cuba and of France and said that these opinions would be recorded in the
Record of the meeting.
The representatives of the Netherlands, Mexico and Uruguay reserved the
right to return to the question of interpretation at a later stago.
Mr. CHOUHY TERRA (Uruguay) pointed out that his delegation had
submitted an amendment to sub-paragraph (a) (iii) which would constitute a
new sub-paragraph 2 (a). He would therefore havo to reserve the position
of his delegation until that amendment was considered by the Conmittee at its
next meeting.
Sub-paragraphs (a) (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) were approved. The
delegation of Australia maintained its reservation in respect of
sub-paragraph (a) (viii) subject to the flnal wording of Article 94.
Sub-paragraphs (a) (ix) and (x) were approved without comment.
Sub-paragraph (a) (xi)
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) said his delegation maintained its proposal
that tho last part of sub-paragraph (a) (xi), commencing with the words
"during periods when the domestic price", should be deleted, as that was
a matter of fundamental importance to Argentina. He drew tho attention of
representatives of countries in a similar position to that of his own to the
damage which might be caused to the future industrial development of those
countries if the conditional clause in sub-paragaph (xi) wors maintained.
There was a lack of consistency between the clause in question and the first
part of the sub-paragraph, and a total lack of agreement between the clause
and paragraph 2 (a) of Articlo 20 which permitted export prohibitions or
restrictions temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages
of foodstuffs or other products essential to the exporting Member.
Argentina had been obliged to take restrictive export measures to avoid
certain important branches of industry being paralyzed owing to lack of raw
materials.
/Ho would be forced E/CONF.2/C.3/SR .32
Page 6
He would be forced to reserve the right of his delegation to bring the
matter up in plenary session of the Confrerence if the amendment he had
suggested was not accepted.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) and Mr. RUBEN JIJON (Ecuador) supported the
amendment proposed by the representative of Argentina.0
Mr. SAENZ (Mexico) and Mr. McCARTHY (Ireland) although supporting in
principle the amendment submitted by the representative of Argentina, felt
that it was unnecessary in view of the interpretation contained in
paragraph 2 (a) of Article 20.
Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) could not support the amendment as it was
of such a nature that it would change the whole sense of Article 43.
Mr. MORTON (Australia) pointed out that sub-paragraph (xi) had been
inserted in the text to enable countries which maintained the domestic price
of an article below the world price to ensure that the whole of their raw
materials was not exported at a higher price and that sufficient raw
materials remained to cover the requirements of local industries. It was
clear that the local industry was being subsidized when it obtained
materials at prices lower than the world price under a government subsidization
or price stabilization scheme.
Mr. MARTIN (United States of America) agreed with the representative of
the Notherlands that the amendment would fundamentally change Article 43. It
would permit a country to restri? exports for the sole purpose of protecting
domestic industry, and Article 43 was not designed to achieve such an end.
It was simply a listing of the general exceptions usually recogized in
commercial treaties.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) endorsed the observations of the
representatives of the Netherlands and of the United States of America, and
said that the amendment in question would be more appropriate in Article 20.
Mr. IGONET (France) felt that the attention of the Second Committee
should be called to the fact that the problem of quantitative restrictions
could apply to exports as well as to imports.
He supported the remarks of the representative of the Netherlands
regarding the amendment submitted by the delegation of Argentina. The
measures referred to in sub-paragraph (xi) were of a temporary nature, and
were not designed with a view to promoting economic development programmes.
Mr. CHOUHY TERRA (Uruguay) said that the matter under discussion was so
technical that it should be submitted to a small working group for study,
and that the correlation of Article 43 with other Articles of the Charter
should be carefully considered.
/Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR .32
Page 7
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) supported the text of sub-paragraph (xi) as it
appeared in the Report of the Sub-Cormittee. He felt that if the text of
Article 43 were limited as suggested by the representative of Argentina, the
industries of Cuba, which needed to import raw materials, Light suffer gravo
injury. There was the danger, also, that dumping migt occur.
After a brief discussion in which the representatives of Argentina,
the United States of America and the CHAIRMAN took part, the Committee
decided not to refer the amendment submitted by the delegation of Argentina
to a Working Party.
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) asked whether the conditions laid down in
sub-paragraph (xi) would in any way restrict the meaning of paragraph 2 (a)
of Article 20 when finally drafted.
Mr. MARTIN (United St. ues of America) considered that if an exception
was written in paragraph 2 (a) of Article 20 it would not be nullified by
Article 43.
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) felt that if another Article of the Charter
established more liberal provisions regarding cxcoptions to Chapter IV those
provisions would supersede the Ones contained in Article 43.
The Committee approved sub-paragraph (a) (xi) the representatives of
Argentina, Uruguay and Ecuador reserving the position of their delegations.
The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m. |
GATT Library | jz544fc8428 | Summary Record of the Thirty-Seventh Meeting : Held on Monday, 16 February 1948, at 3.30 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 16, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 16/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.37 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jz544fc8428 | jz544fc8428_90190278.xml | GATT_148 | 2,739 | 17,869 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE
E /CONF.2 /C .3 /SR. 37
ON DU 16 February 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMRCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SEVENTH MEETING
Held on Monday, 16 February 1948, at 3.30 p.m.
Chairman Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE E (ARTCLES 20 and 22)
(E/CONF.2/C.3/54)
ARTICLE 20 - GENERAL ELIMINATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS
The CHAIRMAN stated that during the second reading of Article 20 th3
Committee should note the reservations made by the delegations or Ceylon,
Colombia, Mexico and Peru on Article 20 pending the final text of Article 13;
those .by the delegations of Chile, A gentina and Ireland on Article 20 pending
the final text of Articles 13 and 21; and the general reservation of Chlna
on ArtieJ.e 20. These delegations should notify the Secretariat when their
positlOn changed.
Mr.KILOWAY (Union of South Africa), Chairman of Sub-Committee E,
presented the Report. Two sub-paragraphs and two Interpretative Notes had been.
added to Article 20 together with some minor drafting changes. One
sub-paragrah and two notes had been added to Article 22. Almost all of the
reservations made to Articles 20 and 22 were dependent on the outcome of
Articles 13 and 21.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and its Members
for their excellent work.
paragraph 1 - approved without comment
Parag2raph 2 (a)
It was agreed that the following extracts from the minutes of the
proceedings of Comnmission A in the Second Session of the Preparatory
Committee (Geneva document E/PC/T/A/PV/40 (1)) referred to in the Report of
Sub-Committee E, should be included In the Summary Record of the Thirty-Seventh
Meeting of Committee III:
"Page 4
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia): It will be noticed that we have
sent round a circular proposing the deletion of the word critical'
in paragraph 2 (a). We have done that on the instructions of our
/Government, and it E/CONF.2/C..3/SR.37
Page 2
Government and it has not been raised sooner because we were not
members of the Sub-Committee, and this is the first opportunity we
have had of raising this point since the original meeting of the Commission.
The reason why we suggest that this word be removed is that it is
feared that export prohibitions on merino sheep which we impose, might.
because of the strict qualification of the word `shortages' have to
be removed at a time when in our view they should be retained. We
feel that whilest we have suffered very heavy shortages, it would be,
difficult with our sheep population to describe them as `critical. In
the drought which occurred a little over a year ago we lost 20 million
of sheep over a period of a. few months. It caused something of a crisis
at the time but the effects of a drought do not wear off until".very many
years have. passed. and measures may well be needed even when the really
critical stages have passed. In other words the critical.element in
the, shortage might pass rather rapidly, but the effects remain for some
years. It should be realized that, even without large, flocks, it
takes time get back anything like a loss of 20 million sheep. Ihave
therefore to ask the Commission that it agree the word `critical' being
removed explain 'that it is desiged to meet.our present position
on the prohibition of merino sheep, a position which might be expected
to recur periodically. We could contemplate removing this prohibition
perhaps in a year or so, but our problem is that if, we have another
drought in perhaps 3, 4, 5 or 6 years time, we would not be able to
reimpose this prohibition or if we did reimpose it we would only be
able to keep it on during the very critical period of the result of the
drought.
CHAIRMAN (Interpretation): In view of these. facts, I wonder if
the Australian representative insists on his amendment? I believethat
he has the assurance that, both in French and in English.'critique.'
and "critical cover the situation he mentioned exactly. Moreover, the
minutes of this.meeting will always be at his disposal to indicate the
feeling of this Committee.
Page 8
CHAIRMANi (Interpretation): Could I give some assurance to the
Australia representative if the Commission would unanimosuly, declare
that it recognizes that the case is covered by the text as it is and
then we will not. cJange the text at all. Would the Australian
representative accept this solution?
/Page 9 E/CONF.2,/C.3/SR.37
Page 3
Page 9
CHAIRMAN (Interpretation): I believe that you can be sure that
the case you have indicated is entirely covered, by the text as it stands,
and I suggest that you accept that the text should. be maintained as
it is.
Mr. JADDOU (Iraq) asked whether paragraph.10 of the Report of
sub-Commiittee E covered "other products essential to the exporting Member
country" as specified in Article .20, paragraph :2 (a)" or whether it was
limited to foodstuffs.
Mr. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) replied that the delegation of '
Sweden had witharawn its amendment when the note was inserted; obviously,
as foodstuffs were covered, other essential products were included.
Paragraph 2 (a) - was approed.
Iterpretative Note to Paragraph 2 (a) - approved without comment.
Paragraph 2 (b).
Mr. MADJID (Af ghanistan) referred to the Report of Sub-Commiitee D
(E/CONF.2/C.3 /37, paragraph 25) and asked whether paragraph 2 (b) covered
governmantal measures for orderly marketing, taken because storage facilities
were insufficient. In explaining to Sub-Ccmittee D the Afghanistan amendment
submitted to Article 43 .he had pointed out that experts, from Afganistan
were regulated because sufficient storage facilities were lacking in the
country of destination. It was not a matter of restricting exports but of
staggering them.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Beigium) thought that the all-embracing nature of the
word `marketing was sufficient to cover the point. The representative of
New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom also agreed
that the measures . described by the representative of Afghanistan were covered
by sub-2..paragraph 2 (b) .
The Committee expressed its agreement with the view contained in
paragraph 25 of the Report of Sub..Committee D.
Paragraph 2 (b) - was approved.
Mr. CHAVEZ (Peru ) maintained his reservation to paragraph 2 (c) pending
the final text of Article 13. The delegation of Peru had sought the deletlon
of paragraph 2 (c) and presented several amendments because they did
not consider' that domestic restriction of a basic agricultural commodity
could be carried out same. time as a government was subsidzing that
commodity.
/Mr. CHOUHY TERRA (Uruguay) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.37
Page 4
Mr. CHOUHY TERRA (Uruguay) maintained his reservation pending the
outcome of Articles .13 and 21.
Mr, SAENZ (Mexico) stated that his delegation had always regarded
paragraph 2 (c) as a totally unwarranted discrimination against exporting
agricultural countries, and had never been impressed by the argument that
the adjustment.in supply of agricultural and fisheries products to the demand
was more difficult then in the case of industrial products. In order to show
an understanding of the problems of other countries and in the hope that an
equal sympathy would be shown by others in establishing the final text of
Article 13, his delegation would accept paragraph 2 (c), maintaining,
however1 its reservation pending the outcome on Article 13.
Mr. DUNAWAY (Liberia) stated that the sub-paragraph was unacceptable to
his delegation; it was totally unwarranted and in conflict with the general
principles of the Charter.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) asked for a clarification of the term "agricultural
products". If interpreted in a broad sense, it would Include horticultural
and sericultural products and he wished. to know whether the Committee would
agree with suihan interpretation. He also suggested that the word "forestry"
should be inserted after "agricultural".
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) said forestry products would include timber and
paper, pulp, etc., which did not come into the same category as agricultural
products.
Mr. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) thought that "horticulture" was
included within the term "agriculture", but forestry was probably outside the
scope of paragraph 2 (c). He did not have sufficient knowledge to form a
view with regard to the cultivation of silk worms.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) agreed that forestry products were not
intended to be included, but thought the silk worm industry should be.
Mr. ADARKAR (India). explained that he had in mind the fact that primary
production was frequently carried on by small growers with limited resources.
Silk, in particular, was in a similar position to other agricultural
commodities. If there was Justification for large agricultural groups
enjoying the benefits of sub-paragraph 2 (c), certainly the small silk
producers should also be included. He was not proposing to include
manufactured forestry products,. but only primary forestry products such,'as
guns, resin, rosin and turpentine. Production of these commodities was
restricted by his government in order to safeguard marketing during:
certain periods and these restrictions should not be frustrated by
unrestricted imports.
/Mr. BURGESS E/CONF.2/C .3/SR.37
Page 5
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) believed that as fruit was ,considered an
agricultural product, there were many other products analogous to fruit which
might come under the same heading. Rosins and turpentine-were covered as well
as silk.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) proposed that the rirst sentence of paragraph 2 (a)
should be amended to read: import restrictions on any agricultliual;
fisheries or primary forestry product.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) did not agree to the Indian amendment, but
proposed that the clarification of the term "agricultural products" should .
be included an an Interpretative Note.
thI. .FORTHOMME (Belgium) believed it was impossible to include a mention
of. everything implied in the term agriculturall products in the Charter
The Article should be accepted as it stood and the Ornganization could decide
on the various questions as they arose.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) proposed that an Interietative Note sould be:
appended to Article 20, pararaph 2 (c) explaining that "agricultural
products" included horticultural, serfcultural and primary forest products.
Br. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) did' not want to accept the Interpretative
Note without completely understanding its implications.' -
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) believed the Interpretative Note should .
specify those products not included under the term "agricultural" 'or
"fisheries", but agreed with the representatives of Afghanistan Brazil.
Sweden and.the United Kingdom that a Working Party should be setup to
discuss the question.
lt was agreed that Working Party No. 6 should be set up to consider the
suggestion of the representative of India to amend the text of, or to add an
Interpretative Note to, paragraph 2 (c) of Article 20 which would clarify
the meaning of the term "agricultural products". It was agreed that the
Working Party should be composed of the representatives of Brazil, India,
Norway, the Union of South Africa and the United States, with the
representative. Qf.the Union of-South Africa as Chairman.
Mr. DOMOND (Haiti). proposed the deletion of the words: imported in
any form" to avod any misunderstanding and to restrict the scope of the
paragraph.
Mr.BURGESS (United Kingdom) called attention to the lnterpretative Note'
to sub-paragraph 2 (c) on page 13 of document E/CONF.2/C.3/54 and said that it
Covered the point-of the representative of Haiti. If, for example, Aiticle-20`
paragraph 2 -(c) was being applied in order to make possible a restrjction
on domestic productidn of barley, it could not be argued 'that imports off
whiskey should also restricted.
Mr. .DOMOND (Haiti) said that he must press the point since, although
vegetable products might differ from agricultural products, all products
derived from agricultural products fell with in the general classification
/of "agricultural E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.37
:Page 6
of agriculturall products".
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) pointed out that to delete the words "imported
in any form" would not meet the point of the representative of Haiti. If the
fact were accepted that any vegetable product was an agricultural products
the situation would not be altered by the deletion and restrictions still
could be applied, If the term included everything made out of agricultural
products, too wide a field would be covered.
Mr. BURGESS (United Kingdom) believed the representative of Haiti was
reading a wider significance into the words 'an Lan had been intended. The
Interpretative Note and the passage in the Sub-Committee.Report dealing with the
subject made clear by the words "so closely related" that restrictions on a
product derivd from an agricultural product could only be applied if the
restriction on the original agricultural product would otherwise be rendered
ineffective. The term "agricultural or fisheries product" and the
Interpretative Note on "in any form" should tand.
Mr.ALY BAHGAT (Egypt) said there should be a differentiation between
the phrase "in any form" and "in any stage of transformation".
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines) said that in the Geneva text it was stated
that "in any form" covered "products when in early stage of processing and.
still perishable", yet neither "early stage of processing" nor-perishability
were mentioned in the proposed new text. If, for instance, copra, which was
not edible, were restricted, the Geneva draft would not permit restrictions
on cocoanut oil because it could not be considered to be either in the
"early stage of processing" or "perishable". It was not, however, logical
to impose restrictions on copra without imposing similar restrictions
cocoanut oil, because coprt had no value until it was transformed into
cocoanut oil. The proposed new text changed the substance of the original,
draft.
The Proposal by the representative of Haiti to delete the words:
"Imported in any form" was not supported by the Committeo,
The introductory Paragaph and the Interpretative Note to sub-
Paragraph 2 (c) of Article 20 were approved subject to such recommendation
as might arise during consideration of the term "agricultural products" Ain'
Working, Party No. 6.
Mr. Mc.CARTHY (Ireland) stated that his delegation maintained its
reservation as set forth in paragraph 40 on page 9 of the Sub-Committee Report.
(document E/CONF.2/ .3/54) and also maintained its position concerning
Article 20 as a whole, pending consideration of Articles 13 and 21.
/Mr. ORTIZ-LAMADRID (Cuba) E/CONF.2/C .3/SR.37
Page 7
Mr. ORTIZ-LAMADRID) (Cuba) stated that his delegation maintained its
reservation in connection with its proposal to add a new sub-paragraph
permitting restrictions on imports by a country that was unfavourably affected
in the production and export of an important product through restrictions
imposed by another Member under a provision of the Charter.
Sub-Para1raphs 2 (c) (i), Cii) and (iii) - were approved.
Sub-Paragraphs 3 (a), 3 (b), the Interpretative Note to 3 (b) and
Sub-Paragraph 3 (c) - were approved.
Paragraph 3 (d)
In reply to a question by Mr. ADARKAR (India), the representative of
the United Kingdom said that the text of paragraph 3 (d) which referred to
restrictions applied under sub-paragraph 2 (c) (i) followed the Geneva
text and applied only :to sub-paragraph (i).
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) pointed out that quantitative restrictions
under sub-paragraph 2 (c) (iii) were only allowed if the domestic production
was relatively negligible, and were therefore not within the scope of
sub-paragraph 3 (d).
Mr. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) did not think sub-paragraph 2 (c) (il
fell within the scope of sub-paragraph 3 (d) as it referred only to the removal
of a temporary surplus.
Interpretative Note to Sub-Pgragraph 3 (d)
Mr. MARTIN (United States) explained in answer to a question by the
representative of Brazil that the words "or as between different foreign
producers" had been deleted from this footnote because they were pertinent
only-to the footnote on "special factors" in Article 22.
Sub-Paragraph 3 (d), the Interpretative Note to Sub-Paragraph 3 (d) and
Paragraph 4 - were approved.
Mr. GUTTIERREZ (Bolivia) reserved his position on Article 20, pending a
solution of the problems connected with Articles 13 and 21.
Article 20 was approved at second reading except for the reservations as'
recorded and any recommendations that might be made by Working Party No. 6. -
ARTICLE 22 - NON-DISCRIMINATORY ADMINISTRATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS
Paragraphs 1, 2 3, the Interpretative Note to Paragraph 3, Paragraphs 4 and 5
and the Interpretative Note to Paragraph 2 (d) and Paragraph 4 - were approved.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) maintained his reservation concerning
paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 22.
Mr. GUTTERREZ (Bolivia) reserved his position on Article 22 pending-
instructions from his Government.
/Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland). E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.37
Page 8..
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) reserved his position on Articles 20 and 22.
Article 22 was approved at Second reading except for the reservations
as recorded.
The meeting rose at 5.35 p.m. |
GATT Library | qt471ys7428 | Summary record of the Tweleth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, 13 September 1948, at 3.40 p.m | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, September 13, 1948 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization and Executive Committee | 13/09/1948 | official documents | ICITO/EC.2/SR.12 and ICITO/EC.2/SR.10-ICITO/EC.2/SR.16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qt471ys7428 | qt471ys7428_90060240.xml | GATT_148 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | gt589qb1211 | Summary record of the Tweleth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, 13 September 1948, at 3.40 p.m | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, September 13, 1948 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) and Executive Committee | 13/09/1948 | official documents | ICITO/EC.2/SR.12 and ICITO/EC.2/SR.10-ICITO/EC.2/SR.16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gt589qb1211 | gt589qb1211_90060240.xml | GATT_148 | 476 | 3,102 | INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE UNRESTRICTED
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE ICITO/EC .2/SR.12
13 September 1948
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Executive Committee
Second Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELETH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, 13 September 1948, at 3.40 p.m.
CHAIRMAN: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE I on CONSULTATION WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ICITO/EC.2/15) (Continued)
The Report drafted by the Sub-Committee for submission by
the Interim Commission to the First Session of the Conference
of the Organization was read paragraph by paragraph. With the
exception of a statement made by the delegate of Australia
relating to paragraph 2 under "A", no comment was put forward
by the representatives during the reading.
In regard to paragraph 2, Mr. HEWITT (Australia) stated
that his delegation could not agree to this interpretation of
Article 96, which would impose on the Organization decisions
on questions of monetary compensation. The basic principle
lying at the foundation of the Organization was that Members
whose interests had been prejudiced should be allowed to resort
to retaliatory measures for their redress, the severity or
intensity of which was to be brought under the control of the
Organization; no ground was therefore provided within the scope
of the Charter for recourse to monetary compensation. The
introduction of the concept of monetary compensations, no in
an indirect manner by means of interpretation, would have, in
the opinion of the Australian delegation, the effect of altering
the role of the Organization under Chapter VIII and reversing
the basic principles of the Charter. ICITO/EC. 2/SR.12
page 2
The paragraph in question was and a note was
taken of the Australian reservations
The draft report was adopted.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) requested that the remark made
by the delegate of France at the proceeding meeting, to the
effect that the jursidiction of the Court should in no
circumstance cover any economic or financial question,
should be registered in the Summary Record of the present
meeting.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said he had no objection to his
reference to the express terms of Annex N of the Charter
being recorded.
In reply to the CHAIRMAN's question whether the
delegate of Australia intended to have his reservation in-
corporated in the Report to be submitted to the Conference
or whether he would be satisfied with an entry in the Summary
Record, Mr. HEWITT stated that it would be agreeable to him
if the reservation were noted in the Summary Record.
It was agreed that a letter should be sent to the
Registrar of the Court to convey the appreciation of the
Committee for the valuable assistance which the Registrar
had been able to give, and that the two aide-memoires should
be incorporated in the Report as was suggested by the acting
Chairman of the Working Party.
The meeting rose at 4.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | pq008gz2021 | Summary record of the Twelfth Meeting : Held at Havana oN saturday, 3 January 1948 at 4.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 3, 1948 | Fifth Committee: Inter-Governmental Commodity Agreements | 03/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.5/SR.12 and E/CONF. 2/C. 5/SR. 1-15 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pq008gz2021 | pq008gz2021_90200098.xml | GATT_148 | 2,650 | 16,929 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERNCE CONFERNCE E/CONF.2/C. 5/SR.12
ON DU 3 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
FIFTH COMMITTEE: INTER-GOVRMENTAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELFTH FMHETING
Held at Havana oN saturday, 3 January 1948 at 4.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. George HAIKM (Lebanon)
1. General Statement by the Representative of El Salvador
The CHAIRMAN announced that the delegate of El Salvador had asked to
make a general statement Mr. JIMENEZ IME(EEl salvador) regrettes that certain
Held at Havana on saturday, 3 January 1948 at 4.00
of his statements in Committee had perhaps been miainterpreted as being
against the United States of America. In fact he and his delegation felt
exactly to the contrary. He paid-tribute to the United States and its
delegation for their democratic attitude, especially in this Conference He
also stated that he was satisfied as to the impartiality of the United Nations
Department of Public lnformation and was convinced that the statemtent to
which he had objected at a provious meeting was due to an error.
In closing he protested against thei decision of the General Committee
rogarding future scheduling of meetings on the groudsa that it would make
It impossible for the small delegaetions to keep up with the workl of the
After some discussion, the CHARIMAN started that any delegation was
free 'to write letter to the Executive-Secretary protesting any action
of the General Committee and it would be brought to the attention of that
Committee. .
2. Continuation of the Second Reading of Article 54
Discussion was opened on the final proposal to amend sub-paragraph (c)
of Article 54 by substituting "fair to producers and consumers alike "for
the
words "fair to consumers and remunerative to effcient producers."
ln the ensuing debate the proposal was support by Mr. ZAFRA (Philippines),
Mr. JIMENEZ (El Salvador), Mr. PARGA (Colombia), Mr. ROBLES (Guatermala),
Mr. LACARRA (Mexico), Mr. COREA (Ceyloan), Mr. NIAZI (Egypt) and
Mr. OTANEZ (Venezuela) principally on the grounde that it was a suitable
compromise for the proposals rejected at the previous meeting and that the
present wording was misleading and subject to misinerpretation.
/This proposal E/CONF.2/C.5/SR.12
Page 2
This proposal was opposod by Mr. ALAMILLA (Cuba), Mr. MUNOZ (Chile)
and Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands). Mr. ALAMILLA (Cuba) pointed out that, at
the last meeting, the Committee reached a decision that the word efficientt"
should not be deleted. He felt that to proceed with a vote on the new prop: r il
might only be a means of rescinding the previous decision. Mr. CAPLAN
(United Kingdom) suggested delection of the word "alike" from the proposal.
The consensus of opinion of the Committee was to accept the United Kingdom
proposal with the word "alike" deleted, and Article 54 (c) as amended was
adopted in second reading.
The question was raised as to whether a consensus could be established
on the basis of a majority of 15 to 14, particularly in view of abstentions
by two delegations which had earlier supported retention of the existing text.
Mr. AIAMILLA (Cuba) and Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) reserved the right of their
delegations to re-open this matter in Plenary Session of the Conference.
During the foregoingg debate, a request was made that it be recorded
that in the course of the Eleventh Meeting of the Committee, representatives
who had opposed the amendment submitted by El Salvador had recognized the
prInciple behind it.
Article 54 (d), (e) and (f)
The texts contained in the Sub-Committee Report (document E/CONF.2/C.5/9)
were agreed without objection.
Proposed new paragraphs
Mr. JIMENEZ (El Salvador) requested. that it be recorded that the two
new sub-paragraphs proposed by his delegation for this Article were withdrawn
in Sub-Committee on the basis set forth in the Report of the Sub-Committee
(see document E/CONF.2/C.5/9, page 4).
The CHAIRMAN declared Article 54 as amended adopted in second redin:
Article 55
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) enquired about the relation to Article 93 of the
reference to non-members contained in Article 55.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt that there was no likelihood of conflict:
with Article 93, as Article 55 only referred to a commodity study.
Mr. IGONET (France) pointed out that the French text of paragraph 3
did not provide. an exact translation for "which are expected to arise", and
the CHAIRMAN stated. that this would. be brought to the attention of the
Central Dratting Committee.
Mr. ROBLES (Guatemala) suggested. that the word. "promptly" in paragraph 3
be supplemented with "without delay". The discussion indicated that this
would be redundant and that the problem was perhaps one of translation into
Spanish and French which should be refered to the Central Drafting Commitee.
/Mr. COREA (Ceylon) E/lCONF.2/C.5/SR.12
Page 3
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) was not entirely satisfied that adequate provision
was made for "continuing" study groups.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) and Mr. KENNEDY (United States) thought that
the point was adequately covered by the statement in the Report of the
Sub-Committee (document E/CONF.2/C.5/9, page 5), that "it was understood that
the power of a study group to make recommendation to its Members and to the
Organization as to how best to deal with special difficulties includes the
power to reacommend that the situation requires an agreement or a continuing
study group".
The text of Article, 55 as recommended by the Sub-Committee was adopted.
Article 56
At the suggestion of Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) it was agreed to refer
the matter of inserting "or" at the end. of sub-paragraphs (a), and (b). of
paragraph 1 to the Central Drafting Committee. Otherwise the text as
recommended by the Sub-Committee was adopted.
It was pointed out that the English and French texts of sub-paragraph (c)
of paragraph 1 did not exactly agree. The CHAIRMAN said this would also be
referred to the Central Drafting Committee.
Article 57
Adopted without comment.
Article 58
Paragraphs 1 - 4 inclusive
Adopted without comment.
Paragraph 5
After explanation of the reference to "existing" agreements in the
preamble, the revised text of this peragraph recommended by the Sub-Committee
was adopted.
Paragraph 6
The text of this paragraph as recommended by the Sub-Committee was
adopted.
Mr, LACARA (Maxico) referred, to the amendment to this paragraph which
he had withdrawn in Sub-Committee in the light of the assurances given in
the Sub-Committee that his points were covered elsewhere in the Charter,
and he requested that reference be madce in the record to the basis of the
decision of the Sub-Committee as contained in its Report. (Document
E/CONF.2/C.5/9, pages 6 and 7).
The CHAIRMAN then declared Article 58 adopted in second. reading.
Article 5
At the saggestion of Mr. IGONET (France) it was agreed to ref er the
French tert of the second line of this Article to the Central Drafting
Committee, pointing out that it did not correspond with the English wording,
/It was agreed E/CONF.2/C.5/SP.12
Page 4
It was .agreed to delete the comma after the word "made" in the Preable.
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) requested an explanation of the method by which the
"finding" referred, to in the Preamble would be made. He was especially
concerned about possible voting arrangements in a Conference.
Mr. da VRIES (Netherlande) pointed out that such findings would be made
on the specific circumstances set forth in the Article and would ordinarily
be a finding of fact. He urther stated that if such findings were unduly
delayed. the escape clause in Article 58, paragraph 6, could be invcked.
Mr. CAPLAN (United. Kingdom) referred to the practical experience of the
recent Whea t Conference where there had been no formal voting but it had
been readily established how members felt.
If the countries mainly concerned were not convinced. of the need for
an agreement, it would be impossible to achieve one. The "find" would be
obtained Dy consultation and agrement among members substantially interested.
Mr. Caplan thought the revised text recommended by the Sub-Committee was
clearer than the Geneva text.
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) asked about the position of producers and cansumers
in such a cenference. He was concerned lest au agreement among producig
countries that a burdensome surplus existed be frustrated by the improrting
countries attending, and wanted to kuow if the recessary finding would be
made if te consuming countries did not agree.
Mr. KEEbE1DY (United States) said that the finding to be made under
Article 59 referred to whether or not the conditions described in the Article
existed or were expected te arise. If countries were not able to agree on
this point, they would certainly not be able to reach agreement on prices
and other issues in a commodity control agreement.
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) felt that the word findingn" implied a positive
act. He suggested substitution of the following words "....only when, at
a Commodity Conmerence or through the Organization, there is general
agreement among Members...."
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) thought that the word "finding" was not
important. In practice, everything would depend on the willingess and
determination of the countries concerned to conclude a commodity agreement.
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) E-cated that he still had misgivings about the use
of the word. "finding" but he would not press the point.
Article 59 was then approved at second reading.
Article 60
a) Amendments proposed consequential on Commiteets decision on
Article 54 (c).
Mr. ALAMILLAI (Cuba), consequential on the Committee's decision on
Article 54 (c), proposed, the following amendments to Article 60:
(1) In sub-paragraph (a) E/CONF.2/C .,5/SR.12
Page 5
(1) In sub-paragraph (a) to insert, after the words "...in the light of
Article 54 (c)", the words "provided. said price is remunerative to
producers".
(2) In line 4 of sub-paragraph (c) to delete the words "and economic".
He pointed out that since Article 60 referred only to commodity control
agreements, while Article 54 referred to commodity agreements in general, it
was oven more important that Article 60 should contain a referance to the
concept embodied in his amendments.
SevereI delegates questioned whether discussion of these amendments was
in order. It was argued;.
(a) that the amendments had not been circulated twelve hours before
the meeting;
(b) that, since Article 60 referred to Article 54 (c) which had been
amended by the Committee and. on which certain delegatione had reserved
their position, it would be more appropriate for ;those delegations to
reserve their position also on Article 60 and re-open the question in
Plenary Sesson.
Against this it was argued:
(i) that, since Article 54 (c) had been amended, the effect of
Article,60 had bean altered and it was legitimate to re-open the
questions of the reference to Article 54 (c) contained. in it;
(ii) that, although the United Kingdom amendment to Article 54 (c) had.
been originally proposed by the Philippines, the latter had
withdrawn it in favour of the proposal merely to delete the word
"efficient";
(iii) that the twelve-hour rule had not been observed in regard to the
United Kingdom amendment to Article 54 (c) which the Committee had
accepted,.
On the second of these. points, Mr. ALAMILLA Cuba) reserved the right
to seek nullification of the United kingdom amendment to Article 54 (c) on
the grounds that it dld not conform with the twelve-hour rule,
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) stated that his delegation's amendment
to Article 5 (c) had. been circulated in the Summary Record of the Tenth
Meeting (C.5/SR&10) and had therefore conformed with the twelve-hour rule.
It had also been seconded at that meeting.
Mr. ZAFRA (Philippines) confirmed that the United Kingdom amendment to
Article 54 (c) had been originally proposed by the Philippines delegation;
he pointed out, however, that although his delegation had later proposed.
an alternative amendment, their intention had been to maintain the original
amendment if this alternative were defeated.
/In reply E/CONF.2/C.5/SR. 12
Page 6
In reply to a suggestion that he should ask for the twelve-hour rule to
be waived, Mr. ALAMILLA (Cuba) said that he only while for his, delegation's
amendments to receive the same treatment which had been accorded to the
United Kingdom, amendment.
After discussion) the CHARIMAN took the sense of the meeting on
whether consideration of Article 60 should be defered until the next meeting,
when the Cuban amendment might be discussed. He declared that the general
sense of the meeting was against such deferement.
The delegates of Chile and Cube reserved their positions.
(b) Use of word. agreeds
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) drew attention to the use of the word.
agreed" in Article 60 (a). He thought that this might be read to imply that
all commodity control agreements must contain price provisions. In practice,
some control agreements night contain only quota pr provisions. In order to
avoid possible misunderstanding, he suggested the substitution of the word
agreedd" by the word "reasonable".
Mr. McCARTSY (Australia) agreed with the point raised by the Netherlands
representative, but suggested that it could by met by simply deleting the
word. "agreed.",
Mr. ALAMILLA. (Cuba) opposed the introduction of the word. "reasonable"
After further discussion it was agreed to delete the word. "agreed.".
Article 60 was then adopted., subject to reservations by the delegations
of Chile and Cuba, consequential to their reservations on article 54 (c).
Articles 61, 62 and 63 were agreed without camment.
Article 64
(a) After discussion it was agreed to hear a statement by the
representative of the International Co-operative Alliance. Mr. ODEE (ICA)
elaborated the statement circulated by the ICA (E/CONF.2/15). He
emphasized the importance of the IIO making full use of the services
of non-goverimental organization, and thought that specific reference
in Chapter VI to the ICA would be particulary valuable. The broad
masses of consumer and small producers should have an opportunity for
direct expression of their viewpoint in commodity agreements. For
these reasons the ICA had-proposed certain alterations to Articles 55,
56 and 61, and, alternatively would like to see non-governmental
organizations included. within the scope of Article 64.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) expressed sympathy with the intention
of the ICA, but though that it was pressing its case too hard in view
of the decision by the Sixth Committee on the: ICA's -amendment to
Article 84.
/Mr. BONOW (Sweden) E/CONF..2/C .5/SR.12
Page 7
Mr. BONOW (Sweden) asked for it to be put on record that his
delegation hoped that some .formula be found to satisfy the legitimate
request of the ICA to co-operate in the work of tho ITO.
(b) In regard to the reservation by the Indian delegation on Article 64,
Mir. de VRIVES (Natherlands) suggested the following drafting changes
in Eub-paragraph (c) which he hoped might go some way to meet the
doubted of the Indian delegation:
(i) to omit the words "on the basis thereof";
(ii) to add the words "to ask" before tho words "that a commodity
conference be convened".
Mr. ALIMILIA (Cuba) asked for time to consider these propcsals 'He
thought that they should be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. BANERJI (India) stated that his delegation's amendmont to Article 64
had been prompted by Misgivings about relations between FAO and ITO. They
had realized, however, in the discussions in Sub-Committee the majority
of countries did not share their misgivings. He hoped the Comitttee would be
able to accept the Netherlands amedment.
Several delegations supported deletion of the word "on the basis
thereof" but expressed doubts doubts use of the word "ask" as this riht be
construed as "demand" especially as it would have to appear as "demander" in
the French text, 3.
After discussion, Mr. BANERJI (India) agreed not to press for the wordl,
"ask" and agreed, in a spirit of couciliation, to withdraw his delegations
reservation to Article 64.
Mr. IGONET (France) pointed out that, in the French text of
sub-paeagraph (c), the word "nouvelle" was wrongly used to mean "further".
It was agreed to refer the point to the Central Dratting Committee.
Article 64 was then approved at second rading subject to deletion of
the words "on the basis thereof" in sub-paragraph (c).
The meeting rose at 8.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | hr176gh7971 | Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Monday, 1 March 1948 | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 1, 1948 | First Committee: Employment and Economic Activity | 01/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.1/SR.12, E/CONF.2/C.1/C/1-4, and C.1/SR.1-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hr176gh7971 | hr176gh7971_90180285.xml | GATT_148 | 731 | 4,908 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE UNRESTRICTED
ON DU E/CONF.2/C.1/SR.12
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 1 March 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
FIRST COMMITTEE: EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELFTH MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Monday, 1 March 1948
Chairman: Mr. E. WAERUM (Denmark)
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE NOTE FROM THE CENTRAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
(E/CONF.2/C .8/7)
Parapgraph 1: approved without comment.
Miss FISHER (United Kingdom) said it was her understanding that the
words "guaranteed to" should not be included in the first sentence of
paragraph 1 of Article 7, but that the French text should contasin the words
"reconnos aux." The English phrase might limit the number of International
Conventions to which the paragraph would apply. The representative of
Mexico had suggested reference to the Declaration of Philadelphia, which
did not "guarantee" rights to workers.
Mr. AGUILAR (Mexico) agreed and state, that the text as set forth in
document E/CONF.2/C.8/1/Rev.1 including the words in square brackets but
excluding those underlined, was the correct draft.
TAN CHAIRMAN read from the Summary Record of the meeting held
9 February 1948 (E/CONF.2/C.1/SR.11) and stated that unless corrections were
made, it was assumed the record was correct.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) and Mr. LECUYER (France) agreed that the phrase
reconnos has aux" although having slightly diffenrent meaning than theEnglish
text was reasonably equivalent the English.
It was agreed that the English text of paragraph 1 of Article 7 as
contained in E/CONF2./C.81/Rev.1 including the words in square brackets
but excluding the underlined words should be accpted, and the French text
of that paragraph given in E/CONF.2/C.8/7 should be accepted.
Paragraph 3
Miss FISHER (United Kingdom) said the phrase "as advances in
productivity may permit" was more acceptable than "concurrently with
advances in productivity". The representatives of Belgium had originally
objected to the French text because it implied that labour standards could
/be improved E/CONF.2/C .1/SR.12
Page 2
be improved only after advances in productivity had been made. The word
"concurrently" seemed to give strenth to the implication.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) read from the Summary Record of the meeting held
9 January 1948, at which time it was agreed that there should be no inference
in the Article to the effect that labour standards should be improved only
when productivity was increased.
After considerable discussion, and upon the suggestion of the
representative of Brazil and Canada, it was agreed to delete the words
"advances in" from the last half of the second sentence of paragraph 1 of
the English text of Article 7, and to request the Central Drafting Committee
to reconcile the French text. The English text of the sentence would then
read:
"They recognize that all countries have a common interest in the
achievement and maintenance of fair labour standards related to
productivity, and thus in the improvement of wages and working
conditions as productivity may permit." -
The CHAIRMAN stated that the French text would be presented to the
Committee for final consideration.
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT REPORT TO THE CONFERENCE (E/CONF.2/C.1/23)
Mr. POLITIS (Greece) requested an expansion of the Report of Committee I,
as well as of all Committees, in order to be able to place before his
Government a clear report of the Conference. He suggested that the Reports
of the Sub-Committees might be included as an Annex.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) noted several errors in the French text of
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8, and agreed with the Chairman that paragraph 9
should be re-written to state that: "The reports of the Sub-Committees and
of the Central Drafting Committee were accepted. Certain questions which
the Sub-Committees were not able to resolve have been resolved as indicated
in Annex 3."
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) mentioned that the Report of Committee V had included
a statement showing the amendments proposed to each Article and the action
taken, but Mr. BRONZ (United States) felt that agreement on such a text would
be too time-consuming. .
After discussion, it was agreed that paragraph 9 should be re-written,
and Annex should give a summary of the manner in which the remaining points
were resolved, as indicated by the representative of Belgium, and that it was
not neces saryto include theReports of the Sub-Committees since they would
be referred to by dwcument number. The revised repwrt vould be submitted to
themmCouMittee for its approval.
The meeting rose at 12.00 . |
GATT Library | ff281wz4320 | Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on August 25, 1948, at 10.00 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 21, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/08/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/SR.12, GATT/CP.2/SR.8,8/Corr.1-CP.2/SR.13,13/Corr.1+SR.9/Corr.1,SR.11/Corr.1, and SR.12/Corr.1-4 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ff281wz4320 | ff281wz4320_90270050.xml | GATT_148 | 1,682 | 10,577 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP .2/SR 12
21 August 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELFTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on August 25, 1948, at 10.00 a.m.
CHAIRMAN: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
BRAZILIAN REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CONCESSIONS. SCHEDULE III
Gatt/CP.2/W.9.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba)* indicated that his intervention
in this discussion was not due to any direct interest in
the Brazilian proposals, but that he was prompted to
express his deep interest in the procedure followed,
according to which a contracting party could withdraw
concessions in a manner not contemplated in the Agreement.
He thought the application of Article XXV very questionable.
Any decision of the Contracting Parties would establish a
precedent whatever might be said to the contrary. He
also formally announced that if the difficulties his
government was encountering in relation to silk hosiery;
rubber tires and tubes and ribbons and trimmings, could
not be solved in this session his government would follow
the precedent established by the Brazilian case or avail
itself of the right granted by Article XIX of the Agreement.
* The text of Dr. Gutierrez's statement has been
circulated as GATT/CP.2/9. GATT/CP . 2/SR .12
page 2
Mr. VINCENT (United Kingdom) thought there were
various procedures for dealing with the case of Brazil,
which was exceptional. The matter had been dealt with
sympathetically in the Working Party and he thought it
would be possible to find a procedure to deal with the
Cuban requirements.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) said he had only one point
to raise and that was that Dr Guiterroz had only looked
at one part of the paper. The concessions the Brazilian
Government was making were to be regarded as temporary as
appeared in the document under discussion but there was
no intention to withdraw there unless it became imperative
to do so on very few items The Brazilian Government
was undertaking to enter into negotiations with the
United States and the United Kingdom with a view to making
Certain of these tariff concessions binding. He felt
sure that another government would act similarly if
confronted with a similar situation and Brazil was
granting additional concessions which would vastly
compensate for those to be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN said that it appeared that the view of
the meeting, was for a sympathetic consideration of the
proposal of Brazil and that in his opinion it was best
to leave the matter to be discussed in an informal Working
Party between Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United
States who should in the course of their discussions bear
in mind the requirement that no undesirable precedent
should be established.
The debate was then adjourned. GATT/CP .2/SR .12
page 3
APPLICABILITY OF THE AGREEMENT TO AREAS UNDER
MILITARY OCCUPATION
GATT/CP . 2/W5
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) said he had not yet received
instruction from his government, pending which he opposed
the proposal to extend most-favoured-nation treatment to
militarily occupied areas. He said the general policy
of his government in such matters was that they should be
dealt with through the already existing machinery for
consultation. The avowed intention of the United States
government to bring up at a later date a similar proposal
in relation to Japan was the point that caused embarrassment
to the Australian government.
Mr. STINEBOWER (United States) wished to ask Mr.
Tonkin what he meant by "existing machinery" and Mr.
TONKIN replied that as far as Japan was concerned he was
thinking of the Far Eastern Commission in Washington and
for Germany he meant normal governmental channels.
Sir Oliver GOONETILEECKE (Ceylon) said his country
gave most-favoured-nation treatment to all occupied
territories and was always interested in removing obstacles
to international trade. He therefore did not agree with
Mr. Tonkin.
Mr. MOBARAK (Lebanon) said that the question was one
of considerable complexity for the United States it
amounted to a budgetary question and he thought it
advisable to adjourn discussion to the next session of the
Contracting Parties when it might be possible that the
Political authorities had further advanced toward the
conclusion of agreements on the status of these areas. GATT/CP.2/SR .12
page 4
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) found himself in exactly the
same position as Mr. Tonkin whom he wished to support,
but if there were no other machinery to deal with the
question then there would be no option for the Contracting
Parties but to consider it. He had heard that various
countries (apart from those applying most-favoured-nation
treatment) had signed bilateral instruments through
diplomatic channels.
Mr. WUNSZ KING (China) said that he had not yet
received instructions from his government but the matter
had already been discussed in Geneva and in Havana. The
proposal before the meeting caused him anxiety and alarm
because the United States delegates had let it be known
that they had in mind to present at a later stage a
similar proposal relating to Japan. From a legal point
of view he saw considerable force in the argument of one
delegation that the Agreement, as it was, could only be
applied between the Contracting Parties. He also asked
the Chairman whether the American proposal was to be
considered an amendment or an addition to the text to
the Agreement according toArticle XXX, or whether it was
to be a separate instrument.
Mr. STINEBOWER (United States) said that his
delegation had refrained from giving the document a
precise form in order that the Contracting Parties might
find a satisfactory conclusion more easily. In his
view the draft proposal could become a separate agreement.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that regarding
Germany the United Kingdom had already exchanged notes
with the United States on this point but that the Exchange GATT/CP . 2/SR .12
page 5
Of Notes was an independent bilateral agreement
Although it was practically
identical with the present United States draft the
difference was that one was multi-lateral and the other
bilateral and further that the Exchange of Notes related
to the Bizone, whereas the United States draft related
to all zones of Western Germany. He did not raise
objections to the United States draft but did not
it convinient to sign a document which would
say the same things again. As to Japan the United
Kingdom had not signed and did not at present propose to
sign any instrument in relation to Japan analagous to the
Exchange of Notes already mentioned regarding, Germany.
Mr. PHILIP (France) said his country was in a similar
position to the United Kingdom, they had also exchanged
notes with the United States. His delegation was prepared
to consider the proposal in a Working Party and would
examine it with an open mind reserving all its rights as
to the final decision.
Mr. LAMSVELT (Netherlands) said his country was in
the position of the United Kingdom and France; they had
no objection to the proposal of the United States. He
said that in his opinion it was not necessary to discuss
Japan, but Germany was a neighbour of Benelux which had
a great interest in its economic recovery. He did not
agree that other countries should necessarily have to
come into the Agreement before most-favoured-nation is
applied to this occupied territory.
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said he had not much to add
after what had been said by the representative of the GATT/CP .2/SR .12
page 6
Netherlands. Some objections had been raised but
referring to those contracting parties who had not signed
bilateral agreements he thought an instrument could be
deposited for acceptance by those countries whose
governments thought fit to do so. There was therefore
no reason why delegates should wait for instructions from
their governments and he supported the United States
proposal.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) thought the
discussion was politically unwise and wondered whether
it was economically necessary or useful. Bilateral
agreements had been signed voluntarily and in view of
that fact he did not see why the latter should be brought
before the Contracting Parties unless it was intended to
make an agreement signed here obligatory upon the
Contracting Parties. Unless he received instructions
to the contrary he could not sign at this session any
document establishing any relation between Germany and
the GATT coming out of this session of Contracting Parties.
"Mr. WUNSZ KING (China) said that he shared the
view that there appeared to be no need for signing the
same instrument on a multilateral basis which embodied
the identical terms contained in the bilateral Exchange of
Notes, because this might give rise to a number of
complications, legal or otherwise, in connection with GATT."
by the United States and the relations of such an
instrument to the GATT.
The CHAIRMAN said the full discussion of the matter
was not easily summed up except that a number of countries GATT/CP .2/SR .12
page 7
appeared to oppose the suggestion that an agreement of
the type suggested be arrived at in connection with
Japan. Some support for the proposal relating to
Western Germany had been forthcoming but there was a
marked reluctance on the part of representatives to
express themselves clearly until they had received
instruction from their governments. He had not however
seen an unwillingness to examine the question further
and suggested setting up a working party with the
following terms of reference:
a) To consider the appropriateness of the procedure
suggested by the United States having regard to
the Final Note in Annex I to the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade and to the arguments advanced
in the course of the discussion at this session.
b) Having regard to (a) above, to consider the
draft agreement submitted by the United States
representative and to make recommendations thereon
to the Contracting Parties.
The proposal to set up a Working Party with the above
terms of reference was approved. The Working Party to
be called Working Party No. 6 and to be composed of the
following delegations: Australia, Canada, China, Cuba,
France, Netherlands, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United
States; Dr. Gutierrez (Cuba) to be the Chairman.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m.
HE so |
GATT Library | bb046jk9838 | Summary Record of the Twentieth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Monday, 16 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 16, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 16/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.20 and E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.18-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bb046jk9838 | bb046jk9838_90180462.xml | GATT_148 | 2,670 | 17,004 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE UNRESTRICTED
ON DU E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.20
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 16 February 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH MEETTING
Held at the Capitol Havana Cuba, Monday,
16 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. R. BETETA (Mexico)
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE OF COMMITTEES I AND VI
ON ARTICLES 9, 10 AND 11 (Document E/CONF.2/C.2/36)
Mr. COOMBS (Australia), Chairman of the Joint Sub-Committee of
Committees II and VI, in presenting the Report of the Joint Sub-Committee,
said that the Sub-Committee's work had resulted in giving both strength
and precision to the obligations and rights of Members in relation to
economic development, and in clarifying the functions of the Organization.
A number of changes would be observed in the redraft of Articles 9, 10 and
11, and a change had also been recommended in Article 69 which had a similar
general purport to the aforementioned Articles. The Joint Sub-Committee
had also considered the various proposals which had been put forward for
amplifying the methods by which the Organization would proceed with its
task of fostering and promoting the economic development of its Members,
and its relations with other bodies operating in the same field.
As the Sub-Committee took the view that questions of organizational
methods of work and relations with other bodies should, in the first
instance, form the subject of detailed study by the Interim Commission,
it had drafted a resolution for the consideration of the Committee.
The Joint Sub-Committee also recommended that a new Article should be
inserted in Chapter IX requiring the Organization to take into account,
in the exercise of its functions, the economic circumstances of Members,
and the way in which the economic development of Members had been assisted
or retarded by the operation of the Charter.
CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES 9, 10 AND 11 - ANNEX B
Articles 9 and 10 were approved.
Article 11
Paragraph 1
Mr. CHARLONE (Uruguay) referred to the French text and pointed out that
the words "des competences techniques" and the words "des procedes ou
/moyans E/CONF.2/C. 2/SR .20
Page 2
moyens techniques" both appeared in paragraph 1 (b) whereas only the words
"competences techniques" appeared in the preamble to paragraph 1. Therefore
paragraph 1 (b) in the French text was wider than paragraph 1 (a). The
CHAIRMAN said that in the English text paragraph 1 (b) and 1 (a) were
equally wide. It was accordingly - agreed that the Central Draf ting Committee
should be asked to bring the French text into conformity with the English
text as regards this point.
Mr. CHARLONE (Uruguay) said he had some reservations to make regarding
situations which night arise through the application of paragraph (b) in
connection with national tribunals of Uruguay. His country did not apply
unreasonable or unjustifiable measures and had never practiced a policy
of discrimination, Foreign interests - and between them and the capital
and property of Uruguayan citizens no distinction was made - enjoyed
constitutional, legal, administrative and judicial guarantees. Uruguayan
tribunals had given judgment against, the State when they had considered
that its conduct had been unfair and not in accordance with the law as
regards the treatment accorded in particular cases to the private interests
of nationals of other countries. . . - cx: ;
Thus ugonytuad clinearly onesitutionaltablished principles it cst4
syst= n tnh interestseof fo eigncase .o. nserests of foreginpute regarding the private-i-.
nationsom Uruguay coauld not aoh d thae rmit the cpetence of ny couttnthe
nonationon,al. tribunagr thiagr pc naectia- heed that parWaah6.
rer oisn thte elrtsaid-tatth.cmitial proMevisssions of- certn mber
haod tbeen brouoght to t-hoe attention onf he SuonbCmmitte The cstitutis
of S t-Mmraes pontrroevides d:r hat ny:tcrveocontractssitssng -ou of
wehif ch tshbedivisioivSwas atate oxme.otso 3 re3sl eparty wvr t- -pvd
byional -trinal. Thits was ln xot he: to ycousd e takwhich,.shlA>en.
intoon c onsiderati .Urugua yan municipl law diof any od enot admit thr -
asesldwhereiin xt4. wr: e S aned .ivaintiwezehers .-&het
n or fUreugnuayaorpaig were rties. He insistted thexplanationsat hese
be recorded becausethe quest ion wasof a mous charactye in conre serornection
Wtidnv etmadmentisr = thaprXotoer.Chartei inereigia ewerstor8.e
Perfectl y atwareof he sysguaratem of ntees accorded to the cm intheountry
i n whichthey estd ablisheth.emselvs
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the poind t reaisebyth representtive
of Urugua y shocould be n sideredwhen the Report.ussas pdraiscehad agra by
pa.raGx. : ..- - - ' '
Paragraph 1 of Article 11 was approved. - .
?agraph 2 ofIAricle 4 was approved without oent. -.
At SXAK E/CONF . 2/C. 2/SR. 20
Page 3
Mr. GOSSCHAIK (Committee Secretary) said that in Annex B additions to the
Geneva draft were underlined and deletions placed in square brackets. Owing
to an oversight, paragraph 4 of the Geneva text, which, had been deleted in the
Sub-Committee, had not been indicated in that manner. Paragraph 4 of the
Geneva draft read "The term nationals as used in Articles 11 and 12
comprises natural and legal persons"
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) considered that -paragraph 4 of the Geneva
draft should be reinserted in the text as there was an advantage in making
it clear beyond doubt that the term "nationals" as used in Article 11 and
in Article 12, meant both private individuals and also what were known as
legal persons.
Mr.. NOVOA (Mexico) said his delegation had accepted the deletion of
paragraph 4 as a compromise solution, and if it were to be reinserted, the
delegation of Mexico would reserve its right to discuss again paragraphs 1
and 2, which they had accepted on the condition that paragraph 4 was deleted.
Mr. TINOCC (Costa Rica) said he supported the deletion of paragraph 4
as it would be difficult to decide how far the term "nationals" was to cover
a corporation, which included shareholders of different countries. He
therefore suggested that Article 11 as drafted by the Sub-Committee should be
approved.
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) agreed with the remarks of the representative of
Mexico, and said that he could not accept the retention of paragraph 4 of
Article 11 of the Geneva draft.
Mr. COOMBS (Australia), Chairman of the Joint Sub-Committee, said that
the deletion of paragraph 4 was part of a compromise reached in the Joint
Sub-Committee. On the merits of the case he felt that the paragraph should be
deleted as it was merely a definition and, as such. was not an appropriate
one for incorporation in Article 11. It was his understanding that, except
where the instrument concerned made the contrary quite clear, any court would
interpret "nationals" to include natural and legal persons.
M. RUBIN (United States of America) said his delegation had been
instrumental in suggesting that paragraph 4 should be deleted because it felt
that some delegations considered that it might affect, in one way or the
other certain national legislation. He felt that the paragraph was
superfluous and, in any case, where it was considered relevant an
international court would construe the word "natonial" in the usual way so
that corporate persons would be included to the extent provided in the
substantive portions of the paragraph. He would therefore prefer to see
paragraph4 deleted.
/Mr. HOLMES. E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.20
Page 4
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) asked whether he was to understand that the
deletion of paragraph 4 of Article 1l as it appeared in the draft Charter
made no practical difference and that the term "nationals", as used in
Articles 11 and 12, would be regarded, where appropriate, as including both
so-called natural and legal personas? If there were any doubt about the matter
he felt that the case for the retention of paragraph 4 was a strong one.
In any case he considered it desirable that the matter should be
explained in the Report; possibly that would be a solution of the difficulty
if it were accepted that the deletion of paragraph 4 made no difference to
the meaning intended by the term "nationals". The word. "superfluous" might
have several meanings, and its exact meaning in connection with paragraph 4
should be made clear in any explanations which might be given in the Report.
Mr. RUBIN (United States of America) suggested that a note, worded as
follows, might be included in the Report:
"Since paragraph 4 of Article 11 was understood by certain
delegations as possibly affecting their legislation requiring
certain types of activity to be carried on by national corporations,
and since it was felt that the provisions of the paragraph would make
no substantive difference in the text, the paragraph was deleted."
Mr. TINOCO (Costa Rica) suggested that a working party comprising The
representatives of Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States of America
should be set up to consider the matter.
Mr. de GAIFFIER (Belgium) asked that a decision concerning the deletion
of paragraph 4 should be deferred until the written text of the proposal made
by the representative of the United States of America had. been received.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) considered the proposal to establish a
working party a reasonable one and supported the remarks of the representative
of Belgium.
W. COOMBS (Australia) suggested that the deletion. of paragraph 4 should
be provisionally approved with the full recognition of the right of any
representativeto ask for the question to be reopened if a satisfactory
solution was not arrived at by the working party.
MrO. NOVOA (Mexico) reserved the right of his delegation to reopen the
discusosion n paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 11 if it did not agree with the
solution arrived.y at b the working group. ' -
(UnMred . HgO I einom) agreed with the remarks of the respresenesitativ'.
of Australia and of. Mexico ;- :
It was decided to set up a working group consisting of the representatives
of Costa Bca, Mexico, the United Kingdom and United States of America to
draft a _ahaforsertion in the Report of the Committee explaining
the reasons for the deletion of paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the Geneva draft.
/W.RIAT E/CONF.2/C .2/SR.20
Page. 5
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) pointed out that national corporations only could
exist in Venezuela and Mr. de GAIFFlER (Belgium) suggested that it be
recommended that the Organization study the problem of the definition of
the word "national". The CHAIRMAN asked the Workintg Party to take into
consideration these recommendations.
It was agreed provisionally to include paragraph 4 of the Geneva draft
in Article 11.
ANNEX C: PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO BE ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE
Mr. LIEU (China) proposed the inclusion of the words "with the agreement
of the members concerned".
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) suggested the addition of the words "from such
information as may be made available to them" after the word "examine".
The representatives of the United States, Colombia and Australia
pointed out that the purpose of the resolution was merely to investigate
the facilities for studies. There was no question of the Interim Commission
making studies or encroaching on the rights of governments. The main
information to be determined would be the availability of the facilities
of specialized agencies and other inter-governmental organizations and if
information was needed from governments, it could only be requested.
Annex C was approved by the Committee.
ANNEX D: RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN ARTICLE 69
The CHAIRMAN explained that only the changes in Article 69 came within
the terms of reference of the Second Committee and that in fact Article 69
together with the changes recommended had already been approved by the
Sixth Committee.
Annex D was approved by the Committee.
ANNEX E: ADDITIONAL TEXT RECOMMENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN CHAPTER IX AS A NEW
ARTICLE
Mr. ARAUTO (Colombia) explained that the text was an attempt to meet the
proposal of his and the Italian delegations to the effect that the
Organization should have due regard not only to the economic circumstances
of members but also to any economic aid which they might have received from
relevant international organizations.
Annex E was approved by the Committee.
REPORT OF THE JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE SECOND AND SIXTH COMMITTEES
In reply to the representative of Belgium Mr. RUBIN (United States of
America) said that paragraph 6 of the Report had been worked out between his
Delegation and the Delegation of Venezuela. A similar provision had been
approved. in Committee II in connection with Article 12. It was not provided
in this paragraph that a situation resulting from a decision of a national
tribunal could be brought before the organization. Nullification or
/impairment E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.20
page 6
impairment of a benefit accruing to a Member resulting from any situation
whether arising from action in confIict with the Charter or from the
application by a Member of measures permittedd by or not treated at all in
the Charter might be brought before the Organization and would be handled
in the ordinary procedures set out in Chapter VIII, which of course included
eventual resourse to the International Court. The purpose of the paragraph
was to point out, however; that the question before the Organization in such a
case was not the question of conflict or not with the provisions of the
Charter. It was quite clear in Chapter VIII that a case might be brought
before the organization even- though there was no conflict whatsoever with the
Charter. Rather, the question which would come before the Organization
under Chapter VIII was the question of whether a nullification or impairment
of a benefit had actually taken place and that nullification or impairment
of a benefit might occur without any violation whatsoever by any Member of
any provision of the Charter. In those circumstances the action which the
Organization would be able to take would be to allow compensatory release
from obligations or concessions which had been granted by the complaining
Member, if the words "complaining Member" could be used in this sense to
mean the Member the benefit to whom was being nullified or impaired. The
paragraph covered also a good deal of the point made by the delegate of
Uruguay. It was drafted to meet a specific problem but that did not mean
that other constitutional provisions of Members were in any way in conflict
with provisions of the Charter.
Paragraph 6 was approved subject to consideration of the question raised
earlier in the meeting by the representative of Uruguay.
The second sentence of paragraph 2 and paragraphs 8,10 and 11
were approved without comment. - -
TRQCSMUITTB--OMFEE D NOOTNOT TO CHAPTECER TRIECI OTRUCT "NRaWOSMEO
(Document E/CONF.2/C.2/35)
Y.WOO (Mexico) Chai rmanommithe Sommittub-C eeexplaitned: ha it had
been agreed finallry that the wod "nrecostruction" should be added to each
Yenoe nevt onomi,edevelcc6rmentn ii hapNtr III.Ar Ilcle 8 andc
ic - 0 (2) a nd (3) it `hd abeen necessary to insertw amore waodr formula.
As many of the Articles of Chapteer III were in a process of being changed
and as it was a monere questing of drafting the Sub-Committee had recommended
that the matter be referred "to the Central Drafting-Committee.
Mr. TORRES (Brazil) wished on know if the word "reconstruction" was meant
to refer to the reconstruction of specific industries or to the econic economic life
of a country as a whole. Secondly could it be applied to industries which
were old and needed modernization?.`
r. R'VOA E/CONF . 2/C. 2/SR .20
Page 7
Mr. NOVOA (Mexico) expressed the view that the word should be
interpreted in the wider sense. Mr. LECUYER (France) said that the industries
which made up the economic life of a country were linked one to another and
therefore, he considered it necessary that "reconstruction" should refer to
the economy as a whole and not merely to specific industries.
Mr. TORRES (Brazil) proposed to substitute same such words as "those
countries to the extent that the economies of those countries have been
devastated by war" for the words "those countries whose economies have been
devastated by war" in Articles 8 and 10.
The CHAIRMAN announced that the Committee would continue its consideration
of this question at the following meeting.
The meeting rose at 1.20 p.m. |
GATT Library | vb242xp3999 | Summary Record of the Twentieth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Thursday September 7 1948 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 7, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 07/09/1948 | official documents | GATT/C.P.2/SR/20 and GATT/CP.2/SR.19-23,SR.21/Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vb242xp3999 | vb242xp3999_90270066.xml | GATT_148 | 2,469 | 15,438 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/C.P.2/SR/20
7 September 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session.
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
On Thursday September 7 1948 at 3 p.m.
Chairman : Hon. L.D. WILGEESS (Canada)
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS
The CHAIRMAN referred to the Committee on Special
Exchange Agreements which had been set up on August 24th,
composed of the representatives of Belgium, Burma, Ceylon,
France, New Zealand; Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the
United States. (GATT.CP/2/SR.11)
He thought it would. be desirable that the Committee
.take advantage of the presence in Geneva of' representatives
of the International Monetary Fund and meet the following
morning to discuss future organizational arrangements.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) agreed to the Chairman's
proposal and suggested that, as the contracting parties not
.members of the Fund, all belonged to the sterling Area
(Burma, Ceylon; New Zealand and Pakistan), London be
chosen as the seat of the Committee.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) said the proposal could be
discussed by the Committee at its next meeting but
suggested that discussions be not confined to organizational
matters only. GATT/C.P.2/SR/20
page 2
The CHAIRMAN replied that the Committee could discuss
any matter falling under its terms of reference. (GATT.
CP.2/SR.11, page 2.)
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) supported Mr. Shackle's proposal
adding that competent officials of the New Zealand Government
would be in London in October.
It was decided that the Committee on Special Exchange
Agreements would meet on the following morning.
Drafting Changes to the Text of the Protocols modifying
Provisions of the General Agreement. (GATT/ C.P.2/33 and
GATT C.P.2/34.)
The CHAIRMAN submitted to the attention of the
Contracting Parties the following drafting and formal
alterations to the above protocol which it was thought
desirable to incorporate in the texts which were being
prepared by the Secretariat for signature.
Protocol modifying Part II and Article XXVI of the
General Agreement.
1) The words : "referred to in paragraph 3" (paragraph
4 (c)) of the new text of article XVIII - GATT C.P.2/34,
page 6 - to be replaced by: "under Article II of this
Agreement".
2) The words: "in conflict with the obligations"
paragraph 13 of the same Article, to be replaced by the
words: "relating to a product in respect of which the
contracting parties have assumed an obligation".
3) The following new interpretative note to paragraph 3
of Article XVIII to be inserted:
"The clause referring to the increasing of a most-
favoured nation rate in connection with a now preferential GATT/C.P.2/SR/20
page 3
agreement will only apply after the insertion in Article
I of the new paragraph 3 by the entry into force of the
amendment provided for in the Protocol Modifying Part I and
Article XXIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
dated September 1948."
The new interpretative note was necessary because of
the fact that the two protocols mentioned above would
probably not enter into force at the same time. It was
necessary to take this into account in making cross references
from one protocol to another. This also applied to the
two interpretative notes to the Protocol modifying Part I
and Article XXIX.
Protocol modifying Part and Article XXIX. (GATT/
CP 2/34)
The proposed modifications were the following:
1) New interpretative note to be inserted as an
additional interpretative note to paragraph 1 of Article I:
"The cross references in the paragraph immediately
above and in paragraph 1 of Article I to paragraphs 2 and 4
of Article III shall only apply after Article III has been
modified by the entry into force of the amendment provided
for in the Protocol Modifying Part II and Article XXVI of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade dated
September 1948."
2) New interpretative note to paragraph 2 (a) of Article
III: The cross-reference to paragraph 2 of Article III
shall only apply after Article III has been modified by the
entry into force of the amendment provided for in the
Protocol Modifying Part II and Article XXVI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade dated September 1948." GATT/C.P. 2/SR/20
page 4
Mr. AUGENTHALER(Czechoslovakia) said he was not in a
position to judge the importance of these amendments and
would appreciate their being circulated before taking a
decision.
The CHAIRMAN suggested the circulation by the
Secretariat of the texts of the protocols as they would be
prepared for signature so that the Contracting Parties
might examine then and point out any typographical errors.
The proposal was accepted.
Report of Working Party No.3 on modification to the General
Agreement . (GATT/CP.2/22 Rev.1) Brazilian proposal for
Insertion in the General Agreement of Articles 26 - 27 - 28
of the Havana Charter.
The CHAIRMAN proposed the discussion of paragraph 24
of the above Report.
Mr. CAMPOS (Brazil) wished to explain his country's
position . The importance attached by Brazil to the
subsidization of exports was linked with its sharp develop-
ment of cotton exports dating from the time when the fall of
coffee exports had made it imperative to find another cash
crop to cover the wide gap in its balance of payments.
Some satisfaction had been derived when U.S. representa-
tives had admitted the illegitimacy of export subsidization,
and this principle had been generally accepted in Geneva and
Havana, although many Brazilians felt that too mild a
compromise formula had been embodied in the Charter.
He wished to repent that he saw no reason why of all
major departures from normal trade policy, export subsidies
should alone be left unrestricted and why some people, who
had to abide by the rules of "fair play" should have no GATT/C.P. 2/SR/ 20
page 5
defence against practices, such as export subsidization
which, it was generally agreed, was unfair.
He wanted to make it quite clear that the Brazilian
decision not to press the matter was only taken in view of
the political difficulties to be encountered by some
countries if the three articles were added, but Brazil would
have to reserve its right to revert to the matter should it
become clear that the Charter would not come into force at
the time envisaged.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) said that his Government was of
the opinion that Part II of the General Agreement should
remain unaltered, but that, if any alterations were to be
made, the Articles 26, 27 and 28 of the Charter should be
added .
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) agreed with the general lines
of the statement of Mr. Campos; he also agreed that
whereas it was in principle desirable to add Articles 26, 27
and 28 of the Charter to the General Agreement, it was best
not to press the proposal, which could be taken up again
at a more appropriate time. The Canadian Delegation
further recognized the great importance of the sentence in
paragraph 1 of Article XXIX of the General Agreement with
which the Contracting Parties undertook "to observe to the
fullest extent of their executive authority the general
principles of the Charter".
Brazilian Request for Withdrawal of Conce ssions. (Schedule
III (GATT/CP.2/W.11)
The CHAIRMAN referred to the proposae of thb Delegations
of Brazil, United Kingdom and United States, as sot out in
tho above documont. GATT/C .P.2/SR/20
page 6
Mr. LEDDY (United States) said the proposal was the
result of long discussions between the parties concerned and
that his Delegation had agreed to them with roluctance, but
did not wish to create internal difficulties to the Brazilian
Government.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) asked why the similar
case raised by the Government of Ceylon had been treated
under Article XXIII whereas it was proposed to deal with the
Brazilian request under Article XXV.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the difference lay in the
fact that Ceylon had made reservations to its signature of
the Protocol of Provisional Application whereas Brazil was
making the request to the Contracting Parties to withdraw
concessions.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) thought the case of Brazil
was different because
1) in the case of Brazil, the measures had not yet come
into force:
2) Brazil had made no reservations to its signature of
the Protocol for provisional application.
The Contracting Parties agreed to accept the proposal
of the Delegations of Brazil, the United Kingdom and the
United States that the decision of the Contracting Parties
under Article XXV, as set out in the document mentioned
above, be adopted, by 18 votes in favour and none against.
REPORT OF THE EWAL WORKING PARTY UPON - REHE XI QUE ST OF
ERNMENT Q LQNT ILEOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN W _S _
SIGO oHE PROZT COL OFOV5 IOS IQNLPLAIC^TO N._(ATT/CP.2/29)
The CIR1A1MN infmeild the Contracting Parties that the
Legal Working Party had smubietad a draft Resolution and GATT/C .P .2/SR/20
page 7
Protocol. No data had been proposed for the time-limit to
be granted to the Government of Chile for signing the
Resolution and Protocol.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested that the date be
fixed at six months from the beginning of the present session
of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) supported the proposal of the United
Kingdom.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) said the date proposed would
be acceptable to his Delegation. He would however propose
that the Protocol and Resolution be only provisionally
approved until the report of Working Party No. 5 on Article
XVlll of the General Agreement had been considered by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES. It appeared from the discussions in
Working Party No. 5 that no concrete decision would be
arrived at in the present session pending the availability
of further information. Chile, which was not a member of
the CONTRACTING PARTIES at this session, but would be probably
at the next session, should be put in a position to provide
information before the next session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES
when a decision would be taken.
Mr. OLDINI (Observer Chile) thought this was a separate
matter but, without wanting to influence the Contracting
Parties, he said his Government would appreciate a decision
being taken at this time.
Mr. DJEBARRA (Syria) said he could not exactly see
relationship between the two questions. The signatories
of the Geneva Final Act, including Chile which was not yet
a contracting party, had presented a list of restrictions.
It followed that the Government of Chile should also be asked
to supply the information required by the CONTRACTING PARTIES GATT/C .P.2/SR/20
page 8
and be asked to present its explanations within the date
which the CONTRACTING PARTIES could fix definitively.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that the Working
Party was likely to suggest that statements to the
CONTRACTING PARTIES should be sent some time about the end
of October, and that it was felt there would be advantages to
examine the information submitted by all Governments,
including the Government of Chile, at the same time.
The CHAIRMAN thought it might be necessary for the
CONTRACTING PARTIES to give further consideration to the
question of the date when the report of Working Party 5
would be examined, and proposed that the date of February
17th 1949 should be provisionally accepted.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) thought some disscussion of the
date would be useful. The CONTRACTING PARTIES should
examine both the question of the date of accession and the
date by which restrictive measures were to be notified. He
made this suggestion because of a remark made by the Chilian
Observer to the effect that until Chile became a contracting
party they would not be bound to present information at an
early date.
Mr. WUNSZ KING (China) asked whether countries which
had Juridical difficulties in signing the resolution and
protocol might sign at some later date or "ad referendum".
The CHAIRMAN said the Protocol would not lond itself
to signature "ad referendum". The Protocol would be
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations
and remain open for signature. It was desirable that as
many contracting parties as possible should sign at the
end of this session. GATT/C .P.2/SR/20
page 9
The meeting agreed to fix the date before which Chile
should sign the Resolution and Protocol at the 17th of
February 1949, subject to a definitive decision to be taken
by the CONTRACTING PARTIES when the Report of Working Party 5
had been examined.
The Resolution was provisionally approved.
The Protocol was than submitted for approval and
Mr. STEYN (South Africa) made a statement to the effect that,
as his Delegation read the proposed protocol, it applied
Article XXX111 of the General Agreement in a modified form,
The modification corresponded to a previous amendment, which
it was thought to make to that Article by the modifying
protocol executed at Havana, on March 24th of this year.
The attitude of their Government to that amendment was well-
known, and there was no need to go into that again, but he
wanted to say, what his delegation's understanding of the
draft protocol was in relation to that previous amendment,
and possibly to other amendments in the same category.
As they saw it, signature of the proposed protocol by
their Government would not imply recognition of the validity
of the amendment to Article XXX111, to which ho had referred,
or of any modifying protocol. All that the present protocol
seemed to do was to apply ad hoc, to the particular case of
Chile, certain provisions similar to those contained in the
other protocol, which his Government regarded as invalid.
It seemed to him also that this protocol did so, in accordance
with a procedure by which those provisions would, as
between those who had accepted them, be validly applied in
this particular case, by a separate independent instrument,
properly executed in accordance with the provisions of GATT/C .P.2/SR/20
page 10
Article XXX. Acceptance of this instrument would, there-
fore, not postulate the validity of the modifying protocol
which he had mentioned. He would appreciate it if the
Chairman would have it recorded that that was their position,
and that it would be open to our Government to sign this
protocol with that understanding.
The CHAIRMAN confirmed that the views of the South
African Delegation would be recorded and that it would be
on that understanding that the Union of South Africa would
sign the Protocol.
A discussion followed in which Mr. Augenthaler (Czecho-
slovakia) opposed the intention of asking the Secretary-
General of the United Nations to register the Protocol on
the grounds that it was not an international treaty and,
further that he doubted whether all the Reprosentatives had
powers to sign such an instrument.
Mr. Leddy (United States)and Mr. Shackle (United
Kingdom) supported the original proposal.
The Protocol was approved subject to the right of the
Contracting Parties to return to the question when the
Report of Working Party 5 had been examined.
The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | ft009cq8301 | Summary Record of the Twentieth Plenary Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Tuesday, 23 March 1948, at 3.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 24, 1948 | 24/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/SR.20 and E/CONF.2/SR.1-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ft009cq8301 | ft009cq8301_90180147.xml | GATT_148 | 136 | 1,181 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/SR. 20
ON DU 24 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUMMAR RECORD OF THE TWENTIETH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba,
Tuesday, 23 March 1948, at 3.00 p.m.
President: Mr. Sergio CLARK (Cuba)
CONCLUSION OF GENERAL STATEMENTS
Mr. COOMBS (Australia), Mr. SUETENS (Belgium), Mr. NASH (New Zealand),
Mr. ANDREWS (South Africa), Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), Mr. MALIK (India),
Mr. GROUSSET (France), Mr. JIMENEZ (El Salvador), Mr. CLAYTON (United States),
Mr. SANCHEZ (Nicaragua) and Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) made statements, the text
of which appears in the following Press Releases:
Australia ITO/212
Belgium ITO/197
New Zealand ITO/220
South Africa ITO/195
United Kingdom ITO/198
India ITO/178
France ITO/211
El Salvador ITO/218
United States ITO/194
Nicaragua ITO/222
Cuba ITO/216
The meeting rose at 5.50 p.m. |
|
GATT Library | cs942dd5093 | Summary Record of the Twenty Fourth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Saturday 11 September, 1948, at 10 a.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 11, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 11/09/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/SR.24, GATT/CP.2/SR.24+Corr.1, and SR.25 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cs942dd5093 | cs942dd5093_90270071.xml | GATT_148 | 2,194 | 13,884 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 2/SR. 24
11 September 1948
Original: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
SECOND SESSION
CONTRACTING PARTIES
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva, on Saturday 11 September,
1948, at 10 a.m.
REPORT OF WORING PARTY 5 ON ARTICLES XVIII (GATT/C/P.2/38)
The CHAIRMAN expressed his regret that the document
containing the Report was being circulated only in the
English language because the French text was not yet available.
He hoped French-speaking delegations would accept to discuss
the English text and offered all assistance on the part of
the interpreters.
Mr. LECUYER (France) accepted the situation in deference
to the Chairman but expressed his disappointment and hoped
French-speaking delegations would not again be put to the
inconvenience of having to work on English texts. He was
obliged to make reservations for any misunderstanding or
inadvertence which might occur in consequence.
The CHAIRMAN called upon Mr. HEWITT (Australia),
Vice-Chairman of the Working Party 59 to illustrate the report.
Mr. Hewitt gave an outline of the work done by the Working
Party.
It had examined the measures notified by Contracting
Parties under paragraph 6 of Article XVIII of the General
Agreement. Some of the measures notified (Norway) had been
found to be covered by the provisions of Article XII safe-
guarding the balance of payments and therefore were not the
concern of the Working Party. GATT/CP.2/SR. 24
page 2
Regarding the measures notified by the U.K. and the
Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Working Party recommended
the adoption by the Contracting Parties of Decisions set out
in Annex C granting waivers in respect of the dates of
notification and operation.
Further information being required for the consider-
ation of certain measures notified, it was sought in Annex
D to give some guidance to the applicant Contracting Parties
by suggesting the type of information which would be most
appropriate.
In view of the rigid time-table set by paragraph 6 of
Article XVIII, it was thought fit to set out in detail the
recommendations contained in Annex E to the Report and a
procedure was elaborated which if accepted by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES, would enable all decisions to be taken at the Third
Session including those measures which in accordance with the
dates of notification would have required earlier consideration.
Annex C contained a draft Decision deferring consideration of
measures notified by Cuba and the Netherlands to the Third
Session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the report contained recommend-
ations as to the procedure to be followed for the examination
of the measures notified by Chile.
The paragraphs were taken up one by ones
Paragraphs 1: to 5 were approved
Paragraph 6 was approved with the deletion
in line 10 of the word "protective"
Paragraphs 7 & 8 were approved
Paragraph 9 Mr. CAMPOS (Brazil) proposed to delete
as being superfluous, the last two sentences of the paragraph.
Mr. Hewitt (Australia), Mr. Shackle (U.K.) and Mr. Oldini
supported the retention of the two sentences as usefully
emphasizing the difference between Articles XII and XVIII.
The text of paragraph 9 was approved without changes. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 24
page 3
On the consideration of paragraphs 10 to 13 ,
Mr. Fresquet suggested deferring any decision in view of
the fact that the matter was being considered by Working
Party 7.
Mr. SHACKLE (U.K.) associated himself with the state-
ments of the Working Party and pointed out that irrespective
of the question of tariff consolidation referred to Working
Party 7, the Cuban measures referred to in paragraph 13
of the report were not compatible with the provisions of
paragraph 6 of Article XVIII, as they were discriminatory
in their operation.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out to the Representative of Cuba
that the paragraphs under consideration were factual state-
ments and no decisions by the CONTRACTING PARTIES were
required. He suggested they be passed by the meeting to
facilitate the work.
The meeting agreed.
With regard to paragraph 15, Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway),
pointing out that the Norwegian measures were in force but
were not being administered as protective measures, said
the ruling of the Working Party to the effect that said
measures came under Article XII on the protection of the
balance of payments and not under Article XVIII was accept-
able to his Delegation.
Paragraph 15 was approved.
Mr. DJEBHARA (Syria) commenting upon the Working
Party's statements in paragraph 17 said these were valid
reasons in support of the measures taken by Syria and the
Lebanon. For the economic development of a country not
only should new industries be created but old ones maintained, GATT/CP.2/SR.24
page 4
and this interpretation was borne out by the new text of
Article XVIII.
The sugar monopoly in his country required protection
for the development of that branch of agriculture and also
protection for a new industry.
Mr. HEWITT suggested a drafting change at line 9 of
paragraph 17. The words "decisions should be taken "
should be deleted and the words "the eligibility of these
measures should be considered" be inserted. Replying to
Mr. Djebhara, he said the Working Party had not recommended
that the measures notified should not be continued, but
doubts had arisen as to the applicability of Article XVIII,
and a decision on the matter had for this reason to be
deferred to the next session when the information required
by Axnnex D to the Report would be available. He considered,
moreover, that Article XVIII, paragraph 5, related to
development and not to protection of existing industries.
Mr. Gorcia OLDINI (Chile) thought the interpretation
of the Working Party too restrictive. Article XVIII
concerned itself with general economic development.
Industries which were in existence might have to be pro-
tected in order that others might be developed.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) agreed with Mr. Oldini that the
concept of development should include that of maintenance
and referred to paragraph 7, a (i) of Article 13 of the
Havana Charter which specifically referred to the protection
of an industry already in existence.
The CHAIRMAN thought it was clear from Mr. Hewitt's
remarks that the Working Party had suggested the collection
of more information and that at the moment no debate on
the question was appropriate. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 24
page 5
Mr. MOUBARAK (Lebanon) expressed his agreement with
the Representative of Chile and made formal reservations
with regard to Mr. Hewitt's remarks.
Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Report were approved
Paragraph 18 was approved with the correction suggested
by Mr. Hewitt, that the words "in his opinion" be inserted
in the first line after the word "that" and that the word
"question" be inserted in the last line but one of the same
paragraph.
Mr. MOUBARAK (Lebanon) suggested November 30th, 1948,
instead of October 31st 1948 as the time limit for submitting
information, but it was thought best that the question of
dates be considered in conjunction with the whole time-table
contained in Annex E and, with this reservation, paragraph
20 was approved. .
In connection with paragraph 23, Mr. USMANI (Pakistan)
agreed with Mr. Hewitt, that new adherents could arrive at
special agreements with the CONTRACTING PARTIES under Article
XXXIII but suggested that paragraph 11 of Article XVIII
could be so amended as to provide for accessions to the
Agreement.
THe C.AIRMAN pointed out that the Protocoes wore now
ready for signature and could no longer me aeended.
Mr. CAMPOS (Brazil) wished to recall that the Brazilian
Delegation had suggested a flexible provision in Article
XVIII which would have made accessions possible without
resorting to the elaborate procedure of Article XXXIII.
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) referring to paragraph 24 which
recommended then procedures described in Annex E to the re-
port, asked whether this applied also to measures which came GATT/CP.2/SR.24
under paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article XVIII as amended.
Mr. HEWITT pointed to the Annexes which indicated the
type of information required in connection with measures
falling under paragraph 6 [11] of Article XVIII.
Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 were approved.
Mr. Gorcia OLDINI (Chile) was prepared to accept the
recommendations of paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, but he was
doubtful about one point, Paragraph 4 of the Working Party's
Report stated quite correctly that the Contracting Parties
had to submit statements within 60 days from the date of
provisional application of the Agreement. As, according to
paragraph 27 of the Report, Chile would be requested to
furnish the information at the time they adhere to the Agree-
ment, he considered this would not be in accordance with the
Agreement. He thought it possible to overcome the difficulty
if the agreement were of an informal character.
Mr. HEWITT felt the Working Party was not competent to
take a decision, though as Representative of Australia, he
saw no objection to an informal agreement.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said the difficulty could
be overcome by reporting in the Summary Record a statement of
the Representative of Chile to the effect that he agreed to
the date set for furnishing the information required.
Mr. Gorcia OLDINI said he would have no difficulty to
agreeing with the recommendations of the Report but he did
not want to agree to a decision contrary to the provisions of
the General Agreement. The words "in an informal manner"
could be inserted in line 5 of paragraph 27 after the word
"statements". GATT/CP. 2/SR. 24
page 7
Mr. De VRIES had no objection to the procedure but
it should be clear that any statement was a statement of the
Chilean Government in order to avoid difficulties at the
Third Session. Informal statements might be even more of a
violation of the Agreement than the one which gave concern
to the Observer for Chile,
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that any informal statement
would not relieve Chile of its obligation to supply informa-
tion officially within 60 days of the application of the
Agreement. He suggested that "informally" be added after
the word "agree" in line 3 of' paragraph 27.
Mr. Gorcia OLDINI (Chile) agreed to the Chairman's
proposal that the word "informally" be inserted after the
word "agree" and to the recording of his informal agreement
that detailed information on existing measures would be
furnished at the time of signature of the Protocol of
Provisional Application,
The meeting approved the recommendations of the Working
Party on the question of the Chilean accession.
In paragraph 28, in the line before the last, the
words "would have" should be inserted before the word
" opportunity".
REPORT OF THE LEGAL WORKING PARTY UPON THE REQUEST OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF CHILE FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO
SIGN THE PROTOCOL OF PROVISIONAL APPLICATION (GATT/CP.2/29)
(Continued)
The CHAIRMAN pointed out a possible ambiguity in the
final passage of the Resolution where it was not perfectly
clear that the CONTRACTING PARTIES were dealing only with
the right of accession to the Agreement in connection with
its provisional application. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 24
page 8:
The meeting agreed to add in the last paragraph of
the Resolution, after the word: "Agreement", the words:
"in its provisional application" and to substitute the words
"the General Agreement" in the penultimate line of the same
paragraph with the words "such an Agreement",
The meeting agreed to confirm the 17 February 1949 as
the date to be inserted in the Protocol.
REPOR -O .WRKING ARTY 5 ZO N ARTICLE XVIII (GATT/CP.2/38),
ontinued)
The meeting decided to continue the examination of the
Repozt at the forthcoming meeting. In the meantime, Annex C
to the Report would be examined by the Legal Working Group,
REPORT OF WORKING PARTY No. ;1ON FINANCE f(AT T/CP2
The CHAIRMIN inAormed the meeting that a decision had
to be arrived at by the Contracting Parties on this matter,
in order to enable the Executive Committee of the I.C.I.T. O.
to decide on the question of financing expenses of the
Contracting Parties up to the present session
The Secretariat circulated the following revised
formula for contributions by contracting parties:
A, Uni.ed Kingdom and United States over 10% $22,000
B. France 7 1/2 - 10%
1 at $8,000 8,000
C. Belgium and Canada, 5- 7 1/2 % 11,000
D. Australta, Biazil, China,
Netherlands, South Africa
2 1/2 - 5 1/2
5 at $33750 , 18,750
E. Czechoslovakia, India, Norway,
New Zealand, Pakistan
1 2 -/2 %
5 at $2,000 10,000
F. Burma, Ceylon, Cuba, Syria, Lebanon,
Luxembourg, Southern Rhodesia
Less than 1%
7 at 9900 $ 6-Oo0.
% 76,050
(The percentages in brackets refer to the percentage
to H - GATT/CP 2/SR. 24
page 9
After a discussion in which Mr, LECUYER (France),
Mr. MOUBARAK (Lebanon), Mr. STINEBOWER (U.S.A.), Mr. NICOL
(New Zealand), Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) took part, the
meeting decided to accept by 16 votes in favour to one
against the revised formula subject to a reduction of the
share of category 6 from 8,000 to 7,000 and to the increases
of the individual shares of category E by from 2,000 to 2,200.
The Resolution contained in Annex C of the Report of
Working Party 1 on Finance was adopted by sixteen votes in
favour and none against.
The meeting rose at 2 p.m.
aqi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
GATT Library | yb058bh6700 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba on Wednesday, 17 March 1948 at 4 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 19, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 19/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.25 and E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.18-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yb058bh6700 | yb058bh6700_90180471.xml | GATT_148 | 465 | 3,057 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.25
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 19 March 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba on Wednesday, 17 March 1948 at 4 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. R. HETETA (Mexico)
DRAFT REPORT OF THE SECOND COMMITTEE TO THE CONFERENCE
(Document E/CONF .2/C.2/45).
Introductory paragraphs 1 to 5 inclusive
Paragraphs 1to 5 inclusive were approved without comment.
Annex I (Sub-Committee A on Article 8)
Mr. POLITIS (Greece) pointed out that E/CONF.2/C.2/A/1 and
E/CONF.2/C.2/A/3 were in fact Secretariat Notes and not Reports of the
Sub-Committee concerned. It was agreed that the text should be amended
accordingly. (See Annex 1 of E/CONF.2/69). Annex 1 was then approved with
this modification.
Annex II (Joint Sub-Committee of the Second and Sixth Committees on
Articles 9, 10 and 11 and the Mexican proposal for an Economic Development
Committee.
Annex II was approved without comment.
Annex III (Sub-Committee B on Article 12)
Annex III was approved without comment.
Annex IV (Sub-Committee C on Articles 13 and 14)
Mr. AZIZ (Afghanistan) withdrew the reservation of his Delegation.
Mr. LEON BELLOC (Argentina) indicated that his reservation applied to
Article 14 as well as Article 13. Annex IV was approved.
Annex V (Joint Sub-Committee of the Second and Third Committee on
Articles 15, 16 (2) and (3) and 42)
On the proposal of Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) it was agreed to insert
the following as sub-paragraph (e) in paragraph 4 of the Annex:
"in paragraph 16 on page 4 delete the second sentence"
and re-letter the subsequent sub-paragraphs in paragraph 4. The effect of
this change is to exclude the second sentence of paragraph 16 of the Report
of the Sub-Committee (E/CONF.2/C.2/42) from that part of the Report
approved by the Committee.
Mr. AZIZ (Afghanistan) withdrew the reservation of his Delegation on
/Article 15. E/CONF. 2/C. 2/SR. 25
Page 2
Article 15.
Mr. JADDOU (Iraq) indicated that the reservation of his Delegation was
on paragraph 6 (d) of Article 15 only.
Annex V was then approved by the Committee.
Annex VI (Sub-Committee D on Footnote to Chapter III on "Reconstruction" )
Annex VI was approved without comment.
Annex VII (Text of Chapter-III)
The CHAIRMAN indicated that the text of articles 8 to 12 inclusive had
already been approved at the third reading and that Articles 13, 14 and 15 had
not yet been submitted by the Central Drafting Committee. Therefore no action
was required by the Committee on this Annex.
Annex VIII (Resolution proposed to be adopted by the Conference)
It was agreed on the proposal of Mr. ROYER (France) that the two
footnotes should be deleted in view of the decision to establish an Interim
Commission. . - .
e ngMro??eetio s0mt.5m0 p.x. |
GATT Library | hf510xy8310 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 14 September 1948, at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 15, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 15/09/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/SR.25, GATT/CP.2/SR.24+Corr.1, and SR.25 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hf510xy8310 | hf510xy8310_90270073.xml | GATT_148 | 2,115 | 13,293 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
15 September 1948
GATT/CP. 2/SR. 25
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on
Tuesday, 14 September 1948, at 3 p.m.
CHAIRMAN: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
The CHAIRMAN paid tribute to the late Mr. Mohammed
Ali Jinnah, Governor-General of Pakistan. The represen-
tatives rose and observed one minute of silence in honour
of the late Governor-General.
Mr. HASNIE (Pakistan) thanked the CHAIRMAN and the
representatives for their sympathy and assured them that
Pakistan, following its late leader's teachings of non-
violence and the respect of law, would always abide by the
common will of the Contracting Parties and do its best to
foster international co-operation.
REPORT OF WORKING PARTY 5 ON ARTICLE XXVIII, (GATT/CP.2/38)
(Continued discussion)
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) presented the views of the Cuban
Delegation as were given in paragraph (29) of the report
regarding the desirability of making, provisions for a
detailed procedure to be adopted by the Contracting Parties
in relation to existing measures under Article XII and XVI
of the General Agreement, similar to those recommended by
the Working Party in dealing with measures under the new
paragraph 11 of Article XVIII. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 25
page 2
Paragraph (29) of the Report was approved.
A correction was made in Annex A in the date of pro-
visional application by the Netherlands in respect of all
overseas territories mentioned in the footnote; the date
should have been March 1, 1948.
When Annex B was considered Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway)
reverted to paragraph 6 of the Report and pointed out that
the words "falling within" might be incorrect in case any
of these measures should in future be deemed by the Contract-
ing Parties as falling within the provisions of any of the
several other paragraphs of the Article. At the suggestion
of the CHAIRMAN, it was agreed to substitute the words
"notified under paragraph 6 [11] of Article XVIII" for "as
falling within the provisions of paragraph 6 [11]".
When dealing with Annex C, Decision I, the CHAIRMAN
drew attention to the amendment recommended by the Legal
Working Party in document GATT/CP. 2/42. The recommended
amendment under paragraph (1) was adopted.
Decision I was adopted by 14 votes to none.
The amendment to Decision II recommended by the Legal
Working Party in the same paragraph of the same document was
likewise approved.
Decision II was adopted by 15 votes to none.
The amendments recommended by the Legal Working Party
to the first, second and third paragraphs of the preamble to
Decision III, as given in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the said
document, were approved.
As regards the amendment recommended in paragraph (5)
of the Report, that the word "shall" in the operative part of
Decision III should be replaced by "may", the Contracting GATT/CP. 2/SR. 25
page 3
Parties decided to reject it because this would have the
effect of widening the scope of the waiver. In the words
of Mr. HEWITT (Australia) the idea put forward in the original
waiver was to postpone the decisions in respect of the
measures to the Third Session of the Contracting Parties,
whereas the recommendation of the Legal Working Party, if
adopted, would make it possible to postpone the decisions
indefinitely. This view was supported by Mr. OFTEDAL and
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands ).
Decision III was approved by 15 votes to none.
The insertion of a statement in the Report in regard to
Decision III, recormmended by the Legal Working Party, to the
effect that the governments of Cuba and the Netherlands were
to Maintain the measures to which that Decision referred
until a decision regarding them was taken by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES, was agreed to.
The following two corrections were made in Annex D:
1. The following words wore deleted from paragraph (2):
"If the applicant Contracting Party applies paragraph (8)".
2. Paragraph (3) was altered to read: "If an applicant
Contracting Party elects to apply under paragraph (7) (i) or
(ii) of Article XVIII, the following additional data would
be helpful".
After some discussion on ANNEX E Mr. HEWILL (Australia)
proposed changing "a specified period" into "the period
specified" at the end of paragraph (8) of the ANNEX.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) suggested that paragraphs 10, 11,
and the latter part of paragraph 9, being superfluous, should
be dispensed with and paragraph (9) should be altered in such
a way as either to reproduce accurately the language of the
Charter or to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the Charter GATT/CP. 2/SR. 25
page 4
without listing extra limitations; it would be, in his
opinion, to the advantage of brevity merely to say,
"......will examine the measures in accordance with paragraphs
[8 (b) (ii) and 14] of Article XVIII.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) suggested that "reconstruc-
tion" should be mentioned alongside with "economic develop-
ment" in paragraph (9) (a). He was inclined to regard the
lines beginning with "in the light of the reasons", which
Mr. Adarkar had proposed to delete, as essential.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), whilst agreeing with
Mr. de VRIES, suggested adding the words, "immediately and
in the long run", at the end of paragraph (9) (b), and the
words "subject to such limitations as they may impose" at
the end of paragraph (10).
The following changes in the Report were approved:
1. Paragraph (8): ".....for [a specified period] the
period specified in the application."
2. In paragraph (9): "...... likely to have immediately
and in the long run, on international trade"
3. In paragraph (10): "..... they will permit its main-
tenance [for a specified period] subject to such limitations
as they may impose."
4. In paragraph (1), line 14: "....the CONTRACTING PARTIES
may at the Third Session make a decision under [paragraph
[8 (b)] ] other relevant provisions of Article XVIII....".
In regard to the dates of October 31, 1948, December 15,
1948, and February 28, 1949, mentioned in paragraphs (1),
(2) and (3) respectively, Mr. HEWITT (Australia) gave his
reasons for such an arrangement; the intervals of time
between the dates were considered to be of appropriate ) GATT/CP. 2/SR.25
page 5
lengths for the respective purposes. Referring to an
earlier proposal made by the representative of Lebanon to
alter the data for submission of statements, he pointed out
that this would necessitate a reconsideration of the other
dates.
Mr. MOBARAK (Lebanon) justified his earlier proposal on
the ground that such information was generally difficult to
get and, in view of the fact that the responsible officials
were still at Geneva, it would be desirable that more time
should be allowed for this purpose.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) supported the suggestion
of the representative of Lebanon and suggested that in case
the deadline should be set for October 31, 1948, the other
dates, namely, one for the forwarding of requests for
further information and one for the receipt by the Chairman
of any objections to any of the measures, could be conse-
quently changed without causing much inconvenience.
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) said that the earlier proposal
of the representative of Lebanon, in which the date of
November 15, 1948, was suggested, might be convenient.
Mr. MOBARAK (Lebanon) said that the substitution of
November 15 for October 31 and of December 31 for October 15,
would be agreeable to his delegation. It was agreed that
changes in the Report should be made accordingly.
The Report of Working Party 7 was approved.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Secretariat should be
authorized to issue the Decisions taken by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES as unrestricted documents.
The proposal was approved. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 25
page 6
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF WORKING PARTY 5 (GATT/CP.2/38/Add.1)
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) introduced the report and out-
lined its contents. Reference was made to this necessary
experimental nature of the procedures recommended, the lack
of a permanent body to take decisions in the interim, the
need for providing for special sessions, the advisability of
laying down definite procedures for notification in order to
avoid delay, and other essential points in the Report.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the experimental procedure
would, in the absence of a permanent executive body, render
considerable assistance to the Chairman and the Executive
Secretary.
The Supplementary Report was unanimously approved.
REPORT OF WORKING PARTY 7 ON CUBAN SCHEDULE (GATT/CP.2/43)
The CHAIRMAN introduced the Report and drew attention to
its salient points of agreement.
Mr. LEDDY (United States) stated that the solution to
these problems recommended by the Working Party was acceptable
to his government; however, two points on which the delega-
tions of the United States and Cuba had reached agreement
should be registered in the summary record. First, the
"adequate compensation" referred to in paragraph 3 would take
the form of concessions within either one or other or both
schedules. Secondly, in connection with the last paragraph
of the understanding expressed by the Working Party at the
end of the Report, it should be understood that the re-
negotiation provided for in paragraph 3 was a separate question
and the negotiations themselves would have to be conducted on
their own merits.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) acknowledged that this had been GATT/CP. 2/SR. 25
page 7
agreed to. On his part, he wished to state that the last
paragraph of the Report should be clarified as follows. That
the Cuban Government undertook to engage in initial dis-
cussions immediately on the items in question, but inasmuch
as a mutually satisfactory-solution-might -not be reached for
a certain time, say, April next, it night happen that in the
meantime the situation should deteriorate or become such, in
the opinion of the Cuban Government, as to warrant further
steps to cope with it. The acceptance of this Report should
not be construed as meaning that no recourse could be made to
Article XVIII or XIX. While hoping that it would not be
necessary to invoke these provisions, the Cuban Delegation
would request that this be properly recorded to forestall
such a possibility. He requested that a paragraph be added
at the end of the Report to the effect that the United States
and Cuban Governments agreed to the solution of the problem.
Mr. LEDDY agreed to the insertion of such an acknow-
ledgment in the Summary Record.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the statements made by the
representatives of the United States and Cuba that their
respective governments had accepted the solution should be
noted in the Summary Record.
Mr. GUTIERREZ replied that this would be satisfactory
to his delegation.
The Report of Working Party 7 was approved.
Mr. CASSIER (Belgium) wished to be assured that the
results of the negotiations in connection with the question
of Resolution 530 should apply in the same manner between
Cuba and the other contracting parties.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) expressed the same desire. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 25
page 8
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) replied that in applying these
measures and in effecting the results, the Cuban Government
would abide by the terms of the General Agreement.
SIGNATURE OF THE PROTOCOLS
The duly authorized representatives of the contracting
parties proceeded to the Executive Secretary's office at
5:30 p.m. to sign the following Protocols:
1. Protocol Modifying Part I and Article XXIX of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
2. Protocol Modifying Part II and Article XXVI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
3. Protocol for the Accession of Signatories of The Final
Act of October 30, 1947.
4. Second Protocol of Rectification to the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade.
The Agreement on Western Germany was presented for
signature at the same time. A list of all Governments which
signed it at Geneva would be circulated for information on
20 September 1948.
In reply to Mr. de Vries, the CHAIRMAN gave his opinion
that there should be no need for special provisions in the
Rules of Procedure to meet the requirements of emergency
sessions before which adequate notice might not be given
regarding agenda items; the notice requirement in the
Rules of Procedure; if need be, could always by waived by
unanimous consent.
The CHAIRMAN delivered his closing speech in which
he outlined the achievements of the Session and expressed
appreciation on behalf of all the Contracting Parties of the GATT/CP.2/SR. 25
page 9
work of those who helped in making the session a success.
The speech was circulated, at the request of Mr. RODRIGUES
(Brazil) as document GATT/CP.2/45.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) and Mr. ADARKAR (India)
thanked the Chairman, in the name of the representatives,
for his authority, patience and devotion, as president
which were so largely responsible for the success of the
session.
The meeting adjourned at 6.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | zg417dm7718 | Summary Record of the Twenty-First Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 20 February 1948, at 6.30 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 21, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 21/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.21 and E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.18-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zg417dm7718 | zg417dm7718_90180465.xml | GATT_148 | 635 | 4,186 | United Nations Nations Unies
E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.21
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 21 February 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING
? at the Capitol, Havana, CCuba, 20 February 1948, at 6.30 p.m.
Chairman Mr. R. BETETA (Mexico)
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
On the suggestion of the representative of Mexico, Mr. TORRES
(Brazil) was chosen unanimously to fill the ? of Vice-Chairman, left
vacant by th ? of Mr. Abello (?).
VIEW OF THE COMMITEE CONCERNING THE DELETION OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF ARTICLE 11
OF THE ? DRAFT CHAPTER
The Committee had before it the text as set out subsequently in
paragraph 2 of E/CONF.2/C.2/39 and E/CONF.2/C.2/39/Corr.1. Mr. HOLMES
(United Kingdom) proposed the changes also set out sebsequently in the
aforementioned document.
The Committee agreed to postpone consideration of the ? until
a written text had been circulated.
PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE REPORT OF THE JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE OF COMMITKES II
AND VI (E/C2ONF./cC2/36).
Mr. NCHERLON( Uruguay) ddi not iconsde~ that paragraph 6 o fth
Report wase id eenough in tsi csap teoe ove trh ceaseof dgjumonts by
national tribunals n iratelion t loealg situations arising under
Aiticle( 1 ) (1(be H)gee sugstd,e efthorere, teehideteoni of the words
"ot u: fcontracts in whictjhh Setate o orn oe iftassub-divisions are parties"
i tno escoend sentence.
MCNG( ? United State Ssflte that there ceas lon crteainyp t8 of
controversies which could not be judged by national tribunals and in this
connectio dnrw eattention to Article 36 o tfho Statutes o tfheIn trneational
Court of Jutisc.
maT tseehe views of the Uruguayan representative, Mr. COOMS (EAustralia)
suggested changes st oeut subsequently in paragraph 1 of E/CONF.2/.2/C9.
Mr.ILN CAHAE (Urugy) Uusaid thatew o heueldw be no difficulty if
Article 11 (1) (b) was concerned with bilateal egeeemrnts,e but aeths
paragraph was now worded, it could be interpreted tp imly thpat its
provisions wouldhavo a ro roaeeivo effeect on past foreign investments,
/that is, E/CONF.2/C .2/SR.21
Page. 2
that is, that foreigners would be in a privileged position by having
recourse to ITO as well as to the national tribunals. He could accept
the Australian proposal.
Mr. do GAIFFIER (Belgium), supported by Mr. SPEEKENBRlNK (Netherlands),
suggested that paragraph 6, as amended by the Australian representative,
be endorsed provisionally, pending its consideration by Sub-Committee G
of Committee VI on Chapter VIII.
Mr. BEST (United Kingdom) felt that the Australian proposal was
slightly ambigious and proposed an amendment to it as set out in paragraph 1
of E/CONF.2/C.2/39.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) felt that it was essential to include a
reference to Article 11 (1) (b) so that paragraph 6 would contain no
implication that foreigners would be in a position of privilege with
respect to national tribunals. He supported the text proposed by the
representative of Australia..
Mr. GARCIA OLDINl (Chile) was unable to accept the suggestion that
the matter should be referred to Sub-Committee G on Chapter VIII. The
point to be model clear was that foreignerse were not to received ?
treatment and that could be solved by the addition of a form of words
along the line suggested by the Australian representative. He was
not sure that the United-Kingdom proposal referred to the same question
as that brought up be the Uruguayan representative.
Mr. LECUYE (Fer nqe,supported by BM. DBNDA (Czechvoloyv ka)e rserred
his position on paragraph 6 untll h ecould see a written te xttof he
euggedste gchanes.
hTe Committee agreed to postpone a dceisiono n th equestionu ntil
the amendments top aragraph 6 had bnee circulated in writing.
The Committee laso agreed to have circulated the proposal of th
represnSattiv.o f AtDualria with regard to the Report of uS-CommittqP
n tee fohotnoe to tChapter III on "Reconstruction sq" oute in
paragraph of E3/COW./F2/239. .
The meeting rose at 80 p.m.0. |
GATT Library | ts031xk4832 | Summary Record of the Twenty-first Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, at 3.00 p.m. on 8 September, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 8, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 08/09/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/SR.21 and GATT/CP.2/SR.19-23,SR.21/Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ts031xk4832 | ts031xk4832_90270067.xml | GATT_148 | 2,907 | 18,152 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 2/SR .21
8 September, 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session
Summary Record of the Twenty-first Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
at 3.00 p.m. on 8 September, 1948
CHAIRMAN: Mr. L.D. Wilgress (CANADA)
REPORT OF WORKING PARTY 3 ON THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR A WAIER IN RE SPECT OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
FOR HE F TRUST TERRITRY O FT H EPCAIFIC
Mr. 9FTEDAL (Norway) acting chairman of the Working
Party, introduced the report on-the United States request,
and moved the adoption of the report of the Working Party.
Mr. VINCENT (United Kingdom) thought that the effort
made by the United States Government in supplying
the Contracting Parties with abundant statistics and
detailed documentation was highly commendable. He
would suggest that this should be taken as a precedent
for future cases and any government contemplating making
a similar request should be expected to furnish the
Contracting Parties with so much information and
documentation that the request should not be made lightly.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) stated that he felt it
regrettable that the United States Government should be
unable to find other means than the institution o a new
general preferential treatment. The Working PrRty had
been aware of the serious matters of principle that were GATT/CP.2/SR .21
page 2
involved. He hoped, therefore that the United States
Government, even after such a waiver had been granted,
would not make an unwise use of this privilege and would
decide to surrender the privilege at the first opportunity.
It seemed, furthermore, that the waiver would not bind
Members of the ITO not Contracting Parties; under Article
16 of the Charter such Members would, from the day the
Charter came into force, have the right to ask to be accord-
ed immediately and unconditionally the same preferential
treatment to like products originating from their territ-
ories. In case any of such Members of the ITO should,
through this provision, receive any privileges, favours or
immunities which were withheld from the Contracting Parties
by this waiver he would have to reserve the position of his
government with regard to the injury involved. As to the
opinion of the Working Party that preference with regard to
the processing tax was unlikely to cause any substantial
injury to the trade of any other Contracting Party, he
could accept this only under the assumption that future
production of copra in the trust territory would not exceed
a yearly average of 10,000 tons, that copra remained under
allocation by I.E.F.C. so that competition was restricted,
and that the processing tax continued to be suspended.
Should any of these factors change, the decision taken
at this session would have to be reconsidered. On that
understanding he would not oppose the waiver. On the
question of procedure, he wondered whether a simple decision
approved at a meeting would be adequate and whether it
would not be necessary to sign a protocol as in the other
cases. He also doubted whether it was legally correct to GATT/CP. 2/SR .21
page 3
replace the date referred to in sub-paragraph (a) and (b)
of the final paragraph of Article 1, in the manner recommen-
ded by the Working Party in paragraph 10 of its report.
Since a new obligation was involved it would seem that a
separate protocol should be signed and accepted by the
Contracting Parties.
Mr. LEDDY (United States), in reply to the representat-
ive of the Netherlands regarding the privileges that Members
of the ITO not Contracting Parties would enjoy upon the
coming into force of the Charter, stated that the United
States Government would endeavour to seek the understanding
of such members and accommodate the Contracting Parties
when necessary, pending the final settlement envisaged in
the last lines of paragraph 6 of the report. Safeguards
for the Contracting Parties were not really necessary since
the territory to which the waiver applied and the scope of
the waiver itself were both limited. There was therefore
no need for the Netherlands Government to reserve its
position. As regards the economic factors enumerated by
the representative of tho Netherlands, they where not regard-
ed by the Working Party as the decisive underlying factors.
The main purpose of the request was to enable the administ-
ering authority to fulfil its obligations under the trustee-
ship agreement for the islands concerned. On the question
of procedures he pointed out that since it was not an
amendment to the General Agreement but merely an action
taken in accordance with the provisions of an article,
namely Article XXV of the General Agreement, a decision
approved by the Contracting Parties should be sufficient
for the purpose. GATT/CP. 2/SR -21
page 4
The CHAIRMAN stated that an action taken in accordance
with the terms of an article could be effected by a
decision approved by the Contracting Parties and duly
recorded.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) said that he disagreed entirely
with the report of the Working Party. In his opinion
matters of principle and doctrine should not be taken so
lightly and the principles and doctrines embodied in the
Charter and the General Agreement should not be violated
simply because the majority of the Contracting Parties
had given their consent. When the question of new
preferences for purposes of economic development and
reconstruction was discussed at Havana, it was emphatically
stated that the principle of eliminating preferences was not
impaired and Article 15 was so drafted that it could only
be invoked in very exceptional specific cases. The waiver
was requested not so much for the advantage of the inhabit-
ants of those islands who were said to be disappearing, as
for the benefit of certain industries in the United States,
the new preference could be detrimental to present sugar
producers. The United States, being a country whose tariff
laws were so tedious and inflexible, should not have seen
fit to ask other countries to comply with a request of this
nature. Above all, if the Contracting Parties to the
General Agreement and the ITO were to gain respect and to
secure the confidence of the people of the world, the
fundamental principles embodied therein should by no means
be tampered with simply in the name of a majority. For
these reasons he would vote against the report. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 21
page 5
Mr. LEDDY replied that the purpose of including
Article XXV in the Agreement was to provide flexibility for
the Contracting Parties and it would be frustrating the
intent of that Article if a way were not sought under the
provisions of that article in a case like this. He assured
the representative of Cuba that the Working Party had been
convinced that the sugar industry in those islands was not
likely to revive and that the economic factors were equally
unlikely to change as long as sugar was under control in
the United States.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) said that he understood that
the Working Party had given most careful consideration to the
request of the United States and also to the views of the
representatives of other Contracting Parties who held a direct
interest in the question by reason of the fact that their
governments had similar responsibilities in respect of other
areas, some of which produce the same commodities as those
mentioned in the report. His Government would be prepared
to accept the decision if it met with the approval of the
majority of the Contracting Parties. He welcomed the comment
made by the representative of the United Kingdom in regard to
documentation to support any future request s his Government
might wish at some future time to make an approach along
similar lines in respect of products coring from trust
territories for which it was at present responsible.
Mr. WUNSZ KING (China) felt that on the whole a case
of exceptional circumstances as provided in Article XXV
seemed to have been established. In regard to the question
of procedure, he would have refrained from questioning the
ruling of the Chairman owing to his belief that the Chairman GATT/CP. 2/SR. 21
page 6
must have given careful consideration and consulted legal
experts regarding the appropriate procedure to be followed,
had it not been for his conviction that a decision involving
a departure from the general provisions of the Agreement
must necessitate a formal instrument to be signed and accepted
by the Contracting Parties concerned. Another suggested
solution might be to name the territory in question in
Annex D to he General Agreement, although it might be
claimed that these preferences could not be considered
"preferences in force" in the terms of paragraph 2 (b) of
Article 1: He also requested clarification in regard to
the reference to Article XXV and wanted to be assured that
it was paragraph 5 of the article that had been referred to.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the protocol regarding the
request of Chile was needed because the accession of a
government to the Agreement was to be decided in accordance
with Article XXXIII, on terms to be agreed, whereas under
paragraph 5 of Article XXV approval by a two-thirds majority
was all that was needed. A protocol could be dispensed with
because there were no terms to be agreed upon and to mention
in the summary record the fact that it had been approved by a
two-thirds majority would therefore suffice.
Mr. GUTIERREZ was also doubtful regarding the Chairman's
interpretation.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) stated that he had been
instructed to propose that the question be referred to the
Third Session, but he would not press his proposal, which had
not found support in the Working Party.
Mr. WUNSZ KINGS in reply to the Chairman, said that the
word "decision' also appeared in Article XXXIII as amended
in Havana. page 7
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested referring the
matter of procedure to the legal experts and pointed out that
these territories could not be covered in Annex D as
"dependent territories",
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that though deploring the
extensive recourse to Article XXV at the Second Session,
he would agree that a prima facie case had been established,
and that the circumstances were exceptional and were not
elsewhere provided for in the Agreement. He hoped that the
United States Government could establish a fine precedent by
seeing its way voluntarily to surrender the preferences
before the Third Session. Since the waiver clause was not
intended to be used lightly, he would entreat the Contracting
Parties not to cite the present case as a precedent for a
host of future applications
Mr. de VRIES thought that, firstly, the signing of a
protocol could be avoided. Secondly, since the United
States Government was aware of the possible benefit that might
accrue to the future members of the ITO not contracting
parties, and of the related consequences, he would not insist
on the reservation he had made on behalf of his Government.
Thirdly, in regard to the remarks made by the representative
of Australia, the Working Party had not intended that the
procedures should be taken as a precedent , and one should not
lose sight of the emphasized requirement that the special
circumstances rust be exceptional. Finally, attention
should be given to the last paragraph f the Decision; any
contracting party which should deem its trade to be
substantially injured should be entitled to apply to the GATT/CP. 2/SR. 21
page 8
CONTRACTING PARTIES for joint consideration as to whether
the basic factors had changed. A favourable vote would be
cast by the Netherlands on the understanding that the case
would be re-opened whenever a contracting party should deem
it necessary to protect its interests,
Mr. LEDDY said that his Delegation agreed to the
understanding put forward by the representative of the
Netherlands. He believed that the facts and statistics
which the United States delegate had supplied to justify the
request should enable the other representatives to defend the
decision of the CONTRACTING PARTIES before their Governments.
Mr. GUTIERREZ stated that in his opinion Article XXV
had been invoked so often and so lightly that the exception
seemed to have become the rule and the rule the exception.
It was both doubtful whether the circumstances were not
elsewhere provided for (though the Charter was not in force,
measures could perhaps be taken along the lines of its
Article 15), and whether there really were any exceptional
circumstances. To call a precedent not a precedent would
prevent no one from using it as such, and the majority rule
on a question of a constitutional nature was against the best
legal traditions of the world. He would, therefore, be unable
to agree to this new preference, when the basic objective
of the Agreement and the Charter was for the elimination
of preferences. He requested the vote to be taken by a
roll call'
Mr. LEDDY thought that the antagonists of the request
had overlooked the fact that the preferential relations that
existed between these islands and Japan would be eliminated
with the inauguration of the United States administration,
and the likelihood of any injury being inflicted on the GATT/CP. 2/SR. 21
page 9
contracting parties was slight.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) stated that although his
Government has traditionally opposed all preferences, he
would vote in favour of compliance with this request on the
ground that the commercial interests involved were negligible
and that the political responsibilities of the trusteeship
administration should be taken into consideration. It was
hoped that this would niot be taken as a precedent.
Mr. AUGENTHALER said that he would vote against the
request on the ground that a vital principle should not be
{xo.^..ed for the purpose of securing so little benefit for
such a small number of people. Moreover, he was not
satisfied that the benefit would really go to the inhabitants
of those islands, and it was more likely that the oil
refineries in the United States would be the real
beneficiaries.
Mr CASSIERS (Belgium) stated that he would have
decided to vote against the United States request because of
the dangerous precedent that would be created, the infringement
on the principle of binding the margin of preferences, and the
insufficient evidence that had been put forward in support
of the contention that no provisions were made elsewhere in
the Agreement for such exceptional circumstances had it not
been for the respect that his Government had for the motive
that lay behind the United States request. He would
therefore abstain from voting.
Mr. TRABOULSI (Syria) stated that his Government had
always been in favour of preferences and, since the request
was Justified, he would vote in favour of compliance with
the request. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 21
page 10
M. LECUYER (France) stated that he would vote in favour
of the request because he, in following the work of the Working
Party, had been convinced that to apply the provisions of
paragraph 5 of Article XXV in such an exceptional case would
not create any undesirable precedent'
Mr. MOBARAK (Lebanon) was in favour of the request being
complied with because he thought it was a good precedent for
those countries contemplating preferential arrangements; e.g.
the countries formerly members of the Ottoman Empire.
Mr. WUNSZ KING (China) stated that his Government was
not in favour of preferences but would like to see that all
exceptional cases and difficulties should be given sympathetic
consideration because the General Agreement was a new
experiment .
The CHAIRMAN explained the procedure of voting and ruled
that the representative of Cuba had the right to demand a
roll calls which was, at any rate, desirable in a controversial
case like this.
The vote was taken by roll call and the decision to
comply with the request of the United States Government was
approved by 16 votes to 2, while 12 votes were required for
its approval according to paragraph 5 of Article XXV.r
For (16) Against (2)
Australia Lebanon Cuba
Brazil Netherlands Czechoslovakia
Burma Norway
Canada Pakistan
Ceylon Syria
China South Africa
France United Kingdom
India United States GATT/CP. 2/SR. 21
page 11
THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (c.f. GATT/CP.2/25
Mr. AUGENTHALER announced that his Government agreed to
comply with the request of Pakistan that concession could be
withdrawn without compensation in respect of Item 60 (3) in
Schedule XV,
He also brought to the attention of the meeting the
incident in which the United Press had dispatched certain
incorrect news about the proceedings of the meeting on Monday,
which had not been extracted from the Press Release.
Mr. ISMAIL (Pakistan) thanked the representative of
Czechoslovakia for his commendable gesture of acceding to the
requests without asking for any compensatory concession:
The CHAIRMAN stated that the release granted by the
Czechoslovakian Government should be deemed to have been
reported to the Chairman and to have been communicated to the
Contracting Parties represented here in accordance with the
procedure given in paragraph 8 of GATT/CP.2/25, approved
by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. Therefore, if no objection
were received by the Chairman within thirty days, the two
contracting parties concerned should be free to put the
release into effect. In regard to the news leakages he
hoped that no similar incident would occur in the future,
It was agreed that in view of its complexity the
Report of Working Party 3 on the United States request should
be released to the press.
The meeting rose at 7.30 p.m..
P . - |
GATT Library | vp025xf0479 | Summary Record of the Twenty-First Meeting (IIIb) : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Tuesday, 30 December 1947 at 4.15 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 2, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 02/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.21 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vp025xf0479 | vp025xf0479_90190248.xml | GATT_148 | 3,326 | 22,425 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE UNRESTRICTED
ON DU E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.21
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 2 January 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING (IIIb)
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba,
Tuesday, 30 December 1947 at 4.15 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. ARTICLE 21 - Restrictions to Safeguard the Balance of Payments
(First Reading)
Mr. BRONZ (United States) said Article 21 provided the most sweeping
escape from the basic obligations of the Charter, because it authorized
the imposition of quantitative restrictions, which provide the absolute
barrier to the international movement of goods, and because it covered
the entire field of trade. Article 21 recognized both the importance to
the individual countries of adequate means of protection in the event
of financial emergency and the importance to all other countries of
Protecting their export markets against quantitative restrictions.
Paragraph 1 of Article 21 stated that quantitative restrictions
may be imposed in order to safeguard the balance of payments, subject
to the Provisions of the paragraphs following.
Paragraph 2 (a) set forth the basic financial text for determining
whether or not a country is in serious enough financial difficulties as
to Justify a resort to quantitative restrictions. Paragraph 2 of
Article 24 was designed to assure expert evaluation of the monetary and
financial factors which would determine the judgments made under this
paragraph. Paragraph 2(b) provided for the gradual relaxation and
elimination of quantitative restrictions when the country's financial
position was no longer serious enough to Justify such restrictions.
Unnecessary prolongation of restrictions could be as deleterious as their
unnecessary imposition.
Paragraph 3 (a) in effect directed the Organization to give members
the benefit of the doubt during the postwar adjustment period.
Paragraph 3 (b) was designed to exclude the argument that quantitative
restrictions were not "necessary" in a given case because various other
/measures
~ ~ ~ ~ M sRE Uie tts adJtcl 1poie h ot6ep E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.21
Page 2
2;
measures, more particullyar a modification of fa uyempoloyment l poet policy,
ailable wrla t financial difficulties. Thus paragraph 3 (b)ai4e to;l difficsultiesa.Thua aragraph 3 (b)
recognized the individormulateual sovereignty of the member countries to forlat
gther cdoeti amprogrmes. The UniStatesg deleaion regarded the
) (i) as whjjoithsntaessnotvt.ig", hrase in paragraph 3llyn uecary.ess
members Para7phc (a fomulationt, hweverr, pFvided mtmhat.nersst in thartfifnatln
pr uegarr oe th;rstoraon of financial equilibrium on a permanent
ent of productive resources.basis well as to, steoconmicpl emoyment rocetriv esources.
5p-caph 3 (c)(ii) laid down the token import rule in order to
result from anm=gitG4 the damage to fai rcompetition olduJresult an
absolute stoppageof trade. This was not a strict requirement. Thj
entors and authors.provisoniasl sfeguaaddd ethe rgihts of foregn invientthor.s
uE-agbph 3 c) (iii) placQd the dditional responsibility on a
country using quantitative restrictions to avoid unnecessary damage to
the commercial or economic interests of any other country.
Paragraph 4 provided for consultation of the member with the
organization concerning the imposition of quantitative restrictions, but
contained no requirements for prior approval of the organization. Such
consultation had already proved practicable and beneficial. Sub-
paragraph 4 (b) also recognized that the use of quantitative restrictions
by one natiosis the concern of all others. Sub-paragraph 4 (c) provided
a procedure for advanced determination by the organization of its views
on the applicability of Article 21 in given hypothetical circumstances,
should a country wish to have definite assurances for its own advance
planning. Sub-paragraph 4 (d) sets forth a complaint procedure, which
the Preparatory Committee felt to be an essential ingredient of this
Article. '' ' -' ''
.?~k 5-rovisi fore l genser-,ocnamongeultatians -
ion of persiktent andissthsecoorQ o m -t st et eeral:sit of uatiwso
ragraph simply ap-eiarm<,n.pliio ff -mpot restction.. pThagraphesi
t can seek to reachk he Organiea4est wb ra ,.ita mcshanim wherebyc i st
derlying clauses ofInattXral agron&4ment omen uzaars to remove. hue ndeofg a
rld-wide disaquilib yum.gitw. : - ; -,-
ZBeli.ul..tatedtat echineation roogized, that
atters of life andayme4*1 dPftpnts,fculics :ecur, th.tare mhey as rezlatt
ossdeath for the countries concerned and thwasat it s possible to wait
less, they opposed.ra pao uls borcvme -rnd&,a dsequilibrium. Neveersth b
ntrary to thjespiritiou Artic1.It les 2wsaetiructve of the chara cterand co prit
proeisionsusuibsvof Ctrte. Evee chanrry wyot ounldwat to muaeke s of i
ments and aragraff £.3 ( sm4eme aidw might try to edeo;c-mtenmts .an:
claim, /proclaim E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.21
Page 3
proclaim their own sovereignty in an effort to solve their domestic economic
problems. Paragraph 3 (b) (i) seemed to say that no state need explain the
restrictions it applied; it would lead to economic chaos. Elsewhere in the
Charter the need for concerted action and co-operation was emphasized and
such co-operation was indeed a duty, but paragraph 3 could only lead to
the abrogation of the Charter and the sterility of the Organization.
A confusion had arisen concerning the difference between industrial
and under-developed countries. The basic error was the assumption that
each area in the world faced economic and social problems of a unique and
individual character, which demanded unique solution; in fact the problems
of each country had certain points of similarity with the problems of other
economies and could not be resolved by each state autonomously. Both
industrialized and undeveloped countries varied greatly between themselves;
the common factor was the aim of productive employment for all resources,
human and material. This was the link binding industrial countries and
binding all countries, and this the common purpose on which the Organization
could be built. It was a question of whether the solution was for each
country to take measures independently or for all to seek a solution by
concerted action. Autonomous action would create more problems than it
solved, and would lead to economic warfare or to world domination by one
power. Common and concerted action was worthy of trial and was in conformity
with the aims of the United Nations. It was a modest method which did not
under-estimate the difficulties. There must, however, be enough boldness
to eliminate provisions which would vitiate the Charter.
Mr. CAMPOS (Brazil) stated that his delegation had made certain
proposals in Committee II concerning Article 13, but inasmuch as they dealt
with quantitative restrictions, it was appropriate to restate them. A sense
of balance mast be maintained in considering the problem of quantitative
restrictions and Brazil as approach to that problem was pragmatic: each case
must be Judged on its merits for, although quantitative restrictions were
a dangerous weapon, they could greatly assist economic planning. It was
vital that the Judgements of the Organization under Article 13 should be
impartial. The attitude of the Organization would depend on a variety of
decisions not yet taken by the Conference; the composition of the Executive
Board, the voting procedure, the composition of the Tariff Committee and
so on. * . .
The Brazilian delegation hadproposed a series of amendments to Article 13
as fo llows: (1) they wished to shorten the period of consultation setforth
in paragraph 2 (b) by consulting the principal suppliers; (2) the words "and
its long-run effect on the standard 6 living within the country contemplating
/in the measure" E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.21 Page 4
in the measure" should be added to paragraph 2 (c); (3) paragraph 4 (b) should
contain a broad and flexible criterion which countries could use in securing
permission for quantitative restrictions; (4) they had proposed that a note,
be appended to Article 13 stating that the Executive Board was the competent
authority to take decisions under Article 13 and that there would be a right
of appeal from the Executive Board's decisions to the Conference (as set forth
in Article 90 paragraph 3; (5) the wording of paragraph 5 (b) should be
clarified.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) said that Articles 21-24 were fundamental. The Cuban
delegation had submitted no amendments, but it reserved the right to defend
certain suggestions in committee and sub-committee. Quantitative restrictions
were indeed a double-edged weapon but were especially harmful to countries
whose economy was dependent upon exports. When exports of such countries were
limited by the application of restrictions by others, their imports must of
necessity be reduced as a consequence. His country's acceptance of these
Articles sprang from their willingness to recognize the facts of the post-war
crisis.
The conditions of the important paragraph 2 (a) should not be loosened
by deleting the words "imminent" or "serious". Of equal importance were the
provisions for progressive relaxation and ultimate elimination of restrictions
as conditions of balance of payments improved. At the suggestion of his
delegation, paragraph 5 had been added in Geneva to provide for general
consultation, as well as bilateral consultation, concerning quantitative
restrictions. The word "unreasonably" should be deleted from
paragraph 3 (c) (ii). -
The rolFuDe of the Interrnationarl Monetarynd was the greatest guaantee
that the use of quantitative restrictiossible.ns would be limited as much as po.
It wamens especa.13ue t o miae jd udgiewnts nhe matters ref erret In ,
the sake of clarity paragraph 2 Artialating,e 4. latiF saf clarty the prisions. re.-.
t exchange-xagets should. be eprated from the rest of Article -24.-
edwritten intq anew Artle. ; --
Mr. WONW(stBica)onsderedd Artiles 0 and 21 -togeter wih -
Article its 13, 14 sd.0 al of Rights for countries which might find. t..
neceaay to.pse restrictions on imports to further -thireconomic
develonapment Costnanla Rica had recently accepted the advice of the Internaio
Monetary Fnd anhed had.ntroduced "indirect" quantitative restrictions. T5
centra use ofl purpose.fe Ztunw to avoid -the ecssity for the'usep .-
certain kind ofquantitativeQasriqtins, yett.7P h -pprovd -a certin -dn,
ayments of his country.hresctrictiompde. -er,.t.thq e ofp.. itof ioun.
strusct fHahe criteria whichtf crithrih. dments to.rtJ.l 21 4 t of .'±eaai
the ibutpeorn mit ue, bsympathetteticasymput thard would of necessity give W=ath
consideration to countries meriting aid. If each country had one vote and the
riExght to appeal against the decisions of the ecutive Board, the weaker
cou/Thntrwordi/Tordes would have suficient safeuids. ke ; E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.2l
Page 5
The word "review" should be defined by the Sub-Committee studying
paragraph 4 (b) of Article 21 or by the Central Drafting Committee.
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) said the words at the beginning of Paragraph 3 (b) (i)
"notwithstanding..." were the core of the Article. If they were deleted as
suggested by the Representative of the United States, Paragraph 3 (b) would
be entirely subject to Paragraph 2 (a), and the result might be disastrous.
The representative of the United States had also stated that Paragraph 3
did not provide independent basis for the use of quantitative restrictions;
they could be used only to meet financial difficulties resulting from the
adoption of programmes of industrial development, etc. The Representative
of CEYLON had the impression that Article 21 could be applied in order to
prevent financial difficulties which would arise from the adoption of these
programmes. Restrictions could be adopted, that is to say, in order to meet
or prevent financial difficulties which obviously would be inherent in the
domestic programme. If that principle were approved, then the Member concerned
should not be constrained to wait for the financial difficulties to arise.
If the Representative of the United States was correct, then the value of
the Article would be reduced to a large extent. -: -.
The two points should be discussed and clarified ine the Sub-Committe.;
Tumnhe CHAI med the discussion of Article 2als1. e p androposed.d:
amouldkendments be referred to the Sub-wCiommittee hch wouuld be set p
at the conclus ion of thefirst reading of Article 24, to consider A,rticles 21
23 and 24. -
2. ARTICI2:' N-DiscriminatoryQ Administration of' uatitative'
tictions. (First Reading)
Pgeph -
(Item 41) Myrh.FARINA (Uruguay) saidta the amendment proposed b 'is
delegation involvo makeed only a change in wording in the first sentence t
it more precise.
(Item 52) Mr.LUNA OLO Mexico) said that the .adnistration tof
quantitative resstrt.ictionshuld not show discrimination of any' o.;-
Although he had made no, amendment of the first phrase of Paragraph 2(d)
e fonsidnderedthe fact it could be made more precise. Notwithstaeng "
that there seemed toshares be a certain equality in the criterion by which
were allocated, the s 20pecial factors referred to in the Note to Article
and in ParagraTph 4ea manight give rise to prejudicial decisions. he xic
amendment introdu dmoe 'ojctive criteria.
The ama n gnnt o tdratting.fo Paragraph 4 (item 58) was merely ecnge-ffi g
Mr. AUGlrTIB cholvghki thought the Uruguaayan poposal ip$t
improve the woig of the Paragracpihe. He doubted, however, if produetv
/was, E/CONF .2/C .3/SR. 21
Page 6
capacity was a suitable bases for the fixing of quotas, as each country had
its natural suppliers. Quotas should be allocated according to the traditional
channels of trade.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) was doubtful about the Uruguayan and Mexican
amendments. The latter, in particular, complicated rather than simplified the
situation. It did not allow for competition between producers of a given
product. Productive capacity was not the same as export capacity.
Mr. COLOCOTRONIS (Greece), referring to the first sentence of the Mexican
amendment to Paragraph 2 (d), wondered what would happen if a country which
had a substantial interest in supplying another country during a representative
period, such as between 1935 and 1939, later ceased to exist, or if such a
country had become absorbed in the reconstruction of its devastated industries
and could not even fill its previous quota. These questions were not solved
by the amendment, nor was the problem of price. Greece had entered into
bilateral agreements with certain countries in the pre-war period; he asked
what would happen now to the quote of one of these countries if it asked too
high a price and whether the Charter would allow for free disposal of such
quotas.
The CHAIRMAN stated that if the conditions described were applicable to
a particular product, the years immediately before the war might not be regarded
as a representative period and therefore a country would be justified in taking
a later period as more representative.
(Item 53) It was agreed that the Geneva Draft Note to Paragraph 2,
sub-paragraph (d) should be dropped.
(Item 54) Mr. ALAMAN (Turkey) stated that as it stood, sub-paragraph (d)
contemplated a situation which prevailed in the past, and this was detrimental
to recently established industries. It would be only fair so go beyond. previous
practice and consider new industries.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested that, although reconstruction
would be more practically dealt with in Article 15, the Turkish proposal might
be amended to read as follows: "..... those economically backward or
war devastated countries..... "
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) said the Turkish amendment was very significant.
It showed to what extent quantitative restrictions might jeopardize the future
development of trade and employment programmes. Moreover, the amendment should
be extended to cover all new industries since the industrialized countries had
to establish new export industries.
Mr. LEDDY (United States), referring to the Amendment of Turkey, said
he would not object to any amendment which would clarify the term
"special factors" so that adequate representation in quotas should be given
/to new E/CONF .2/C .3/SR.21
Page 7
to new industries on a competitive basis with others.
Paragraph 3 .
r(Item 55) Mr. A (ia) said his bmendentwouAd intoduc some.
degree of elasticio ty into the provisions requiring public notice tbegiven
of the quantity or val aue of the product permitted to be imported under
quota system. There wouldbe practical difficulties in enforcing this.
provision.If p ublich notice were given, the public could inferhow te
ban.c ofq aym.ses q sits hauations was changing from time.totime, Iguoaebd
to be changed frequently, this might encourage speculation and have an
unsettlingefect oo trade, aonda the country might be inclined to fix theqgu
in the fisrset instance at a low level for purposes of afty. For these reasons
a rigid applicat uion of this provisioneould not be insisted.pn.
(Item 56) Mr. AUGENHIR (Czechoslovakia) stated that his comment
referred to aIhe provisions wvhe te harter requested full publicity
as to the quotas among the supplying countries. Full publicity would be
possible only on two conditions: firsta if all those concerned would behve
in an exemplary manner, and second if the country involved had only todeal
with Members of the ITO. * -
otasMr. LEDDY (United States) believed that the rule of publishing qu
was ehessential in orderto assure :e operation and administration of tb-
rulnot bees regarding non-discrimination. Those important benefitshould -q
de to aniedto Members because a non-Membamight also profit. Referring' o
sstatent-y-e presentative of fI)IA,ed that t Vtas poible .f.:.
countraiprovided fulles erte- qanitative 'retrctions without a. qoteaoddu
information was were given to other members of ITO. The quota system
premfersablebut Iowas totlways practicable from the adwinitative pint
of view.
(Item 57)Mht hisr. ADKAR (India) stated.ht-te ain reason wbiE
Delaegation conPsrairder 3ed it a necessity to propose the amendment agaph(b)
Ws s ecamse unders sPamragraph 2 members could only usea licensing pte if
quot nasere nso p uracticabsle. It might, however, be-eessary to-s quota.
for admwoini strative reasons, in which event publicity uldtherefore involve
serious practical difficulties. . - . -- :
Mr. TINOCO (Costa Rica), referringto Paragraph 2 (a) and.(b)$d
kllit would not be preferable to add "bycountrieeafter the words ".,.h-
be fed".:Te Article'ddnt eat ho the quotas would be' "fxed"..
(Item -59) Thlr'Geev Jote asreferred-to th S>bCommtteer
Proposed new Paa- -: '- - -- ,: -
(Item 60) Mr. DJEBBARA (Syria) did not unrsad V coul-
establish a quota without taking into account the currency available to it.
Mr. BZElEN(Pland, eorsed the Amendment of Syria. Ohe Gnea Draft ;
/as based E/CONF .2 /C. 3 /SP.21
Page 8
was based on the assumption that quantitative restrictions could be administered
within the framework of international trade based upon the convertibility of
all currency. So long as this was not a fact, the principle of
non-discrimination could not be achieved.
Mr. LIMA CAMPOS (Brazil) did not think the amendment necessary.
After some discussion during which the Representative of the United States
suggested that the amendments of Syria and Lebanon should properly fall within
Article 23, and was opposed by the representatives of Belgium and Greece, it
was decided to refer the Amendment to the Sub-Committee to consider
Articles 20 and 21, for a decision as to whether or not it should more
appropriately fall in the province of the Sub-Committee considering
Articles 21, 23 and 24.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) said that Articles 22 and 23 were so closely
linked that he wished to discuss his amendments to both Articles at the
same time.
Argentine was ready to accept a general rule on the non-discriminatory
administration of quantitative restrictions as expressed in paragraph 1, of
Article 22, but felt that application of the rule must wait on two
conditions (1) general equilibrium in international trade and payment and
(2) general adhesion of members to the International Monetary Fund. The
application of the rule without the fulfilment of those conditions would lead
to grave difficulties; countries lacking in the foreign exchange necessary for
the working of a multilateral system would have to resort to restrictions and
reductions of their imports. It would be proper to establish the principle
of non-discrimination in the Charter and to subordinate any rules to the two
considerations he had listed.
The CHAIRMAN reviewed the discussion on Article 22. There had been
general agreement on paragraph 1 and a difference of views on its
applicability. The Committee agreed to refer the proposed amendments to a
Sub-Committee to consider Articles 20 and 22.
It was agreed that the terms of reference should be to examine, and
submit recommendations to Committee III concerning the proposals on
Articles 20 and 22 with authority to consult if considered necessary with
Sub-Committee II on Articles 13 and 14. It was agreed that the following
countries should be members of the Sub-Committee: Ceylon, Chile, China,
Colombia,.Egypt, France, Ireland, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru,
South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.
The meeting rose at 7.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | cq642gx2946 | Summary Record of the Twenty-first Plenary Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, on Wednesday, 24 March 1948, at 9.00 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 25, 1948 | 25/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/SR.21 and E/CONF.2/SR.1-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cq642gx2946 | cq642gx2946_90180148.xml | GATT_148 | 243 | 1,653 | UNRESTRICTED
United Nations Nations Unies
E/CONF.2/SR .21
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 25 March 1948
ON DU ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIRST PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, on
Wednesday, 24 March 1948, at 9.00 a.m.
President: Mr. Sergio.CLARK (Cuba)
1. RESOLUTION OF THANKS TO THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE ON THE
HOSPITALITY EXTENDED DURING CONFERENCE (E/CONF.2/71).
Mr. SPEEKERBRINK (Netherlands) in moving the adoption of the resolution
of thanks to the Cuban Government, expressed appreciation of the opportunity
to know at first hand Cuba's history and its development in the Arts and
Sciences. The resolution was adopted by acclamation.
2. THE SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF STATE OF CUBA, Mr. RAFAEL P. GONZALEZ
MUNOZ, is to be found in full in PRESS RELEASE ITO/225.
3. THE SPEECH BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS WAS READ BY
MR. A. D. K. CHEM ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS and is
reproduced in full in PRESS RELEASE ITO/224.
4. THE SPEECH BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFERENCE is to be found in full
in PRESS RELEASE ITO/219.
5. SIGNATURE OF THE FINAL ACT.
The CHAIRMAN declared approved the Final Act, the text of the
Havana Charter, the Resolutions, the Reports of the Six Main Committees,
with due note being taken of the reservations.
The Final Act and the Four Protocols of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade were signed and,
The meeting adjourned at 11.15 a.m. |
|
GATT Library | wd139nn2358 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 13 March 1948 at 3.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 16, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 16/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.24 and E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.18-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wd139nn2358 | wd139nn2358_90180469.xml | GATT_148 | 3,343 | 22,067 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.24
ON DU 16 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havnaa, Cuba, 13 March 1948 at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr .BET ETA (Mexico)
REDRAFT OF PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE SUB-C OMMITTE 'S REPORT ON
ARTICLE 13 PROPOSED BY THE DELEGATIONS OF AUSTRALIA,
SOUTHERN RHODESIA AND THE UNITED KINGOM
(DOCUMENT E/CONF.2/C.2/41/Add.2)
The redraft of paragraph 9 was approved without comment,
RESERVATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF IRELAND CONCERNING ARTICLE 14 (4).
(DOC UMENT E/CONF.2/C.2/41).
To meet the Vew of the Irish representative, the CHAIRMAN suggested.
the addition to paragraph 4 of the words "pursuant to Chapter IV".
Paragraph 4 as amended by the Chairman was approved by the Committee.
ARTICLE 15 (E/CONF.2/C.2/42).
Mr. BRUDZINSKI (Poland) expressed the view that the text of Article 15
which would have emerged from the Working Party if the latter could have
held a few more meetings, would have been much more acceptable than that
proposed by the Co-ordinating Committee, His first criticism concerned the
question of the automatic approval of preferences. TheCo-ordinating
Committee, in paragraph 5, had introduced a new provision to the effect that
the Organization might have to approve a margin of preference this would go
far to remove the automatic aspect of the approval, although he admitted that
the two-.months provision offered some safeguard.
There was a danger that contemplated preferential arrangements could
be blocked deliberately by third parties in whose favour duties had been
bound by negotiation.The only way of unbinding a bound tariff would be
under the tex of Attice 13, paragraph 2, and if no substantial agreement
could be reached, that process could take as long as three years.
The provisions of paragaph 4 (d) could be interpreted to mean that all
countries parties to an agreement would have to have similar plans concerning
/the promotion of E/CONF.2/C.2/SR .24
Page 2
the promotion of economic development and would have to apply them at the
same time. If compensation by preferential concessions conforming to
paragraph 4 (d) were not practicable, the preferential arrangement would have
to remain unbalanced. This provision largely nullified the benefits set forth
in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.
Paragraph 5 was incomplete and confused. The text states that the
Organization approves the margin of preference in accordance with paragraph 6.
Does this mean that the Organization approves the margin as presented by
the applicant Member subject only to complaints of an affected Member or to
the negotiations under paragraph 6, or that the Organization checks and
verifies the need for a certain margin and approves it only if it is satisfied'
that the margin is reasonable? Once the margin is approved, will it remain
bound, and if so for how long? If through experience the margin is proved
to be insufficient what will be the procedure to have it revised and eventually
increased? Will affected. Members have the right to challenge the most-
favoured-nation rate even if it was not increased in anticipation of the
arrangement or at the time it was entered into? Can the Organization declare
that the margin of preference as requested, though necessary, is not
reasonable - in other words question the soundness of the proposition and
the economic principles underlying the contemplated preferential arrangement?
No definite answers to these and other questions were to be found in
the present text. As Article 15 formed. a part of the overall settlement,
however, thers seemed to be no possibility of any change in substance.
Mr. Brudzinski emphasized his great concern with respect to its provisions
and requested that the following statement be included in the Report to the
Conference : -
"l-Plish 'leation presented an amendment E/CONF.2/50_
desigadwto permit temporarily compensatorsy prseferences on product
elonfin. 1eevloponxgmentnrtd riteria of rec of strxiteri .4
para aph 4 (b).sujectt rogressive elimination and limits
as to duration and margins of preferewase.The amendment as not
acceptedhe Polish. legation asked for its view to be recorded
tat.h- esent text of paragraph. (d) of Article 15 concerning.
preferential concessions nullified to a large extent the advantages
paragraphs 4,5 and 6 and made .theintroduction of new preferential
ery difficult if not impossible."a~t.s -ery dif
Mr.RRER FEPeru) accepted Article15- as part of the overall agreement
but wantnNed itn tobefar from sat it ofa frmatisfied the desire of
oped E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.24
Page 3
under-developed countries which wished to use preferences for economic-
development. He supported the remarks made by the representative of Poland.
The terms of paragraph 4 (d) which set forth that compensation would
have to conform with the provisions of paragraph 4 would restrict the
practical value of the paragraph to the extent of making the establishment
of new preferences almost impossible.
His other main criticism applied to the preamble of paragraph 4 which
limited its provisions to Members. -
Mr. MULLER (Chile) that while he was committed to accepance of
the r'il'ttlment, he agreedpoints of view of the Polish and
ntatives. Teruvixa ofprexsentives'The teztof Article 15 satisfied him even less
ince the decision with respect to Article 93.;e could not accept prior
approval by the organization in connection with preferential agreements
involving non-Memmaintained he therefor intsinesd his delegation'
reservation the whole Article..
,Mr. Sllg (B, Chairmanhein tee, pontedCoommi-ordilsat-ZC=te
out that while the criticism wh ich rticle15 might behad been levelledat A
tArcl. 15 . gtb
considered justifed, it was impossible to arriYaepprfcttext. In
regrd to the question of non-Members, he pointed out that the Charter-had
first t deal with the question of Members, that is, those, countries which,
were prepntialarentialtake serious.obligaions. The subject of preferei
agreements between Members and non-Members should be left to the Organization.
again hehe text o paragraph 5 was admittedly not clear but onc..
onggestetoirganization.atter should be lefto the discretic of the-Or8ztioa.
Tlhe Belgian dimpliedelegatiis terpretation of the paragraph was that iti
the binding of ootaoured.-naion ratezation.
. MULLER (Chile) contended that the statement hile) ce a
of the Chairmn o theom Co-ordinatings C itee clearly established that thee
questi of espect of non-Membe9rs innot formed part of the e resmicle 15 hd noe .pt the
general cm~ tn, ;;- i;
e, WY (Freanc)ointed out that new preferential agreements involving
a-mbers were covered by paragraph 3.
te the (iustaa) felt that there was a tendency to exaggqate e
aparticularly ra5c .p1h roblem nd the problems themselves raised pticlarly on
paagaphS3
As Oae drew attepiticnnt that pntial, 7
inding a previously bound rate couldeviolyua boid rate.uwd
party, as in such cases only Article 13 would apply.ile would~ ply.
/ dr t` erms E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.24
Page 4
Under the terms of Article XVIII of GATT, however, the various tariffs which
had been, bound would remain bound for a minimum period of three years, after
which there would be a possibility of unbinding them. Any country which was
contemplating a preferential agreement would, in negotiation, be able to
reserve the rates on products which it intended to over in the agreement
for purposes of development or reconstruction. The only possible difficulty
would be during the initial three years - and then only during the latter
part of that time.
In Connection with another point raised by the Polish delegate, he pointed
out that as the purpose of a preferential agreement would be to provide
extended markets, the normal practice would be to grant free entry as
preferential treatment. The problem envisaged by the Polish delegate could
only arise in the exceptional cases where the preferential rate was relatively
high.
Mr. LIEU (China) objected strongly to Articles 15 and 16 because they
destroyed the value of the most-favoured-nation clause. He wished it to be
recorded that he accepted them only as part of the overall compromise.
Mr. DUNAWAY (Liberia) said that too accepted Article 15 only because
he thought opposition at this stage was useless.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 -
These paxcraphs were approved without ccet,
Paragaph
r,McA (IreJeesed theview that thewords "subject to such
cditions asas tget were it meymose", placenization'sd niozhey were, qualified he Orgaitn's
abiliactual granting ty to grexception. e=tion insteax ofton.the e=cpti.
Paragraph 3 as rovd ad it waDraftings aafgree.toas the Central fDrein
ation to its drafting in the light of the tio its dfti i the ligof the
question raised.
, ..- , ,.
s formal itd Kingdo) refesrring bia deleatiin' forbarI
rpretative note thereon, statedand ocahe iterprtative note teroon, tatsd
that this xarCheserrvat woulCharterd be maintained pending emination of the
as a whole by his Govenment.
Mr. LQ~b (Pines) stated that he agreed that certain situations
w stified thaea aHe was not agreement,eferences. Bas not in- grm,
ive note referring to paragraph 4(a). This referring to paragraph
aph 4er with the intrr 0 ecc~ei sollbe7 'deined.
ote needed to be clarif e$ e concept of i'eon rgic"
", sufficient degree"T tems 'clos geo grabial O imity"lt~ eee
/and onocd E/CONF.2/C. 2/SR.24
Page 5
and "economic integration" also all required further interpretation.
Mr. SAWAF (Syria) stated that the text of Article 93 as agreed by
Committee VI made it necessary for him to reiterate the demand his delegation
had made in the Sub-Committee that the words "between Members" be deleted
from line 4 of the preamble to paragraph 4 of the Article.
Paragraph 4 was then approved.
Paragraph 5 was approved without comment.
Paragraph 6
Concerning paragraph 6 (d), Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) stated that he right:to
establish preferences between the countries of the former Ottoman Empire
was acknowledged by the Treaty of Lausanne, by the League of Nations when
Iraq entered that body water the termination of the mandate, and by various
subsequent eommrcial treaties. In order to recognize this right,
sub-paragraph (d) had been inserted in paragraph 6 and an appropriate
reference included in Article 16. In the opinion of the Iraq delegation the
text of paragraph 6 (d) still represented a limitation to the hitherto
recognized right of Iraq to enter into preferential agreements with the other
countries of the former Ottoman Empire. He referred in particular to the
proviso relating to sbu-paragraphs (a), (e) and (i) of paragraph 4. He had
nevertheless expessed his willingness to accept this proviso if the last
sentence of paragrahp 6 (d) were deleted. As an alternative he had submitted
an amendment to the latter sentence (E/CONF. 2/60) which would limit the
"substantial injury" provision to Members which, in their most-favoured-nation
treaties with the parties to the agreement, had not recognized the right in
question to depart from most-favoured-nation treatment. He argued that his
amendments involved no change of substance but that it represented a matter of
principal to which his delegation attached the highest importance.
Mr. ROYRE (France), speaking as Chairman of the Joint Sub-Committee,
expressed. the view that the Sub-Committee had gone a long way to meet the
position of the Iraq delegation. Article 15 dealt with nev preferences
including any which might in future be concluded between countries of the
former Ottoman empire under their existing rights; however, the "traditional"
clause (6( d)) applied lighter conditions to this particular category of
new preferences than to an y other The rights in equetion to conclude new
preferential agreements received formal recognition by their incorporation
in the Charter. The interpretative note to paragraph 6 (d) was additional
evidence of the Sub-COmmittee's efforts to satisfy thedelegation of Iraq.
Moreover, paragraph 6 (d) had been modified to make it clear that the procedure
of paragraph 6(c) was not applicalbe to agreements in this category. The
/only practical only practical limitation which still existed was that if a Member's external
trade were threntened with substantial injury, the parties to the preferential
agreement were to be invited by the Organization to enter into negotiations
with such Member and the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) would apply. The
case mentioned by the delegate of Iraq was more a matter at principle than
of practical importance, as most countries present at the Conference were
Members of the League of Nations and therefore recognized the traditional
rights of Iraq. He advised the Iraq delegation to seek agreement with those
Members of the Conference who had not in the past recognized that traditional
right of Iraq.
Mr. JIMENEZ (El Salvador) stated that he wanted it made clear that
paragraph 6 (d) applied also to certain Central American countries.
Mr. EVANS (United States) stated that his delegation could accept the
amendment proposed by Iraq but only on condition that it was acceptable to
all delegations which had shared in the compromise recommendations by the
Heads of Delegations. .
. IA3 (Lbongly portheted wtshe amendmwas matterent. a .mttr
o recognize firmly established international rights, and ished internat
d) daraglh ted only conditional recognition. He agreed withoan reHJecog i
tno change of substance was involved. The practical effects cal efects
odment would be imentf theible; the last sentence of'pa(d)ragr(d)4
wasnot likely ever to be aplied as the trade involved was so small.
r. REISMAN (Canada) agreed Rthat in practice th countries likely to er'trs likely to..
eafeede by tdeent would bethose represented at the present
Confreenchcehad whi nognized the "Ottoman clause";ause"; there was also
the c ase ofcountrise which might come into existence in the future. Such
countries should not be deprived of their rights under paragraph 6 (d). He
hoped that ehe ion atoi nof Iraq would not press the amendment.
MrID MAfghanistanghanit)POpMrT. LGreecegFg:IIGreece) and Mr.SAWAF (syira)
supported the, emedmennt as amatter of principle.
rT.M uTE rke) supported the a. menerdmrionanen.tIntronil recogizd
rightsw re a matter of principl e wh established had to protected.ed/icho
"it,* *
s not important from the point of view of economics but itw Of bu it
represented a probnificance.al sigificance.
zil) recalled the consistency with which his delegationich his elegst
had opposmment of preferences. It was recognized that the eoized tat the
s -na.au the gaeatest advantages of the Charter and whilee he Chrter and
ficult to aifficult s:to ccept exciingit woud be stillw preferences
enance the establishment of new ones. The rejection of the .nhew 5ehe=ejof ct
. ,~ ;/a dentwoUld E/CONF.2/C. 2/SR.24
Page 7 .
amendmnet would not make for practical difficulties for the representative
of Iraq, but its adoption would make for great difficulties with respect
to the Brazilian Parliament.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) regretted that Article 93 had not formed part of
the general settlement by Heads of Delegations.
Mr. EVANkS (United States of America) said that as two speakers had
opposed the amendiment, he would be unable to vote for it. The overall
settlement was binding, unless the Committee could accept a change by
unanimous agreement. -
Mr. HAIDE (Iraa) pointed out that when he had raised this question in
the meeting, of the Heads of DeleGations, it had been stated that it was not
a major point sed ub ance. The same view had been expreses6-in; the
Sub-Cmitteo ad in th Cotte e. As its adoption would not upset' the
balalce oa the overall se tlemint he couid not see any reason:f-r Its not
being dis manner.nd decided upon in the usual'anner.
Mr RO'Mo (France) said that hie dglegaticn would abstain from: votin
o the amenazent. :ther than accept ehe latter, he would prefer to sea
the last sentence of -oracraph 6 (d) deleted.
Mr. P2ISMPJ (Cenada) repeate statingposition to the amendment,' tating
that if bot r'ereselvedned a point of'substance and invo'a major, matter
of principle... . ' "
The CHM I stathat he would iake the nsa or the meting £Q
Thirteen delegates were in favour of the amendment, eighteen' opposed it, and
fourtep ndicated abstention. Paragraph 4 was then accepted, wit tv e
correction of a7.typogr~phical error onthe top of page 9 where the word
ocedure shod redrovisions". - *
nterpretative Notes'tiv& I'otes -
The Conm;itne the1n passed to the'discussoiorthe 'Inative iotes.
The note on paragraph l was approved. without cmemnt. -
Concenin- the note m pagraph 4 (a) tt EVANed Stat6s) C
answer to remarhvpreviou y made belegate,at
iscretiontisfiedxih the note and was w ng leave it isciietion
of the ''.anization to decide what was meant by "economic region -
-' --M .and added referred to hie earlier statement. -4naddedd
on the merits of each have to decide co facts and .it of each
f an important and delicatee was part of an importt de
pc4mmittee he was in favour of e reachcd in'the Co-ordinatina Conittee .-
maintaining it as it stood.
' '' '- LPs (Cbin;&) .: .. E/CONF.2/C .2/SR.24
Page 8
Mr. LIEU (China) suggested that the term economic integration" be
changed to "economic affinity".
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines) stated that, as the note read at present,
there was no possibility for the Organization to reject any request for
the establishment of new preferences. Furthermore, to rive the Organization
the power to decide on a definition of "economic region", would amount to
putting it in a super-state category.
The CHAIRMAN took the sense of the meeting and the great majority was
found to favour the maintenance of the note as it stood.
The note on paragraph 6 (d) was approved without comment.
Report of Sub-Committee
The Committee then passed to the discussion of the Report itself,
Part I was approved without comment.
In regard to Part II Mr. KUNTER (Turkey) maintained the reservation made
previously by his delegation on Article 15, pending instructions from his
Government.
Mr. MADJID (Afghanistan) also reserved his delegation's position pending
instructions from his Government
Mr. COOMBS (Australia) suggested a drafting change in paragraph 8,
namely that the comma at the end of line 4 of page 3 be deleted and be
replaced by the word "as",. This change was unanimously accepted,
The CHAIRMAN asked the delegate of Haiti whether he maintained his
reservation as stated in paragraph 8.
Mr. MORISSEAU-LERCY (Haiti) replied in the affirmative, stating that in
doing so, he did not consider that he was infringing the "gentlemen's agreements
of the Heads of Delegations, but was only leaving open the possibility of
finding a solution compatible with his country's vital interests
Mr. Julian PEREZ (Dominican Republic) supported the delegations of Haiti
because his country found itself in the same position. -
It was decided to delete the words "pending decisions onArticle 16"
from the third line from the bottom of paragraph 8. . .
Mr. HERAID(qIra) asked to have the reservation of his delegation on
Article 15 recorded.
MrULLER I. (Chile) reserved the position of his delegationon Article 15
as his delegation could. not accept the principle of prior approval as contained-
in that Article,
Mr.Er. Leenhina) and MLeon r. BELLOC (Argenti a)sitionved their pooniti
on the wholfe o Article 15.
/Paragraph 8 of the E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.24
Page 9
Paragraph 8 of the Report was then approved.
Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 were approved without comment.
Concerning paragraph 13, Mr. BRUDZINSKI (Poland), Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela)
and. Mr. Leon BELLOC (Argentina) stated that, in the light of the definitive
text of Article 93, they would not maintain the attitude described in
paragraph 13 and were willing to see the reference removed. Subject to
amendment in this light, paragraph 13 was approved, the last sentence to
read as follows: "The delegate of Syria wished it put on record that, in
the light of the definitive text of Article 93, he was still opposed to
their inclusion".
Paragraph 14 was adopted with the reservation of the United Kingdom
maintained in the form presented.
Paragraph 15 was adopted subject to incorporation of the statement made
by the-Polish delegate (see page 3 of this Summary Record).
Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Report were adopted without comment.
Paragraph 20 was adopted, subject to addition of the number "20" at the
beginning, and deletion in lines 6 and 7 of the words "; therefore the........
in Committee".
Articles 8 - 12
The Committee passed to the consideration or the second item on the
agenda, namely the proposed redraft of the final text of Chapter III,
Articles 8 - 12 as presented by the Central Drafting Committee
(E/CONF.2/C.8/10, E/CONF.2/C.8/10/Add.1 and E/CONF.2/C.8/10/Corr.1).
The Report and redraft of Articles 8 - 12 inclusive were adopted without
comment.
The meeting rose at 6. 00 p.m. |
GATT Library | ch603yk2207 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting (IIIb) : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba Saturday, 3 January 1948 at 4.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 5, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 05/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.24 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ch603yk2207 | ch603yk2207_90190252.xml | GATT_148 | 2,778 | 17,809 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.24
ON DU 5 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL : ENGLISH .
EE: COMMERCIAL POLICY M RC ALCO.I POLI(
O ERCOFURTO MRCHE TT(IIIbB)*YS TM-FONUBG I:I1
eHald.t the CapitoHl Evna, Cuba
Saturday, 3 Jray 1948 at 4.00 p.m.
ChmanMrWILG. L. DI. REaSWGS( anda)
(ReferNence .E/COF.2/C3/7)
1. 24 A ELE A GEH N ENGAGARAEN NS
isaatRed)ngaAE ,
Parph 2
(Ietem 80) dN (ustral) had. mad no amdment ;to th
substatmve cgontmenent of Article 21, as he was in complete apeen with'
the puooeof thcse Articlse. Pragraph 2, however, did not. aheve thezqe.
purposes afectively
wa y e drinisratiyvelry unsound to separate rsponsibilit f.o a-
decision from wohresponsibiliwoty for action arising from it. Good rking
relations beteen .e d if the I and. teITO would be impaire4 I h had to
adopt a decision against its udgement.
The proper procedure was for any decision to be proceeded by close
personal constultati between the officers of. e two Organizations, a,,
consultation which would recognize othe special fields of competence f each.
Moreover, the respect by Members for th e provisions of the Charter wouldbe
mpweakened if the ITO weIMFe t iose on IMFGMembers a determination of the -
ith which itdisareed.Q .
The present draft of the Arti,cle would also make it difficult if
not posse, t impla,memn fert mpont ,mprovisions ao Aticle - .
pdaraah () w, 3 ea) am 3 (). It wshoherulde be made clearhebet .te.
provision ould be.tken into acc ount in determining, t conditions of.a;
county!J O, or only w eeafterch a, dtermiation waweethes made, and.'rh'r
cwor nottt ouldtke the decision under those provisions.
Tlaanbhe Austqmedment impose on the ITO an obligatise oon to u8..
the fl ec the ospOil-cmpetenhe IMF a ceavoid duplication of staff,dyokuc of td duplication Of t-;
/while at the E/CONF.2/C. 3/SR. 24
Page 2
while at the same time it provided a sound working basis for the two
Organizations and placed responsibility where it justly belonged.
Mr. SARLlN (Sweden) said the Charter should stress the importance
of close co-operation and consultation between the ITO and the IMF, but the
provisions making the determinations of the Fund binding on the ITO were
too far-reaching. He supported the Australian proposal.
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines) said that the logic of the New Zealand
amendment was more apparent then real. Members of the ITO who were not
members of the IMF could not ignore the IMF. The final determination in
exchange matters involving financial assistance should continue to be the
prerogative of the IMF. Two of the functions of the IMF were to provide
short-term credits to countries in temporary balance of payments difficulties
and to provide mechanisms of adjustment to improve the long-term balance of
payments situation. Hence the IMF must make the determination as to whether
or not, in exchange matters, a Member of the ITO fulfilled its obligations
under the Articles of Agreement of the IMF or under the terms of a special
exchange agreement between that Member and the ITO. Also, the determination
of exchange rates in the transition period was function not conveniently
transferable to any other organization.
The ITO should consult with the IMF in exchange matters, but not extend
its own functions to technical considerations. The Philippine delegation
supported Article 24 as it stood.
Mr. THOMPSON-McCAUSLAND (United Kingdom) said that the great voting
strength of the United States in the IMF often led countries to argue that
the ITO should, therefore, not hand over one of its most important functions
to the IMF. But in fact no voting preponderance could outweigh the Fund's
interests in its own Articles of Agreement. -
Fears tMFhat the pogwer of the Iso s migihtict neate the provinof Arle 21
paaaph 3 (b) were unwarranted. Th e u lnd a countrya unig refuse to-alr c
to impose quantitative restrictions onm thec ground that its doesti policies
weghtrels pPsoa;pitimih aarefus fancial assis tance; butin-that
casewc t country. ld be unable to maintain thie i s parrrency trrrit of Itcnd
Article I Section 5 (f) of thef f Articles oVgreemeown that thg fundybepwnnt laow=that ah
culd not pobjtyect to a ciange in-ri because of the domestic policies of
a country -
An istition -etup in the Itertional field must be master in its
own house; and individual members must be free to act if critical situations
arose in their freigahne poitieoens.o Tvveese priniples wsre based -
ouldibn the Geneva teanyxamendmenttamamennd ould e embodied -ndt.
/} E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.24
Page 3
Mr. FERRERO (Peru) supported the New Zealand amendment.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) said that [if the provisions of Article 24 were
considered with Article 21, there was no basis for the fears that the ITO
would be subservient to the Fund. The provisions of paragraphs 2 (a) (ii)
and 3 (a) of Article 21 made it clear that the final decision as to whether
restrictions would be instituted or maintained rested with the ITO,
notwithstanding determinations made by the IMF.
The provisions of the Charter referring to exchange and balance of
payments matter would supplement or modify the Articles of Agreement of
the Fund and would represent new commitments by Fund members who signed
the ITO Charter. -
The sub-coifte should break Article 24 into two, making a separate'
Article of those provisions dealing with exchange arrangements.
Mr.I FAR (Uru ) a r thO would bordinate itself to-
the Fund in acases or only in monetary matters, and suggested that the
observer for theFund be heard.
Mr. AZER (Egypt) felt that paragraph 2 represented a well balanced
coiis eh prhvided a orking basis foir ceo-eoperheatIon'btwentb'9
ITO and the Fund. iAn intelligentdvision of responsibility between
finomnandeccial and ecoic isions would not preclude freedom of action and
would avoid duplication of the functions of two inteicrnational ageies.
The sohe vTO wiuldoereignty of l by not Fdfb'e iving iutsinvaded tunsg
coetoenft opiniins n inancira matters, fori final determrnation would ?et
with the ITO.
Marda. PupportedER (Ca~) s She present form of Since theArticle 24. '
maority of thet states ,at .e Conference wefgre membe, rs othe Fund-t was
sensiomical tble and econo consider the Fund tasand a sister o not as a
riva.l Iofwqs the ITO ta important that tthe Fund and he ITO should possess
a colltection of auhentic data on forei gn exchange,monetarandy reserves
bymalasnce of paent.
The term "and other facts" in line 8 of paragraph 2 could be defined as
all supporting information necessary to a proper unde the rsteignanding offor
excha of na countryi yge erpositio. Und paragraph 2 of the FundArticle 24,
would be called upon to give judgement on matters reqsusa iring analiby
monetary specialists, but the ITO would make theThe decisionls. Fund woud
apply standard teats to decide if the conditions of paragraph 2 (a) of
Article 21 were fulfilled; it was not, howeinistraver, decisions the admtive
orof the ITO n the standard tests which dominated thebut situation; the
criotne pararialaid dw raph 2 (a) of Article 21.
ice the ITO., E/CONF .2/C. 3/SR.24
Page 4
Since the ITO would be affected by decisions of the Fund, there
was need for integration between the two organization, That the two
should exist with a minimum of intercourse would produce an unfavourable
environment for international trade.
Mr. LIMA-CAMPOS (Brazil) agreed with the statements of the New Zealand
and Australian representatives. The position of many countries would be
weakened if matters relating to the ITO Charter were to be decided by the
Fund because of the differences in the voting procedure of the two
organizations. Moreover, since the ITO was primarily concerned with
production and employment problems, which should predominate over monetary
questions, the decision should rest with the ITO, if there were differences
between the two organizations.
Mr. WOLD (Norway) agreed with the United Kingdom representative that
there would be no great divergence of opinion between the two Organizations,
but supported the Australian amendment because the ITO should have full and
free responsibility for the vital decisions under Article 21. As Article 24
was at present drafted the ITO must accept the determination of the Fund in
a formal and binding manner. The argument that not all prospective members
of the ITO were members of the Fund carried great weight.
Mr. STUCKl (Switzerland) supported the New Zealand and Australian
amendments. He doubted the wisdom of including in the Charter a provision,
whereby the ITO would be compelled to accept the findings and advice of
another organization using a system of weighted voting.
Mr. BLUSZTAJN (Poland) approved the New Zealand and Australian
amendments. The ITO must have the right of final decision on questions of
trade policy, although co-operation between the ITO and the Fund was
essential. The proposal that there should be a division of labour between
the ITO and the Fund was unrealistic as questions of financial policy and of
trade policy were too closely connected. Quantitative restrictions and
exchange controls were complementary. He was concerned as to whether the
provisions in the Charter of the ITO concerning the exchange policy of
Members were consistent with the Articles of the Fund. It should-be stated
that nothing in Chapter IV should be construed as interfering with the
obligations of members of the ITO to the Fund. It was important that those
members of ITO who were not members of the Fund should not as a result enjoy
a privileged position.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) felt that the danger was that the Fund
and the ITO night disagree as to whether countries were in difficulties
concerning balance of payments or not. But the problem was not insoluble.
/If the Fund E/CONF.2/C.3/SR. 24
Page 5
If the Fund recognized that a country was in balance of payment difficulties,
the ITO, should agree at once. If, on the other hand, the Fund found that
a country had no such difficulties then the ITO could consider the "special
factors" referred to in paragraph 2 (a) (ii) of Article 21.
Mr. BRONZ (The United States of America) said that there was a special
relationship between the ITO and the Fund. Members of the Fund agreed to
abandon the use of certain monetary practices which in the past had had
disagreeable results. Quantitative restrictions and exchange controls
were complementary but the former had not been dealt with in the Fund
Agreement because it would have extended the scope of the institution too
much. It would be seriously damaging to the Fund if a country obtained
permission from the ITO to impose quantitative restrictions after the Fund
had refused to allow the institution of exchange controls.
The last sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 24 did not cover all of
paragraph 2 (a) of Article 21. Neither the words "imminent threat" nor
the phrase "except to the extent necessary" appeared in Article 24.The
difficulties of the transitional period were covered by Artclie XIV
Section 5 of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund as well as by paragraph 3(a)
of Article 21 in the Draft Charter.-* - : *-
Hefelt paragraph- of Article 24 was essentytial to preserve for - Fund
one of its principal functi tons and t ino protecthe indecisions of the Fund
its wn speci al field. The UnitedGStvtes approvGeedva Dr tthe text of the reaf
of Article 2 .
MULLE (Chile) was satisfied with the Gineadraft. -If he
New Zealustsnd and Australian amendments were accep e, a provision mzb
added l n danwntchat the IT0 culdnot equire a member to talke ry aton
contrarjy tio itgs obligations the IF. The arguments JustfinE the -
amendments were bsed on twhse fact that in Article 24 the final decision a
left to the F, but the Gion.eneva draft did not lead to this interpretatir
The I was- quired to-gv judgement on the relevant factors, but the. .
final decision was left to the ITO.
Mr. DUNAY (Liberia) stated that- beria had never used restrictive
measures in any way and saw enoy need to do so in the future. Her currnc
as convertible Imports and expers were handled by regular commercial
establishment and this method represented foreign trade at its simplest-
and best.
Mr. S al n( aNeedmw Zeala nd) said that the New"Zead-anntwas¬an
attack on the F. 'he was ior bection to compelling mefmbes f the ITO-
to sign an ceeent on exchaOnoge mnina tlltersr, nor to the IT0 tasza3
/information E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.24
Page 6
information necessary to enable it to determine matters within its Charter.
There should be the fullest co-operation between the ITO and IMF or other
organizations, but no outside body should determine the actions of the ITO.
Under the present text the ITO was required to make the final decision only
after accepting the determination of the IMF.
The CHAIRMAN said that the IMF observers had not yet stated the
position of the Fund, but they would participate in the discussions of the
Sub-Committee and give their opinions if the members so desired.
The proposals of Australia and New Zealand were referred to the
Sub-Committee set up to discuss Articles 21, 23 and 24.
Paragraph 4
Mr. BRONZ (United States of America) requested that the interpretative
note to paragraph 4 be considered by the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 6
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) asked that members of the Preparatory Committee
and the representative of the International Monetary Fund explain the exact
meaning of paragraph 6, which was of great concern to non-members of the
Fund.
Proposed New Paragraph 10 (Item 82)
Mr. LUNA OLMEDO (Mexico) explained that Mexico had not found an exchange
control system expedient but its gradually disappearing monetary reserve
would need protection; some retaliatory measure, transitional in nature,
should be provided as protection against those applying controls which
affected Mexico's balance of payments.
Mr. NORIEGA-MORALES (Guatemala) supported the Mexican proposal. Guatemala
had no disequilibrium and had not applied exchange controls, but in order to
defend its economy, it might have to resort to legislation introducing
restrictive measures, should its reserves be unduly depleted.
Mr. THOMPSON-McCAUSLAND (United Kingdom) noted that the term "exchange
control" had not yet been precisely defined. He hoped that in Sub-Committee
there would be opportunity for a more complete explanation of the Mexican
proposal, and particularly of the last sentence.
General
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) stated that the proposal to delete Article 24
(Item 83) was a corollary to the Argentine amendments to Articles 22 and 23.
Relationship with other organizations was established in Chapter VII; it
should be set forth clearly that the ITO was not subordinate to the IMF.
Until a solution was found to foreign exchange shortage and
inconvertibility, Argentina could not limit its freedom of action by concluding
/special exchange E/CONF.2/C. 3/SR.24
Page 7
special exchange agreements, at the present time she did not desire to
become a member of the Fund either directly or indirectly. Argentina would
not restrict imports unnecessarily; indeed, she wished to maintain a level
which would facilitate the amortization of the foreign credits she had granted.
The provisions of the present Article 24 need not be established for some time.
Mr. van TICHELEN (Belgium stated that his del??gation r??ained its
reservation to Article 24. The intervention of the IMF if a country was
threatened with balance of payments difficulties was legitimate and
valuable, but the machinery set in motion under Articles 21-24 by the
recognition that a critical situation existed, enabled a member to have
recourse to quantitative restrictions with dangerous facility.
Chapter II, which encouraged economic development policies not resulting
in harm to third countries, was contradicted by Articles 21-24 which gave
priority to national policy, even though harmful to others. The technique
of the prevention of economic crises should have been more thoroughly
studied; the balance of payments was the crux of such crises; but the use
of quantitative restrictions accelerated the crisis. Belgium had willingly
relinquished its sovereignty by choosing the method of intervention by the
ITO and the Fund, in order to exclude the operation of uncontrollable forces
which led to economic crisis and chaos.
Mr. DJEBARA (Syria) suggested that the representative of Belgium, in
criticizing one of the few weapons in the Charter helpful to many countries,
might have offered an alternative solution for their economic ills.
Mr. van ??ICHELEN (Belgium) was willing to assist in seeking a compromise
to safeguard a certain degree of national sovereignuy but c??tries should
be willing to lay it aside in special cases. Crises could not always be
averted, but measures accelerating them should be deleted from the Charter. '
MrH.A AUGENTLER (Czechoslovakia) moved the adjournment.
RThe CHAIMAN stated that discussion of Article 24 would be continued
at the next meeting to be held Mondnay, 5 Jaua.ry, at 300 p.m.
The meeting rose at 7.20 p.m. |
GATT Library | zp528dg1354 | Summary record of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba Friday 30 January 1948 at 3.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 30, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 30/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.29 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zp528dg1354 | zp528dg1354_90190261.xml | GATT_148 | 197 | 1,330 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERNCE CONFERENCE E/CONF. 2/C.3/SR.29
ON DU 30 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-NINTH MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba
Friday 30 January 1948 at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D.WILGRESS (Canada)
The CHAIRMAN, after calling the meeting to order, said that all had
been stunned by the sad news from India. Not only that country, but
humanity at large by one cruel blow had. been deprived of a great leader.
Mahatma Gandhi, by his life and work, had set an example of unselfish
devotion to the cause of humanity. His influence was that of a great
spiritual force, inspiring men to nobler aims. In extending sympathy to
the representatives of India in the great loss suffered by that country,
members were also moved by a sense of the loss suffered by all mankind.
He asked representatives to stand in silence for one minute out of
respect for the great leader whose life had come to an end, and proposed
that the meeting of the Third Committee should be adjourned until the
following morning.
The meeting rose at 3.10 p.m. |
GATT Library | qd375gc7946 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting Committee IIIb : Held at Havana, Cuba on Wednesday, 7 January 1948 at 3.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 8, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 08/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.27 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qd375gc7946 | qd375gc7946_90190258.xml | GATT_148 | 850 | 5,754 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.27 8 January 1948
ON DU ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING
COMMITTEE IIIb
Held at Havana, Cuba on Wednesday, 7 January 1948 at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. L. WILGRESS (Canada)
SECTION C - SUBSIDIES
(References are to items in the Annotated Agenda, E/CONF.2/C.3/8)
1. Article 27
Paragraph 1
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) said that the amendment (Item 8) proposing that
the words "that the system has also resulted" in sub-paragraph (a) be
replaced by the words "that the system may also result" was connected with
his delegation's amendment to Article 26, on which he had already spoken;
he would discuss the proposal further in sub-committee.
It was agreed to refer the amendment to the Sub-Committee.
Proposed New Paragraph 2
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) stated that his delegation's proposal (Item 9)
recognized a prevalent system of domestic price stabilization for a product
of which a country produces less than its total consumption and depends
on imports for the balance. The first objective of the amendment was to
provide Members with full information of all such measures in advance of
any possible need for concerted action. It did not follow, however, that
this should necessarily lead to a commodity conference.
Secodly, he agreed that it was not clear to what extent Article 27
included domestic price stabillzation arrangements. Paragraph 2 did not
appear to be limited to export subsidies; it stated "in any case" and
would therefore seem to include import price stabilization schemes. For
this reason it was desirable to make it clear in Article 27 that the type
of scheme which he had described would be considered as a case under
Article 25. A more complete explanation had been circulated by the
Netherlands delegation and was to be found in document E/CONF.2/C.3/8.
/Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) Page 2
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) thought that the discussion had clarified
several points. The amendment warranted careful study in Sub-Committee.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) said that it was his understanding in Geneva
that Article 27 (2) applied only to export subsidies and was intended only
to be a qualification of Article 26. If this were true, the Netherlands
position was already met by Article 25. It was agreed to refer the
amendment to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 2
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) explained that the deletion of paragraphs 2
and 3 was proposed so as to simplify procedure. Calling a commodity
conference might cause delays and difficulties detrimental to the Members
concerned. It would be preferable for the ITO itself to study and discuss
many of the matters at present in Section C. It could then make
recommendations to the Members concerned.
Mr. FERRERO (Peru) stated that his delegation was opposed to subsidies
in general and therefore opposed the inclusion of paragraphs 2 and 3 which
allowed, in certain circumstances, the continuation of subsidies to which
it was opposed. It was agreed to refer these amendments to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 3
Mr. KENNEDY (United States of America) said that the United States
amendments (Item 18) to Section C arose from their reservations on
paragraph 3 of Article 27 and on Article 28. The amendments were designed
to secure uniformity of treatment for all subsidies on primary products.
His delegation opposed the predatory use of subsidies, but merely desired
fair treatment as between one type of subsidy and another as applying to
primary commodities. He would be glad to have the amendments referred to
the Sub-Committee.
It was agreed to refer the amendments to the Sub-Committee.
2. Article 28
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) proposed the deletion of Article 28, because
the application of a base period would handicap underdeveloped countries.
It was agreed to refer the amendment to the Sub-Committee.
3. Article 29
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) proposed the deletion of Article 29, since
the proper place for such matters was Chapter VII. However, if the
paragraph were retained, he proposed that the word "determination" be
chanced to recommendation". It was agreed to refer the proposal to the
Sub-Committee.
4. Proposed New Article
At the request of the representative of Costa Rica, the CHAIRMAN stated
that, since the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Ecuador was not present to
/discuss the new ?/CONF.2/C .3/SR.27
Page 3
discuss the new Article proposed by his government, consideration should be
postponed until the next meeting.
5. Sub-Committee - Terms of Reference
It was agreed that the terms of reference of the Sub-Committee to study
Section C of Chapter IV should be:
(a) to consider all proposed amendments to Section C of Chapter IV
of the Draft Charter ? contained in document E/CONF.2/C.3/8,
together with all suggestions and proposals made during discussion
of these proposed amendments in Committee IIIb; and
(b) to recommend texts to reconcile the various points of view
expressed.
6. Sub-Committee - Membership
It was agreed that the following should be represented on the
Sub-Committee:
Argentina Denmark Sweden
Australia France Turkey
Brazil Netherlands United Kingdom
Canada Peru United States of America
Cuba Philippines Venezuela
The meeting rose at 3.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | zk517cv3957 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting (Committee III B) : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, on Tuesday, 6 January 1948, at 3.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 6, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 06/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.26 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zk517cv3957 | zk517cv3957_90190257.xml | GATT_148 | 2,862 | 18,534 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
E /C0NF.2/C.3/SP.26
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 6 January 1948
ON DU ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING
(COMMITTEE III B)
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba,
on Tuesday, 6 January 1948, at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WlLGRESS (Canada)
SECTION C - SUBSIDIES
GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) expressed the view that export subsidies
constituted a practice vhich was at least as harmful to international trade
as quantitative restrictions. They gave an abnormal stimulus to the
exports of one country at the expense of other countries producing the same
commodity, thereby causing a disequilibrium in the balance of paymers in
those countries.To permit export subsidies would be the surest way of
destroying confidence in the Charter and of destroying friendly relations
between nations. They would counteract the favourable effect of tariff
reductions and would accentuate the differences between countries in different
stages of economic development. It would be illogical and unfair to permit
subsidies which would ruin the very branches of production, on which
under-developed countries were being told to concentrate, No country liable
to be damaged by export subsidies could ratify a Chartier 'which did not limit
them to the geratest extent possible.
He was unable to accept the United States amendment to Article 26, as he
felt that its adoption would result in the conditions which he had already
outlired but welcomed the United States amendment to Article 25.
Mr. LLCRENTE (Philippines) drew attention to the National Rice and Corn
Corporation, which had been created by the Philippine Government to attain
self-sufficiency in the production of rice and to put an end to monopolistic
practices in the distribution of rice. Rice was the principal article of diet
and the most important product of the Philippines. By fixing the purchase
price of rice, the Corporation had attempted to make it remunerative to the
marginal producer and at the same time fair to the consumer. In such a way,
/the violent E/ CONF.2/0.3/SR.26
Page 2
the violent fluctuations which occurred during the planting and the harvesting
of rice had been brought under control. In certain instances, the Corporation
had been forced to import rice from abroad and it had also entered the
distribution field so that people would benefit from the mass distribution
scheme.
He wished to be informed if such action violated the terms of Section C,
Section D, or Chapter V. If such was the case, his delegation would submit
an amendment; any measure which attempted to make a country self-sufficient
as regards its principal article of diet, was one which should be supported
wholeheartedly by ITO.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) explained that before the war, his
Government had established similar agencies to that referred to by the
Philippine representative, in the Netherlands and in the Netherlands
East Indies. The question had been discussed by the Preparatory Committee
and also by F?0 in Geneva, which had come to the unanimous conclusion that
such stabilization schemes were acceptable, provided that they did not harm
the economies of other countries. These schemes came under the terms of
Article 25 when they resulted in the attainment of almost or complete
self-sufficiency. They were not prohibited by Article 26, and he could not
agree with the Brazilian representative that they were more dangerous than
quantitative restrictions. If they seriously affected the economic life of
another country, that country would have the right to discuss the limitation
of the particular measures with the country which was applying them.
The Netherlands amendment to Article 27 would cover his Government's
system of subsidizing agriculture. At times this in fact represented an
inverted subsidy, since domestic prices were held at a level sometimes
above and sometimes below world market prices. The amendment provided
safeguards against serious prejudice to the interests of other Members.
Mr. FERRERO (Peru) said his delegation supported the suggestion made by
the International Chamber of Commerce that Articles 25 and 26 should be
reversed in sequence, Article 26 containing the general. anti-subsidy rule
being placed ahead of Article 25. The delegation of Peru felt that export
subsidies should be condemned, as they might be used by highly industrialized
countries to the detriment of undeveloped countries exporting primary
commodities and unable to afford measures of counter-subsidization. It could
not support the amendment suggested by the delegation of the United States of
America, as this would substantially change the spirit of the Geneva text.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) stated that Section C emphasized the
importance of Members avoiding action in their domestic fields of policy
which would have serious repercussions on the interests of other Members.
/This was E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.26
Page 3
This was implicit in Article 25. The amendment to the second sentence of
that Article by the delegation of the United states of America was a useful one.
He agreed with the representative of Brazil regarding the importance of
Article 26 in relation to those tariff negotiations which had taken place and
which would be taking place in the future between Members; he felt that the
amendment suggested by the United States might carry with it much that would
nullify such negotiations. He referred to the statements of the
representatives of the Philippines and of the Netherlands regarding domestic
price stabilization schemes, and agreed with the latter that such schemes in
general would tend to assist international efforts to secure the moderation
of pronounced price fluctuations in world trade in major primary commodities.
Paragraph 2 of Article 27 emphasized the close link which should exist between
primary commodities throughout the Charter, and in particular as between
pirmary products in relation to subsidies and in relation to Chapter VI.
The Charter should stimulate members of ITO to resolve problems regarding
primary products by means of mutual co-operation through commodity argeements
within the framework of the Chapter VI. He regretted the United States
proposal for a new paragaph as this would open the door to retaliatory
measures. He had some doubts regarding the amendment submitted by the
delegation of Venezuela. He felt however that the scope and provisions of
paragraph 3 might be re-examined and that the present draft should be taken
as a basis, Referring to the new article proposed by the delegation of
Ecuador, he thought that it would be somewhat out of place in Seciton C.
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) said that the Canadian delegation accepted the
Geneva draft of Article 27 which permitted the use of export subsidies in
limited case, and felt that that Article provided a effective mechanism for
obtaining release from the requirements of Article 26 when such escape was
justified. Referring to the amendments submitted by the delegation of the
United States of America, he said that his delegation shared the views of the
delegation of the United Kingdom. He thought that the Sub-Committee should
bear in mind the following essential principles:
(1) Article 25 contained a careful balance between the rights and
obligations of importing and those of exporting countries; this should be
maintained. It would be upset by the amendment to Article 28 suggested by
the delegation of the United States of America.
(2) The exception provided of primary commodiites must be such that,
while due regard was paid to the special difficulties which they might
encounter, it should not be so wide as to permit abuse.
(3) The exceptions for primary commodities should be so formuIated as
to encourage and facilitate Chapter VI technique.
(4) Safeguards must be provided to ensure that export subsidies were not
/used E/CONF.2/C .3/SR.26
Page 4
used as a means of expanding a Members share of world exports beyond that
of a fair and representative period.
Mr. LECUYER (France) considered that the principles of Articles 25 and 26
should be maintained, and viewed with misgivings the amendment to Article 26
proposed by the delegation of the United States of America, This might bring
about a more dangerous situation than if the Articles were maintained as at
present drafted. The French delegation must reserve its position on the
United States amendments pending further explanation.
Mr. D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) regarded subsidies as prejudicial and dangerous
.when used for dumping purposes or to stimulate production of exportable goods
difficult to place in foreign countries. In other cases, he saw no objection
to their use. The Venezuelan amendments had been presented from that point
of view and he would Justify them at the appropriate time.
Mr. McCARTEY (Australia) said that subsidies divided themselves into two
main categories: those relating to secondary industries, and those relating
to primary industries. These two groups could each be subdivided into
"production" subsidies and "export" subsidies.
In regard to manufactured goods, subsidies usually took the place of
tariffs, the subsidy depending on the cost of production in relation to
the cost of importing like goods. It was argued that this method had
greater merit than the tariff method in that the cost came out of revenue
and was submittted to regular scrutiny by the Government. He agreed
that export subsidies called ?or special safeguard, but said that in practice
it was hard to differentiate between export and production subsidies. It
was essentially a difference in technique, to which the Charter gave too
much weight, subsidies on exports being treated more stringently than those
on production. However, he did not see how this could be avoided. Primary
products were much more difficult to deal with. In trying to assess the
measure of protection to be given to a country?s own industries and products,
a varied and changing international market had to be taken into
consideration. He pointed out that the subsidy requirements of an industry
would vary according to the tages in its development and cited Australia's case
in the production of rice. Production subsidies might be useful in en
early stage but it was necessary to see that the production did not help
to glut the world market. The scheme described by the representative of the
Philippines would seem to be permitted, unless the 1st sentence of
Article 27 (2) was read to cover all subsidies on a primary product. In that
case the scheme would be brought under Article 26. If Article 27 was
intended only to cover export subsidies, the Netherland's amendment would be
unnecessary as it was automatically covered by Article 25, but if Paragraph 2
covered subsidies on all primary products, the amendment was understandable.
Without the intervention of Governments the primary production price support
formula could not be worked out, and therefore the remedy lay in
/Chapter E/CONF.2/0.3/SR.26
Page 5
Chapter VI. High prices must be avoided at all costs, in order to supply the
world's needs. The references to Article 26 contained in Article 27 should
be retained.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Committee should proceed with the first
reading of the Articles, after which the various amendments and proposals
would be further discussed by a Sub-Committee set up to consider the whole
of Section C.
2.. ARTICLE 25 - SUBSIDIES lN GENERAL (FIRST READING)
Mr. ORTIZ-LAMADRID) (Cuba) said the Cuban amendment was based on the
necessity for an economic instrument which would permit the indirect
subsidizing of certain products in order to bring about industrial
diversification. Cuba was in no position at present to use direct subsidies,
and could not renounce the only formula she possessed: exemption from taxes.
A further explanation would be given in the Sub-Committee.
It was agreed that the amendments proposed by the delegations of Cuba
and the United States of America and the suggestion of the International
Chamber of Commerce concerning Article 25 should be referred to the
Sub-Committee.
3. ARTICLE 26: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ON EXPORT SUBSIDIES (FIRST READING)
Mr. ORTIZ-LAMADRID (Cuba) stated that his delegation's reservation,
shown in the Geneva text as applying to Article 26, in fact referred to
Article 25 and was dealt with by their amendment to that Article.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the proposal of the International
Chamber of Commerce to transfer Article 28 to form part of Article 26,
It was agreed to refer both points to the proposed Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 1.
Mr. KENNEDY (United States of America) stated that he would defer
conment on his delegation's amendment until discussion of its reservation
on Articles 27 and 28.
Paragraph 2
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) said that, inasmuch as the present wording of
paragraph 2 referred only to exemption of exported products from taxes
imposed on like products consumed domestically, his amendment proposed
to extend the exemption to taxes on raw materials and semi-manufactured
articles included in exported products. It should be recognized that
many countries had adopted such a system of exemptions.
Mr. BABGAT (Egypt) and Mr. BLUSZTAJN (Poland) supported the
Swedish amendment.
/Mr. de VRIES E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.26
Page 6
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) thought the substance of the amendment was
covered by the existing text.
It was agreed to refer the Swedish amendment to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 3 Nr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) said that his amendment proposed the deletion
of the time-limit set for eliminating subsidies. The brevity of the two-year
period was recognized by the provision for postponement, but the effective
date lwas uncertain and consideration should be given to the circumstances
each country would face when the Charter came into force.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) was already uneasy about paragraph 2 and
thought that the Argentine amendment made it worse.
It was agreed to refer the amendment to the Sub-Committee.
Proposed new Paragraph
Mr. D?ASCOLI (Venezuela) explained that the proposed new paragraph
was intended to cover subsidies designed to avoid a country's dependence
upon one product.
Until the early part of the 20th Century, coffee and cocoa had been.
Venezuela's chief exports. After 1908 the export of oil had become of
primary importance. While this had strengthened the financial position,
it presented the disadvantages of a decrease in agricultural production and
dependency upon a single mineral. Moreover, a large proportion of the
profits from oil was returned to foreign investors. As a consequence,
and because of the devaluation of the dollar in 1933, it was necessary, in
order to safeguard her external purchasing power, protect the employment
of one-third her population, and not devalue her currency, for Venezuela
to subsidize the production of coffee and cocoa through taxing oil.
It was not necessary to state how the subsidies were allocated and
granted, but the principle was emphasized as being reasonable, since it
was not disadvantageous to other countries, and should be acknowledged in
the Charter.
He stressed the fact that the Venezuelan system did not increase
exports, nor did it affect world prices of coffee and cocoa. Also it was
an essential means of maintaining full employment.
Mr. BLUSZTAJN (Poland) said that the Venezuelan amendment was of
interest to a number of other countries in similar circumstances who
were obliged to maintain their present exchange rates in order to support
their external purchasing power. This involved differential exchange rates
for exports. The rules of the International Monetary Fund permitted
postponement of the removal of such differential rates during a transitional
/period. E/CONF.2/C.3/SR. 26
Page 7
period. He thought that the substance of the Venezuelan amendment might be
covered by Article 24, but if this were not the case, he considered that
an amendment to Article 26 on the lines of that proposed by Venezuela was
desirable.
Mr. D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) expressed his appreciation of the Polish
delegate's remarks, and emphasized that in his own statement he had tried
to make a clear distinction between the method of subsidization and the
principle involved.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) thought that if the type of subsidy envisaged
by Venezuela were a subsidy on production, it would be covered by Article 25.
If, however, it were a subsidy on export, then it would be covered by
Article 26. It was mainly a matter of technique, and on this depended which
Article would apply.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) considered that Article 24 might be more
appropriate for consideration of the Venezuelan amendment.
Nr. D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) asked whether, if Venezuela were to remove
its differential exchange rates under the rules of the International
Monetary Fund, it would then be permitted to grant direct help to its
producers of coffee and cocoa in the form of subsidies on their exports.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) pointed out that export subsidies of this
kind were expressly prohibited under Article 26.
Mr. D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) agreed that this was the case, and explained
that this was the reason why his delegation had submitted the amendment
under consideration.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) thought that the present text of Section 'C'
went a considerable way to meet Venezuela's requirements. In particular,
Articles 26 paragraph 3) and 27 would offer Venezuela an escape from the
anti-dumping provisions of Article 33.
Mr. MULLER (Chile thought that Venezuela's problem of high export
costs was partly the result of their over-valued exchange rate.
Mr., D'ASCOLI (Venezuela) in reply stated that costs had risen
drastically quite irrespective of the rate of exchange.
It was agreed to refer the amendment proposed by Venezuela to the
Sub-Committee, and to authorize the latter, if necessary, to enter into
consultation with any other Sub-Committee on the question.
The meeting rose at 5.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | wb438bx4150 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba on 18 March 1948 at 6.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 20, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 20/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.26 and E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.18-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wb438bx4150 | wb438bx4150_90180472.xml | GATT_148 | 775 | 5,058 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.26
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVEIOPMENT
SUMMARY RECCRD OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Capital, Havana, Cuba on 18 March 1948 at 6.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. BETETA (Mexico)
CONSIDERATION OF REDRAFT OF ARTICLE 13 PROPOSED BY CENTRAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
(E/CONF.2/C.8/19, E/CONF.2/C,8/19/Corr.1 (English text) and
E/CONF.2/C.8/19/Corr.2 (French text)).
On the suggestion of Mr. EVANS (United States of America), it was-
agreed to delete the sub-titles placed against the letters A, B and C but
to retain the letters A, B and C and place them in the middle of the text.
Tyocgraphical errors were pointed out by Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil),
Mr. CATUDAL (United States of America) and Mr. RYERB (France) and these
were subsequentlyc,orrected in Annex VII of the Report of the Cmmoittee to
the Conference (/iONF.72/69).
Following a proposal by Mr. SAENZ (Mexico) it was agreed to accept
the words "any other" in place of "another" in paragraph 3 as renumbered
in the second line on page 3 of E/CONF.2/C.8/19 and the word. "any" in place
of thew ord "the" in arxagraph 4 (a) as renumbered in the fourth lineoDn
page 6 and i nparagraph 9 as renumbered in the sixth line on page 22 and
to delete th eword "the - provisions of" appearing in paragraph 3 as - -
renumbered in the fifth line on page 3 and the words "any provision of"
in paragraph 5 as renumbered in the third line from the bottom of page 9.
On the suggestion of Mr. HEWITT (Australia) the w"rds 'with a view to
obtaining agreement" and. "en vue deireallser un accord" were deleted from,
pahagraa) 8 (e-appeoring an page 17 of .E/CONF2/C.8/19 in ordertorconf arm
withthe dec oisimnf.the Central Drafting Committee concerning paragraph 3 (a).
as renumbered.
Article 13 as proposed by the Central Draftoing Cmmittee and amended
as thiemeeting was approved by the Committee.
CO4SIDERATIOREOF PXDRAFT OF ARTICLE 14 PROPOSED NTY CEDRAAL NMAFTMMITTEEIG CO
NF.(E/CO2/C.8/22 andNFM E/C.2/C.8/22/1Corr.) MNDDMENANENWT TO PARAGRAPH 1
TEMPEF IRPDSEP TH BY -DGFELEAION OF THE TEDUNI KINGDOM (English text -
E/FCON..2/C2/47; French text - E/CONF.2/C.2/47AR1eV.).
C the proposal of Miss FHERIST (UniteKd Xngmco) the amendment to
/paragraph 1 E/CONF.2/C .2/SR.26
Page 2
paragraph 1 of Article 14 proposed by her delegation was approved with the
changes as set out in E/CONF.2/C.2/49 and E/CONF.2/49/Corr.1 as regards the
English text. With regard to the French version of this amendment, set out
in E/CONF.2/47/Rev.1, it was agreed to ask the Central Drafting Committee
to prepare a French version incorporating the change made at this meeting
and it was further agreed that it would not be necessary for this version
to be referred back to Committee II.*
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) withdrew the reservation of his delegation with
regard to Article 14 indicated in the last sentence of paragraph 13 of the
Report of Sub-Committee C of Committee II (E/CONF.2/C.2/41).
Article 14 as proposed by the Central Drafting Committee and amended
at this meeting and subject to the reference of the French text back to
the Central Drafting Committee was approved by the Committee.L
CNSODElRATION OF RERAFDT OF ARTILEC 15 RPOOPES BDY ENTRCAL DRAFTNGI CMMITTEEO
(E/ONCF.2/C.8/26, E/CON.F2/C.8/26/Corr1. (English text) and
E/CNFO.2/C.8/26/Corr.2 (French text)).
Mr. BURDINSZIX (Poland) enquired as to the reason fo r anumberoOf
modifications mad eby th eCentral Drafting Comimttee incldiun the gadidtion
of the words" and requirements" after the word "condiionst" appearing in
paragraph 6 (a) and elsewhere in Article 15. He als odrew attention to the
discrepancy which existed between "Preferential Agreements"i n the title
of Article1 5 and "preferential arrangements" in the text of the Article.
Mr. SUEEeNS (Belgium) argued in favour of the retention of the words
ind requirements" after "conditions". On the suggestion of Mr. EVWNSM
(United States of America )it was agree ,t oaamnd th teitle by substituting
"Agreements" for "Arranegmnets". It was also agreed that at the en dof the
fourth lin eof pargraaph 6 (b) in the English text the word" prescribed"
should b seubstituted not by "shall prescribe" as indicated in the corrgiendum
but simply by "prescribe".
Article 15 as proposed by the Central Drafting oCmmitteea dn aemnded
at this meeting was approved by the Comimttee. - -.'. -
Mr. MULLR.(Chile) said. tat now that the work ofd the Committee, ha&
been concluded he wished to thank the Chairman for the efficiency and energy
with which he had .conductmed that work The Comittee concurred.
The meeting rose at7.45 p.m.
* The French text of Article 14 amended byn thommie Central Draftig Cttee
accorce with this decision is contaiVII ofOFned In Annex Z ;
E/lCOE 2/9.
~ ~ 9 |
GATT Library | jd753hk3465 | Summary Record of the Twenty-Third Meeting : Held at the Capitolio, Havana, Cuba, Friday, 12 March 1948, at 4.oo p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 13, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 13/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.23 and E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.18-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jd753hk3465 | jd753hk3465_90180467.xml | GATT_148 | 2,205 | 14,246 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.2/SR. 23
ON DU 13 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL; ENGLISH
: SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY - THIRD MEETING
Held .at the Capitolio, Havana,. Cuba, Friday, 12 March 1948, at 4. oo p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Ram=n BETETA (Mexico)
DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE C ON ARTICLES 13 AND 14
Mr. MAHADEVA (Ceylon) asked that the reservation made by his delegation
on the whole of Article 13 should be recorded in the Report of Comittee II
to the: Conferene.
Dr. MADJID (Afghanistan) stated. that his delegation had made a provisional
reservation in Articles 13 and 15 at the meeting of Heads of Delegations
(E/CONF.2/51) due to lack of instructions from his Government. He wished. to
mention this because, he had not ;yet received the awaited instructions.
MR. LLORENTE (Philippines) stated that the automatic prior approval
criteria provided for under the proposed Article 13 of the Co-ordinating
Committee did not even cover the minimum requirements of the Philippines as
well as of Member countries similarly situated. Criterion No. 1 of that
propose, Article recognieed the validity of the claim of Member countries for
special protection to their industries, which might or might not be efficient
or desirable, as long as they were industries established immediately prior
to the wa r and nurtured by abnormal conditions. Such a recognition without a
corresponding concession to Member countries which did. not have and could not
have had. the opportunity to establish new industries during the war shoiid. be
viewed, and rightly so, as highly discriminatory, and as a link which would
considarable weaken the high purposes of the Charter.
The 'representative of the Philippines also reminded the Committee that
hip delegation with draw its amendment to Article 13 and expressad its stand
to support any; proposition which would make the procedure under Article 13
more expeditious, would. provide for automatic approval of protective moasures
When they satisfied: the criteria to be stated in the C'harter, or would. recognize
the necessity of a transitional period for Member countries whose economies
had been partially or completely disrupted by the war. He expressed, deep
/regret E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.23
Page 2
regret that the Co-ordinating Committee not only failed to recognize the
special needs of devastated areas but even pondered unique protection to
Member countries which might have secured unusual advantages and benefits
during the war.
The Committee then passed to the examination of Article 13, paragraph by
paragraph.
Paragraphs 1, 2.(a), 2 (b), 3 and 4 (a) were approved without comment.
Concerning paragraph 4 (b), Mr. ARAUJO (Colombia) stated that, in order
to give a complete picture of the history of this Article, he thought it should
be noted in the record of the meeting that the delegation of Colombia bad
submitted its amendments to Article 13 In December 1947, end at that tire
established the rule of automatic approval as a formula for compromise between
the opposed points of view which required either that prior approval of the
Organization for protective measures be waived completely, or that Members
interested.in instituting protective measures should be unconditionally subject
to the Organization. The delegation of Colombia later supplemented this
statement of its point of view in a report read in the appropriate Sub-Committee.
The report was referred to a Working Party for examination. The delegation
of Colombia submitted to the Working Party a specific proposal enumerating the
so-called automatic criteria, only some of which, unfortunately, were Accepted
in the text recommended by the Co-ordinating Committee. Thia list of automatic
criteria was considered by a subsidiary working party and was the subject of a
report submitted. to the Working Party as a whole. Finally, the head of the
Colombian delegation urged the Co-ordinating Committee that, in Article 13,
formulae more in accordance with the so-called automatic oriteria. should be
adopted and, more especially, that such criteria should be established for
the protection of agriculture in specified. circumstances. As it was impossible
to persuade the Co-ordinating Committee to go beyond the text now being
discussed, the delegate of Colombia was obliged to refuse to support the
Committee's proposal as a formula for compromise. Although the delegation of
Colombia has had to accept the majority decision, it wishes to place on record
the foregoing on which its disagreement with the accepted text is based, .in
spite of the fact that the Colombian proposale were partly satisfied by the
latter. The foregoing also explained the delegation's attitude to the Charter
as a whole, as it would be stated in the Conference and subsequently -before
public opinion and the Parliament of Colombia.
Mr. LEON BELLCC (Argentina) stated that in his opinion paragraph 4 (b) (ii)
was contrary to all past custom and to the attitude taken on the subject by
/preceding E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.23
Page 3
preceding Inter-American conferences. This paragraph, in his opinion, amounted
really to the forbidding of the industrialization of undeveloped countries by
the industrialized countries.
Mr.GUTERREZ (Cuba) did not agree with the interpretation given to the
sub-paragraph by the Argentine delegate. In his opinion there was no
prohibition to industrialization involved in the seb-paragraph. This sub-
paragraph had to be interpreted in it3 context. All the paragraph moant was
that in order to use indigenous primary commodities in a better way, measures
could be taken which otherwise would be inconsistent with the Charter.
Mr. (Philippines) agreed with the delegate of Argentina on the
fact that the text of sub-paragraph (b) (ii) did not help to promote ;
industrialization. s In hioiopinn, all the paragraph did was to recognize
that a country had the rightake all unn alZ~ecessary measures to counteract
the effect of a fall in the sale of tgegendiGdnous primary commodity due to
restrictions imposed abroad.
HARLONE ~ (Uruguay) stated thatlhlegaesegdtion maintained the same
on inio h hadas re aliiady expreased HtHthe Reads of Delegations meeting.
gPara4r4phs 1 (a), 4 (b), 4 4c)d t nd)4ard . (e) were tpen a.p.oved,
A ter brief discission It was agreed to accept two cunstq enrral diafting
az'ndmprts d dposee by the delegation of Australia to delete the words
"mtate"e"t or' in the eighth line ofgpara r ph 4a(f) end to substitute the
"nord notific"ationtfor -he" "decird d"siont in the eleventh line.
Paragraph 5 an i theinterpretative note folioiwing t were approved without
comment. Subsequently in connection with Paragraph 7 of the Report it was
agreed that the words "or if the by-product of srch tmamafort"tion be added
afte the"w"rds 'primary commodity" in the interpretative note.
SSION OF ARTICLE 14 iP
The preamble of paragraph 1 was approved without comment.
An amendment of the delegation of Australia to insert the words "decisions
under" before the words "the provisionsagraph " in the fifth line oagraph 1'
was accepted.
Mr. McLIAM e(Ireland) enquired whether te date of notification had not
been otted from paragraph 1 (b). It was agreed that this date had been
mitted, that it should be the date of deposit of the Member's instrument of
acceptance of the Charter and that the Central Drafting Committee should be
asked to insert the appropriate words at the rappropriate place in paragaph 1 (b).
Subject to this paragraph 1 (b) was approved. -
Australia oposin the first line of paragraph« paagraplhn 2
a comma should be inserted after "any Member" and that in the second line
/after E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.23
Page 4
after the word "Trade" there should be inserted the words "in respect of whose
measures decisions have been made under the provisions of paragraph 6 of
Article XVIII of that agreement." ahd stated that under the present text of
the paragraph a country becoming a Contracting Party just prior to the entry
into force of the Charter would be in a position to maintain a protective
measure without having to notify the Organization; these measures could under
the provisions of paragraph 1 remain in force indefinitely. this situation
was made possible by the fact that Prat II of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, which contained the provisions by which the Contracting Parties
examined and gave decision upon the maintanance of a measure, was suspended on
the day of the entry into force of the Charter. The. aim of the amendment was
to empower ITO to take the decisions which the Contracting Parties to the
GATT would have taken, had not their authority been removed by the entry into
force of the Charter.
In reply to the representative of Turkey, Mr. FOWLER (United States of
America), expressed the view that a country would have little difficulty in
submittlng a statement concerning the measures which it was applying, within
one month following membership. . . .
Mr. WERFES (Brazil) reserparagraphight to comment on this paragraph after
it had been considered by the Central Drafting Committee.
Paragraph 2, as amended in ac orsaralianth the proposl of the Australian
delegation, was approved by the Committee. The Central Drafting Committee was
asked to pay special attention to the drafting of the paragraph both in
English and French.
Paragraph 3
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) drew attentios to ege amendment of his delegation
to insert the words "to the, conditions of ane such approval and" after the
word "subject" which was designed to make clear that the maintenance in force
of the easure would be subject to the conditions of the approval by GATT
It was agreed to approve paragraph 3 as submitted by Sub-Committee C but
to ask the Central Draftirmgof words see to add a form of words such as those
propeosed if necessary in order to ensure the maintenance of the conditions as
well as of the measure. .
ph 4gra. 4'
In rethe representative of Liberia, Mr. GUTTERREZ U IT-Z.explainedplAQ4_
the world "negotiations" refferred to any kind of negotiations inc
bilateral agreements conded oucludedde the frameworkof the Charter aw GATnT.
Subvoct te the eseryhreservation of the Irish representative of his ri
raise this questionart in again if necessary, raph was 4pproved by.the
/Committee E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.23
Page 5
Committee.
Paragraph 5
This paragraph was approved without comment.
Mr. NOVOA (Mexico) supported by Mr. TORRES (Brazil) stated that Article 13
in no way prohibited a country from establishing any type of industry it so
desired. The only prohibition set forth in the Charter was with respect to
the use of quantitative restrictions, or other measures in conflict with the
provisions of Chapter IV of the Charter as a means of protection for new
industries. Article 13 provided a procedure in accordance with which measures
inconsistent with Chapter IV might be approved. On the suggestion of
Mr. REISMAN (Canada) it was agreed that the statement of Mr. NOVOA (Mexico)
represented the unanimous view of the Committee.
Report of Sub-Committee C
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
These paragraphs were spproved without comment.
Paragraph 7
Mr. USMANI (Pakistan) proposed the insertion after "Article 13" in the second
line of the words "consideration was given to the view of the Co-ordinating
Committee and the proposal of the delegation of Pakistan (See Annex A)" and the
commencement of a new sentence with the words "It was agreed" as. expressing the
view of the Committee. He also proposed the addition at the end of the paragraph
of a new sentence, viz. "Accordingly it was decided to insert the interpretative
note set out at the end of the text of Article 12 in Annex B."
The amendment was accepted by the Committee.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) pointed out that the interpretative note referred only
to the processing of a primary commodity and made no mention of the processing of
a by product of the particular branch of industry.
After a short discussion, the Committee agreed to insert the words "or of a
by-product of such transformation" after the words "primary commodity" as
expressing the view of the Committee.
Paragraph 7 was approved with the aforementioned changes.
Paragraph 8
Mr. LIEU (China) drew attention to the fact that the words "international
trade" were also mentioned in paragraph 4 (d) (ii) (II) of Article 13 and
suggested that a reference to it could be inserted in paragraph 8 of the Report.
The paragraph was approved with this modification.*
Paragraph 9
Mr. HEWITT (Australia) proposed that the Interpretation of the words
* In line 1 of paragraph 8 "reference" becomes "references". In line 2 add.
and 4 (d) (ii) (II) " after "4 (b) (iii)" and substitute "these were
references" for "this was a reference".
/"materially E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.23
"materially affected" should apply to paragraph 2 as well as to paragraphs 3
and 4 (d) of Article 3 as otherwise the materially affected Members referred
to in paragraph 3 could be interpreted lto be only the principal suppliers.
Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia) Supported the point of view of the
Australian represensative, Miss FISHER (United-Kingdom) agreed that the
materially affecte members referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 13 need not
necessarily be the principal suppliers but that the whole of paragraph 9 of
the Report could not apply to paragraph 2.
After further discussion; the Committee accopted provisionally the
amendment proposed by Mr. FOWLER (United States of America) set out in
E/CONF.2/C.2/41/Add.1.
Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15
These pragraphs were approved without comment.
The meeting rose at 7.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | dn893vm2201 | Summary Record of Thirry-Third Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Friday, 6 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 6, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 06/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.33 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dn893vm2201 | dn893vm2201_90190266.xml | GATT_148 | 2,332 | 15,252 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTROCTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.33 6 February 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMTTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba,
Friday, 6 F-bruary 1948 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman Mr. LLERAS RESTREPO (Colombia)
1. REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE D - ARTICLE 43, PARAGRAPHS 1 (b) and 2
(E/CONF.2/C.3/37 and Corr.1)
Paragraph 1 (b)
Mr. PELLIZA. (Argentina) stated that he would not press his reservation
but wished it recorded that in his opinion the proviso to paragraph 1 (b) (1)
was unnecessary.
It was agreed to request the Central Drafting Comnittee to examine
sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 1 (b) with a view to removing
any ambiguity and vagueness concerning the words "the war" as referring to
World War II,
Mr. PELLIZA(Argentina) maintained his reservation to sub-paragraph (iii)
The Argentine proposal to delete the proviso to sub-paragraph (iii) on the
ground thrt state commercial -policies should not be subject to consultation
and prior approval by all who considered themselves affected had not been
accepted. Nor had the Sub-Committee accepted his suggestion to replace the
proviso by "provided that on tho request of another Member directly affected"
the Member should consider the possibility of reviewing or suspending the
measure giving rise to the request."
There boing no support for the Argentine proposal, paragraph 1 (b) as
submitted by the Sub-Committee, was approved.
Paragraph 2
Mr. PELLIZA: (Argentina) maintain.ed his reservation. The amendment which
had been submitted was in conformity with the opinion of the delegation of'
Argentina that the powers and functions of the Organization should be limited
to those laid down in Article 69.
/Mr. MULLER (Belgium). E/CONF.2/C.3/SR,33
Page 2
Mr. MULLER (Belgium) askod that the dato 1 January 1951 be maintained.
There should be a definite date to roview existing exceptions in order to
avoid any possibility of their becoming permanent; the Organization was
empowered to postpone the time limit if necessary. He had suggested that
in ordor to take account of possible crises in the future, the Organization
should be authorized to permit such measures also after the date fixed. This
would have the advantage that a country might bo more inclined to give up
exceptions which it did not at present need.
Mr. SHAKLE (United Kingdom), referring to paragraph 29 of th report of
the Sub-Committee (E/CONF.2/C.3/37), said that should there be a future
crisis, it would be for the ITO to exercise its judgment at that timo. He
was supported by the representatives of Norway and Czechoslovakia.
There being no support for the Belgian proposal, paragraph 2 was approved,
note being taken of the Argentine r, -ervation.
The CHAIRMMAN stated that the amendment presented by the delegations of
Guat?mala and Uruguay would be considered at the next meeting, and noted
that the amendment had also beon signed by the delegations of Argentina and
Ecuador.
2. REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE J - ARTICLES 30 AND 31 (E/CONF.2/C.3/43)
Mr. NASH (New Zealand), as its Chairman, submitted for consideration the
Report of Sub-Comiittee J.
ARTICLE 30
Paragraph 1 (a)
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines) considered that all of the Philippine state
trading enterprises were within the scope of Section D. However, assurance
was requested that tho activities of the Philippine National Trading
Corporation were permissible in this Section; the Corporation, a government
agency, dealt for the most part in primary commoditios, particularly in
materials for reconstruction, and only in some instances sold them at
slightly above cost. It was not a monopoly nor did it discriminate against
Member states.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) replied that Section D was based on the
clear recognition of the principle t'-at a country should not, because it
was operating state enterprises, have any special advntegos or disadvantages
in the conduct of its foreign trade. From what had been stated about the
Philippine state enterprises, Mr. Caplan thought the activities were not in
conflict with Section D.
/Mr. EVANS (United States of America) E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.33
Page 3
Mr. EVANS (United States of America.) agreed with tho representative of
the United Kingdom and added that Article 30 dealt only with discriminations
as between- Members and not with discrimination in favour of nationals.
The representatives of Belgium and France asked that the Central-Drafting
Committee -give attention to the discrepancies in the English and French texts
and declarcd, that their approval of any provision would only rofer to the
English version.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) said that although Article 30 dealt with non-
discrimination a between States, it should not be inferred that a State
enterprise was free to give protection to domestic enterprises. Articles 30
and 31 allowed protective measures by means of a price differential- but
not by means of quantitative restrictions. That method would conflict with
AIrticle 20, paragraph 3, but a state enterprise had the same rights as
private enterprises in the use of quantitative restrictions permitted
elsewhere In the Charter.
Paragraph 1 (a) - approved.
Paragraph 1 (b)
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) replied in the affirmative to the question of
Mr. HAIDER (Iraq) as to whether the phrase "in accordance with customary
business practices" included tho reliability of a supplier or buyer,
Interpretative Note to Paragrahs 1 (a) and (b)
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines), after pointing out minor drafting chang?,
stressed that the original footnote did not include any mention of monopoly.
Mr. NASH (Now Zealand) replied that the Sub-Committee was of the opinion
that it was proper to exclude from State trading the entorurises mentioned in
sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) if thoy were under government controI, If a
monopoly was created, it was in effect government controlled and , therefore,
should also be excluded.
Mr. PELLIZA (Argentina) suggested certain exceptions to the princples
in Article 30:
1. Purchases or sales made -through State enterprises putting into
effect inter-governmental barter arrangements which it was difficult
to carry out through privato-enterprise;
2. Imports by State enterprises of scarce products on a non-profit
?: and.
3. Trado in goods for distribution at low, costs for social ?alfare
purposes,
The CHAIRMAN ruled that the proposal should be submitted in writing.
/Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela). E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.33
Page 4
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) thought that provision was already made in
Article 30 for somo of the suggestions of the representative of Argentina
but suggested that a Working Party should be establishod to consider the
proposal.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) thought the Argentine proposal would
undermine the whole of Section D. The United Kingdom was probably the largest
state trader represented at the Conference, but supported Section D because
it was fair, just and equitable.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) said that Section D was intended
to bring about a situation undor which any privilege or obligation laid dovm
in the Charter should not be increased or reduced because a Member was
engaged in State trading. The fundamental purpose of Section D was to obtain
a neutral balance so as not to force a country either to relinquish or take
up State trading.
The second suggestion of the representative of Argentina was covered by
the general exceptions in Chaptor IV regarding scarce commodities and
emergency situations. As to the third suggestion, there was nothing in
Article 30 to prevent a country from distributing products at low cost,
However, the first suggestion, concerning the implementation of inter-
governmontal agreements, was a matter of substance and unless there vas
substantial support for a radical departure from the principle of obtaining
a neutral State Trading Section, thcre was no necessity to form a
working Party.
After some discussion, it was agreed to postpoie further consideration
of the Argentine amendment and of the formation of a working party to which
it might possibly be referred, until tha representatives of Argentina had
submitted his proposal in writing to tho Sixth Committee.
Tho Notes to sub-paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of Article 30 were approved.
Paragraph 1 (c), the Interpretative Note to Paragraph 1. and Paragraph 2
Approved without comment.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) reserved his position regarding the whole of
Section D pending decision on his amendment.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) associated himself with this reservation with
respect to Section D.
New Article 30 A, Article 31. Paragraphs 1, 3. 4 , Interpretative Note to
Paragraph 4, and Paragraph 5
Approved without comment.
/Parargraph 2 of Article 31 E/CONF.2/C .3/SR .33
Page 5
Paragranh 2 of Article 31
Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia), supported by Mr.NASH (New Zealand) and
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom), proposed that the words "in 'respect of the'
proposed arrangement" at the end of paragraph 2 (b) of Article 31 should be
deleted as being redundant.
It das agreed that these words should be deleted.
Paragaph 6 of Article 31
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) as Chairman of the Sub-Comittee drew attention
to the Mexican note in the Specific Comments concerning social purposes
mentioned in paragraph 6. Mexico had withdrawn her proposal on the
understanding that the Note would be embodied in the Sub-Committee's Report.
Mr. CHIRIBOGA (Ecuador) maintained his reservation in respect to all.
provisions relating to state monopolies for fiscal purposes.
Paragraph 6 was approved.
Paragraph 7 of Article 31
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) explained that the Now Zealand delegation had
moved an amendment to Article 33 of the London Draft. When that Article was
dropped the second part of the note together with the New Zealand reservation,
was transferred to Article 31, as a footnote. With a slight modification of
the text it appeared in the General Trade Agreement as an Interpretative Note
to Article 12. New Zealands roservations with respect to Article 31 was
maintained, pending discussion of Article 21 to which the footnote was related.
Mr. BLUSZTEIN (Poland) associated himself with the reservation of the
New Zealand elegation.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) explained that Article 31A would ensure that if
any government which had accumulated stocks of primary products for national
security or any non-commercial purposes, should before liquidating them give
four months public notice or inform the ITO which would be responsible for
advising Members concerning the proposed government action.
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines) after suggesting several changes in
punctuations, stated that there was an apparent inconsistency between
Article 43 (II). (c) of the Geneva tcxt, and Article 31A. The former Article
provided for liquidation of temporary surpluses, presumably stock piles.
accumulated as a consequence of war. Article 31A dealt with primary
commodities and specified four month prior notice which might give rise to
harmful maerot speculation..
Mr.. EVANS (United States of America) pointed out that Article 31A was
devised because some Members were afraid that the largo, emergency stock pile
progranme of the United States of America authorized by tho law of that
/country might E/CONF.2/3/SR.33
Page 6
country might cause serious injuries to thoir commercial interest. The
reprosentative of the Philippines had read moro into the Article than was
intended.The stocks would have to be held by a government or government
agency, and would have to have been accumulated for non-commercial purposes.
Therefore, the provision would not apply to commercial stocks of stato
trading enterprises. -There might be different kinds of non-commercial stocks
to which the provision might apply. The United States was willing to
undertake the obligation entailed in the four-month notification clause which
would avoid dumping on the market with its consequent havoc with world
prices.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) pointed out that it was not easy for a
country to accept an obligation in relation to its own domestic plans, which
it had never had to accept in the past, Any liquidation of a substantial
amount of a primary commodity was be nd to cause some injury. The Article
was not ideal, but it would certainly prevent great injury to producing.
and consuing countries. He could see the point of the representative. of
the Philippines regarding the prior notification, but it was far better to
give public notice than to plunge countries into ruin by liquidating large
stocks without notice. The country most likely to be affected already had
legislation providing for advance notice of the liquidation of its stocks.
He supported the draft of the now article.
Mr. CHIRIBOGA (Ecuador) suggested that the intention of liquidation of
stocks should be subject to public notice as well as to notice to the
Organization. This would be accomplished by changing the word "or" to
"and" in sub-paragraph (a).
Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia) considered Article 31A a well balanced
article. The fact that Article 31A did not ask for exemption from the other
provisions of Section D was recognized and incorporated in the Note in the
Sub-Committee's Report under item 33.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) said that the provisions of this Article would
be applicable exclusively to state enterprises, and state enterprises would,
therefore, haye greater obligations than private enterprises.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) held the t the provisions would not be sufficient
to cover such products as raw materials as laid down in Chapter VI, but
the Article filled a serious gap in the Charter. He supported the proposal
by Ecuador that "or" should be changed to "and".
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) believed that all interested countries
would bo bound to see the notice in the official government organs. The
Ecuador amendment was not necessary.
/Mr. NASH (New Zealand) E/CONF .2/C .3/SR.33
Pagc 7
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) pointed out that there might be an occasion where
the Member government owning the stocks might decide to notify the Organization
rather than give public notice. In this way the difficulties envisaged by
the representative of the Philippines might be avoided, but it could not be
done if both notifications were obligatory.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) endorsed .o remarks by the representative of
New Zealand. He preferred the retention of the word "or".
Mr. COU?y TaA (tUruGuay) supported tho Ecuador proposal as another
safeguard for tho swaller countries against injury. Did "non-commercial"
mean stocks established in a country for war purposes, or did it also Include
stocks established for social needs?
Mr.R& (Iraq) made a compromise proposal that (a) should be
optional and. (b) obligatory.
The meeting roce at 1.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | xv975jf5547 | Summary Record of Thirty-Sixth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba on 14 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 16, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 16/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.36 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xv975jf5547 | xv975jf5547_90190276.xml | GATT_148 | 1,219 | 8,174 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.36
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 16 February 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TH1RD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THIRTY-SIXTH MEETNG
Held at this Capitol, Havana, Cuba on 14 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. Consideration of the Report of Sub-Committee 'H' on Subsidies
(document E/CONF.2/C.3/51).
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the proposal, by the delegation of
Ecuador to add in Section C a new Article on "The equitable regulation of
prices in international trade". The Committee had decided that
Sub-Committee 'H was not the appropriate body to discuss the proposal,
which had then been referred to the Joint Sub-Committee of the Second and
sixth Committees, who had recommended the addition of a sub-paragph (f)
to Article 69. That recommendation had been accepted by the Sixth Committee
and was understood to be satisfactory to the delegation of Ecuador.
Mr. WARWICK SMITH (Australia), Acting Chairman of Sub-Committes 'H',
presented the Sub-Comtittee's Report.
The major charges in the Report as a whole derived from a United States
proposal to exclude primary products from the scope of Article 26 and to
delete Article 27. The original proposal had not been acceptable to the
Sub-Committee, and the United States had submitted alternative suggestions.
The Sub-Committee had finally reached general agreement on a oonaiderably
relaxed version of Article 27 - In particular of paragraph 3 (now paragaph 5)
which contained, however, certain new provisions, e.g a greater emphasis on
the importance of commodity Agreements. Article 28 was strengthened, and
now covered general subsidies affecting exports as well as export subsides.
The concept of a "previous representative period" had, been replaced by that
of an "equitable share in world trade" as the basic oriterion, and provision
made for findings by the Organization where consultation failed. Factors
were specified which the Organization should take into account in making.
its findings.
Mr. Smith called attention to sub-paragraph (d) on page 7 of the Report
This contained a statement of the viewpoint of one deligation and it had been
/suggsted E/CONF.2/C .3/SR. 36
Page 2
suggested that there might be some ambiguity as to whether this fact was
clearly expressed in the text. To remove any doubt, the full stop after
the first sentence should be changed to a semi-colon and the following word
"This" should begin with a small "t".
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said that his delegation's general reservation
on Section C would have to be maintained until he received instructions
from his government.
Mr. FERRERO (Peru) maintained his reservation on the grounds that there
was a difference of treatment between subsidies which operated to maintain
or increase the exports of a primary commodity and subsidies which operated
to reduce the imports of a primary commodity. The former were subject to
the provisions of Article 28, while the latter were subject only to the
much weaker provisions of Article 25. Such a difference of treatment was
illogical as the interests of exporting countries were prejudiced just as
much by either type of subsidy.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) recalled his delegation's doubts regarding,
the removal of the principle of prior concurrence from Article 27 and also,
regarding the inclusion in Article 28 of general production subsidies
affecting the export of primary commodities. Having regard to the new
safeguards introduced, his delegation had decided, however, to accept the
text presented by the Sub-Committee. He attached special importance to the
concept of the "equitable share" in Artice 28 and to the findings thereon
by the Organization. He welcomed the greater emphasis in Article 27 on the
multilateral solution of primary commodity difficulties, in the form of the
general obligation on Members granting subsidies to co-operate in efforts
to secure inter-governmental agreements. The provisions of paragraph 4 of
Article 27, restricting the granting of new or additional subsidies during
a commodity conference, also constituted a valuable safeguard.
Article 25
Mr. ORTIZ-LAMADRID (Cuba) stated that his delegation maintained its
reservation on Article 25.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) reserved his delegation's position provisionally
on Article 25, pending instructions from his government.
At the suggestion of the Australian representative, the letter "s"
was added to the word "interest" in the last sentence of Article 25.
The Cuban and Bolivian reservations having been noted, Article 25
was approved.
Article 26
Mr. CAMPS (Argentina) explained that his delegation reservation on
paragraph 3 referred to the determination by the Organization rather than
/to the time-limit. E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.36
Page 3
to the time-limit. He, maintained the reservation pending Instructions from
his government.
The reservation of Argentina having been noted, Article 26 was approved.
Article 27
Mr. CAMPS (Argentina) maintained his reservation on paragraph 4 of
Article 27 pending instructions from his government.
Mr. FERRERO (Peru) specifically reserved his position on pararaph 5
of Article 27 as it would permit export subsidies on primary commodities
without the prior approval of the Organization.
The Argentine and Peruvian reservations having been noted, Article 27
was approved.
Article- 28
Mr. CAMPS (Argentina) maintained his delegation's reservation on
paragraph 3 pending instructions from his government.
The Argentine reservation on paragraph 3 having been noted, Article 28
was approved,
Article 29
The deletion of Article 29 was approved.
The CHAIRMAN announced that the Committee had completed its second.
reading of Section C.
2. Article 31 - Amendment Proposed by the Delegation of Australia
(document E/CONF.2/C. 3/38/Add. 4).
Mr. MORTON (Australia), referring to the amendment submitted by his
delegation, said that Sub-Committee H had made a substantial change in the
conditions laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Geneva draft in
relation to systems of price stabilization for primary products. The
delegation of Australia therefore considered it desirable to delete the
cross-reference to Article 27 contained in Article 33, and to specify In
the text of the latter Article the conditions under which products exported.,
under a stabilization system would be considered not to result in material
inJury within the meaning of that Article. His delegation proposed that the
final sentence of paragraph 6 of Article 33 should be deleted and a new
paragraph 7 should be added.
Mr. SCWENGER (United States of America) supported the amendment proposed
by the delegation of Australia.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) although accepting the new paragraph 7 as a
compromise solution, felt there was some inconsistency between the wording
of paragraph 1 of Article 27 and the proposed new paragraph.
/Mr. MORTON E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.36.Page 4
Mr. MORTON (Australia) in reply said that it had, been considered desirable
to add to Article 27 provisions for schemes that were desinged to operate in
a certain way. It had been felt that it would be too much to ask countries
to forgo this right to impose countervailing duties in respect of products
exported unddr.such schemes. Consequently it was considered. that under
Article 33 the right of a qountry.to impose countervailing, duties should
only be.limited to the extent that hab been previously agreed upon, i.e.
where the system, over a period of years had been tried and proven to show
that it was not a subsidization scheme in the ordinary. sense of the word
any other case. the right to impose countervailing duties should be carefully
studied.
The amendment to Article 33 proposed. by the delegation of Austrlia
was approved,
The meeting rose at 11.35 a.m. |
GATT Library | nz722vy8319 | Summary Record of Tweleth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Friday 30 January 1948, at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 30, 1948 | Fourth Committee: Restrictive Business Practices | 30/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.4/SR.12 and E/CONF.2/C.4/SR.1-15 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nz722vy8319 | nz722vy8319_90190690.xml | GATT_148 | 504 | 3,308 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE UNRESTRICTED
ON DU E/CONF.2/C.4/SR.12
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 30 January 1946
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
FOURTH COMMTTEE: RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES
SUMARY RECORD OF TWELFTH MEETING
Hold at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Friday 30 January 1948, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman Mr. CHARLONE (Uruguay)
Mr. De BARROS (Brazil)
Considoration of the Draf t Report of the Fourth Committee to the Conference
(document E/CONF.2/C.4/15).
As the Chairman was unable to attend the whole meeting and as the
Vice-Chairman was unavoidably absent, the Committee unanimously elected
Mr. De BARROS (Brazil) as ad hoc chairman.
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20,
22 and 23 of the Report were approved by the Committee without comment.
Mr. GELDERMAN (Netherlands) said that he had not formally reserved the
position of his delegation with respect to Article 50, but only as regards
Article 18 (a).
The CHAIRMAN said that papgrariah 5 of the report would be corrected
according.
.Mr LeEI?CA (Colobmia) recalled that during the discussion of Article 50,
he had reserved the position of his delegation with respect to the scope of
that Article.
The CMHAIRAN said that the reservation of the Colombian representative
would be dul y noted in para'grah 5 cf the Rrport
At the suggestion of c MI ?JID(Ahafgnistan), it was agreed that the
wording of the third sentence in the shEngli version of paragraph 10 would be
brought into conformity with the reFnch text of that sentence by adding the
Words "in that product" aftr e"intrneation 1 trad",
r NNMN0R:ME-MGRA O (LESGuemAa) dalare awttention to the decision which had
been aketn y bthe Committee to record tu feact that electricity both as a
Product and a service asw covered by Article 50, ad. b y Chapter V as a whole
(E/CONF.2/C.4/SR.7). A statement to that effect should be included in
paragraph 18 of the Rpeort
The CHAIMI sAaid the point would be included in the Report.
/Mr. FR0ERTHOM E/CONF.2/C.4/SR.12 Page 2
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) drew attention to the emission of the heading
"Article 51" in the French text of the Report. He also expressed some doubts
as to the clarity of the wording of paragraph 21 although he would not press
the point.
With these changes paragraphe 5, 10 and 18 wero also approved.
Consideration of the Proposed Redraft of the Final Text of Chapter V
document E/CONF.2/C.8/2).
After a short discussion in which several representatives requested that
consideration of the final text be postponed until a later meeting, the
Committe agreed to that procedure.
Consideration of the Note of the Sub-Committee on Chapter VIII on the
Relationship between that Chapter and Other Parts of the Charter (
(document E/CONF.2/C..6./49).
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada), Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Chapter VIII,
announced that the Sub-Committee had decided to give further consideration
to the text of the note.
Consideration of that subject in connection with paragraph 8 of the
Report was, therefore, also postponed.
The meeting rose at 12.00 p.m. . |
GATT Library | tm507cx5147 | Summary Record of Tweleth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Friday 30 January 1948, at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 30, 1948 | Fourth Committee: Restrictive Business Practices | 30/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.4/SR.12 and E/CONF.2/C.4/SR.1-15 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tm507cx5147 | tm507cx5147_90190690.xml | GATT_148 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | zj853wc5964 | Summary Record of Twelfth Meeting of the General Committee : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Tuesday, 2 March 1948 at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 5, 1948 | 05/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/BUR/SR.12 and E/CONF.2/BUR/SR.1-12 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zj853wc5964 | zj853wc5964_90180220.xml | GATT_148 | 2,163 | 14,133 | United Nations Nations Unies RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/BUR/SR.12
ON DU 5 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWELFTH MEETING OF THE
GENERAL COMMITTEE
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba,
Tuesday, 2 March 1948 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Max SUETERS (Belgium)
1. INTERPRETATIVE NOTES. (NOTE BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - E/CONF.2/BUR/32)
Mr.COLBAN thought it more suitable to place the. Interpretative Notes.
under each Article. Mr. HOLMES saw no objection to their being grouped in an
Annex,.but suggested that Articles to which there were Interpretative Notes
should. be so indicated by an asterisk. Mr. WAERUM and Mr. WILGRESS felt that
since the Notes would be used only in connection with interpretation, the
appearance of the Charter would be improved by including them in an Annex.
It was agreed that the Interpretative Notes should be grouped together
in an Annex to the Charter, and made an integral part thereof by a suitable
article to be inserted into Chapter IX.
2. CHINESE, RUSSIAN, SPANISH TEXTS OF THE CHARTER. (NOTE BY THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY - E/CONF.2/BUR/34)
Mr.HOLMES stated that because of the technical problems involved a
period of six months should be allowed, rather than the two months indicated
in paragraph 3 (b) of the Note by the Executive Secretary.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY replied that the shorter period had been
suggested in order that the Charter could be presented to Legislatures for
ratification without an undue lapse of time.
Mr. COLBAN, replying to a question of the Chairman, said that the general
terms of the Mexican proposal were approved by Committee VI.
Mr. PHILIP suggested a three months period. Mr. GUTIERREZ suggested
eliminating the time element and considering the text official, subject to
any changes called to the attention of the First Conference. Mr. WUNSZ-KING
thought thonee months was sufficient time and expressed his willingness to
continue collaboration with the Chinese Section of the United Nations
Secretariat; perhaps the latter thought should be included in the Note.
Mr. COLBAN preferred the two months period and pointed out that collaboration.
between the Interim Committee and the various governments would continue
untill the Executive Secretary decided the texts were ready for official approval.
/Mr.GUTLERREZ E/CONF.2/BUR/SR.12
Page 2
Mr. GUTIERREZ said that under the procedure outlined, a year would elapse
before the official Spanish text reached the Parliaments.
The EXECUTIVE SECRETARY thought it not too necessary to include
Mr. Wunsz-King's suggestion though be had no objection to doing so. Would it
be satisfactory to Mr. GutiTrrez if sub-paragraph (c) wera deleted, since it
either implied considerable delay or the convening of a special session of
the Excecutive Committee of the Interim Committee which would be expensive and
unjustified.
Mr. HOLMES noted that the procedure under (d) and (e) did-not allow for
comments - a government would signify its approval or disapproval. However,
the deletion of (c) would eliminate the required consultation between
governments and the Interim Committee.
The EXECUTIVE replied that the neceasary consultation would
occur between the Secretariat and governments. The Executive Secretary,
moreover might, for example, seek advice from the members of the Central
Drafting Committee what he was anxious to avoid was the necessity for calling.
a special meeting of the Executive Committce.
Mr. WAERUM wondered whether the procedure for ratification and the
official languages procedure could not be considered separately; possibly
the English or French texts could be used for ratification The CHAIRMAN
thought the latter was an internal matter for the governments concerned.
Mr. WUNSZ-KING had no objection to the deletion of Sub-paragraph (c)
but suggested that (d) would have to be amended.
The text of document E/CONF.2/BUR/34 as amended was approved.
(Amendments: change two months to three months in sub-paragraph 3 (b); delete
sub-paragraph 3 (c); amend, as a consequence, sub-paragraph 3 (d) to complete
the procedure.)
3. THE FINAL ACT (DOCUMENT E/CONF.2/BUR/24)
Mr. AUGENTHAULER (Czechoslovakia) suggTsted the substitution of the
word "resolution" for "agreement" as if there was a question of entering
into an international agreement, he would require special power from the
President of Czechoslovakia.
Mr. WYNDHAM-WHITE (Executive Secretary) said that a number of
repregentatives had expressed their fears concerning the use of the word
"agreement", That was why the Secretariat had always emphasized the word
"arrangements". A new proposal was now before the Working Party concerned to
establish the Commission by resolution of the Conference. In either case
he saw no reason to rsfer specifically to the arrangement or resolution in
the Final Act. E/CONF .2/BUR/SR .12
Page 3
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) felt that it would be useful to include a
reference to the Interim Commision, since this would be the most important
resolution of the Conference.
On the suggestion of Mr. Wilcox (United States of America), the Committee
decided to consider the Executive Secretary's note concerning the maintenance
of reservations (document E/C0NF.2/BUR/35) simultaneously with its
consideration of the text of the Final Act.
Mr. WYNDHAM-WHITE (Executive Secretary) said that he considered it
desirable that in submitting to the Conference a draft of a Final Act, the
General Committee should also give some indication of the significance to
be attached to its signature.
A second problem presented itself in connection with the fact that some
delegations might wish to sign subject to maintaining reservations on specific
points in the Charter. On reflection he had come to the conclusion that
whatever view was taken of the significance of signature of the Final Act,
it would be preferable for representatives to record their reservations in
their final speeches rather than insist that they should be attached to the
text of the Charter or of the Final Act.
The CHAIRMAN expressed the view that the General Committee had already
reached a conclusion in favour of a literal interpretation of the Final Act,
viz. that it merely authenticated the text approved by the Conference for
submission to Governments.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) proposed that any delegation could
have its reservations recorded in the reports of the Sub-Committees and
Committees, in the records of the Plenary Sessions and in speeches at the
Plenary Sessions. No reservations, however, should be attached to the text
of the Charter or to signature of the Final Act. Any such reservations.
would place other delegations in a difficult position, for their parliaments
would want to know why they had not reserved their position if other
delegation had so done. Also, any implication that a country would be
committed to accept the reservations of another, would be completely
unacceptable. To ensure that no final reservations would be necessary, he
was prepared to accept the deletion of the words "to be submitted the
governments represented".
Mr. HAKIM (Lecanon) supported the remarks of the United States
representative, and expressed the view that the text of the Final Act as
it now read was sufficient to ensure that no final reservations would be
needed.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) drew attention to the fact that he had not
assumed as extreme a position as had attributed to him by the Chairman.
/His signature His signature would certainly involve an undertaking to submit the Charter
to his Government. He fully agreed with Mr. Wilcox that there should be no
reservations to the Final Act and he hoped that the text of the Act could
remain unchanged.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) explained that he was not. urging
the suppression of the words "to be submitted to the governments represented"
but that he would accept their suppression in preference to the addition of
several pages of reservations.
Mr. PHILIP (France) also supported the remarks of Mr. Wilcox and said
that he planned. to make only the customary general reservation on the text
of the Charter, that is to say that its acceptance was subject to ratification
by the French Parliament. If certain delegations insisted on recording
reservations in an Annex to the Final Act or in the Charter, howover, his
Government would fail to understand why he had not done the same. Since the
Geneva discussions he had felt himself committed to defend the Charter before
his Government and therefore he was prepared to accept, with Mr. Wilcox,
the deletion of the words "be submitted to the governments represented", if
that would prevent the maintenance of final reservations.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) pointed out that the Final Act did not refer to
any undertaking on the part of representatives to the Conference to submit
the Charter to their governments in their personal capacity. The
Secretary-General of the United Nations would make the submission to the
x various Ministries of Foreign. Affairs and he, therefore, was the only
individual personally committed. For his part, he considered himself under
an obligation to present the case for the Charter to his Parliament.
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) said that he accepted Mr. Wilcox's proposal.
The signature of the Final Act put no legal responsibility either on the
signatories or on governments or on parliaments and written reservations
would for that reason be a legal absurdity. As to the moral aspect, the
Executive Secretary had pointed out that there were-two possible approaches.
If the signature of the Final Act carried no moral obligation, then clearly
reservations would be superfluous; if on the other hand, as Mr. Stucki
himself believed the signature did involve a moral obligation Jai V - -
reservations would also have a moral significance, but it would be zpntlrely
sufficient to make the reservations either in the records of a Sub-Committee
of a full Committee or of a Plenary Session.
Mr. CHARLONE (Urugamy) agreed. with Mr. Wilcox's view. He did not think
it necessary for the General Committee to pronounce on the two interpretations
offered by the Executive Secretary.
/The CHAIRMAN
E/CONF.2/BUR/SR.12
Page 4 E/CONF.2/BUR/SR.12 Page 5
The CHAIRMAN stated that it was unanimously agreed to adopt Mr. Wilcox's
proposal but not to make any decision on the scope of the signature. A
signature would thus recognize only the accuracy of the text and the text
would be presented to the governments concerned. On tho other hand, if a
delegate wished to attach a greater significance to his signature, he was
perfectly free to do so and to explain his signature. Reservations would be
expressed in Sub-Committee reports, in the Committee reportes, or in atatements
in Plenary Sessions. In the last paragraph of tne Final Act the phrase
"to each of the signatories" would be replaced by "to each of the Governments
represented at the Conference".
1. TIMETABLE FOR THE CONFRENCE
The Executive Secretary withdrew document E/CONF.2/BUR/33.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that it woud be useful if progress
reports could be submitted by the Central Drafting Committee, as the
preparation of the final text might delay the completion of the Conference
The CHAIRMAN stated that another document would be submitted to replace
the one withdrawn by the Executive Secretary.
5. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES TO THE CONFERENCE
The Executive Secretary stated that a clear ruling must be given on the
way in which statements In Sub-Committee Reports were to be incorporated in
the records of the Conference.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that he was in full agreement with
the observations by the delegation of Chile in document E/CONF.2/41/Add.1.
Mr. TORRES (Brazil) suggested that a third annex be Included in the
Committee Reports indicating any changes that had been made in the
Sub-Committee Reports by the finil Committee, otherwise, he agreed with the
note submitted by the Executive Secretary.
Mr.dnEC t~tU';2'-J\tm u-ri agred with the views expressed by Mr. Holmes.
The Committee Reports should contain a full record of the adoption of the
Sub-Committee Reports together with changes thereso. He did not agree with
the suggestion ofMr. Torres.
Mr. T~WZ~71CrG (Cr;.ie! pointed out that 7 delegations had withdrawn
amendments on the understanding that cer'ta4.3n Si';.FtLZ1J t5 would appear either
in Sub-Committee Reports or in the Summary Reeo.rds. He proposed that
pb-pPragraph (d) *e anrended to reed "any provisional reservations and
statements which individual delegations have asked to be inserted in the
records ........"
Mr. WAERUM (Denmark) said that if Mr. Wilgress' suggestion were adopted
for the report of Committee I, some delegations who had raised matters in
/full Committee E/CONF.2/BUR/SR.12 Page 6
full Committee would have a recognition of this in the records, while others
would be less fortunate in that their points might be dealt with only in the
Sub-Committee Reports.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) suggested that the seventh line of the fourth
paragraph of document E/CONF.2/41/Add.1 be amended to read "....plenary
sessions, the recormendations of the Reports shall be deemed to...."
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), in answer to Mr. Nash, called attention to
the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Chilean note.
The CHAIRMAN stated that minor drafting changes would be taken into account
in preparing the final draft.
Mr. TORRES (Brazil) thought that there should be uniformity in the
structure of all the Cormittee Roports.
Mr. WILGRESS (Canada) withdrew his suggestion.
Documents ES/CNF..2/41 and ECONF..2/41/Ad. 1l were pparo:ed.
The meeting rose at.1.10 p.m. |
|
GATT Library | zd454fx5073 | Summary Record of Twenty-Eighth Meeting (III b) : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, Thursday, 8 January 1948, at 3 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 8, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 08/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zd454fx5073 | zd454fx5073_90190259.xml | GATT_148 | 3,130 | 20,375 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28
ON DU 8 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF TWENTY-EIGHTH MEETING (III b)
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba,
Thursday, 8 January 1948, at 3 p.m.
SECTION D - STATE TRADING documents E/CONF.2/C.3/9 and Corr. 1 and Add.1)
General Discussion
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) said his delegation accepted
Articles 30 and 31 as at present. drafted.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said the degree of State control varied
greatly and there were at present very few countries where there was not a
certain measure of such control. Section D was a recognition of that fact.
Article 30 ensured that the State trader would not enjoy any special
privileges nor suffer any special disability; Article 31 was a corollary
of Article 30.
The United Kingdom was in a midway position between those countries
with no State trading and those with comprehensive State trading, and the
delegation of the United Kingdom was therefore in a position to say that
Section D met the acid test of not affording any unfair privileges to nor
of imposing unjust disabilities upon State traders.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) pointed out that countries
representing nearly the entire range of categories with respect to State
trading were members of the Preparatory Committee in Geneva. Yet the
Preparatory Committee was able to adopt Articles 30 and 31 with no reservation
by any country to Article 30 and with only one reservation to Article 31.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina), referring to the amendment of his delegation
that Articles 30 and 31 be deleted, said that the present conditions of
international trade were not normal, and certain State trading enterprises
were a result of that situation. Several countries were faced with a
lack of primary commodities and manufactured goods and also with a constant
lack of hard currency. The problem of supplies and currency must be solved
before any rules on State trading were adopted.
The CHAIRMAN, after inviting observations on the proposal, stated that
there was no support in the Committee for the deletion of Section C.
/Article 30 E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28
Page 2
Article 30 - Non-Discriminatory Treatment
Paragraph 1 (a)
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested that the Note to the Geneva
draft (item 3) should be incorporated in the text of the Charter.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said his delegation was not opposed to the
content of this Note, but suggested that the Sub-Committee should consider
the possibility of either deleting the Note entirely or of inserting its
first part in the text and deleting the second part.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) favoured the opinion of the representative
of Czechoslovakia.
Paragraph 1 (b)
Mr. EVANS (United States) felt that the text of Article 30 as drafted
could not be interpreted in any other way, and the Note (item 6) appended
to the Geneva draft was unnecessary.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) considered that the Note should be
incorporated in the Charter.
New subparagraph to Paragraph 1
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) said that in New Zealand there was a Dairy
Products Marketing Commission consisting of three members of the Government
and three members of the dairy industry, with an independent chairman. That
body bought and sold all the dairy produce of New Zealand. It could not
be completely defined as a State trading enterprise, and the sole purpose
of introducing a new sub-paragraph (item 7) was to ensure that the Commission
was recognized as an enterprise under State trading provisions.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) said there were many bodies in the Netherlands
which could be compared with the body mentioned by the representative of
New Zealand, and it had always been felt that such bodies came under the
term of State trading. He considered that this matter and the notes in
the Geneva Draft (item 8) should be studied by the Sub-Committee and also
by the Central Drafting Committee, so that there would be no conflict between
Section D and other provisions of the Charter.
Paragraph 2
Mr. OLMEDO (Mexico), referring to the proposal of his delegation (item 9)
that paragraph 2 should be deleted, said that there were many State trading
enterprises in Mexico, all of which aimed at preventing high prices of
consumer goods. If Mexico were to apply paragraph 2 of Article 30, a
number of State trading enterprises would have to close down.
Mr. EVANS (United States) pointed out that paragraph 2 dealt with
imports for governmental use, such as the armed forces, or stock piling,
which were exempt from the provisions of paragraph 1. The Mexican problem
/did not pertain E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28
Page 3
did not pertain to paragraph 2.
Mr. OLMEDO (Mexico) thought that the Mexican proposal was akin to
the Swiss amendment to paragraph 6, and that it could be dealt with under
that paragraph.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt that if there were doubt regarding
the position of state trading practices of Mexico, paragraph 1 rather
than 2 should be questioned.
Mr. MORALES (Guatemala) asked that the Sub-Committee consider the
non-profit transactions of state agencies importing agricultural materials
for the benefit of small producers. That type of imports should be
safeguarded regardless of any commercial considerations to which other
state trading might be subject.
Mr. LLERAS (Colombia) said that he had no misgivings as to Article 30
concerning organizations in his country which were similar to Mexico's.
He agreed with the interpretation of paragraph 2 as given by the
representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom.
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) asked whether the provisions of Article 30,
paragraph 1(a) conflicted with the present practice of his country whereby
oil received by the government in payment of taxes was exported in exchange
of certain food stuffs. He asked that the Sub-Committee consider this and
reserved the right to submit an amendment if the practice were not permitted
under Article 30.
Mr. McCARTHY (AustraIia) asked that the Sub-Committee study the precise
legal position of certain preferential trade transactions between territories
joined in trusteeship under the United Nations, if one of the parties
practiced state trading.
Mr. ZOLOTAS (Greece) asked that a definition of "fair and equitable
treatment" be considered, so that a government might properly choose
between purchases of imports and domestic products.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) replied that the paragraph referred
only to fair and equitable treatment of imports; domestic purchases were
outside the scope of this provision.
It was agreed that Article 30 be referred to Sub-Committee for
consideration in the light of the debate.
Article 31- Expansion of Trade
Paragraph 2
Mr. LOZANO (Cuba) stated that the new sub-paragraph (c) suggested
by the delegation of Cuba (item 14) proposed that regulations issued by
monopolies, should be subject to negotiation.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) thought that the amendment would
/interfere with E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28
Page 4
interfere with the purely internal economic policy of a member country.
There were other provisions in the Charter which would take care of the
purpose of the Cuban amendment.
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada) said that negotiations were usually associated
With some compensation, but that a complaining member could expect to
receive justice without having to pay for it; perhaps Article 89 was
applicable to the Cuban problem.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) suggested that the point was probably
covered b'y Articles 18 and 31 (5).
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) supported the remarks of the representatives
of Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom. The principle of the Cuban proposal
was covered by Article 30, paragraph 1(a); however, if it were included,
Article 31 was not the proper place.
Mr. LOZANO (Cuba) replied that the amendment was submitted because
tobacco, one of Cuba's basic exports, was subject to certain import
regulations which had been found not negotiable because they were considered
internal matters. Reservation had not been made previously because in
Geneva the Cuban delegation had understood it was protected, but later
experience had proved otherwise.
Mr. EVANS (United States of America) agreed that the Cuban amendment
was covered by Articles 30 and 31. If Article 31 accomplished the authors
intention, it removed the possibility of any kind of protection against
imports, except by price differentiation which would be subject to negotiation.
It should be noted that Article 31 was evolved while tariff negotiations
were being conducted; therefore, it was possible that some delegates at
Geneva were not ready to negotiate on questions relating to monopolies,
but that would not hold true today.
Mr. LECUYER (France), supported by Mr. LA ROSA (Italy), said that
Article 31, paragraphs 1(b) and 2(b), fully covered the Cuban problem.
Paragraph 4
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada), supported by Mr. Evans (United States), thought
that the second proviso of paragraph 4 did not give automatic protection
to members with domestic price stabilization schemes and therefore the sense
of the footnote to the Draft Charter should be included in paragraph 4.
Paragraph 5
Mr. SEIDENFADEN (Denmark) said that his amendment (item 17) was proposed
so as to prevent rationing from being used for restrictive purposes. The
amendment might parallel a Colombian proposal for a new Article 40A.- He
stated that that advice would be welcome if it were considered that the
amendment was too narrow by being attached to Article 31.
/Mr. CAPLAN E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28
Page 5
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) doubted if rationing for the purpose of
escape from the provisions regarding state trading would ever be accepted
by the public of any country. The obligation to meet full domestic demand
was in the text and there was no justification for amendment.
Paragraph 6
Mr. HAUSWIRTH (Switzerland) explained that the amendment to paragraph 6
(Item 18) was proposed because the Swiss system of Control of grain and fodder
imports might not be in accord with Section D of Chapter IV. The purpose
of these monopolies was neither restrictive nor discriminatory. Switzerland
did not intend to increase monopolies, but could not renounce the two
which were to basis of its grain and fodder import policy.
Mr. McCARTHY (Ireland) supported that Swiss amendment. Article 31
interfered with the Irish policy of guaranteeing full employment and a fair
price to agricultural producers.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) stated that the position of the Netherlands
was similar to that of Ireland and Switzerland. There was necessity for
price stabilization and protection against flooding of markets, but it was
possible to reconcile the Netherlands monopoly system with the provisions
of the Charter and the present text of Article 31 was acceptable to his
Delegation.
Mr. EVANS (United States) felt that the Mexican amendment (Item 19)
would greatly diminish the value of the provisions of the present Article.
The term "public service" was too wide to serve as criterion.
Mr. DUNAWAY (Liberia) asked whether monopolies referred to in Paragraph 6
were entirely exempted from any other provisions of Article 31.
Mr. EVANS (United States) explained that paragraph 6 was not intended
to exclude such monopolies from the other provisions of Article 31. The
intent of paragraph 6 was to allow a Member to withhold from negotiations
products for which certain government monopolies were established.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) referring to the Note to the Geneva
Draft of Article 31 (Item 20), recalled that at Geneva no country with
a complete monopoly of external trade had been present. Article 33 had
been deleted, but Article 74 (4) could be invoked if at any time in the
future there should be need of arrangements with a country having such
a monopoly.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) said that if the Geneva wording of Article 21
were not accepted by the Conference, the proposal made by New Zealand in
Geneva to the previous text of Article 33 (Geneva document E/PC/T/W.101),
should again be considered.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) and Mr. TINOCO (Costa Rica) supported the
/view of the E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28
Page 6
view of the representative of New Zealand.
Mr. NASH (New Zealand) asked that the Note to Article 31 in the Geneva
Draft be retained until Article 21 had been approved.
Mr. BLUSZTAJN (Poland) seconded the New Zealand proposal. Section D
of Chapter IV was determined by the final wording of Section B, especially
Articles 21 and 23.
It was agreed to refer Article 31 to the Sub-Committee which would
consult with the Sub-Committee on Article 21.
A Sub-Committee to consider Section D was appointed, consisting of the
representatives of Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand,
Netherlands, Pakistan, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.
New Article to Section C Proposed by the Representative of Ecuador
(Item 17, E/CONF.2/C.3/8)
Mr. PARRA-VELASCO (Ecuador) stated that the new Article was intended
to assure the equitable regulation of prices in international trade and
emphasized the importance of considering the relation between prices of
primary commodities and those of manufactured goods. The standard of living
in countries producing raw materials should be equal to that of industrialized
countries, but in the present world circumstances, a large degree of free
trade often led to a lack of balance which imposed hardship on countries
producing raw materials; the problem should be studied in order to work out
an equitable relation between the prices of the two types of products.
Under-development was not due to backwardness but to lack of balance
and injustice in international prices. The highly developed countries were
benefiting now, but the present situation would have repercussions. If the
situation were equitable, there would be no reason for quotas, tariffs and
other restrictions, which were only defenses against international competition.
The amendment should not be construed as an exploitation of countries
producing raw materials over countries producing manufactured goods, but as
a means of studying the problem for a proper solution. The ITO should have
the power to investigate and consider the problem, and the possibility of
establishing control and regulation of prices. The war-time experience of
intervention in prices refuted the argument that regulation could not be
accomplished on an international basis.
Countries producing raw materials were dependent upon industrialized
nations both for exports and imports to such a degree that even though they
were political entities, they were economically semi-colonies. They had the
right, therefore, to create an ample domestic market and to build industries,
as others had done before. Consideration should be given not only to the
proposed new Article on equitable prices but to the amendments. submitted
/concerning customs E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 28
Page 7
concerning customs preferences. Among the exceptions to Article 16, the
legitimate right to defend the unification of small markets by regional
preferences should be recognized. It was not fitting to countenance
preferential tariffs between comparative strangers and prohibit them between
peoples of historical unity. Spanish America desired to collaborate, but
needed the co-operation of all other states so as not to be forced to
pay starvation wages, to remain divided small and poor markets. Political
freedom had been achieved within the framework of international co-operation
and economic development was to be attained in the same way.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador for his
explanation.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) expressed sympathy for the plight of
countries producing raw materials and basic foodstuffs, particularly during the
period 1930-33. It was known that the delegation of Czechoslovakia was not
opposed to regional preferences. The production of primary commodities was
entirely different from and lacked the flexibility of manufacturing industries.
An entire Chapter of the Charter dealt with that problem and when the ITO was
established, it should immediately consider the situation, in accordance with
the provisions of Article 55.
Mr. FERRERO (Peru) supported the Ecuadorean amendment, which was
important in its implications for all Latin-American countries. His delegation
had submitted a similar proposal in the expectation that the Organization
would consider the international point of view of the problems involved.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) thought that the amendment might more
suitably be discussed by another sub-committee in connection with some other
Chapter of the Charter, possibly Chapter III, dealing with economic
development.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) recalled that in the period before the war the
the general trend for prices of raw materials was downward, prices of
industrial and manufactured goods had a tendency to climb, with increased
transportation costs, higher wages for organized labour, and other influences
playing their part in industrialized countries.
Articles 4 and 7, on fair labour standards, would, to some extent take
care of the problems raised by the Ecuadorean amendment, but they would not
apply to the large masses of small peasants who made up the largest part of the
population of Asia, for example. The Ecuadorean amendment deserved most
careful study, but its proper context would have to be considered. He agreed
with the United Kingdom representative that Chapter III might be the right
place. He had certain reservations about paragraph 3 of the amendment which
/gave Members the E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.28
Page 8
gave Members the unilateral right to initiate measures, which might run
counter to the spirit of Chapter IV.
Mr. GOMEZ (Brazil) recalled that his delegation had expressed its position
in Geneva, London, and at Havana in regard to preferences. As to the
relationship between the prices of raw materials and manufactured products, he
fully agreed with the principles of the Ecuadorean amendment.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) supported the Ecuadorean amendment in regard to
preferences as well as to price relationships, particularly as it was in line
with his delegation's amendment to Article 16.
Mr. NORIEGA-MORALES (Guatemala) expressed his support for the amendment
which was a matter of vital importance to all countries producing raw materials.
The price problem could not but be of concern to the Conference; if Section C
was not the proper place for it, the Chairman might refer the amendment to some
other sub-committee for further study.
Mr. GARCIA-VILLAS (El Salvador) and Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) agreed with
the objectives of the amendment.
Mr. MULLER (Chile), supported the amendment, but pointed out that price
fixing of raw materials in the international market during the last war had
meant coiling prices imposed under centralized purchasing. In the first war,
Chilean copper sold for 22 cents, but in the last war for only 11 cents. In
this way, his country suffered doubly, first, because prices for raw materials
had been low and sufficient foreign exchange could not be accumulated, and
later, because manufactured goods had risen by 50 per cent after the war, and
thus could not be purchased in adequate quantities.
The CHAIRMAN considered that the sub-committee on subsidies was not the
right body to discuss this amendment. Announcement would be made at the next
meeting of Committee III-b, as to which sub-committee should deal with the
matter, or whether a -special working group should be appointed.
The Chairman then declared the first reading of Chapter IV by Committee III
as completed and adjourned the Committee until further notice.
The meeting rose at 6.00 p.m. |
GATT Library | ky305dt3914 | Summary Record of Twenty-Fifth Meeting (IIIb ) : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba Monday, 5 January 1948, at 3.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 12, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 12/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.25 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ky305dt3914 | ky305dt3914_90190254.xml | GATT_148 | 2,001 | 13,076 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.25
ON DU 12 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
ORIGNAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING (IIIb)
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba
Monday, 5 January 1948, at 3.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. ARTICLE: 24 - EXCHANGE ARRANGEMENTS (continuation of discussion)
Mr. DJEBBARA (Syria), referring to the statement made at the previous
meeting by the representative of Belgium regarding the Belgian delegation's
reservation in connection with Article 24, said that although he had
insisted that the imposition of the restrictions mentioned in Articles 21 - 24
might lead to a world economic crisis he had not suggested any practical
solution. Restrictive measures were harmful, but how could they be avoided?
To prohibit them would not solve the problem, as to forbid a country with
balance of payments difficulties to impose restrictons might have serious
repercussions on the economy of supplying countries and might lead, to grave
social disturbances and even to war. Articles 21 - 24 referred to measures
taken by countries which were undergoing balance of payments difficulties
and many delegations had submitted amendments to these Articles. He felt
that the solution to the problem should be looked for in the prevention of
deficits in balances of payments, and suggested that the plan which had
been drawn up for the rehabilitation of Europe should be extended to other
parts of the world in order to expedite their development and to avoid any
need for them to have recourse to the measures provided for in Articles 21 -
24.
Mr. van TICHELEN (Belgium), replying to the remarks of the representative
of Syria, said that his delegation felt that recourse to quantitative
restrictions should not be prohibited, but a clause should be inserted in
the Charter stating that such restrictions should be proportionate to the
evil which they sought to remedy. It should further be stated that the use
of quantitative restrictions should be open to free discussion in the ITO
and his delegation would like paragraph 5 of Article 21 to be redrafted.
The CHAlRMAN aid that the discussion of Article 24 was closed. He
considered that the statements of the representative of Belgium had served
/a useful E/CONF.2/C. 3/SR.25
Page 2
a useful purpose and had brought out certain aspects of the balance of
payments problems which should be borne in mind by the Sub-Committee when
considering Article 24.
He suggested that the representatives of Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, Italy, Lebanon,
Liberia, Norway, Philippines, United Kingdom and United States of America
should compose the Sub-Committee to consider Articles 21, 23 and 24 and the
proposals and amendments submitted in relation to those Articles. It had
been necessary to take into account that European countries were particularly
interested in those Articles and thay therefore had a larger representation
than was usual. Many members of the Preparatory Committee had been
included as they were well acquainted with the technical and complex
questions involved, and also because discussion had shown that certain of
them still had doubts regarding the drafting of the Articles in question.
It was decided to set up a Sub-Committee with the membership suggested
by the Chairman.
2. NEW ARTICLE TO CHAPTER IV
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland), referring to the amendment submitted by his
delegation (document E/CONF.2/C.3/11), said that although the Swiss
delegation accepted the purposes of the Charter, it would have liked to
assume a very different attitude from that which it was obliged to take.
The Geneva draft, however, had forced it to take up a defensive attitude
because the putting into force of such a Charter would have a catastrophic
effect on Switzerland's economy. The amendment submitted by the Swiss
delegation, if approved, would enable that delegation to recommend to the.
Swiss Parliament and people that Switzerland should adhere to the Charter.
Pointing out that Switzerland had no raw materials to export and was
therefore poorer than any other country attending the Conference, he said
it did not belong to any of the various economic groups represented.
He quoted figures showing that in 1946 the total foreign trade deficit
amounted to 700,000,000 Swiss francs. In 1947 the figure had been increased
by over a billion Swiss france, whereas exports had increased to a very
small degree. The present foreign trade deficit amounted to 1,500,000,000
Swiss francs. The foreign trade of Switzerland was equivalent to $400
per capita, and no other country in the world bought as much foreign produce.
Switzerland's situation was precarious: she was obliged to protect
herself from any further aggravation of the economic situation and could
not therefore remove any of the restrictions which were now imposed. He
emphasized the damage done to Swiss economy between 1930 and 1939 by the
regulation of currency payments instituted by Germany, and the recent blows
/to the tourist E/CONF. 2/C .3/SR .25
Page 3
to the tourist traffic caused by currency restrictions imposed by two
European nations. The income from foreign investments was also greatly
Jeopardized.
Seventy percent of Switzerland's exports were now considered to be
luxury products and, under the present draft Charter, countries who were
entitled to adopt quantitative restrictions under Article 21 might decide
to take that measure with serious results for Switzerland. The soil of
Switzerland was very poor and could not produce anything which could be
called essential and which would thus have a sure export market.
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) felt that the Charter should take into
consideration the situations of all countries individually and in groupe,
and that the Amendment of Switzerland should be studied and incorporated
into the Charter.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) in ensuring the economic development of his own
country, and as a principle of justice, supported the Swiss amendment.
Mr. CORIAT (Veneguela) said the condition of his country was a
replica of that of Switzerland. Venezuela had had no difficulties concerning
its reserves until after the War, when imports had increased to a
tremendous extent considering the sparse population. Exports of national
products covered only eight to ten percent of the intake of foreign exchange,
but Venezuela's position had been retained through the export of minerals,
which would some day be exhausted. Petroleum had been exploited by foreign
capital, and did not benefit the country except through the sale of dollars
to cover employment, etc., and through taxes. Returns from agriculture and
livestock were negligible. The Government had formed a Promotion
Corporation which would spend ca. $800 million in order to improve the
situation.
Venezuela supported both the Amendment of Switzerland and the
statement by her representative, but would make a concrete statement when
subsidies were discussed.
Mr. BLUSZTAJN (Poland) agreed with the principle of the Swiss amendment,
but called attention to the fact that if it were adopted with no alterations,
certain countries would be able to apply measures which would have a
deplorable effect on international trade, while invoking the reasons which
were embodied in the amendment. A better solution would be to amend.
Article 23 to read that the application of quantitative restrictions would
be authorized if a country proved that thereby the volume of its
international trade would be increased more than if it applied the provisions
of Article 22.
/Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 25
Page 4
Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) could not share wholeheartedly the Swiss point
of view. It would, however, be in the interest of all Europe if Switzerland
became a member of the ITO; the Geneva draft did not take her unique
situation into account.
Mr. COREA (Ceylon) could neither accept the wording of, nor the
solution suggested by the Swiss amendment, but shared the fear which prompted
it: that certain provisions of the Charter, if not amended, would crush
development in some of the small countries.
Mr. van TICHELEN (Belgium) was aware of the threats to the safety of
Switzerland, but was surprised that one of the most prosperous countries
should ask for the opportunity to limit its imports, and that others
should immediately support the Swiss amendment.
The same course seemed to be followed here with regard to economic
disarmament as had been followed at Geneva at the Disarmament Conference.
Despite good intentions, economic barriers were being erected to the
detriment of international trade.
The provisions of Article 21, paragraph 3 could, if necessary, be
invoked by Switzerland and the countries supporting her. The word
"restoration" in paragraph 3 (a) might be replaced by maintenance".
The Charter must provide both for the immediate post-war period and
for the more normal period which would follow. The former was covered by
Article 21, paragraph 3 (a) and Articles should be set up for the latter
period which would stimulate trade.
Mr. RICHARD (France) said that, being a neighbour of Switzerland and
also an exporter of luxury products, France understood her case better than
other countries. A solution must be found for the Swiss problem, although
the amendment as it stood might raise numerous difficulties.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) said that in 1927 the Netherlands had been
in the same situation as Switzerland was today, and an emergency clause had
been drafted at the World Conference which was even narrower than the Swiss
amendment. The Netherlands bad had a large amount of gold at that time.
She had resorted to quantitative restrictions as the only means of defending
herself against a world depression, but unemployment had nevertheless
resulted in the nineteen thirties. Only an expanding world trade could
remove the difficulties of exporting luxury products. Switzerland could
safeguard her agricultural interests by appeal to paragraph 1 (a) of
Article 40 if paragraph 3 (a) of Article 21 proved insufficient.
Mr. CHANG (China) supported the Swiss proposal in principle.
Mr. THOMSON-McCAULAND (United Kingdom) agreed that it would be a
great loss were Switzerland not a member of the ITO. Full consideration had
/not yet been E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR.25
Page 5
not yet been given to the unique situation of the Swiss economy, but detailed
study should provide a solution. Article 21 met a great many of the
difficulties. The United Kingdom desired to have power to control imports
in order to achieve and maintain convertibility. Switzerland and the
United Kingdom were in a similar position in that respect, as well as in
many others.
Mr. LAMADRID (Cuba) supported the principle of the Swiss amendment,
subject to a further statement.
Mr. STUCKI (Switzerland) thanked those who had shown their understanding
and friendship. It seemed that the representative of Belgium did not
understand a request for means to protect exports: the threat to the Swiss
export and tourist trades would naturally have repercussions in the domestic
market and would affect the level of employment. Articles 21 and 40 would
not solve the difficulties. The 1927 Conference could not have harmed the
Netherlands since it had not been put into force; moreover, the Article
regarding restrictions was considerably more flexible than those in the
Draft Charter.
Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia) recalled the bilateral agreement between
Switzerland and Czechoslovakia after the latter's liberation in 1945. This
agreement had been the means of developing an astonishingly large and
advantageous trade between two comparatively small countries.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that since the Swiss amendment dealt with a
special problem evoked by the present day situation in Europe, an ad hoc
sub-committee be established to study the amendment, and be composed
principally of European countries.
Mr. TERRA (Uruguay) disagreed that the problem was peculiar to
Switzerland or Europe. Application of the principle of the Swiss amendment
would solve a problem which had provoked a number of amendments. The
delegation of Uruguay could withdraw many of its amendments were the
principle proposed by Switzerland accepted.
Mr. CORIAT (Venezuela) said that the Swiss amendment also pertained
to the problem of Venezuela.
It was agreed that the ad hoc sub-committee should be composed of
representatives of : Belgium, China, France, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland,
United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela.
The meeting rose at 5.05 p.m. |
GATT Library | vs209kk4668 | Summary Record of Twenty-Second Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 23 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 24, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 24/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.22 and E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.18-26 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vs209kk4668 | vs209kk4668_90180466.xml | GATT_148 | 1,888 | 12,247 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nations Unies
CONFERENCE
DU
COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF.2/C.2/SR.22
24 February 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY RECORD OF TWENTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 23 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. J. TORRES (Brazil)
Amendments to View Expressed by Joint Sub-Committee of Committees II and VI
in Paragraph 6 of its Report (E/CONF.2/C.2/36 and E/CONF.2/C.2/39)
In reply to a question by Mr. LIEU (China), Mr. BEST (United Kingdom)
stated that the insertion of to words domestic jurisdiction" would make it
clear that matters which were within the jurisdiction of the municipal courts
of a State should be dealt with by its tribunals.
Mr. KUNTER (Turkey) proposed that, if the United Kingdom amendment to
the Australian proposal were accepted, the second sentence of paragraph 6
should begin "These provide that all controversies......" as in the original
text.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) said that apparently there was no connection
between the words "certain controversies" and the words proposed by the
representative of the United Kingdom, but if the former were used in
conjunction with the latter it would be an admission that controversies could
be the object of international justice above national justice. The word
"certain" should be deleted with no substitution.
Mr. BEST (United Kingdom) agreed that the word "certain"' should be
deleted with or without the substitution of "all".
Mr. RUBIN N (United Stetes) disagreed that the word "all" should be
inserted. It was not a question as to whether or not such problems could
be resolved by international or national courts, but of certain legislation
of certaine members. The legislation of some members provided that certain
types of controversies should be settled by national tribunals, but it was
not correct to say "all".
Mr. NOVOA (Mexico) said that by using the word "certain" combined with
the words proposed by the representative of the United Kingdom, whiche ho
supported, the idea woulde be limited so that it would be impossible to know
to what the sentence referred. There would be no definition of the
/"controversies" E/CONF. 2/C. 2/SR .22 Page 2
"controversies" which might arise within the jurisdiction of states. The
word "all" should be substituted for the word "certain".
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) pointed out that the United Kingdom amendment
referred to controversies which actually were under domestic jurisdiction.
If it were not a case for the jurisdiction of each country, then the question
might be resolved by the International Court of Justice. He was in complete
agreement with the representatives of Uruguay, the United Kingdom, Turkey
and Mexico, and supported the deletion, of the word "certain".
Mr. RUBIN (United States) said he was not arguing a question of
principle but of fact, By examining ,the constitutional provisions of
countries such as the United States of America it was evident that they did
not provide that all controversies should be resolved by national tribunals.
They provided that certain controversies were to be resolved by national
tribunals. He would agree to the deletion of the word "certain", but the
word "solely" should be inserted before "within" in the United Kingdom
amendment, which would put the correct interpretation to the paragraph.
Mr. BEST (United Kingdom) withdrew the amendment of his delegation and
accepted the proposal of the United States.
In reply to a question by Mr. ROWE (Southern Rhodesia),
Mr. RUBIN (United States) stated that provisions of the constitutions of.
certain members had been brought to the attention of the Sub-Commitee. No
attempt had been made to describe all types of such constitutional provsisons.
It was accraute to say that the constitutional provisions of certain states
did provide that controversies solely within their domestic jurisidctions
ought to be resolved by national tribunals. .. - --
Mr.NOVOA (Mexico) and Mr. CHARLONE (Uruguay) supported the words
proposed by Mr. RUBIN (United States) subject to the deletion of the word
"solely". Mr. BEST (United Kingdom) concurred.
Mr. RUBIN (United States) ephasized that the legislative an
constitutional provisions of certain countries, for example the
United States, did not provide that all, contreirrsies arising within their
domestic Jurisdiction had to be resolvede by national courts. There were
certain cases which did arjse within the national Jurisdiction of states
and which by international agreement other tean that contained in the
Charter were open to be considered by international tribunals. For that
reason, purely as a question ff factw the insertion of the word "solely"
improved the text. Ho was prepared to agree that this, word, be not included
but he wishe.dthe record to contain his remarks.
It was agreed to eJdorse the view of, tphe Joint Sub-Committee expressed
in paragraph of its report with the deletion of the second sentence and
its substitution by the following two sentences:
/"Theso provide that E/CONF.2/C .2/SR.22
Page 3
"These provide that controversies which are within the domestic
jurisdiction of such States, are to be resolved by national
tribunals. In some cases such controversies may arise in connection
with matters dealt with in Article 11."
View of Committee Concerning the Deletion of Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the
Geneva Draft (E/CONF.2/C.2/36 and E/CONF .2/C.2/39 and E/CONF.2/C.2/39/Corr.1)
The text as proposed to be amended by the United Kingdom representative
and appearing at the top of page 2 of E/CONF.2/C.2/39 was approved by the
Committee.
Proposal in Relation to Report of Sub-Committee D on Footnote to Chapter III
on "Reconstruction (E/CONF/C.2/35 an/d NFECO.2/C.2/39)
Mr. LERllM (Belgium) was unable to accept the Australian proposal set out
in E/CONF.2/C.2/39. The war devastated countries had admitted the right
of underdeveloped countries to economic development and they, in their turn,
should not stand in tae w;y of the reconstruction oe those which had been
devastated by the war. The reconstruction of a country's economy was
narrower than the reconstruction of the country.
THe CHAIRMAN speaking as a representative of Brazil, felt thae some limit
ought to be placed on the concept of reconstruction as to time and place.
There waseno departure from the fundamental concept of reconstruction.
Mr. MYAT TUN (Burma) said that not only the ecooomy of Burma had been
devastated, bet tho country itsenlf, and therefore he supported the proposal
contained in the Sub-Committee's report.
Mr. LLORENTE (Phileppines) said thet the form of words in the
Sub-Committee's report was more realistic than that proposed by the
Australian representative. As a further suggestion, he proposed that the
phrase read as fo:lows; "together with the reconstruction of devastated
countries whose economics have been disrupted by the war".
Mr. GUTIRREZ (Cuba), supported by Mr. GUTIERREZ (Bolivia) agreed that
the text should take into consideration the widor concept of the reconstructior
of a country and therefore he supported the proposal contained in the
Sub-Committee's report,
Mr. MULLER (Belgium) drew attention to the fact that while the port
of Antwerp had not been damaged severely by the bombings, the town was in
ruins. Such an example showed the necessity of referring to more than the
mere reconstruction of the economy of a country.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) urged that if a reference to reconstruction
was to be included, the same principles and methods should apply to it as
to economic developmeIt. In his opinion, the case of Antworp and other
/legitimate cases E/CONF.2/C. 2/SR.22
Page 4
legitimate cases would be covered by the Australian proposal and because
it would also prevent, abuse, he felt that it should be acceopet .
Miss FISHER (United Kingdom) said that the problem of economic
development had been Included in the Charter not merely because the right
to it had been admitted, but because the economic development of
underdeveloped countries was essential to the increase of the volume of
foreign trade. The same argument applied as regards the reconstruction of
war dovastated countries. She did not see a great difference between the
various forms of words proposed, but as a result of the remarks of the
Belgian representative, she was inclined to supprt the proposal contained
in the Sub-Cmmittee's report. .
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) was in general agreement with the reprensentatives
of Belgium and United Kingdom, although he saw no very cloar distinction
between the reconstruction of a country and the reconstruction on of the
economy of that country.
Mr. LLORENTE (Philippines) withdrew his proposal on the understanding
that "reconstruction" was to be enterpreted in the broad sense of the word.
Mr. BRUDZINSKII (Poland) strongly supported the remarks of the Belgian
representative. In the case of a country as severely devastated as Poland
there was a big difference between the reconstruction of the country and
the reconstruction of its economy. He did not understand the purpose of the
Australian amendment, for the ITO would not be a bank, which would
distribute credits which could be exhausted. The application of rights and
privileges to Poland, as war devastated country, could not possibly demago
the application of these same rights and privileges to an underdeveloped
country. - ,
Mr. MAeECLIAM (Ireland) lt that reconstruction and economic
development should bo put on the same footing and to that end supported
thes Au stralian propoal.ITO wagns not a body desied to help in
rebuilding ocf wasr der couldvastateed eitie, nohe i ant be xpcted to lp
undcdevelopc c ouuntrg sy with itsehesnheoretaghe. He suggosodtabtthe
rmmiepeeorst ofd the Cotta noteoto th ehoecul conteconomai e, fft that ic
devenlopment and recoiommiec rteconstuceto ewere o bhee intrprtd in t
wiessedot possible sa
:. -HINUnitesSdp States) eBeluprtd ethee forg ro forprcenativeOZ'
te reasonsee whivch had bb geiense bay the r .re . te dwiwve of-uba.6ev
the a ention of the Irish-re to presentativeihe isfCoace thceat thlcferena
osmiceeronemid with ccQand that nIcatters ereeerwefonmre thfrcvs oeed
to mapokn tteha t thjere 0tclcrnmort omf the Comittee. - ;
. LECUYER (France) - ' /' th '' -: ' E/CONF. 2/C .2/SR.22
Page 5
Mr. LECUYER (France) felt that it was a question of words and not of
substance, for no one could have any doubts as to the equal importance of
reconstruction and economic development. He saw no difference between the
original text and that proposed by the Australian representative because it
would be impossible to carry out the economic reconstruction of a country
without reconstructing the country itself. The debate, however, had given
a new significance to the Australian proposal and therefore he preferred the
text contained in the Sub-Committee's report.
Mr. PAPATSONIS (Greece) was unable to accept any text which would limit
the idea of reconstruction and therefore supported the original text.
The representatives of Denmark, Southern Rhodesia and Sweden urged
the acceptance of the text contained in the Sub-Committee's report.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) wished to have it recorded in the report of
the Committee that when the words reconstruction of a country devastated
by war or whose economy has been disrupted by war" were used this meant
economic reconstruction in the widest sense but not more than that.
Mr. NOVOA (Mexico) drew attention to the report of the Sub-Committee
which stated that reconstruction and economic development were to be treated
on equal terms.
It was agreed to reject the amendment submitted by the representative
of Australia and to approve the report of the Sub-Committee as a whole. It
was further agreed that the report of the Committee should contain the
conclusion in the last sentence of the report of the Sub-Committee.
The meeting rose at 12.35 p.m. |
GATT Library | yg341vn7128 | Summary Record of Twenty-Third Meeting (III b) : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba Thursday, 2 January 1948, at 4.00 p.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 5, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 05/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.23 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17-31 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yg341vn7128 | yg341vn7128_90190251.xml | GATT_148 | 1,830 | 11,881 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF. 2/C.3/SR.23
ON DU 5 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF TWENTY-THIRD MEETING (III b)
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba
Thursday, 2 January 1948, at 4.00 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. L. D. WIIGRESS (Canada)
Mr. LA ROSA (Italy) commenting generally on Article 23, thought
there was a lack of balance between this Article and Article 21. The
latter, especially in paragraph 3 (c) (ii), permitted priority to be
given to essential products. He recognized that countries must be free.
to take measures protecting their balance of payments, but countries
affected by such measures should also have the right to safeguard their
exports. Therefore, Article 23 should be so redrafted as to provide the
necessary balance with Article 21. Since all quantitative restrictions
were essentially discriminatory, there was no reason why Article 23 should
not permit action against the effects of measures taken under Article 21.
He requested these considerations to be taken into account.
PARAGRAPH 3
The Italian amendments (Items 66 and 69) had. been submitted.
because Italy considered prior approval by the Organization to be
incompatible with the needs of a national commercial policy. The right of
the Organization to intervene was not precluded but a test which should
govern its action had been added. This test was the relation between the
prejudice which the restrictive measure was causing to the complaining
Member, and the prejudice which its discontinuation would cause to the Member
applying it.
Mr. SEIDENFADEN (Denmark) felt the operative date should not be
fixed so Iong, ahead, but should at the proper time be determined by the
Organization.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) and Mr. SAHLIN (Sweden) supported the
Danish amendment.
Mr. OLMEDO (Mexico) explaining the Mexican amendment (Item 68)
suggested that before requiring the removal of restrictions not only
should there be no disequilibrium but also no danger of its recurrence as
a result of the restrictions being lifted.
/Mr. FARINA (Uruguay) E/CONF.2/C .3/SR. 23
Page 2
Mr. FARINA (Uruguay) stated that his country could not accept the
Organization being given the character of a super-state. For this reason
the amendment (Item 70) had been submitted.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) supported the proposal.
Mr. BRONZ (United States) commenting on the Note attached to the Geneva
Draft (Item 71) asked that it be maintained, since it concerned a matter of
substance and had been the subject of prolonged discussion in Geneva.
Mr. AZER (Egypt) thought the principle of the Note should be
incorporated in the Article itself.
PARAGRAPH 4
No comments.
PARAGRAPH 5
Mr. CAMPOS (Brazil) said that the Delegation of Brazil had always
opposed discrimination in any form because it was convinced that it
led to the erection of trade barriers and jeopardized the future of
international trade. However, it had not made any reservations regarding
paragraph 5 (d). As regards paragraph 5 (b), his Delegation had. decided
to maintain its reservation made at Geneva and would refer to the matter
again in Sub-Committee.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) considered that paragraph 5 (a)
should refer to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary
Fund as a whole, and not only to one Article, and suggested that the
words "Section 3 (c) of Article VII" should be deleted.
It was decided to refer Article 23 with all amendments to the
Sub-Committee.
NEW ARTICLE 23 (a)
Mr. COLOCOTRONIS (Greece), in studying the Greek proposal for a new
Article covering the case of Members whose economy depended on one or two
agricultural products, emphasized the extreme poverty of his country.
In order to survive Greece had to import 100 per cent of its requirements
of steel, iron, copper and zinc; paper and paper products; sugar, coffee,
lumber, and rubber; 40 - 60 per cent of its needs in. milling grains;
65 per cent of its rice needs, and large amounts of cotton and wool.
Seven and a half million Greeks had to live on land exhausted by 3,000 years
of cultivation. Every possible variety of seeds had been tried with
various methods of cultivation and rotation of crops without success. In
the past many of the people had been forced to emigrate, but that was now
impossible.
After describing the effect of the two world wars on the economy
of his country, Mr. Colocotronis emphasized that currants and tobacco
were the only products which Greece could now export, but great difficulty
/was being E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.23
Page 3
was being experienced in selling them abroad. Nine hundred thousand
Greeks were dependent on the tobacco industry, while the currant industry
employed five hundred thousand. It was therefore absolutely necessary
for a country in such a position to have the power to impose discriminatory
quantitative restrictions on imports, or to maintain those restrictions
in force on the date of the signature of the Charter.
Mr. ILERAS (Colombia), although not in complete agreement with the
terms of the amendment of Greece, supported it in principle. It established
a balance between countries with a variety of products which were in general
demand, and countries exporting only one or two products which were not
considered essential. In this respect, there was inequality throughout
the Charter. Under the provisions of the Article 21, products such as
tobacco and coffee would suffer more than any others. Article 23 presented
grave dangers by permitting discrimination. In the interval before
currency became convertible, the exceptions to nondiscrimination might
in any given region result in a different proportion of products than
was supplied previously. On return to normalcy, the products supplied.
originally would have lost their market. However, realities made some
discrimination unavoidable. Countries which had suffered monetary inflation
and devastation by war could not accept the norm imposed upon them by the
present Charter, which should provide equitable treatment for all.
Mr. ATAMAN (Turkey) was in general agreement with the Greek amendment.
The special situations of certain countries should be taken into account.
A large proportion of the population of Turkey depended totally on the
export of three products. Therefore, the wording of the Greek amendment
should be changed to provide for "two or three agricultural products".
Mr. COREA (Ceylon), although not agreeing entirely with the wording
of the amendment, heartily supported its basic principle. There were
two sets of countries in the world, and it was impossible to draft one
set of principles to apply to both.
There were countries which were even worse off than Greece. For
instance, Ceylon had to support six and a half Million people on an annual
income half that of Greece, and her exports were limited to three products.
The purposes behind the Greek amendment should be realized and embodied
in the Charter.
Mr. BLUSZTEJN (Poland) sympathized with the ideas expressed by the
representative of Greece. The situation depicted might however arise also
in connection with such products as coal and textiles. It had been proved
conclusively that certain countries had grave misgivings regarding the
provisions included in Article 23, and would like to integrate into the
/Charter E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.23
Page 4
Charter a clause guaranteeing their freedom of action when bargaining
on the international market.
Mr. STUCKI (Szeitzerland) warmly supported the Greek amendment,
but pointed out that the conditions mentioned applied also to countries
such as Switzerland which depended not on one or two agricultural products,
but on industries the products of which were not considered essential.
He had noted with misgivings that 60% of his country's export trade,
which resulted from hard work rather than agricultural resources, was
regarded abroad as inessential. Therefore not only countries such as
Greece should be placed in a favourable bargaining position, but the
scope of the Charter should be widened to embrace all countries which could
not produce essential goods commanding high prices.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) whilst expressing sympathy with the
position of Greece, believed the problems of such countries were covered.
until 1 March 1952. If by that time international trade had not reached
an era of prosperity, then the ITO would have to find a new solution, or
exercise the provisions of Article 7r. Making all kinds of exceptions
now would lead nowhere.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) was impressed by the arguments of the representatives
of Greece, Colombia and Switzerland, Fifty percent of Chile's export trade
was derived from nitrate and copper, and he believed that the amendment
should cover products of mining and industry as well as agriculture."
Mr. NORIEGA-MORALES (Guatemala) agreed with the spirit, if not with
all the terms, of the Greek proposal: due consideration should be given
to countries whose economy depended on one or two products, regardless
of their nature. The statements of the representatives of Colombia and
Chile in that respect should be noted by the sub-committee which would
study the Greek proposal.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) said that the unavoidably general character of
the Charter Rules was bound to cause difficulties to some Members. It
was recognized that all special situations could not be taken into account,
but there should be a general exception and perhaps the deletion of the word
"non-discriminatory" in paragraph 2 of Article 13 would meet the problem.
Mr. TRABOULSI (Syria) supported the general principle of the Greek
proposal.
Mr. TICHELEN (Belgium) felt that the representatives of Greece,Turkey
and Ceylon, in stressing their need for limiting imports, had defended only
half their interests. From the point of view of exporting countries, should
they not join those trying to avoid a situation where it was necessary
to put restrictions on luxury products. The delegation of Belgium would
/associate E /CONF. 2/C. 3/SR.23
Page 5
associate itself with Greece, Turkey and Ceylon on the express condition
that those countries would want open markets, and not exceptions closing
markets to luxury items, as presently proposed in Article 21. Balance
should be obtained between new amendments and Article 21.
It was areed to refer the proposal to sub-conmittee.
ARTICLE 24
Mr.NASH (New Zealand) said that the New Zealand amendment (Item 79)
proposed deletion of that part of paragaph 2 pertaining to decisions
to be taken by the International Monetary Fund. The ITO should not be
subordinate nor should it delegate responsibility to another body. There
was no doubt that co-operation and consultation with other bodies was
the duty of the Executive Board, but no outside body should have the
right to determine the policy of the ITO. Moreover, there was the
question of soverignty of a state submitting to the decisions of an
organization in which it was not a member. Commercial factors were
often the underlying cause of balance of payments difficulties and
the Fund, despite the qualification in paragraph 2, should not be the
final authority in balance of payments matters as they affected the
ITO, In that regard, the phrase "and other facts" in paragraph 2 should
be explained. The amendment would in no way detract from the proper use
of consultation between organizations: the powrer of decision should rest
with the ITO.
The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m. |
GATT Library | xs791rf1561 | Summary Record,of the Thirty-Fourth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 9 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 9, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 09/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.34 and E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.32-41/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xs791rf1561 | xs791rf1561_90190268.xml | GATT_148 | 3,102 | 19,699 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.34
ON DU 9 February 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba, 9 February 1948 at 10.30 a.m.
Acting Chairman: Mr. Walter NASH (New Zealand)
At the proposal of Mr. Caplan (United Kingdom) supported by the
representatives of Australia, Chile, Sweden and Brazil, Mr. NASH
(New zealand) was elected Acting-Chairman of the Third Committee.
1. SECTION D. ADDITION PROPOSED BY THE DELEGATION OF ARGENTINA
(E/CONF.2/C.3/47)
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) referred to point 1 of his amendment. His
country had, since 1945, signed a number of treaties with foreign countries
which provided for the exchange of goods during the years 1947 to 1951
inclusive. Transactions would, on the part of the purchasing country, be
effected according to the legislation of that country, and on the part of
Argentina by the Argentine Institute for the Promotion of Trade, or
institutions or firms elected by this organization. If the purchasing
country should find other sources of the same products at lower prices than
quoted by the AIPT, them it would send notification, and if AIPT decided
the lower quotation would be impossible to meet, the purchasing country
was free to buy the prearranged three-month supply from the new source
after thirty days. Likewise Argentina would be free to dispose of the
three-monthly shipments to another purchaser. Similar provisions applied
to deliveries to Argentina. The AIPT only took part in the preliminary
negotiations and the conclusion of the transactions, but did not control
the actual imports or exports. Section D of Chapter IV would create
insuperable obstacles to the development of the AIPT, and that was why
Argentina had proposed the amendment or interpretative note.
Point 2 of the Argentine amendment should allow the AIPT or any other
organization to import commodities for the prevention of damage to
agriculture, or the promotion or improvement of agricultural production,
not primarily for profit.
/Point 3 E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.34
Page 2
Point 3 was related to Article 31 and was intended to permit a
Government making available to domestic consumers a domestic product at a
price lower than that paid to domestic producers. For this purpose the
state would acquire the entire domestic output of that product and from
the profit made on its exports, would cover the loss incurred on the
domestic sales. Would Article 31. impede or hamper this operation?
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) believed the Argentine amendment to be
unnecessary. The basic ideas to which Argentina attached importance had
occurred to other countries, and provisions existed within Section D and
other parts of Chapter IV to ensure that governments would be able to fill
obligations to their people. The main point of the amendment was to deal
with shortages of commodities when it was necessary to have external trade
arrangements to deal with them. No country was unfamiliar with these
problems which were caused largely by war, but would eventually be overcome,
and in the meantime were provided for in Article 43 paragraph 1
sub-paragraph (b) (i). There was no need for any specific exemptions in
Section D. The one difficulty was the existence in the Geneva text of a
specific date by which arrangements should be concluded. This had been
amended in the new text. The first part of the Argentina amendment was
therefore adequately covered.
There was nothing in Article 30 which would prevent a government
from doing what Argentina provided for in point 2 of the amendment
Paragraph 1 (b) of Article 30 stressed commercial considerations and
these would obviously include paying the lowest price available.
Point 3 did not seem to give rise to difficulty regarding Articles 30
or 31 because the whole Chapter implied that the government would ensure
low prices. This was specifically provided for under Article 31 (4). The
Argentine proposal to delete. Section D had the same aim as the present
amedment, and if it were suggested that state agencies should be
discriminatory, the whole principle of Chapter IV would be undermined
Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) said that in spite of the clear explanations
of the representative of the United Kingdom, to avoid ambiguity he would
like Section D to embody specific provisions either in the form of a new
article or as an interpretative note. This would be better than having
the provisions spread throughout the text of the Charter.
Mr. EVANS (United States) in reply to the question by the representative
of Argentina under point 3 of the amendment stated that if he had asked if
there were 'anything to prevent a government from subsidizing domestic
consumers by selling at a lower price than that paid by a state monopoly,
/his answer E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.34
Page 3
his answer would be that thete was nothing under article 31 to prevent this
action. If, however, it was a question of impediment it was true that where
consumers abroad were charged a substantially higher price than otherwise
and if the selling country held a world monopoly in that product, then
Article 31 would require that the country maintaining the monopoly would,
upon request, be willing to enter into negotiations with respect to the
extent to which the price abroad was being increased. These negotiations
would be subject to the provisions regarding negotiation of import and export
duties.
Mr. CZ.::A: (Venezuela) suggested, and Mr. BRIGNOLI (Argentina) agreed,
that the clarifications concerning the Argentinia amendmo. should figure
in the Report of the Committee.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) in reply to a question by the representative
of Argentina, said that Article 43 (1) (b) covered the past, present and
future.
Mr. CHOMY TERRA (Uruguay) wanted it expressly understood that the
Charter contemplated the case and supported measures in social welfare
which might be undertaken by governments through such institutions as the
AIPT in Argentina. The representative of the United Kingdom claimed that
a country should negotiate tHe prices at which a product would be placed on
the market.
Mr. EVANS (United States) agreed with the representative of Uruguay
that his remarks and those of the representative of the United Kingdom could
not be taken as accomplishing exactly the same thing as the Argentina
amendment which provided for no flexibilty whatever in Section D and the
first paragraph of which would cancel out Article 30. The problems raised
by the representative of Argentina were already covered in the Charter.
Mr. BRIGNOLI; (Argentina) provisionally maintained his reservation.
regarding S. ition D of Chapter IV.
it wao agreed that the f-gentine proposals do not req', re amendment
of Section D, but that the pc..rjts brought out in discussion should be
recc:ded In the minutes.
2. ARTICLE 31 A. CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE NEW ARTICLE
ON "LIQUIDATION OF STOCK' (E/CONF. 2/C.3/43)
It was agreed to postpone the discussion until the next meeting of
Committee III to give the representative of CUBA time to consider the
Sub-COmmittea text and to consult with the representative of tho
United Kingdom and the United States of America.
/3. TITLE OF E/CONF. 2/C.3/SR . 34
Page 4
3. TITLE OF SECTION D. AMENDMENT OF TITLE TO READ: "STATE TRADING
AND RE?ATED MATTERS" (RECOMMENDATION OF SUB-COMMITTEE J
E/CONF. 2/C, 3/43 ).
The Committee appe red the new title of Section D to read: ."State
Trading and Related Matters".
SECTION E
4. ARTICLE 3A. PROPOSAL OF THE BEIGIAN DELEGATION TO DELETE PARAGRAPH 8
AND TO ADD AN INTERPRETATIVE NOTE TO PARAGRAPHS 3, 4 AND 5
(E/CONF.2/C. 3/38,/Add . 2/Rev1).
Mr. MULLER (Belgium) stated that the inclusion of paragraph 8 of
Article 32 was made necessary solely because the English term "charges"' in
paragraph 5 might have given rise to ambiguity, while "droita" in French
could not in any case coveil the concept of transportation charges. It was
therefore not necessary to include paragraph 8 to cover only what appeared
in the English version.
Mr. LECUYER (France) and Mr. MORTON (Australia) endorsed the proposals
and statement made by the representative of Belgium.
Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia) agreed with the Belgian proposal to delete
paragraph 8 and that the Interpretative Note should be appended to Article 32.
If, however, interpretative notes should be removed at a later stage, he
reserved h s right to reopen the question.
Mr. BEYLEVELD (Union of South Africa) and Mr. SPEEINE'(Netherlands)
reserved their rights to reopen the question should the intepretative notes
be removed at a later date, or should the text of Article 18 be substantially
changed.
The Committee approved the Belgian proposal to delete paragraph 8 of
Article 32, and to append the following interpretative note to that Article:
"Paragraphs 3, 4 and. ,5
The word 'charges' as used in the English text of paragrapha 3,
4 and 5, shall not be deemed to include transportation charges."
5. ARTICIE 3 REPORT OF WORKING PARTY NO. 2 ON THE NOTE (ii) TO
PARAGRAPH 3 (b) (E/CO?.2.2/C.3/48), AND AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE
FRENCH DELEGATION (E/C0NF.2/C.3/38/Add.3).
Mr. MORTON (Australia), as its Chairman, submitted the report of
Working Party No. 2 of Conmittee III, suggesting that the text proposed
by the French-delegation, with the correction of two typographical errors,
be considered in lieu of that submitted by the Working Party.
Mr. MULLER (Chile) agreed and suggested a drafting amendment to
sub-paragraph (1) of Note (ii).
/Mr. SPEEKEN?R INK E/CONF. 2/C. 3/SR. 34
Page 5
Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) agreed but suggested that the phrase
"date of sigature" should conform to the similar phrese used in other
Articles.
Mr. BANERJI (India) agreed and suggested a drafting amendment to the
last sentence of sub-paragraph (2).
The proposed text would then read:
Intepretative Note (ii) to sub-paragraph 3 (b) of Article 34
"(ii) If on the date of signature of this Charter a Member has in
force a system whereby ad valorem duties are levied on the
basis of fixed value, the provisions of paragraph 3 of
ArticIe 34 shall not apply:
1. In the case of values not subject to periodical revision
in regard to a particular product, as long as the value
established for that product remains unchanged;
2. in the 6aste. of values subject to periodical revision
on condition that the revision is based on the mean
"actual value" established by reference to an immediately
preceding period of not more than twelve months and, that
such revision may be made at any time, at the request of
the parties concerned or of Members. The revision shall
apply to the import or imports in respect of which the
specific request for revision was made, and the revised
value so established shall remain in force pending.
further revision."
Mr. MARTIN ( United States of America) stated that his delegation
reserved its position to Article 34; he opposed sub-paragraph 2. of .,the
Interpretative Note because, although it recognized the validity of the
principle of 'actural value", it was an unwarranted departure from it Solar
for the purpose of, administrative convenience. The report of Sub-Committee C
adequantely took into account the cases of those counties which had a
system, of fixed values. Paragraph 2 of Article 34 spoke of the. "earlieast
pacticable date"; therefore, the principle of "actual value" need not, be
immediately adopted. Paragraph 3 (c) was added in Geneva to take care of
the system in practice in India; sub-pragraph 1 of the Interpretative
Note (ii) (E/CONF.2/C.3/38 page 24) was added at the request of the
delegation. of Uruguay to permit the continuation of established fixed values
not subject to periodical revision. But the continiation of a system
which permitted values to be changed at will should not be agreed to.
/Mr .-MORTON E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.34
Page 6
Mr. r(%R~tM1:La) accepted the chance in the French-?
suggested by the re? lt of India.
Mr. ?S (Canada) said that every country might submit ?
to different parts of the Charter to perpetuate its own administrative
system, would it not be better to amend the laws to bring them into
conformity with the principle of Article 34, as Canada and others were
doing? The importance of the principle of actual value could not be too
strongly stressed, since it was on that basis that all ad valorem duties
were lavied. Sub-paragraph 3 (b) and (c) covered the oaae which for the
time being departed from the principle. If the Interpretative Note applied.
only to a limited number of products, it was unnecessary; if it applied to
a. large mxaber, it was undesirable.
The 'Note bad an adverse effect in that it condoned average values; it
was, aolely for administrative convenience; it was to be doubted whether the
retention of existing systems of average value would actully result in
great administrative convenience, especially if prices declined.
required ratification and public opinion would not be favourably UZssed by
exceptions.
The - CHAIRMAN obtained the consent of Working Party No. 2 that the
text proposed by the delegation of France, as amended, should be accepted
for discussion.
Mr. BAERJI (India) stated that his Government had been practicing
for seventy years the principle of valuation for customs purposes ca set
fourth in Paragraph .3 of Article 34. The Indian system, similar to that
of Chile, did not fix valus at will but attempted to arrive at average
value which would approximte the actual value. Concerning Note (ii) to
Paragraph. 3 (b) , it. was of more benefit to the importer for a Government
to be in a position to lowar duties than to perpetuate high duies.
Paragraph 3 (c), while of some assistance, was in some way a
4Ct6dition, to Article 34. The Indian system took into account the values
over a period of a year and changes could be made when necessary. This
encouraged a geater flow of goods, free from irritating customs formalities
Mr. MULLER (Chile) said that his amendment did not dsvtaeXt,? 'the
principle of Aricle 34 but had the advantage of not causing
administrative-difficulties. If a fixed value did not agree with actual
value, it should be changed. Whenever a complaint was made. Since the
nft;snt yes in keeping with the spirit of the Charter, it should be accept?
Mr. LECUYER (France) agreed to the amendment to the dratft proposal
submited by his delegation and supported the representative of Chile. The
/ PROVISIONS E/CONF. 2/C .3/SR . 34
Page 7
provisions of the Note were practical and did not go against the principle of
actual value, but provided for the continuation of legislative and
administrative measures which would not 1idtancser international trade; on
the contrary) it would authorize 4 &eS±t6%U and advantageous situation.
Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia) said that the addition to the Interpretative
Note would preserve a method of valuation for customs purposes, which method,
in the absence of the Note, would have to be eliminated. As set forth in
paragraph 2 of Article 34, and as the representative of the United States
had appropriately said, such methods should be eliminated at the "earliest
practicable date".
If the Note, with its wide exceptions from Article 34, were adopted,
the meaning of the phrase "earliest practicable date" in paragraph 2 would
become more important. In the light of the Note if accepted the words
"earliest practicable date" should not continue to stand as a further
loophole but should be replaced by a wording which would define more
closely and the same time would limit tie period of time afforded for
complying with the principle of "actual value".
The CHAIRMAN summarizing, said that Sub-Committee C had reported
to Committee III on Article 34, defining "actual value" in paragraph 3. There
was discussion concerning the Chilean practice of fixing values for a. period
of time. Working Party 2 had been established to consider this problem.,
and it was now agreed that the text submitted by the French delegation, as
amended, should be considered, It was agreed that the Central Drafting
Committee should consider the specific wording of the first line, as noted
by the representative of the Netherlands.
The delegations of Belgium, Chile and India maintained their
reservations pending instructions from, their Governments. The delegation
of Czechoslovakia reserved prco -sionally its position to Article 34. The
delegation of the United States reserved its: position to Article 34.
The amended text of Note (ii) was approved by Committee III.
SECTION F
6. ARTICLE: 40: REPORT OF WORKING PARTY NO. 4 ON THE INTERPRETATIVE NOTE
TO ARTICLE 40 (E/CoF.2/C.3/49).
The Interpretative Note to Article 40 was approved without comment.
7. ARTICLE 43: INSERTION OF =-w P ......GRAPi 2 (a). PROPOSAL OF THE
DELEGATIONS OF ARGENTINA, ',AI i GUAMIT AND URUGUAY
(E/CONF. 2/C. 3/46 and Corr. 1).
Mr. MARTIN (United States of America) was in agreement with the first
part of the proposed sub-paragraph regarding the obligation to supply
/inforation E/CONF. 2/C:3/SR.34
Page 8
information concerning quarantines-but thought that the establishment of a
technical commission should be 4d?alt with by Committee VI.
Mr. MULLER (Belgium) also felt that this part of the amendment .should
be given careful consideration in-Committee VI.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that the apprehdnaion giving rise
to the amendment were taken care of in the preamble of Article. 4,.and
its purpose was also covered by Articles 89 and 90 and, by paragraph 1 of
Article 37. There was no doubt but that governments would be willing to
provide the necessary information upon request but a continuing obligation
would prove unduly burdensome end unproductive.
Mr.TERRA (Uruguay) stated that the lack of adequate measures to defend
their exports was of great concern to mono-production agricultural countries.
The subject matter of the amendment had been considered in a number of
international conferences but no concrete solution had been produced. He
referred to Chapters 11 and 40 of the Report of the Fifth Pan-Amrican
Conference of 1923 where certain recommendations for the establishment of
such an Institute were made. The present measures for the protection of
plants and animals were restricting international commerce;. commission
such as was envisaged in the amendment would be a central organ receiving
all information and. capable of advising in the event some measures were not
just.
There should be at least an Interpretative Note in Chapter IV to point
out that when a country took such restrictive measures as outlined in
paragraph 1 (a) (iii), it should explain the purpose to an international
commission.
The CHAIRMAN summarized the discussion and said that Sections :1) end F
of Chapter IV-had been approved in second reading with the exception of
Liquidation of Stocks, .the report of tie Working Party considering
Articles 40 (1) (a) ,.and the proposal by four Latin-American countries to
Article 43, all of which would be considered at the next meeting.
The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m. |
GATT Library | td466nx2788 | Summary Report of the Twenty-Second Meeting : Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on September 9th, 1948 at 3 p.m | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 5, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 05/09/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/SR.22 and GATT/CP.2/SR.19-23,SR.21/Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/td466nx2788 | td466nx2788_90270069.xml | GATT_148 | 2,209 | 14,146 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP . 2/SR.22
5 September 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session.
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations; Geneva
on September 9th, 1948 at 3 p.m.
REPORT OF WORKING PARTY No.1 ON FINANCE (GATT/CP.2/35)
The meeting decided to examine consecutively the
five-items on which the Working Party was reporting in
accordance with its terms of referencee.
1. Financing of Secretariat Services.
The Working Party recommended.:
a) that the ICITO should absorb the expenses of
the Contracting Parties up to the end of the Second
Session. These expenses to be accounted for separately,
in case any questions should later arise regarding their
attribution.
b) future expenses to be on a "pay-as-you-go" basis
and to be divided between the Contracting Parties according
to a classiffication established for the purpose and
ranking the Contracting Parties in four categories as
set out in the above-mentioned document. This was, the
CHAIRMAN said, a compromise solution arrived at by the
Working Party in order to reconcile the opposing views
of those Delegations which demanded "pro capita"' sharing
and those which suggested payment according to a sliding
scale.
Mr.SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he accepted the
compromise proposed on the understanding that it would not
create a precedent. GATT/CP. 2/SR .22
Page 2
The CHAIRMAN recalled paragraph I (d) which expressly
stated that the division of expenses between Contracting
Parties should in no way constitute a precedent for
contributions by governments to international organizations.
Mr. STINEBOWER (United States) said the recommendations
of the Working Party were the result of a carefully
studied compromise and as such were acceptable to his
Delegation although they would have preferred that expenses
of the Contracting Parties be borne by the governments
from the beginning of the second session.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) thought the compromise
formula for the sharing of expenses was not satisfactory;
a proportionate classification according to each
contracting party's participation in world trade being
preferable, although a better classification would have
been to take account of the amount of trade of each
contracting party in hard currencies. He illustrated
his point by showing a comparison of the charges as
suggested by the Working Party and of the charges
assessed proportionately to each Contracting party's
participation in world trade.
Mr. STINEBOWER (United States) said the Contracting
Parties were not an international organization, but
sovereign countries which had voluntarily entered an
agreement, consequently equal sharing would have been more
logical. Moreover there were precedents, even in the
case of organizations, where for small sums such as those
confronting the Contracting Parties a "pro capita" basis
had been chosen. He supported the proposals of the Working
Party as constituting a practicable solution. GATT/CP. 2/SR.22
page 3
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) wished to express his support
of the Working Party's recommendations.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) said the proposed allocation
differed so much from his views on the matter that he
coud not accept it without authority from his Government.
He proposed that the categories should bear the following
percentages of the total: A: 50% - .B: 23% . C: 22% - D: 5%
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) admitted his country
should pay more than others, but added that the question of
the part of a country's trade in hard currencies was a
factor of which account had to be taken and considered the
division in categories the best solution.
Mr. PHILIP (France) supported the division in
categories and suggested one slight alteration in the
scale of classification.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that numerous formulae had
been experimented by the Working Party before it arrived
at the solution which it found most satisfactory.
Mr. TONKIN (Australia) said that having been a member
of the Working Party, he was convinced that whatever
method of approach he adopted, a minimum contribution had
first of all to be established, from which to work back to
the contributions attributed to Contracting Parties placed
higher on the scale.
Mr. NICOL (New Zealand) said his Government had hoped
that the economic standing of the Contracting Parties
would have been the basis of collection, but did not think
the small sums involved warranted applying to the respective
Governments for authorisation to approve them.
Mr.USMANI (Pakistan) although he agreed with the
principle or a sliding scale, thought the division recommended GATT/CP. 2/SR.22
page 4.
by the Working Party an over-simplification of the problems.
Mr. MOUBARAK (Lebanon) suggested a scale parting
from minimum contributions of $/300.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) asked whether the
Working Party had examined the scale of contribution of the
United Nations and said that, though he had not seen it,
he would be prepared to accept it.
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) thought his country's share
according to the proposals before them higher than it should
be, but on the understanding that no precedent was being
established, he supported the compromise proposal.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the debate, said it was clear
there was no agreement as yet on the division of charges
and thought it might be best to take up the discussion again
on the following Saturday. A decision by the Contracting
Parties would have to be taken in order that the Executive
Committee be enabled to come to a decision on the expenses
of the present session of the Contracting Parties.
The meeting agreed to resume the discussion the
following Saturday.
of the Rules of Proced re u
The Working Party recommended that the text of
Rule i f the Rules of Procedure be amended to read as
followed:
"The usual duties of a Secretariat shall,
by agreement with the Interim Commission
for the International Trade Or,ganisation
be performed by the Executive Secretary
of the Interim Commission on a reimbursable basis."
The CHAIRMAN proposed the provisional approval of the
amendments which, in case of approval by the Contracting
Parties of the recommendation contained in paragraph I,
could then be considered automaticall.y accepted GATT/CP. 2/SR. 22
Page 5.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) asked how Secretariat
services would be charged.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the Contracting Parties
would be asked to bear 10% of Secretariat expenses in
periods between sessions, and 50% during sessions.
The amendment to Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure
was accepted, subject to the above proviso.
III. Reprint of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
In the course of a discussion in which the advisa-
bility of reprinting a consolidated text of volume I of
the General Agreement, Mr. STINEBOWER (United States)
said his Government intended to reprint it and that
2500 copies would be made available free of charge to
Members of the United Nations and to the Contracting
Parties. Additional copies would be charged at cost.
Mr. LECUYER (France) informed the Contracting
Parties that the French Government also intended to have
the volume printed and that copies would be made available
to the Contracting Parties.
IV. Procedure for carrying out consultation in between, and
for action by, the Contracting Parties during periods
between sessions.
The meeting decided to discuss the matter after
having seen the report of Working Party 5, which Mr.
SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out, was also concerning
itself with interim procedure.
V. Date of theThird Session of the Contracting Parties.
The meeting agreed to accept the date recommended
by the Working Party, 8 April l949, as the most convenient,
in view of the concurrent tariff negotiations which would GATT/CP. 2/SR. 22
Page 6.
start three days later, thus also affording an opportunity
of examining any urgent point which might require
settlement before the negotiations began.
THE STATUS OF THE AGREEMENTS AND PROTOCOLS.
Mr. STINEBOWER (United States) read a statement
which had been circulated by the U.S. delegation to
the representatives of the Contracting Parties and which
has appeared as document GATT/CP.2/W/13.
He referred to the situation which had been
created by the Resolution of the Cuban Ministry of Commerce
of July 10th, 1948, governing the importation into Cuba
of textiles. The Resolution, a copy of which was
attached to document GATT/CP.2/W/13, created a registry
of textile manufacturers and importers to whom alone
imports of textiles into Cuba might be authorized.
Registration was permitted only to those customarily
and regularly engaged in the importation of textiles.
He outlined some of the elaborate formalities
which the Resolution imposed on the importer in Cuba and
to a certain extent to the exporter in the producing
country and said the view of his Government was that the
Resolution in question was in conflict with the provisions
of Article XI of the General Agreement, prohibiting quantitative
restrictions on imports. If it did not violate the
letter of those provisions, it was certainly a
nullification of the benefits which the General Agreement
sought to provide, because the effect of the above
regulations had been to put a stop to all imports of
textiles. GATT/CP.2/SR.22
Page 7.
The U.S. Government, in accordance with the
provisions of Article XXIII had approached the Cuban
Government for removal but had not up to the time
received any reassuring reply and therefore asked the
CONTRACTING PARTIES
1) to find that the effect of the measures taken
under the Resolution of the Ministry of Commerce,
was such as to nullify the provisions of the
General Agreement:
2) to recommend to the Government to Cuba that the
Resolution be withdrawn:
3) pending compliance by the Government of Cuba
with such recommendation, to authorize the
affected Contracting Parties to withhold
compensatory concessions from the trade to Cuba.
MR. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) said that his Delegation had
complied with all the requirements of procedure in order
to discuss the matter which was on the Agenda of the
present Session under: "The status of the Agreement and
Protocols" (GATT/CP.2/4). The matter had been brought
up at the First Session of the Contracting Parties and
was referred to the Second Session. The latter asked
the Cuban Delegation to negotiate with the interested
Parties and report to Working Parties 2 and 5 The
U.S.A. Delegation was approached but eventually replied
that negotiations could only take place after the
withdrawal of the Ministry of Commerce resolution to
which Mr. Stinebower had referred. Such terms were
unacceptable to the Cuban Government.
He expressed his surprise at the fact that a
document presented by his Delegation on the previous day had
not been circulated whereas Representatives of the
Contracting Parties had received the paper containing GATT/CP.2/SR.22
Page 8.
a statement of the American Delegation, which was not
a "statement" but a request to the Contracting Parties
under Article XXXIII. This was a violation of the
Rules of Procedure (Art. 22) in that document should be
circulated 12 hours before a meeting. Furthermore, the
matter was not on the Agenda.
He therefore did not feel in a position to discuss
the matter raised by Mr. Stinebower and asked for priority
for his proposal.
The CHAIRMAN informed Mr. GUTIERREZ that the
statement had been circulated by the USA Delegation and
that the request of the Cuban Government had not yet been
circulated in English because the Spanish text had to be
translated by the over-burdened Translation Services.
In accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
the Chairman said Mr. Gutierrez was right in demanding
time to examine the American statement.
As to the contention of Mr. Gutierrez that the
matter was not on the Agenda, his ruling was that it came
under item 7 "The Status of the Agreement and Protocols".
Mr. GUTIERREZ regretted he had to challenge
the Chairman's ruling under rule17 of the Rules of
Procedure. His Delegation would welcome discussion of
the matter, but could not accept, the precedent that the
American request for action under Article XXIII be
discussed under such a general title as that of the
item of the Agenda referred to by the Chairman. This was
a serious test for the Contracting Parties who had to
show great discretion and wisdom to avoid establishing
dangerous precedents. GATT/CP. 2/SR. 22
Page 9.
The meeting upheld the Chairman's ruling by 11
votes in favour and 3 against.
Mr. GUTIERREZ pointed out that he had also raised
the question of priority for his proposal. He had no
objection to discussing the U.S. proposal at the
appropriate time but insisted on priority for his
proposal.
Mr, STINEBOWER said his Delegation made no request
for priority although he thought the two proposals
were very closely related,
The CHAIRMAN granted priority to the Cuban proposal
which would be the first item for discussion if the
Contracting Parties did not intend to give previous
consideration to the Report of Working Party No. 5,
which had a bearing on part of the question.
Mr. PHILIP (France) thought that if the Cuban
request had been presented at the First Session of the
Contracting Parties before the adoption of the measures
against which the U.S.A. were appealing, then the two
proposals should be discussed separately,
Mr. CASSIERS (Belgium) said the two questions
were in so far related as the proposal concerned two
textile items and the American proposal, all textiles.
The two proposals could therefore be discussed jointly
only in connection with those two products.
Upon Mr. Stinebower's reassurance that he had no
objection to the Cuban proposal being taken as the next
item of business, the meeting rose at 7 p.m. |
GATT Library | ky556zj7156 | Supplementary report of Working Party 5 on Article XVIII | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, September 10, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 10/09/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/38/Add.1 and GATT/CP.2/37,38+CP.2/38/Add.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ky556zj7156 | ky556zj7156_90320057.xml | GATT_148 | 1,593 | 10,176 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP. 2/38/A.dd. 1
10 September 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF WORKING PARTY
5 ON ARTICLE XVIII
(1) It was agreed after consultation between the Chairman
of the Working Party and the Chairman of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES that the Working Party should make recommendations
concerning the procedure to be applied to new measures
submitted under Article XVIII (as contained in GATT/CP. 2/34)
between the Second and Third Sessions of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES. The Working Party considered and approved this
Supplementary Report at its eighth and ninth meetings.
(2) The Working Party agreed that it was necessary to provide
for the practical application of the provisions of Article
XVIII relating to new protective measures, since the terms
of the Article prescribed obligations which could not be
carried out, especially between regular sessions, without
suitable machinery.
(3) It was recognized that it was premature at this stage
to attempt to lay down a permanent procedure, since this
would have to be evolved in the light of experience. It
was however agreed to recommend, experimentally and without
prejudice to future practice, certain procedures to be used
between the Second and Third Sessions of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES.
(4) It was considered unnecessary to provide other machinery
in the interim before the version of Article XVIII contained
in the draft protocol (GATT/CP.2/34) came into effect,
beyond recommending that any contracting party which wished
to apply a new protective measure during that period should
inform the Chairman, who would notify particulars to the
other contracting parties and at his discretion, call a
meeting of the CONTRACTING PARTIES if it was urgently
needed.
(5) The main practical difficulties arise from the fact that
Article XVIII, as contained in the draft protocol (GATT/CP.
2/34) is derived from Articles 13 and 14 of the Havana
Charter and that these Articles designed for the use of the
ITO they presuppose a body, in more or less permanent
session, capable of taking substantive decisions. GATT/CP. 2/38/Add. 1.
page 2
(6) The Working Party considered the possibility of estab.
lishing a standing committee to administer a provisions of
Article XVIII but rejected this proposal principally on
the grounds that the number of applications between the
second and third sessions was unpredictable. The Working
Party considers that substantive decisions under this
Article must be taken by the CONTRACTING PARTIES in session
and, where it is not possible to defer a decision until the
Third Session, it will be necessary for the Chairman to
call a special session. The Working Party wished to draw
attention to the fact that under the provisions of paragraph
10 a decision must be given within ninety days of the
receipt of an application under paragraphs 7 or 8.
(7) Finally, the Working Party recognized that in practice
these procedures, which are necessarily complicated, may
not be invoked between the Second and Third Sessions, but
nevertheless considered it desirable to provide for the
various contingencies envisaged in Article XVIII. GATT/CP. 2/38/Add .1
page 3
ANNEX
Note - The following procedure is suggested in relation to
each of the appropriate paragraphs of Article XVIII (as set
out in GATT/CP.2/34) and should be read in conjunction with
them.
A.
Para 3 (a)
Para 3 (b)
Direct negotiations with all the
contracting parties may take place at
any time convenient for all parties.
In practice, however, it will probably
be convenient in most cases to hold the
negotiations at the Third Session when
general tariff negotiations are due to
take place. In cases where the contract-
ing party concerned wishes such
negotiations to take place at the Third
Session it should give notice of its
intention, through the Chairman, by 31
January 1949. In the case of items
materially affecting the trade of the
United States it is pointed out that
because of legislative requirements,
unless such notice wore given by 31
October 1948, there could be no assurance
that the United States could negotiate
on such items at the Third Session.
The Contracting party concerned will
notify the Chairman. In turn the
Chairman will notify the other con-
tracting parties, and at the same time
(i) indicate which, in his view, are the
materially affected contracting
parties with whom negotiations should
take place;
(ii) suggest a time schedule. (NB. In
cases whore negotiations are contem-
plated in the course of the Third
Session, a precise time schedule will
be unnecessary.)
If no objection is raised by any of
the contracting parties to the Chairman's
suggestion under (i) or (ii) above, the
negotiations will proceed between the
applicant contracting party and the con-
tracting parties which the Chairman has
nominated in accordance with the time
schedule proposed by the Chairman.
If any objection is raised, the matter
will be referred for decision by the
CONTRACTING PARTIES at their Third Session.
In cases of special urgency, however,
and at the discretion of the Chairman a
special session of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES may be called. GATT/CP. 2/38/Add.1
page 4
In either case a decision to release
an applicant contracting party from its
obligations must be taken by the CON-
TRACTING PARTIES in session.
Para 4 (a)
Para 4 (b)
The applicant contracting party will
notify the Chairman, who will in turn
notify the other contracting parties.
Decision will be by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES in session. The Chairman will
call a special session at the earliest
possible date.
Para 4 (c) Consultation under this paragraph will
take place when the CONTRACTING PARTIES
are in session.
B. Para 5 as under paragraphs 3 (b) and 4.
C.
Para 6 Notification and written statement in
support of the adoption of the measure
for a specified period will be sent to
the Chairman and through him to the
other contracting parties.
Para 7 Application will be made to the Chairman
simultaneously with the notification
under paragraph 6. The decision will
be given by the CONTRACTING PARTIES in
session.
Para 8 (a)
The contracting party concerned will enter
into direct negotiation with the other
contracting parties it considers to be
materially affected, and at the same time
inform the Chairman. The Chairman will
inform all the other contracting parties,
and take note of any comments they may
have about the choice of the materially
affected parties.
When substantial agreement has been
reached, as the result of negotiation,
the contracting party directly concerned
will apply1/to the Chairman who will
inform the other contracting parties of
the application and the conditions on
which it is proposed that release from
obligations shall be given. If no
objection has boon received to the choice
of the materially affected contracting
parties or to the proposed conditions
1/ For the timetable see under paragraph 10 Para 8 (b)
GATT/CP.2/38/Add.1
page 5
the Chairman will invite the concurrence
of the contracting parties to release the
applicant contracting party from its
obligations.
If any objection has been received,
however, the matter will be decided by
the CONTRACTING PARTIES in session,
Para 8 (b) It is assumed for practical purposes that
any application between the Second and
Third Sessions will be an initial applica-
tion and not one made after thel procedure
of 8 (a) has proved unsuccessful. There-
fore application1/to the CONTRACTING
PARTIES under 8 (b) will be simultaneous
with the notification referred to in para
6. Where an application under 8 (b)
is intended, however, the applicant should
make this known at the time the statement
is submitted.
In communicating the statement to
the contracting parties, the Chairman
will suggest which of them, in his view,
are materially affected and invite comment.
At the same time he will invite those
contracting parties which he considers
materially affected to inform him by a
specified date whether or not there is
any objection to the proposed measure.
If no objection is received by the
Chairman, in respect of his choice of
materially affected contracting parties,
the procedures of (i) and (ii) below
will be followed. If there is objection
to the choice however, the matter must
be discussed by the CONTRACTING PARTIES
in session.
If none of the materially affected
contracting parties has notiified any
objection to the measure by the date
prescribed. by the Chairman, the CONTRACTING
PARTIES, in session, will release the
applicant contracting party from its
obligations.
If any objection to the measure is
received by the Chairman, the CONTRACTING
PARTIES will take a decision under para
8 (b) (ii) ins session.
1/ For the timetable see under paragraph 10 GATT/CP.2/38/Add. 2
page 6
Para 9 The applicant contracting party, may,
in the circumstances described in the
paragraph, take emergency action after
informing the Chairman who will in
turn notify all the other contracting
parties. In informing the Chairman
the applicant contracting party should
furnish detailed information showing
that the provisions of paragraph 9
apply to the measures adopted includiing
in particular the representative period,
which is being used as a basis for
determining the level of imports.
Para 10 The Chairman, within 15 days of receipt
of an application under paras 7 or 8
will inform the applicant contracting
party of the date by which a decision
may be expected. In the circumstances
it will usually be impracticable for the
Chairman to specify a period shorter
than the full 90 days referred to in
the paragraph.
Having regard to the provision that,
except in particular circumstances,
decasions shall be given within 90 days
of receipt of the application, the
Chairman will determine whether
decisions by the CONTRACTING PARTIES
in session require a special session. |
GATT Library | sg594jw7811 | Supplementary report on chapter IV-section B | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 11, 1948 | Central Drafting Committee | 11/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.8/9/Add.1 Corr.3 and E/CONF. 2/C. 8/5/REV. 1-10/CORR. 1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sg594jw7811 | sg594jw7811_90200286.xml | GATT_148 | 686 | 4,420 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nations Unies
CONFERENCE
DU
COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF.2/C.8/9/
Add.1 & Corr.3
11 March 1948
ENGLISH-FRENCH
ORIGINAL :ENGLISH
CENTRAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
COMITE CENTRAL DE REDACTION
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON CRAPTER IV - SECTION B
RAPORT SUPPLEMENTAIRE SUR LE CHAPTER IV - SECTION B
The Central Drafting Committee
has examined the various suggestions
referred to it by the Third Commitee,
or submitted by delegations, for changes
in Articles 20 and 22 and agrees with
the following changes which should,
therefore, be made in the text of
document E/CONF.2/C,8/9:.
Article 20
1. On page 5, paragraph 3 (a), line 5
of the English text, insert a comma
between "and" and "when".
2, On-page 8, in Interpretative
Note to paragraph 2 (c), in line 1
of the English text, delete the word
"term" and, substitute "expression".
Article 22
3. on page 14 at top of page delete
lines 1 to 8 and substitute.
supplying the product [,]
shares of the total quantity
or value of imports of the
Le Comité central de rédaction a
examiné les différentes propositions qui
lui ont été soumises par la Troisième
Commission ou par les délégations en vue
de faire apporter des modifications aux
articles 20 et 22 et il est d'accord sur
les modifications suivantes qui devront,
en conséquence, être apportées au texte
du document E/CONF.2/C.8/9:
Article 20
1. A la page 5, paragraphe 3 a), à la
cinquième ligne du texte anglais, insérer
une virgule entre les nots "and" et "when".
2. A la page 8, dans la note interprétative
au paragraphe 2 c), à la premiere ligne
du texte anglais, supprimer le mot 'term"
et le remplacer par le mot "expression".
Article 22
3. A la page 14, à la troisième ligne,
supprimer les mots "à la fourniture de
ce produit [,] des parts proportionnelles
à la contribution apportée par [lesdits]
ces Etats Membres" et les remplacer par E/CONF.2/C.8/9/
Add.1& Corr.3
English-French
Page 2
product, based upon the
proportions supplied by such
Member countries during a
previous representative period,
due account beigng"
With regard to, certain suggestions
which have not been agreed to, the
Central Drafting, Committee submits
the following observations:
1. While it would, of course, be
possible throughout the 'Charter to
rofer to "sub-paragraph (b) of
paragraph 3 of Artiole X", the Central
Drafting Committee matter considering
this matter, felt that no
misunderstanding would result through
the use of the shorter form.
2. In paragraph 3 (d) of Artucle 20
and elsewhere, the expression 'during
a previous representative period "
is rendered in the French text as
"au cours d'une périod réprésentatve
antérieure". It has been suggested
that the French wording should be
"au cours d'une periods de référencesn
lesn oet suivants "à la fourniture de ce
produit [,] des parts de la quantiét ou
de la vleura talles des importations du
product en question qui seront détemriénes
'daprès la quote-part fournie par ledit
Etat Membre au course d'une période repér-
sentative antérieure, compte dûmrent
tenu.."
En ce qui concerne certainess ugges-
tions qu'il n'a pas adoptées, le Cmoité
central de rédaction formule les obser-
vations suivantes
1. Bien q'ilu serait possible, naturelle-
ment, d'employer dans toute la Charet la
éthode de référence. "al.néae b) du para-
graphe 3 de l'article 10", le-Comité
central de rédaction, après-mû'r êxamen
de cette question,,.estime que l'omploi de
la forme abrée-ne prêtera à aucune
équivoque.
2. Dans le paragraphe 3 d) de l'article
20, ct ailleurs le terme "during a
previous representative period" est rendu
dans le texte français par les mots "au
cours d'une periode représentative anté-
rieure". On a émis l'avis que le texto
français devrait porter les mots "au course
d'une période de référence antérieure`. E/CONF. 2/C . 8/9/
Add.1 & Corr.3
English-French
Page 3
antérieure". The Central Drafting
Committee is unable to agree with this
suggestion since this would mean
"during a base period" rather than a
previous representative period.".
Lu CDnite central de rédaction no croit
pas pouvoir se ranger à cet avis, attendu
que cette dernière expression française
rendrait l'expressîon "during a base
period" plutôt que l'expression previous
represontativc period". |
GATT Library | gt944mw6476 | Supplementary report on chapter IV-section B | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 12, 1948 | Central Drafting Committee | 12/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.8/9/Add.1 Corr.3/Rev.1 and E/CONF. 2/C. 8/5/REV. 1-10/CORR. 1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gt944mw6476 | gt944mw6476_90200287.xml | GATT_148 | 670 | 4,281 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nations Unies
CONFERENCE
DU
COMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF.2/C . 8/9/
Add.1 & Corr.3/Rev.1
12 March 1948
ENGLISH-FRENCH
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CENTRAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
COMITE CENTRAL DE REDACTION
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON CHAPTER IV - SECTION B
REPPORT SUPPLEMENTAIRE SURE LE CHAPITRE IV - SECTION B
The Central Drafting Committee
has examined the varieus suggestions
referred to it by the Third Committee,
or submitted by delegations, for changes
in Articles 20 and 22 and agrees with
the following changes which should,
therefore, be made in the text of
document E/CONF.2/C .8/9:
Article 20
1. on page 5, paragraph 3 (a) line 5
of the English text, insert a comma
between "and'" and "when'.
2. on page 8, in Interpretative
Note to paragraph 2 (c), in line 1
of the English text, delete the word
"term" and, substitute "expression".
Article 22
3 On page 14 in the English text at
top of page delete lines 1 to 8 and
substitute:
"supplying the product [,]
shares of the total quantity
or value of imported of the
Le Comité central de rédaction a
exaniné les différentes propositions qui
lui ont été soumises par la Proisième
Commission ou par les délégations en vue
de faire apporter des modifications aux
articles 20 et 22 et il est d'accord sur
les modifications suivantes qui devront,
en conséquence, être apportées au texte
du document E/CONF.2/C.8/9:
Article 20
1. A la page 5, paragraphe 3 a), à la
einquième line du texte anglais, insérer
une virgule entre les mots "and"t et "when".
2. A la page 8, dans la note interprétative
au paragraphe 2 c), à la première ligne
du texte anglais, supprimer le mot "term"
et le remplacer par le mot "expression".
Article 22
3. Remplacer les huit premières lines
do la page 14 du texte anglais par. le
texte ci.-.dessous :
"supplying, the product [,] shares of
the total qualitity or value of E/CONF.2/C 8/9/
Add.1 & Corr.3/Rev.1
English-French
Page 2
product, based upon the
proportions supplied by such
Member countries during a
previous representative period,
due account being"
With regard to certain suggestions
which have not been agreed to, the
Central Drafting Committee submits
the following observations:
1. While it would, of course, be
possible throughout the Charter to
refer to "sub-paragraph (b) of
paragraph 3 of Article X", the Central
Drafting Committee after considering
this matter, felt thet no
misunderstanding would result through
the use of the shorter form.
2. In paragraph 3 (d) of Article 20
and elsewwhere, the expression 'during
a previous represantative period"
is rendered in the French text as
"au course d'une période réprèsentative
antérieure". It has been, suggested
that the French wording should be
'au cours d'une période de référence
imports of the product, based upon
the proportions supplied by such
member countries during, a previous
representative period, due account
being"
En ce qui concerne certaines sugges-
tions 'qu'il n'a pas adoptées, le Comté
central-de rédaction formule les obser-
vations suivantes:
1. Bien qu'il serait possible, naturelle-
ment, d'employer dans toute la Charte la
methode de référence "alinéa b) du pera-
graphe 3 de l'article 10", le Comité
central de rédaction, après mûr examen
de cette question, estime que l'emploi de
la forme abrégée ne prêtera à aucune
équivoque.
2. Dans le paragraphe 3 d) de l'article
20 ot ailleurs, le terme "during a
previous representative period" est rendu
dans le texte français par les mots "au
cours d'unc période représentatives anté-
rieuro". On a émis l'avis que le texte
français devrait porter les mots "au cours
d'une période de référence'antérieure".
1 E/CONF. 2/C. 8/9/
Add.1 & Corr.3 Rev.1
English-French
Page 3
antérieure ". The Central Dreftting
Committee is unable to agree with this
suggestion since this would mean
duringn a base period" rather than a
previous representative period".
Le Comité central de rédaction no creit
pas pouvoir se ranger à qet avis, attendu
que cotte dernière expression françase
rendrait l'expression during g a base
period" plutôt que l'expression "previous
representative period". |
GATT Library | zx508gf3445 | Supplementary report on chapter IV-section C | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 12, 1948 | Central Drafting Committee | 12/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.8/8/Add.1 Corr.2 and E/CONF. 2/C. 8/5/REV. 1-10/CORR. 1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zx508gf3445 | zx508gf3445_90200283.xml | GATT_148 | 241 | 1,603 | UNRESTRICTED
United Nations Nations Unies E/CONF 2/C.8/8/Add.1
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE & Corr. 2
12 March 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CENTRAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON CHAPTER IV - SECTION C
The Central Drafting Committee has examined suggestion submitted to it
by delegations for change in Section C and agree with the following which
should, therefore, be made in the text of document F/CONF.2/C.8/8:
Article 26
1 On page 5, in line 5 of the English text, insert commas before and after
the words "if so".
Article 27
2. On pages 7 and 8, in the French text, the the first sentence of
paragraph 3 and substitute:
"3. [Dens tons les cas où] Lorsqu'il [s'agi] s'agit] d'un produit
de base, les, peocédures définies au chapitre VI pourront étre appliquées,
si un Etat Merabre estime [qu'en se conformeant aux dIspositions de
l'article 26, il porterait à ses intéréts] que l'observation des
disposition de l'article 26 portera à ses intér_ts un préjudice
[grave] sérieux ou [iorsqun'un Etat Membre considère] que l'octroi
d'une subvention sous une forme quelconque porte [à ses intérêts]
un préjudice [grave] sérieux à ses intérêts [la prcc'dure définie
au chapitre VI pourra être appliquée.]
3. On page 8, in the French text, in line 2 of paragraph 4, delete,
"interrasant" and substitate "ayant une influence sur".
4. On page 8 in the last Une of the English text, delete comma after
"in which case". |
GATT Library | md078rh5951 | Supplmentary report on chapter IV-Section C | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 11, 1948 | Central Drafting Committee | 11/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.8/6/Rev.1,Add.1 Corr.1 and E/CONF. 2/C. 8/5/REV. 1-10/CORR. 1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/md078rh5951 | md078rh5951_90200277.xml | GATT_148 | 833 | 5,428 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF.2/C.8/6/Rev.1,
Add. 1 & Corr.1
DU 11 March 1948
COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ENGLISH -FRENCH
ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
CENTRAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
COMITE CENTRAL DE REDACTION
SUPPLMENTARY REPORT ON CHAPTER IV - SECTION C
COMPLEMENT DE RAPPORT SUR LE CHAPTRE IV - SECTION C
The Central Drafting Committee has
examined suggestions submitted to it
by delegations for changes in Section C
and agrees with the following which
should, theirefore, be made in the text
of document E/CONF.2/C.8/6/Rev.1:
Article 30 A
1. On page 5, line 2 of the French
text of Article 30 A, delete "office
commercial" and subatitute "organisme
de vente ou d'achat".
Article 31
2 On page 9, line 2 of the French
text, delete "pratiquement" and
substitute "en pratique".
3. On page 9, line 2, from bottom of
page in the French text, delete "a
l'importation" and substitute
"d' importation",
Le Comité central de rédaction a
examiné les propositions de modifications
à la section C que lui ont présentées
les délégations et il accepte les
modificutions-suivantes qui devront,
en conséquence, être apportées au texte
du document E/CONF.2/C.8/6/Rev.1
Article 30 A
1. En page 5, line 2, du texte français
de l'article 30 A, suprimer les mots
"office commercial" et les remplacer par
les mots "organisme de vente ou d'achat".
Article 31
2. En page 9, ligne 2 du texte français,
supprimer le mot "pratiquement" et le
remplacer par les mots "en pratique",
3. En page 9, à la deuxième ligne, à
partir du bas de la page du texte français,
supprimer les mots "à l'importation" et
les remplacer par le mot "d'importation". Add.1 & Corr.1
English - French
Page 2
4. on page 10, in line 18 of the
French text, delete exclusiono faite"
and substitute "(à l'exclusion".
Article 31 A
5. On page 13, in the French text,
delete paragraph 1 and substitute:
"l
"1. [Si] Lorequ' un Etat Membre [qui
4. En page 10, line 18 du texte françaif.
supprimer les mots 'exclusion faite" et
les remolacer par les mots "à l'exclusion".
Article 31 A
5. En page 13 du texte fremais,
subprimer le paragraphe 1 et le remplacer
par le texte suivant
"1. [Si] Lorsqu'un Etat Membre [qui
dispose] procèdera à la liquidation dispose] procédera à la liquidation
de stocks d'un product de base de stocks d'un produit.de base
[quelconque aocumulés] qu'il avait [quelconque accumulé] qu'il avait
eonstitnés-à des fins non commerciales, constitués., à des fins non commercia-
[proceds à la liquidation de ces stocke] les, [procédera à la liquidation
iI [effectnera] devra effeotuer de-ces stock] il [effectuera].devra
cette liquidation de manière à effectuer cette liquidation de maniè-
eviter dans toute la mesure [du] re à éviter dans toute la mesure'
où .il lui sera possible de le [du] où il lui sera possible de le
faire [de manière à éviter] de faire [de manière à éviteg] de
provoquer dee perturbations graves provequer des perturbations'-graves
sur les marchés mondiaux [du] de ce. sur les marchés mondiaux [du] de ce
produit- [en question] ." produit [en question]."
6. On page 15 in the French text 6. En page 15. du text françàis, subprimer
delete paragraph 4 and substitute:
4. Les dispositions des paragraphes
2 et 3 r-e s'appliquent pas [à
l'écoulement normal des réserves qui
est] aux ventes nécessaires pour
[assurer] permettre le renouvellement
périodique des stocks et éviter ainai
leur [altération] detériorationi
le parugraphe 4 et le remplacer par la texte
suivant
"4. Les dispositions des paragraphes 2--.
et 3 ne s'appliquent pas [à l'écoulement
normal des reserves qui est] aux-ventes
nécessaires pour [aseurer] permettre le
renouvellement périodique des stocks et
éviter ainsi leur [altération] détériora-
tion." E/CONF.2/C.8/6/Rev.1
Add.1 & Corr.1
English - French
Page 3
With regard to a suggestion which
has not been agreed to, the Central
Drafting Committee submits the
following observations:
The Central Drafting Committee
recognizes that the term "prix au
débarquement" occurring in paragraph 4
of Article 31, in the second and fourth
lines of the French text on page 10,
does not perfectly express the case of
goodse arriving in a country by land.
In the absence of a completely
satisfactory expression, the term "à
l'arrivés en douane" may be Used as an
s. . Il
alternative. It is, however, to be
noted, that the English term "landed
cost" which corresponds to "prix au
débarquement" has been accepted.
Au sujet d'une Drcposition qui n'a
pas été acceptée, le Comité central de
rédaction présente les observations
suivantes:
Le Comité central de rédaction
reconnaît que le term "prix au débar-
quement" qui figure au paragraphe 4 de
l'article 31, deuxième et quatrième lignes
du texte français de la page 10, ne
s'applique pas exactement au cas de
marcheadises qui entrent dans un pays
par voie de terre. En l'absence d'uno
expression complètement satisfaisante,
l'expression "à l'arrivée en douane" peut
être employée comme solution alternatiye.
Il convient toutefois de noter que
l'expression anglaise "landed cost" qui
correspond à l'expression "prix au
débarquement" a été acceptéo. |
GATT Library | dh149vc5104 | Swiss Problem discussed | United Nations Office at Geneva Information Centre, August 27, 1948 | I.C.I.T.O. : Executive Committee and United Nations Office at Geneva Information Centre | 27/08/1948 | press releases | Press Release No.537 and PRESS RELEASE NO.420-628 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dh149vc5104 | dh149vc5104_90260250.xml | GATT_148 | 187 | 1,281 | UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA Press Release No.537
Information Centre. 27th August 1948
I.C.I.T.O. : EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Second Session
SWISS PROBLEM DISCUSSED
This morning the Executive Committee discussed procedures
for putting into effect the consultations with the Swiss
Government, in accordance with instructions given to ICITO
at the Havana Trade Conference. There was general agreement
that a small group should examine the procedural aspects and
report back to the full Executive Committee at this session.
The Chairman nominated Benelux, Canada, France, U.K. and
U.S.A. to form the group, with the chairman of the group to
be nominated later; the terms of reference being
"to consider, in consultation with representatives
of the Swiss Government, a procedure looking
towards the preparation of a report by ICITO for
presentation to the 1st Conference of ITO regard-
ing the special problems relating to the possible
adherence of Switzerland to the Havana Charter,
having regard to the special problems connected
with the Swiss economy, as presented to the
Havana Conference."
The Swiss observer, Fritz Réal, accepted those terms
of reference and said that the proposed procedures would be
acceptable to his Government. |
GATT Library | mk127rz4287 | Tariff Committee and Committee on Economic Development | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 3, 1948 | 03/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/W.15/Add.1, E/CONF.2/W/1-15, E/CONF.2/BUR.1-39, and E/CONF.2/BUR/W.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/mk127rz4287 | mk127rz4287_90180164.xml | GATT_148 | 781 | 5,393 | TARIFF COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Note submitted by the Pakistan delegation suggesting modification of some of the provisions of
the joint note circulated by Australia, Mexico and, the United States (document No. E/CONF.2/W.15
dated 30.1.48) relating to Economic Development Committee.
The Pakistan delegation have studied the provisions of the Joint Note circulated by
Australia, Mexico and the United States (document E/CONF.2/W.15 dated 30.1.48) and suggest the
following modifications for the reasons given against each of them:
Existing Text
E/CONF.2/W.15
Page 3 after
paragraph 3.
N I L
Page 3 Sub- Section C - New
paragraph 1 - Article 78 A - The
Economic Develop-
ment Committee.
1. "The Executive
Board shall estab-
Propsed Modification
Amend Article 70 to read as
follows:
"The Organization shall have
a Conference, an Executive
Board, a Tariff Committee,
an Economic Development
Committee, Commissions as
established under Article 79
and such other organs as may
be required -
Section F - New Article 81A -
The Economic Development
Committee.
1. The Economic Development
Committee shall be responsible
for the exercise of the func-
Remarks
The need for establishing a
specialized organ to discharge
the functions of the organiza-
tion and to Implement its
obligations in the field of
Economic Development, has been
recognized. To give this
recognition a statutory force,
the proper place for creating
the Economic Development
Committee is under Article 70
(Section A of Chapter VIII)
which deals with the general
structure of the whole
organization.
1. The existing text re-
quires the Executive Board
to establish the Economic
Ref. of Doct.
3
"
a .
l
'
. Text Proposed Modification Remarks
E/CONF.2/W.15 .0
Tge-.3 Subr
paragraph 1
(cdntdinue)
tions of the organization in respect Development Committee when
of Economic development genarally end under Articlee 79 vemn Co-
udinginhchtb following mattersmisi.esons and other organs
can be established only by
the Conference. The Com-
ittee should be established
under Article 70 and the new
Article 81A should be in-
Hrted under Section F of the
Charter (after Article 81
under Section E, relating to
the Tariff Committee) to de-
fine the functions of the
Development Committee, its
Constitution and its powers.
Present Section F will be
re-lettered as G.
(a) responsibilities and
decisions arisin out.of
Chapter III of this'Char-
ter to theextedtthat such
responsibilities and decis-
ions are delegated to the
a r1boneCeceron6e;
(b)The supervision of such
Cstnsaisns hed;
untr Article 79 to deal
nomicwith ques onscf mdonoic
development.
(6the general supervi-.
sionhe 'DieGe--eri
andbaff appointd by
im n reation tb wok on
emcoip dvelop.ent
a) responsibilities and decisions
arpisi Iing out of ChateII of this
"tere tra to the ex ea'etsuch
responsibilities and decisions are
rlegated to it by the Conference;
vib) Tohe supeislpnof such Commis-
sionaestablished under 79 to deal
fth questions of economic -
development.
() the general supervision of the.
drrcof-Gneral and staff appointed
imb i lationielnioork on eco-
nomic development.
;I .
.
V L
-
I ..D,
I Ref of Doct. Existing Text Proposed Modification Remarks
(2) The Committee for Economic
Development shall consist of
16 Members selected by the
Executive Board so that the
Committee adequately repre-
sents Members at various
stages of economic develop-
ment.
(3) The activities of the Eco-
nomic Development Committee
shall be subject to review
by the Executive Board.
The Economic Development Committee
shall consist of 16 Members elect-
ed by the Conference so that the
Committee adequately represents
Members of various stages of
Economic Development.
3.(a) The decisions of the Eco-
nomic Development Committee
shall be final in all cases
which lie exclusively in the
in the field of Economic
Development.
(b) In cases where any other
organ of the I.T.O. is directly
concerned, the Economic Develop-
ment Committee shall confer with
that organ to the extent of its
interests, before reaching a de-
cision. Such decision will be
subject to appeal to the Execu-
tive Board and the Conference.
3. In the existing text all
decisions of the Committee
are subject to "review" by
the Executive Board. There
is a difference between
"review" and "appeal". There
must be finality about the de-
cisions of the Committee in
cases where it alone is con-
vened without subjecting such
decisions to an automatic "re-
view" by the Board. An appeal
should lie to the Board only
when a decision is taken by the
Development Committee in a case
where it had to confer with any
other organ of the I.T.O. like
the Tariff Committee or any in-
terim Commission working at the
time of consultation on issues
related to the merits of the
case before the Development
Committee.
Page 3
Page 3
s
Existing Text
Proposed Modification
Ref. of Doct.
Remnrka |
|
GATT Library | tb797wj3756 | Tariff Committee and Committee on Economic Development : Note submitted for discussion by Australian, Mexican and United States Delegations | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 30, 1948 | 30/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/W.15, E/CONF.2/W/1-15, E/CONF.2/BUR.1-39, and E/CONF.2/BUR/W.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tb797wj3756 | tb797wj3756_90180163.xml | GATT_148 | 1,275 | 8,618 | United Nations Nations Unies RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/W.15
ON DU 30 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TARIFF COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Note Submitted for Discussion by
Australian, Mexican and United States Delegations
Objection has been raised to article 81 which establishes a
Tariff Committee to act on behalf of the Organization in matters relating
to Article 17 on the ground that it transfers to a limited group of
members. functions which are essentially the responsibility of the
Organization as a whole. This objection seems to be valid in certain
respects. At the same time it must be recognized that in certain matters
countries which have fulfilled their obligations under Article 17 are
entitled to some guarantee that the concessions they have made in
anticipation of reasonable response by other countries do not remain
substantially unilateral. Similarly, however, such other countries are
entitled to some guarantee that they will not face a combined attempt to
extract unreasonable concessions in return.
This problem cannot, we consider, be dissociated from the proposal
of the Mexican delegation to establish an Economic Development Committee.
Its establishment is proposed because effective implementation of the
Organization's functions in relation to Economic Development requires the
existence of a specialized organ for this purpose. However, Economic
Development is the responsibility of the Organizaion as a whole, and its
delegation to a separate Committee independent of the Organization's direct
executive - i.e. the Executive Board - raises acute problems of the
relationship between the various instrumentalities of the Organization and
may result in Economic Development being considered in isolation and
without, for instance, exercising the influence which it should do on
decisions relating to commercial policy.
These two issues are closely related and should be dealt with together.
Any decision in relation to them should be based on the following
principles:
1. Any instrumentalities of the Organization should be established
so as to preserve the essential unity of the Organization.
2. There should be clear lines of responsibility leading down from
the Conference to its subordinate instrumentalities without serious
/conflicts of E/CONF. 2/W.15
conflicts of jurisdiction.
3. The organizational provisions for the handling of Article 17
should offer reasonable protection
(a) to members which have already made tariff reductions
as required by Article 17 that these concessions will not
remain unilateral in relation to other Members;
(b) to Members which have not yet made tariff reductions
that they will not be called upon to pay unreasonable
price for continuing to enjoy concessions already granted
to other Members;
4. The organizational provisions for dealing with Economic
Development should ensure - :
(A the c an ontinuii8 estence of aalutive body with specie.
in nrest and capacity f thisaield; and:
(be tga thee fgunctions of thb rtaization in this connection
n are carried outna way which on ures effon ective integrati f
actonn in tl foneid with actimi the Organization in other-
r elated fieldsof its responsibilities : :
tihsbs ese's the.princlplselssth6 olowing propoaa ar -
subrtt. - -:
1. TARIF COME -'
That Sctib ofChipter VI-be aendd to provide
(a) thtde arifft C itteehuld beaint{im bo and houl&
°out of existence-wh a substantiallminority of the Members of
I.T.O. are contracting parties to-the G.A.T.T,
(b) thw any Member which is the subject of a complaint before the
Tariff CMtte sho uld have the -rih to participate-in~the -
delmiberaticis and odecaisics ?c'he Comittee an that,'clAin;-
(c) that before reaching a decision under Article 17 paragraph-4
(new textnf) the Taiff Cdonomicmite should cornerith the Ec:6di
e*im nhtnte sn' naSpefore ite,thichws of bW6' t-'Z'
-eehe :toV ftle woronom o the Eccici D Committe evopint;-;UOnMto
(d) that there should be a
nd kea nGa ieidcesoe-gof aist-ar :e4icCommitt O-theff 'tCotte
h caabiiioi - llgMbe r a, t1lecontraccces-pti e sbo arieeto
the G.A.T.T. have unreasonably prevented the Member comingfrom-be
acting party.a; '-d''fg Ws _, o.,
MENT COMMITTEE,2, ht oi -C 6 DtWh -;. *- --
ide that-<:t' ection VT: babe h:
ablish(aan Economic Development) The }cuive .Sg- sher -b h w>o I
Cc~mee of i6 Mmbiers which would act generally for It i matters
relating to economic developmeonsnt including - (i) decisi E/CONF.2/W.15
Page 3
(i.) decisions arising out of Chapter III;
(ii) general supervision of any expert commissions dealing with
economic development established under Article 79;
(iii) general supervision of work of Director General and staff
in relation to Economic Development.
(b) Decisions of the Committee on Economic Development should be
subect to review by Executive Board
3. THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Agreement should be amended to permit the adherence of a
Member as a contracting party by a vote of two thirds of the contracting
parties instead of all the parties as at present.
The texts of the relevant parts of Sections C and E of Chapter III in
the suggested amended form are attached.
SECTION C - New Article 78 A - The Economic Development Committee
1. The Executive Board shall establish a Committee for Economic Development
which shall be initially responsible for the exercise of the functions of the
Board in respect of economic development generally and including the
following matters:
(a) responsibilities and decisions arising out of Chapter III of
this Charter to the extent that such responsibilities and decisions
are delegated to the Board by the Conference;
(b) the supervision of such Commissions established under Article 79
to deal with questions of economic development;
(c) the general supervision of the Director General and staff
appointed by him in relation to work on economic development.
2. The Committee for Economic Development shall consist of 16 Members
selected by the Executive Board so that the Committee adequately represents
Members a various stages of economic development.
3. The activities of the Economic Development Committee shall be subject
to review by the Executive Board.
SECTION E - ARTICLE 81 - Interim Tariff Committee.
1. During, the first year after the entry into force of this Charter and
for so long thereafter as 80 per cert of the Members of the I.T.O. are not
also contracting parties to the G.A. T.T. there shall be an Interim Tariff
Committee which shall act on behalf of the organization in initiating the
negotiations provided for under paragraph 1 of Article 17 and in making the
recommendations and determinations pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 17.
2. The Interim Tariff Committee shall consist of those contracting parties
to the G.A.T.T. referred to in paragraph 1 (d) of Article 17 which are
Members of the Organization.
3. Any Member E/CONF.2/W. 15
Page 4
3. Any Member which is the subject of a complaint before the Interim
Tariff Committee shall be entitled to participate in the deliberations and
decisions of that Committee in relation to the complaint.
4. The Interim Tariff Committee, before making any recommendation or
determination pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 17, shall confer with the
Economic Development Committee on those aspects of the matter upon which
such recommendation or determination is to be made as are relevant to the
functions of the Economic Development Committee.
5. If as a result of a determination of the Interim Tariff Committee
pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 17 a Member is authorized to withhold
benefits from another Member and that Member alleges that the Contracting
Parties to the G.A.T.T. have unreasonably prevented the affected Member
from becoming a contracting party to the G.A.T.T. the affected Member may
appeal to the Executive Board or to the Conference against the determination
of the Interim Tariff Committee. The Executive Board or the Conference may
by a vote of two thirds of Members present and voting sustain such an
appeal. |
|
GATT Library | xn679kw4684 | Tenth Meeting : Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba Monday, 5 January 1948, at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 6, 1948 | Joint Sub-Committee of Committees II and VI | 06/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.26/A/W.7, E/CONF.2/C.2/D/W.1-3, C.23/A/W.1-3, and C.26/A/W.1-29 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xn679kw4684 | xn679kw4684_90180362.xml | GATT_148 | 514 | 3,436 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE RESTRICTED
ON DU E/CONF.2/C.2&6/A/W.7
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 6 January 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE OF COMMITTEES II AND VI
TENTH MEETING
Held at the Capitol, Havana, Cuba
Monday, 5 January 1948, at 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. H. C. COOMBS (Australia)
1. The text of paragraph 2 of Article 10 as revised by Working Party No.1,
(Working Party on Preamble to Paragraph 1 and Sub-Paragraph (a) of
Paragraph 1 of the new Article 12A proposed by Colombia) was accepted.
The following changes have accordingly been made in the text of
the Article 10 as contained in document E/CONF.2/C.2 and 6/A/W.2:
(a) the words "the financing and" have been inserted between the
words "advice concerning" and the words "the carrying out";
(b) the last sentence of the Geneva text of Article 10 has been
added to the end of revised text contained in the aformentioned
document. This sentence reads: "The Organization shall, upon the
same conditions, likewise, aid Members in procuring appropriate
technical assistance".
2. The Sub-Committee considered the amendments submitted by Uruguay
and Italy to paragraph 1 of Article 11 (page 5 of E/CONF.2/C.2/9).
Consideration was given first to the proposal to include manpower among
the facilities listed.
There was discussion as to the additional obligations which would
be created by the inclusion of manpower in accordance with the second
sentence of paragraph 1 and in accordance with paragraph 2.
There was agreement that manpower was an essential requirement for
economic development, but some Members were uncertain as to the nature
of the obligations which might be incurred, and as to whether they could
be assumed.
It was also pointed out that human resources were in rather a different
category to the inanimate resources at present listed in the first sentence
of Article 11 and that the treatment of nationals was covered specifically
in paragraph 69 (c) (i). Moreover, in any case the enumeration of facilities
did not aim to be complete.
/There was E/CONF.2/C. 2&6/A/W.7
Page 2
There was discussion as to whether manpower might not be mentioned
in the first sentence of paragraph 1 in such a way as not to create any
obligation in accordance with the second sentence of paragraph 1 or in
accordance with paragraph 2. However, the sense of the meeting was
strongly against the inclusion of any reference to manpower.
3. The Sub-Committee next considered that part of the Uruguayan
amendment which proposes that the words "access to international transport
facilities" be added to the list of facilities. Reference was made by
the Chairman to a new Article 18A proposed by Norway, which was under
consideration by Committee III. There was some discussion as to whether
transport facilities and not merely international transport facilities
and also power facilities should not be included. The sense of the
meeting was strongly against the, inclusion of the words "access to
international transport facilities" in the list of facilities.
4. The Sub-Committee then began consideration of the Chilean amendment
to the first sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 11. (Page 5, E/CONF.2/C.2/9). |
GATT Library | kk590jd3100 | Text agreed at Meeting on 19 March 1948, of paragraph VII of the protocol modifying certain general provsions of the general Agreement | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 19, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 19/03/1948 | official documents | GATT/1/40/Rev.1 and GATT/1/29-46+38/Rev.1,40/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kk590jd3100 | kk590jd3100_90310317.xml | GATT_148 | 182 | 1,189 | RESTRICTED GATT/1/40/Rev.1
19 March 1948 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
FIRST SESSION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
TEXT AGREED AT MEETING ON 19 MACH 1948, OF PARAGRAPH VII OF THE PRLOTOCOL MODIFYING CERTAIN GENERAL PROVSIONS OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT
VII. The following Article shall be inserted in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade after Article XXXIV:
Article XXXV
"1. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 5 (b) of
Article XXV or to the obligations of a contrating party pursuant
to paragraph I of Article XXIX, this Agreemet, or alternatively
Article II of this Agreement, shall not apply as between any contracting
party and any other contracting party if:
(a) the two contracting parties have not entered into tariff
negotiations with each other, and
(b) either of the contracting parties, at the time either becomes
a contracting party, does not consent to such application.
2. The CONTRACTING PARTIES may, at any time before the Charter enters
into force, review the operation of this Article in particular cases at
the request of any contracting parties and make appropriate
recommendations."
6459 |
GATT Library | xj144pb7310 | Text if Article 95 (Amendments) as approved on second reading : Article 95. Amendments | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 5, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 05/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/66 and E/CONF.2/C.6/44-75 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xj144pb7310 | xj144pb7310_90170130.xml | GATT_148 | 363 | 2,484 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/66
ON DU 5 February 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
TEXT IF ARTICLE 95 (AMENDMENTS) AS APPROVED ON SECOND READING
Article 95
Amendments
1. Any amendment to this Charter which does not alter the obligations of
Members shall become effective upon approval by the Conference by the
affirmative votes of two-thirds of the Members.
2. Any amendment which alters the obligations of Members shall, after.
receiving the approval of the Conference by the affirmative votes of two-thirds
of the Members present and voting, become effective for each Member accepting
the amendment upon the ninetieth day after two-thirds of the Members have
notified the Director-General of their acceptance, and thereafter for each
remaining Member, on acceptance by it. The Conference may, in its resolution
approving an amendment under this paragraph, determine, by the same two-thirds
majority, that the amendment is of such a nature that all Members, which have'
not accepted it within a specified period after the amendment has become
effective, shall be suspended from membership in the Organization; Provided
that at any time, the Conference may, by the affirmative votes of two-thirda
of the Members present and voting, determine the conditions under which this
suspension shall be waived with respect to any such Membet.
3. A Member not accepting an amendment under paragraph 2 of this Article
shall be free to withdraw from the Organization at any time after the
amendment has become effective, upon the expiration of soxty days from the
day on which written notice of such withdrawal, which may be given at any
time, is received by the Director-General; Providid that the withdrawal of
any Member suspended under paragraph 2 of this Article shall be effective
upon receipt of written notice of withdrawal by the Director-General
4. The Conference shall, by the affirmative votes of two-third of the
Members present and voting, establish rules with respect to the reinstatement
of Members suspended under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article and
any other rules required for carrying out the provisions of this Article,
including the determination whether paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 would apply. |
GATT Library | xj405mz1495 | Text of Address by Mr. Morrisseau Leroy, Head of the Delegation of Haiti, in Plenary Meeting | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 22, 1948 | Department of Public Information Havana, Cuba and United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment | 22/03/1948 | press releases | Press Release ITO/199 and ITO/195-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xj405mz1495 | xj405mz1495_90200392.xml | GATT_148 | 1,625 | 10,470 | UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION HAVANA, CUBA
ADVANCE TEXT Press Release ITO/199
HOLD FOR RELEASE 22 March 1948
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
TEXT OF ADDRESS BY MR. MORRISSEAU LEROY, HEAD OF THE DELEGATION
OF HAITI, IN PLENARY MEETING
Mr. President, Gentlemen:
The success of the Havana Conference marks a new stage in a great
endeavour with the history of which you are only too familiar. A new and
a decisive stage: we have written a Charter of Trade and Eployment. Looking
towards a fair, peaceful and ever-increasing utilization of the advances of
technology, and as a condition for the economic progress of all nations, great
and small, we have established the principle that full employment and rising
demand are interrelated.
We have morally pleded outselves to submit to our parliaments and to
public opinion in our respective countries the formulas we have devised for
putting this principle into effect.
These formulas are and could only be the results of compromise.
Today, economic thought is at a crossroads. The slow death of the
formulas discredited by the industrial Revolution is accompanied by the
impatient enthusiastic clamouring of the masses converted by relatively recent
revelations.
I suppose each one of as, as we read over the final draft of our work,
must, alternately, or in accordance with our personal reaction to the
conflicting trends of contemporary thought, ask ourselves one or other of
these questions: Could we not have done better? Have we gone too far?
Such uncertainty is the most abiding characteristic of our time and our
Spanish-speaking colleagues who attach a special meaning to the word "anxiety"
are perfectly justified in appplying it to our state of mind.
Practical problem vary so much from one region to another that the
universal application of the most logical rules encounters obstacles which
cannot be swept aside even with the best will in the world.
That is why where are so many exceptions to the rules we have formulated,
why there is such a mass of particular cases which some people will regard as
too numerous not to undermine the general principles, while others will
consider them too few to take into account all the inequalities which have
already existed for too long.
However, I am inclined to believe that we have defined our objectives
carefully enough and if we have got into deep water in setting out the methods
of action, the fault rests with the extraordinary complexity of the questions
/which which we ITO/199
with which we have tried to deal.
Fortunately we have not ruled out the possiblity of reconsidering the
particular cases on which we have been called to take a decision. The
Organization can, and must, secure the additional information which is necessary
for a wider and more flexible appreciaton of the factors which go to ma)-ke up
the extremely diverse enomic coanoc aandp nsil -aaorama o the- world.
delegation attaches the grcatslt mportance to the experimental methodd
which tvhe Hahana Carter has been carwefeuenough tl ids h;oe ta aocatcsa an t vwa
that I used the expression "news stge" at the beginning of these fewapiiO&i-zi"Iiw s;sta0',' at the b r-.in, oi thesc _-iwf
enazirks.
yamendments -coatrr-hs only su½mited a aerysrallnmber cf uendnens to the
Draft mwhich we ere celed upOnto examine. Faithful ta te diploDati
traditions of lHaiti, y delegation gave firm and sincere support to ai the
proposs ,iih uere designed either to repair an inJustice or eliminate
disc>iratifn or ensure the victory o. reason over reasons oa State.
ÈLiti unreservely applauded the adoption oathose constitutional provisions
which wive the OQani:ztion the d-oatic character uiitht which a
Unitewd atics Spec'aizf6d gefoundersncy woulr -no4ta'uer e purpose oa theîounars
o ua-t.rd ovr-rnzn t Vaich tegreat mnajority f the countries
rueseionntefd here belog, nor uchaspirattlai th peoples whose
representatives e are.
y delegation alSwewlcoaesthwe amendments which -vilalloW a reater
pber of countries to co-oroferte in the development ai ade without having
t rencnce, for the moment at lemast, those protective snsures which are
justiid by' resent - and let us hope temporarwoy - difficulties in vcd
ecoy, or by the indiv-idal position of nations gless favoalured by Eeoraphic±a,
econoic, cultural, social and other circumstances.
I must pay particular thganks to those doeleations which tok part in the
redafxic a Aticle 7 andofd the drafting ci Resolution aeddressed to tha
Econnco and Social Caunil, for their generous efforts on behalf of justice
for the vrkers, anxious to avoid any discrimination in the difstribution oathe
ricohes and comfrt produoced 'by the wrkers daily labours. The connection
betwwageseen dhier ' aniedinmancriseasoed deanjeoc bvious for me to emphasize
once re the atwtention vsch thde ITO ana he other organs and agfencies oa he
United ttsiopns moue Py tathe programme which we have oncly aketèeed in thétext
of Chapter Il of the Charter.
hile aploring the difficulwties vhch have presented the immediate
establishment ofmm a Coifttee onomicr eEco Dvelopment my delegation is
fsatiwsied ith the provisionsh of Capter III. Incomplete as they are, they
will engcourae co-operation between industrial countries anxious to create
broader markets and regions for which agricultural production is no longer
enough, - a co-operawtion hich coulyld on be prevented by a blindness at
/once incoemprehnsible ITO/199
Page 3
once incomprebensible and lamentable from every point of view. My .iy country
h more than many others requires technical assistance and co-operatioonof .chy others r-esuircs technical assistanc alnd co-operation OI
capitale to develop its natural resources, states once more that it is rady
tio zlcome atany steps takneither by the Uni.ted ations or by irndviual stes
or ther national1, which are in accrclne with the Articles of the Charter
dealing nh eccnaiccaevolPent.
hegse re'ærk-snatizlly inly the ;vitdavalof=y deleation t
reservat to Article 15.
I shouldg like hoto express y gratitua to those deleCaes woihared our
rasGifviniiCs withof regard to certain araphs oa rticle 17 c he Geneva
Drafgtw and wo sovG for æfnd mound ag vordiF vhic as caable o s-oothi,
over the ifificultiees of certain countries w'îh, likoHaiti, are anxious to
adherea as scn as possible to the Genere Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
I am veroy pleased to be able tom inform yu, Mr. President, that y
deleation has received instructions fromaits government to withdraw yet
another reservation.
I have been instructed to ask you to have included, if possible, in the
S Recnord of tris pilnary memeetirg, theforawingllowng stater-nt "Iw-ithdzcir-
its resergvation fto Article 16, the mdeleation o Haiti wishes once ore to
deanstrnate its gspirith oaco-operatior.and reGads tii conciliatory attitude
awhs an azortant keconcession.vnch should be tae into accou- in negotiations
under Article 17."
vih too take tup a hmis oap-runityn taw clar ilz isunderstan-ig, -ich, I
should ad, has never daffmpected the courteousown anàsyothetic attitude sho
by the legation Cuban delegation to the decation of Haiti.
cn cfthe ar"untswef ohave advanced in support oa aur mndmer.t to
Article 16 has been spRecially dfirected against the epublic o Cuba.
y delemercial Ction has shoamtati tmorehe cooero1 position of Hait ' laore
than threatened by the preferential systems established in the Carribean area,
and has on any occasions daetgailed bowhichth the annexes and the pzaraph in nCh
those referenceso find a place.Wef have also understoadthe attitude oa he
United States pdoelegaotion, which is in principle opsed t any form of
preference.Mr hen the Uwinited Staatcandoures delegate, i Hawkins, vh typice ondour,
saommii, dur.>r meetond ing& ai e Joint Sub-Cao.-t of the Seccni nd.Thrd
Ccittede, tot the very fact thatb Haiti coula b so seriously injured ty
preferences shoed that thhey were a bad thing, he recognized ta situation
which exists and at the sae time stated a great truth.
On this point my delegation agrees with the United States delegation,
inasmuch as aMny serious prerjaudice osuffered by a ember of the Ognizatin
should receive direct or indirect compensation.
/I regret that ITO/199
Page 4
I regret that circumstances prevent my withdrawing immediately myy
delgation's reservation to Article 35. I hope that my government will not \t;n \112. not
"ail ta do so "atpthe eaaliesdateacticLble La-l".
lusion, may I express my good wishes r; pod vishe_ for the future of the
child we have christendf Havana.ter oa &vara.
f the atioî3 of the parting of the ways. OIf the wayr Enther they car
chocse nrt to ratify tde Chartee ana jofn tho cmub sf non-mefbern, or they car
atify it Eænà regar to the Oreanizaoion thcse pwcblhrns for ;hicb a final
solution his not been found inthis Conference.
i hwce that the vay the wTO operates vill lead ofe majority'oa countries
ta chooscoursesecond ccaually nd adad.ual1v landding of abar.dning oa the first.
ould like on behalf of my government to express ourta cx'crX s cr
sioundegrad profaund Gr:titudedshipthedfrienLshbi anw cmurtesy shovn ly
deleGotion by the Cavernment and people of the Republicgof Cuba durinG our
nJst amonths' e four onthsl stayain fhis capitol oa beauty and of rhythm.
asantiest memories of r:e-Oi-es ca this Conferencgreatl be the Crea-
unit shoa by thefdelegatimerica.LaIin ouldic. Toshmnla like ta pay a
special tribute to the delegation of Cuba, both for the self-sacrifice which
it has ghoin in givinG upwsomethinw to uhich it vas entitled in the interests
'_ LatinyAmerican unit', and fwr the waygin vhich its Ceneral attitude at the
made rc.ze kas ~ade us appmociate still r.re the hospitality of this beautiful
count,ylity-othe vitai7ty Of its people.
also I d pa'>e al to exaress 'my delegrtioans lratitude to ail the
dele;teown o bhave shctn their sympathy aduring ndship durin& this unforgettable
of goodwill.. ci' cocdvill
also to offer you, Mr.ffer you, M'my personal congratulationscan rat tioa
of my delegation for the impartiality, the scrupulcusness and cr-apu].cusnssnd
h which you have dirich you have directed our debates ana guided the progress
of the Conference. |
GATT Library | hr035wj4385 | Text of Article 17 as adopted by Sub-Committee A | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 27, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy and Third Committee: Commercial Policy Sub-Committee A (Articles 16, 17, 18, 19) | 27/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/A/18 and E/CONF.2/C.3/A-E | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hr035wj4385 | hr035wj4385_90190318.xml | GATT_148 | 1,120 | 7,417 | United Nations Nations Unies RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C .3/A/18
ON DU 27 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUB-COMMITTEE A (ARTICLES 16, 17, 18, 19)
TEXT OF ARTICLE 17 AS ADOPTED BY SUB-COMMITTEE A
ARTICLE 17
Reduction of Tariffs and Elimination of Preferences
"1. Each Member shall, upon the request of [the Organization,] any
other Member or Members, and subject to procedural arrangements
established the Organization, enter into and carry out with such
other Member or Members [as the Organization may specify,]
negotiations directed to the substantial reduction of the general
levels of tariff and other charges on imports and exports, and
to the elimination of the preferences referred to in paragraph 2
of Article 16, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis.
[These negotiations shall proceed in accordance with the following rules:]
"2. The negotiations provided for in paragraph 1 shall proceed in
accordance with the following rules:
(a) Such negotiations shall be conducte d on a selective
Product-by-product basis which will afford an adequate
opportunity to take into account the needs of individual
countries and individual industries. Members shall be free
not to grantconcessions oniarticular products and, in the
granting of a concession, they may either reduce the duty, bind
it at its then existing level undertake or to raise it above a
specified higher level.
(b) No Member -all be required to grant unilateral
concessions, or to grant concessions to other Members without
receiving adequate concessions in return. Account shall be
taken of the value to any Member of obtaining in its own
right and by direct obligation the indirect concessions which
it would otherwise enjoy onl y by virtue of Article 16.
[a](c) In the negotiations relating to any specific product
(i) when a reduction is negotiated only in the most-favoured
nation rrate,such reduction shall operate automaticlly
to reduce orelminate the margin of preference applicable
to that product;
(ii)when a reduction is negotiated only in the preferential
rate,the most-favoured-nation rate shall automatically
be reduced to the extent of such reduction;
/(iii) when E/CONF.2/C .3/A/18
Page 2
(iii) when it is agreed hi~t reductions will be negotiated in
both the most-favoured-nation rate and the preferential
rate, the reduction in each shall be that agreed by the
parties to the negotiations;
(iv) no margin of preference shall be increased.
L (d) The bindingR against increase of low [tariffs]fduties or of
[tariff] duty-free treatment shall in principle be recognized as
a concession equivalent in value to the substantial reduction of
high [tariffs], duties or the elimination of tariff preferences.
[c Account shall be taken of any concession which either Member
is already extending to the other Member by virtue of previous
negotiations regarding tariffs and preferences pursuant to this
Article.]
(e) Prior international obligations shall not be invoked to
frustrate the requirement under paragraph 1 of this Article to
negotiate with respect to preferences, it being understood that
agreements which result from such negotiations and which conflict
with auch obligations shall not require the modification or
termination of such obligations except (i) with the consent of
the parties to such obligations, or, in the absence of such
consent, (ii) by modification or termination of such obligations
in accordance with their terms.
[d The results of such negotiations shall be incorporated in
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, signed at .........
on..............1948 by agreement with the parties to that
Agreement, and thereupon the parties to such negotiations shall
become contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tarlffs
and Trade if they are not so already.]
"3. The negotiations leading to the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, concluded at Geneva on 30 October 1947, shall be deemed
to be negotiations pursuant to this Article. The concessions agreed
upon as a result of all other negotiations completed by a Member
purspant to this Article shall be incorporated in the General Agreement
on terms to be agreed with the parties thereto. If any Member enters
into any agreement relating to tariffs or preferences which is not
concluded pursuant to this Article, the negotiations leading to such
agreement shall nevertheless conform to the requirements of
paragraph 2 (ic) of this Article.
? "4. If any Member considers that any other Member has failed to fulfil
its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, such Member may
refer the matter to the Organization, which, after investigation, shall
make appropriate recommendations to the Members concerned. If the
/Organization E/CONF.2/C.3/A/18
Page 3
Organization finds that a Member has failed without sufficient
justification, [having regard to its economic position and the
provisions of the Charter as a whole.] having regard to all relevant
circumstances, including the developmental and other needs and the
fiscal structures of the Member countries concerned, and to the
provisions of the Charter as a whole, to carry out negotiations
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with the [requirements]
provisions of paragraps 1 and 2 of this Article, the Organization
may [determine that any] waive the requirements of Article 16 to the
general extent necessary to Permit the complaining Member or Members
[shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 16, be entitled] to
withhold from the trade of the other Member any of the tariff benefits
which may have been negotiated pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article,
and embodied in Part I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
If such benefits are in fact withheld, so as to result in the
application to the trade of the other Member of tariffs higher than
would otherwise have been applicable, such other Member shall then be
free, within sixty days after such action [is taken, to withdraw]
becomes effective, to give written notice of withdrawal from the
Oganization. The withdrawal shall take effect upon the expiration of
sixty days from the [date] day on which [written] such notice [of such
withdrawal] is received by the Organization."
INTERPRETATIVE NOTE TO SUB-PARAGRAPH 2 (d)
AS ADOPTED BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE
"In the event of the devaluation of a Member's currency, or of
a rise in prices, the effects of such devaluation or rise in prices
Would be a matter for consideration during negotiations in order to
determine, first, the change in the protective incidence of the
specific duties, If any, of the Member concerned and, secondly,
whether the binding of such specific duties represents in fact
a concession equivalent in value to the substantial reduction of
high duties or the elimination of tariff preferences."
NOTE: The text of paragraph 3 of the Geneva draft has not yet been agreed
by the Sub-Committee, pending the Report of the Joint Working Party
of Sub-Committee A of Committee III and the Sub-Committee of Committee
VI on Article 81 |
GATT Library | cb063hy5616 | Text of paragraph 1 of Article 92 as adopted on first reading at the nineteenth meeting held 3 January 1948 | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 6, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 06/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/43 and E/CONF.2/C.6/12/ADD.4-44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cb063hy5616 | cb063hy5616_90170095.xml | GATT_148 | 127 | 867 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nation Unies
CONFERENCE
DU
COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF2 /C.6/43
6 January 1948
ENGLISH - FRENCH
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
TEXT OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 92 AS ADOPTED ON FlRST READING
AT THE NINETEENTH MEETING HELD 3 JANUARY .1948
Article 92
Miacelaneous Provisiona
1. For the purposes of the interprotation of this Charter under the
provisions of this Chapter, the English and. French texts shall be
authoritative.
SIXIEME COMMISSION : ORGNISATION
TEXTE DU PARAGRAPHE 1 DE L'ARTICLE 92 ADOPTE EN PREMMRE LECTURE
A LA DIX-NEUVIEME SEANCE TENUE LE 3 JAVIER 1948
Article 92
Diapositions diveraes
1. Aux fina d'interprótation do la présento Charte conforément aux
disposition du prédent Chapitre, les textes français et anglais feront
égaement foi. |
GATT Library | dp432nf9860 | Text of paragraph VIII of protocol contained in document GATT 1/128, as redrafted at Meeting on 19 March 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 19, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 19/03/1948 | official documents | GATT/1/44 and GATT/1/29-46+38/Rev.1,40/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dp432nf9860 | dp432nf9860_90310321.xml | GATT_148 | 269 | 1,735 | GATT/1/44 RESTRICTED 19 March 1948
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
FIRST SESSION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
TEXT OF PARAGRAPH VIII OF PROTOCOL CONTAINED IN
DOCUMENT GATT 1/128, AS REDRAFTED AT MEETING
ON 19 MARCH 1948
VIII. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article XXX of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade, the modifications of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade provided for in Items I to VII, inclusive, of this Protocol shall
become an integral part of the Agreement, on this ___day of arch 1948.
Signature of this Protocol by any government which at the same time is
applying the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade under the Protocol of
Provisional Application, shall serve to commit that Government to apply
provisionally the Agreement as modified by this Protocol.
"Signature of this Protocol by any government which is not at the
time a contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
shall serve to authenticate the texts of the modifications of the
General Agreement provided for in this Protocol. This Protocol shall
remain open for signature by any such government, named in the second
paragraph of the preamble to this Protocol, until May 1, 1948."
[The original texts of this Protocol shall be deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is authorized to effect
registration thereof.]*
In witness whereof the respective representatives have signed the present
Protocol.
Done at Havana, in a single copy, in the English and French languages,
both texts authentic, this of March,
one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight.
* It is suggested by the Secretariat that this new sentence be inserted. |
GATT Library | zk526yy8613 | Text of Section A of Chapter IV as Approved in Second Reading Section A - Traiffs, Preferences, and Internal Taxation and Regulation | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 20, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 20/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/68 and E/CONF.2/C.3/58-77/REV.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zk526yy8613 | zk526yy8613_90190168.xml | GATT_148 | 3,483 | 22,565 | UNRESTRICTED
United Nations Nations Unies
E /C0NF . 2 /C. 3 /68
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 20 February 1948
ON DU ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
TEXT OF SECTION A OF CHAPTER IV AS APPROVED IN SECOND READING
SECTION A - TRAIFFS, PREFERENCES, AND INTERNAL TAXATION AND REGULATION
Article 16*
General Most-favoured nation Treatment
1. With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in
connection with importation or exportation or imposed on the international
transfer of payments for imports or exports, and with respect to the method
of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and
formalities in connection with importation and exportation, and with respect
to all matters within the scope of paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 18, any
advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any Member to any product
originating in or destined for any other country, shall be accorded immediately
and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for all
other Member countries respectively.
2.
(c) bis. preferences in force exclusively between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America, including the dependent
territories of the latter.
4. The imposition of a margin of tariff preference not in excess of the
amount necessary to compensate for the elimination of a margin of preference
in an internal tax existing on 10 April 1947 exclusively between two or more
of the territories in respect of which preferential import duties or charges
are permitted under paragraph 2 of this Article shall not be deemed to be
contrary to the provisions of this Article, it being understood that any such
margin of tariff preference shall be subject to the provisions of Article 17.
Interpretative Note
Article 16
The term "margin of preference" means the absolute difference between
the most-favoured-nation rate of duty and the preferential rate of duty for
* Paragraphs 2 and 3 are within the terms of reference of the Joint Sub-
Committee of Committees II and III, which has not yet reported.
/the like E/CONF.2/C.3/68
Page 2
the like product, and not the proportionate relation between those rates. As
examples:
1. If the most-favoured-nation rate were 36 per cent ad valorem and
the preferential rate were 24 per cent ad valorem, the margin of
preference would be 12 per cent ad valorem, and not one-third of the
most-faevoured-nation rate;
2. If the most-favoured-netion rate were 36 per cent ad valorem and
the preferential rate were expressed as two-thirds of the most-favoured-
nation rate, the margin of preference would be 12 per cent ad valores;
3. If the most-favoured-nation rate were 2 francs per kilogrem and the
preferential rate were 1.50 francs per kilogram, the margin of preference
would be 0.50 francs per kilogram.
The following kinds of customs action, taken in accordance with
established uniform procedures, would not be contrary to a general binding of
margins of preference;
(i) the re-application to an imported product of a tariff classification
or rate of duty, properly applicable to such product, in cases in
which the application of such classification or rate to such product
was temporerily suspended or inoperative on 10 April 1947; and
(ii) the classification of a particular product under a tariff item other
then that under which importations of that product were classified
on 10 April 1947, in cases in which the tariff law clearly
contemplates that such product may be classified under more than one
tariff item.
ANNEXES PERTATINIING TO PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 16
ANNEX A*
List of Territories Referred to in Paragraph 2 (a) of Article 16
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Dependent territories of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.
Canada.
Commonwealth of Australia.
Dependent territories of the Commonwealth of Australia.
* Only the lest two paragraphs of Annex A were approved finally by the
Third Committe.The remainder of the Annex comes within the terms of
reference of the Joint Sub-Committee of Committees II and III which has
not yet reported.
/New Zealand. E/CONF.2 /C.3/68
Page 3
New Zealand.
Dependent territories of New Zealand.
Union of South Africa including South West Africa.
Ireland.
Newfoundland.
Paskistan*
Southern Rhodesia.
Burma.
Ceylon.
Certain of the territories listed above have two or more preferential
rates in force for certain products. Any such territory may, by agreement
with the other Members which are principal suppliere of such products at the
most-favoured-nation rate, substitute for such preferential rates a single
preferential rate which shall not on the whole be less favourable to suppliers
at the most-favoured-nation rate than the preferences in force prior to such
substitution.
The preferential arrangements referred to in paragraph 5 (b) of Article 23
are those existing in the United Kingdom on 10 April 1947, under contractual
agreements with the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in
respect of chilled and frozen beef and veal, frozen mutton and lamb, chilled
and frozen pork, and bacon. Without prejudice to any action taken under
sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of Article 43, negotiations shall be entered
into when practicable among the countries substantially concerned or involved,
in the manner provided for in Article 17, for the elimination of these
arrangements or their replacement by tariff preferences. If after such
negotiations have taken place a tariff preference is created or an existing
tariff preference is increased to replace these arrangements such action shall
not be considered to contravene Article 16 or Article 17.
The film hire tax in force in New Zealand on 10 April 1947 shall, for the
purpose of this Charter, be treated as a customs duty falling within
Articles 16 and 17. The renters film quota in force in New Zealand on
10 April 1947, shall for the purposes of this Charter be treated as a screen
quota falling within Article 19.
*The Third Committee Approved the deletion of the words "as at 10 April 1947"
appearing in parenthesis after the word "India" in the Geneva text and to
add Pakistan, subject. to examination, by the Joint Sub-Comittee of
Committees II and III in order to ascertain whether these changes would
created any ditficulties with respect to paragraph 3 of Article 16.
/ANNEX D E/CONF.2 /C.3 /68
Page 4
ANNEX D
List of Territories of the United States of America
Referred to in Paragraph 2(b) of Article 16
United states of America (customs territory).
Dependent territories of the United States of Amarica.
Article 17
Reduction of Tariffs and Elimination of Preferences
1.Each Member shall, upon the request of any other Member or Members, and
subject to procedural arrangements established by the Organization, enter
into any carry out with such other Member or Members negotiations directed
to the substantial reduction of the general levels of tariffs and other
charges on imports and exports and to the elimination of the preferences
referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 16, on. a reciprocal and matually
advantageous basis,
2.The negotiations provided for in paragraph 1 shall proceed in accordance
with the following rules:
(a} Such negotiations shall be conducted on a selective product-by-
product basis which will afford an adequate opportunity to take into
account the needs of individual countries and individual industries.
Members shall be free not to gramt concessions on particular products
and. in the granting of a concession, they may either reduce the duty,
bind it at its then existing level, or undertake not to raise it above
a specified higher level.
(b) No Member shall be required to grant unilateral concessions, or
to grant concessions to other Members without receiving adequate
concessions in return. Account shall be taken of the value to any
Member of obtaining in its own right and by direct obligation the
indirect concessions which it would otherwise enjoy only by virtus of
(c)In the negotiations relating to any specific product
(i) when a reduction is negotiated only in the most-favoured-nation"
rate,such reduction shall operate automatically to reduce or
eliminate the maigin of preference applicable to that product;
(ii)when a reduction is negotiated only in the preferential fate,
the most-favoured-nation rate shall automatically be reduced to
the extent of such reduction;
(iii)when it is agreed that reductions will be negotiated in both
the most-favoured-nation rate and the preferential rate, the
/reduction in E/CONF.2/C.3/68
page 5
reduction in each shall be that agreed by the parties'to the
(iv) no margin of preference shall be increased;
(d) The binding against increase of low duties or of duty-free treatment
shall in principle be recognized at a concession equivalent in vallue to
the substantial reduction of high duties or the elimination of tariff
preferences.
(e) Prior international obligations shall not be invoked to frustrate
the requirement under paragraph 1 of this Article to negotiate with
respect to preferences, it being understood that agreements which result
from such negotiations and which conflict with such obligations shall not
require the modification or termination of such obligations except (i)
with the consent of the parties to such obligations, or,imntthe absence
of such consent, (ii) by modification or termination of such obligations
in accordance with their terms.
3.The negotiations leading to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
concluded at Geneva on 30 October 1947, shall be deemed to be negotiations
pursuant. to this Article. The concessions agreed upon as a result df all.
other negotiations completed by a Member pursuant to this Article shall be
incorporated in the General Agreement on terms to be agreed with the parties
thereto.If any member enters into any agreement relating to tariffs or
preferences which is not concluded pursuant to this Article, the negotiations
leading to such agreement shall nevertheless conform to the requirements of
paragraph 2 (c) of this Article.
4. If any member-considers that any other Member has failed to fulfil its
obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, such Member may refer the matter
to the Organization,which,after investigations shall make appropriate.
recommendations to the. Members concerned. If the Organization finds that a
Member has failed without sufficient justification, having regard. to all
relevant circumstances, including the developmental and other needs and the
General fiscal atruotures of the Member countries concerned,and to the
provisions of the Charter as a whole, to carry out negotiations wlthin a
reasonable period of time in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1
and. 2 of this Article, the Organization may waive the requirements of
Article 16.to the extent necessary to permit the complaining Member or Members
to withhold from the trade of the other Member any of the tariff benefits
which may have been negotiated pursuant to paragraph I of this Article,and
embodied. in Part I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.If such
benefits are in fact. withheld, so as to result in the application to thr trade
of the other Member of tariffs hlgher than would otherwise have been applicable,
/such other E/CONF.2/C .3/68
Page 6
such other Member shall then be free, within sixty days after such action
becomes effective, to give written notice of withdrawal from the Organization.
The withdrawal shall take effect upon the oxpiration of sixty days from the
day on which such noties is received by the Organization.*
5. The provisions of this Article shall operate in accordance with the
provisions of Article 81.*
Interpretative Notes
Article 17
It is understood that an internal tax (other than a general tax uniformly
applicable to a considerable number of products) which is applied to a product
not produced demestically in substantial quantities would be treated as a
customs duty under this Article in any case in which a tariff concession on
the product would not be of substantial value unless accompanied by a binding
or a reduction of the tax.
Sub-paragraph 2 (d)
In the event of the devaluation of a Member's currency, or of a rise in
prices, the effects of such devaluation or rise in prices would be a matter
for consideration during negotiations in order to determine, first, the change,
if any, in the protective incidence of the specific duties, of the Member
concerned and, secondly, whether the binding of such specific duties represents,
in fact a concession equivalent in value to the substantial reduction of high
duties or the elimination of tariff preferences.
Article 18
National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation
1. The Members recognize that internal taxes and charges, and laws,
regulations or requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale,
purchase, transportation, distribution, or use of products, and internal
quantitative regulations requiring the mixture, processing or use of products
in specified amounts or proportions, should not be applied to imported or
domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production,
2. The products of any Member country, imported into any other Member country
shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other
-internal charges of any kind, in excess of those applied, directly or
indirectly, to like domestic products. Moreover, no Member shall otherwise
* Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 17. were approved subject to reopening only to
consider any changes which may be recommended by the Triperrtite Working Party
of Sub-Commiittee A of the Third Committee, Sub-Committee D of the
Sixth Committee and the Joint Sub-Committee of the Second and Sixth
Committees and approved by the Sub-Committees concerned.
/apply internal E /CONF.2/C.3/68
Page 7
apply internal taxes or charges to imported or domestic products in a manner
contrary to the principles set forth in paragraph 1.
3. With respect to any existing internal tax which is inconsistent with the
provisions of paragraph 2 but which is specifically authorized under a trade
agreement, in force on 10 April 1947, in which the import tariff on the taxed
product is bound against increase, the Member imposing the tax shall be free
to postpone the application of the provisions of paragraph 2 to such tax until
such time as, it can obtain release from its trade agreement obligations in
order to permit the increase of such tariff to the extent necessary to
compensate for the elimination of the protective element of the tax.*
4. The products of any Member country imported into any other Member country
shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like
products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations, and
requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase,
transportation, distribution, or use. This paragraph shall not prevent the
application of differential internal transportation charges which are based
exclusively on the economic operation of the means of transport and not on
the nationality of the product,
5. No Member shall establish or maintain any internal quantitative regulation
relating to the mixture, processing or use of products in specified amounts or
proportions which requires , directly or indirectly, that any specified amount
or proportion of any product which is the subject of the regulation must.be
supplied from domestic sources. Moreover, no Member shall otherwise apply
internal quantitative regulations in a manner contrary to the principles set
forth in paragraph 1.
6.The provisions of paragraph 5 shall not apply to any internal quantitativ
regulation in force in any Member country on 1 July 1939, 10 April 1947 or an
the date of this Charter, at the option of that Member; Provided that any such
regulation which would be in conflict with the provisions of paragraph 5 shall
not be modified to the detriment of imports and shall be subject to negotiation
and accordingly shall be treated as a customs duty for the purposes of
Article 17.
7. No internal quantitative regulation relating to the mixture procesing
or use of products in specified amounts or proportions shall be applied in such
a manner as to allocate any such amount or proportion among external sources o
supply.
* The Central Drafting Committee is requested to correct a divergency between
the French and English texts of paragraph 3. The Third Committee accepted
the French text, and suggests that the English text might be corrected by
changing the word "its" in the sixth line to "such".
Paragraph 3 was approved provisionally subject to consideration of any
changes recommended by Working Party 7 on Article 18.
/8.(a) The provisions E/CONF.2/C.3/68
Page 8
8. (a). The provisions of this Article shall not apply to laws, regulations
or roquirements governing the procurement by governmental agencies of
products purchased for governimental purposes and. not with a view to
commercial or with a view to use in the production goods for
(b) The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the payment of
subsidies exclusively to domastic producers, including payments to domestic.
producera dorived from the proceeds of internal taxes or charges applied
consistently with the provisions of this Article and subsidies effocted
through governmental purchases of domestic products.
% The Members recognize that internal maximum price control measures,even
though conforming to the other. provisions of this Article, can have effects
prejudicial to the interests of Member countries supplying imported products.
Accordingly, Members applying such measures shall take account of the interests
of exporting Member countries with a view to avoiding to the fullest practicable.
extent such prejudicial effects.
Interpretative Notes
Article 18
If any internal tax or other internal charge, or any law, regulation or
requirement.of the kind referred to in paragraph 1, applying to an imported
product and to the like domestic product, is collected or enforced in the case
of the imported product as the time or point of importation, it is never the less
to be regarded as an internal tax or other internal charge, or a law,
regulation or requirement of the kind referred to in paragraph 1, and is
accordingly subject to the provisions of Article 18.
Paragraph 1
The application of paragraph 1 to internal taxes imposed by local
governments within the territory of a Member is subject to the provisions of
paragraph 3 of Article 99. The term "reasonable measures " in the last-
mentioned paragraph would not require, for example, the repeal of existing
national legislation authorizing local governments to impose internal taxes
which, although technically inconsistent with the letter of Article 18,are
not in fact inconsistent with its spirit, if such repeal would result in a
serious financial bardship for the local governments concerned. with regard
to taxation by local governments which is inconsistent with both the letter
and spirit of Article 18, the term "reasonable measures" would. permit a Member
to eliminate the inconsistent taxation gradually over a transition period if
abrupt action would. create serious administrative and financial difficulties.
Paragraph 2
A tax conforming to the requirements of the first sentence of paragraph 2
would be considered to be inconsistent with the second sentence only in cases
here competition was involved between on the one hand the taxed product,
where competiton was involved between, on the one hand, the taxed product
/ad on the other E/CONF .2/C .3/68
Page -9
and. on the other hand, a. directly competitive or substitutable product which
was not similarly taxed.
Paragraph 5
Regulations consistent with the first sentence of paragraph 5 shall not
be considered. to be contrary to the second. sentence in any caso in which all
of the products subject to the regulations are produced domestically in
substantial quantities. A regulation cannot be .justified. as being consistent
with the second. sentence on the ground that the proportion or amount allocated.
to each of the products which are the subject of the regulation constitutes
an equitable relationship between imported. and. domestic products.
Article 19
Special Provisions Relating to Cinematograph Films
The provisions of Article 18 shall not prevent any Member from
establishing or maintaining internal quantitative regulations relating to
exposed cinematograph films, Any such regulations shall take the form of
screen quotas which shall coform to the following conditions and. requirements;
(a) screen quotas may require the exhibition of cinematograph films of
national origin during a specified minimum proportion of the total screen.
time actualIy utilized over a specified. period of not less than one year
in the commercial exhibition of all films of whatever origin,. and shall
be computed. on the basis of screen time per theatre per year or the
equivalent thereof.
(b) With the exception of screen time reserved. for films of national
origin under a screen quota, screen time, including screen time released.
by administrative action from minimum time reserved for films of national
origin, shall not be allocated formally or in effect among sources of
supply.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph(b) above, any
Member may maintain screen quotas conforming to the requirements of
sub-paragraph (a) which reserve a minimum proportion of screen time for
films of a specifed origin other than that of the Member imposing such
screen quotas; Provided. that no such minimum proportion of screen time
shall be increased. above the level effect on 10 April 1947
(d)screen quotas shall be subject to negotiation and shalI accordingly
be treated. as customs duties for the purposes of Article 17 |
GATT Library | hj998fh5044 | Text of Section 'C' - Subsidies - of Chapter IV as Approved in Second Reading Section C - Subsidies | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 18, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy | 18/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/63 and E/CONF.2/C.3/58-77/REV.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hj998fh5044 | hj998fh5044_90190163.xml | GATT_148 | 1,332 | 8,525 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.3/63
ON DU 18 February1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
TEXT OF SECTION `C' - SUBSIDIES - OF CHAPTER IV
AS APPROVED IN SECOND READING
SECTION C - SUBSIDIES
Article 25
Subsidies in General
If an Member grants or maintains any subsidy, including any form of
income or price support, which operates directly or indirectly to maintain or
increase exports of any product from, or to reduce, or prevent an increase in,
imports of any product into, its territory, the Member shall notify the
Organization in writing of the extent and nature of the subsidization, of the
estimated effect of the subsidization on the quantity of the affected product
or products imported into or exported from the territory of the Member and of
the circumatances making the subsidization necessary. In any case in which
a Member considers that serious prejudice to its interests is caused or
threatened by any such subsidization, the Member granting the subsidy shall,
upon request, discuss with the other Member or Members concerned, or with
the Organization, the possibility of limiting the subsidization.
Article 26
Additional Provisions on Export Subsidies
1. No Member shall grant, directly or indirectly, an subsidy on the export
of any product, or establish or maintain any other system, which subsidy or
system results in the sale of such product for export at a price lower than
the comparable price charged for the like product to buyers in the domestic
market, due allowance being made for differences in the conditions and terms
of sales for differences in taxation, and for other differences affecting
price comparability.
2. The exemption of exported products from duties or taxes imposed
in respect of like products when consumed domestically or the remission
of such duties or taxes in amounts not in excess of those which have acorued,
shall not be. construed to be in conflict with the provisions of paragraph 1
of this Article. The use of the proceeds of such duties or taxes to make
/payments E/CONF.2/e.3/63
Page 2
payments to domestic producers in general of those products shall be
considered as a case under Article 25.
3. Members shall give effect to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this
Article at the earliest practicable date, but not later than two year
from the day on which this Charter enters into force. If any Member
considers itself unable to do so in respect of any particular product
or products, it shall, at least three months before the expiration of
such period, give notice in writing to the Organization, requesting a
specific extension of the period. Such notice shall be accompanied by a
full analysis of the system in question and the circumstances justifying
it. The Organization shall then determine whether, and if so on what terms,
the extension requested should be made.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1,of this Article, any
Member way subsidize the exports of any product to the extent and for such
time as may be necessary to offset a subsidy granted by a non-Member affecting
the Member's exports of the product. However, the Member shall, upon the
request of the Organization or of any other Member which considers that its
einterests are seriously prejudiced by such action, consult with that Member
or with the Organization with a view to reaching a satisfactory adjustment
of. the matter
Article 2rticle 2 ;,r
Special Treatment of Primary Commodities
1. A system for the sta bilization of the domestic priceor of the return
omdomemmostic roducers of a primary condiy, independently of the movements
of export prices, which results at timeso in the sale of the product fr
export at a pr ice lower than the comparableprice charged for the like
product to buyers in the domnestic market, shall be considered ot to involve
a subsidy on export within the m, mean i6, ng of paragraph 1 of Article2if the
anization'etrmines that
() 4e system has also resulted, or is so designed as to
result, in thesale of the product for export at a price higher
than thecomparable price charged for the like product to buyers
in the deaicmarket; and
(so b) the system s operated, or is designed so to operate,
either because of the effective regutherwilation oftherwise production orse,
ase exno otmulatb wpot undwuslys oir otheriae -rosly prejudice'
the iterests of other Member
2 . Anting a euberd Bgre--ay affectiing a pryiymaycommodit shalle
cooperate imes at all ten efforts to negotiate agreements under the
procedures of Chapter VI.
/3. In any E/CONF.2/C.3/63
Page 3
3. In any case involving a primary commodity, if a Member considers that
its interests would be seriously prejudiced by compliance with the
provisions of Article 26, or if a Member considers that its interests are
seriously prejudiced by the granting of any form of subsidy, the procedure
laid down in Chapter VI may be followed. The Member which considers that
its interests are thus seriously prejudiced shall, however, be exempt
provisinally from the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 26 in
respect of that commodity, subject to the provisions of Article 28.
4. No Member shall grant a new subsidy or increase an existing subsidy
affecting the export of a primary commodity during a commodity conference
called for the purpose of negotiating an inter-governmental control agreement
for the commodity concerned unless the Organization concurs. Any such new
or additional subsidy shall be subject to the provisions of Article 25.
5. If the measures provided for in Chapter VI have not succeeded, or
do not promise to succeed, within a reasonable period of time, or if an
agreement is inappropriate, any Member which considers that its interests
are seriously prejudiced shall not be subject to the requirements of
paragrpahs 1 and 3 of Article 26 in respect of that commodity, subejct to
the provisions of Article 28.
Article 28
Undertaking Regarding Stimulation of Exports of Prmiary Commodities
1. Any Member granting any form of subsidy which operates directly or
indirectly to maintain or increase the export of any primary commodity from
its territory shall not apply the subsidy in such a way as to have the effect
of maintaining or acquiring for that Member more than an equitable share of
world trade in that commodity.
2. The Member granting.such subsidy shall promptly notify the Organization
of the extent and nature of the subsidization, of the estimated effect of
the subsidization on the quantity of the affected commodity exported from
ts.territory, and of the circumstances making the subsidization necessary.
The Member shall promptly consult with any other Members which consider that
serious prejudice to their interests is caused or threatened by the
subsidzation.
3. If, within a reasonable period of tmie, no agreement is reached in such
consultation, the Oarganization shall make a finding as to what constitutes
an equitable share and the Member granting the subsi dy shall conform to this
finding.
4.In making its finding, the Organization shall take into account any
/factors E/CONF.2/C.3/63
Page 4
factors which may have affected, or may be affecting, world trade in that
primary commodity, and shall have particular regard to
(a) the Member's share of world trade in the commodity in a previous
representative period;
(b) whether the subsidizing Member's share of world trade in the
commodity is so small that the effect of the subsidy on such trade
is Iikely to be of minor significance;
(c) the degree of importance of the external trade in the commodity
to the economy of the Member granting, end to the economies of the
Members materially affected by, the subsidy;
(d) the existence of price stabilization systems in accordance with
paragaph 1 of Article 27;
(e) the desirability of facilitating the gradual expansion of
production for export in those areas able to satisfy world market
requirements of the commodity concerned in the most effective and
economic manner, and therefore of limiting any subsidies or
other measures which make that expansion difficulty. |
GATT Library | jn743bg9373 | Text of speech by Mr. Sergic I. Clark of Cuba, Conference President, at final act ceremony | United Nations Conference on Trade & Employment, March 23, 1948 | Department of Public Information Havana, Cuba and United Nations Conference on Trade & Employment | 23/03/1948 | press releases | Press Release ITO/219 and ITO/195-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jn743bg9373 | jn743bg9373_90200412.xml | GATT_148 | 1,044 | 6,669 | UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE & EMPLOYMENT
Department of Public Information
Havana, Cuba
ADVANCE TEXT Press Release ITO/219
HOLD FOR RELEASE 23 March 1948
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
TEXT OF SPEECH BY MR. SERGIC I. CLARK OF CUBA, CONFERENCE PRESIDENT,
AT FINAL ACT CEREMONY
On the basis of the speeches which have been pronounced in
these Plenary sessions, I assume that the Conference approves the
documents which I presented at the opening of Monday's meeting. I
therefore declare approved the Final Act, the text of the Havana
Charter, the Resolutions of the Conference, and the reports of the
six principal committees of the Confercnce, due note of course being
taken of the reservations which have been expressed.
We thus come to the final action of this Conference the
signature of the Final Act. But before we do this I wish to take
this opportunity to say a few words about our work together. I
assure you that I shall always consider presiding over this Confer-
ence as the greatest of honors done to me, and through me to my
country. Thanks to the constant and kind cooperation of everyone
of you, the burden falling upon the Chairman has been from the very
beginning transformed into, a source of pleasure. I shall take this
last opportunity to thank all of you once more for the kindness you
have shown to me at all times and for the repeated demonstrations of
appreciation that I personally and my country have received from you.
Next I should like to express my own deep appreciation and
admiration for the distinguished men who have assisted me in the
conduct of this Conference. First I should like to speak about my
good friend, the First Vice President, Max Suetens. M. Suetens
had already made a great and distinctive contribution to our work,
as Chairman of the Preparatory Committee at its sessions in London
and Geneva. His contribution during this Conference has been no
less valuable and decisive. He has, at my request, throughout the
Conference presided over the General Committee. In addition, he (MORE) Sergio I. Clark - 2 - ITO/219
presided over the Coordinating Committee with wisdom and tact which
earned him both the respect of all the members of that committee and
contributed in large measure to the success of its work. I would
add one thing characteristic of the man and that is that in addition
to all. these things I have already cited, he did not hesitate to
take off his coat and participate in the essential and laborious
work of the Control Drafting Committee in its closing stages.
The Conference has also been well served by an exceptionally
distinguished array of Committee Chairmen: Mr. Dedman of Australia
in Committee I, and his successor, Mr: Waerum of Denmark; in
Committee II Sr. Beteta, the first delegate of Mexico aided by Mr.
Abelle of the Philippines; in Committee III the Hon. Dana L. Wilgress
of Canada assisted by Mr. Eleras Restrepe of Colombia; in Committee
IV Senator Charlene of Uruguay, assisted by Mr. Van Velden of South
Africa and Mr. Banerji of India; in Committee V Mr. Hakin of Lebanon;
and last, but not by any means least, the distinguished and exper-
ienced delegate of Norway, Dr. Colban, in Committee VI. They in
turn were assisted by the chairmen of numerous sub-committees. I
should like also to thank the Vice Presidents, Mr. Malik of India,
Sr. Tinoco of Costa Rica, Dr. Augenthaler of Czecheslovakia, Mr.
Azer of Egypt, the Right Hon. W. Nash of New Zealand and M. Stucki
of Switzerland, who both in the General Committee and generally in
the Conference have rendered invaluable services.
I think too that I shall be voicing the unanimous feeling of
the Conference if I pay tribute to the Secretariat, particularly the
CommitteeeS _ ecrtaeriG anndethair assistants, the Documents Service,
the Trlatingtin and Interpaetntion Services, the Depmrtreot cf
Publicformationtio and the administrative Staff. I place particular
emphasos cn theseeancnymous workersowhcse quiet efficiency has allowed
our Conference to proceed with examplary smoothness. n Ir addition to
the services provided by the United Nations, I think I may allow my-
self to say o wcrd of praise for the work of the staff oACNUCEN`UE
under the energetic and cheerful supervisof n f its Secretary General,
Mr. Saavedra. (MORE) -3- ITO/219
Cuba 23 March
Our thanks too, are due to the representatives of the press,
national and international, to radio, film and photografic
services who have worked so hard to bring the story of our
complicated discussions to the people of the world.
And finally, I wish to single out for special mention one of
the Committee of the Conference, namely, the Central Drafting
Committee. I think perhaps that many of us have not realized aIezcd thc
fiurdon weichetecy lwara poled uaea to dopheane eih dworked %aor
hey h chormedrforl-:d.
egtorethc swecchewe have heard in hoerd.Plenary !lcn.nr sessions,
necessary.acesmar foa neato »ddgènythinj eboignificancef'icpnce
and ouccess afkoue earigethertoIethcr. 1 wwever, like to, 11!2:co
sWe this, ee haworking atarkiSnp f hige aressuraonnd on m.st
dandicuntreversial matters for more than ricr thr four months,
ghouthroat:hou th_. eime therg has rciuned an atmosghere of aood
p, friendliness and understanding which in themselvesh in themaivos
pa.uld ntime o-resternational sSinsrraet1rna.trels end difficuity
Conference a landmark in international affairs. intaernn.tianfI'alIrs.
s understanding not only pervade the futurein ' not oniy pervac thfuture
ommunicate itself se but %lso celdsnicrtc itse into other ficld
o I feel that we can make our report th-at Wve Qrn rw3:a our rDTnrt
e of good work well done,confidcnco oa aood viorkz wall nc,
e Final A co.-e ta tho dsigntue oa thc Final Act and I shoâI
he significance of the iawwords about tùhc sofniiona ai tho
signatures is to authenticateing b'y our si.na.turos is to -authazica2ta
thbeen drawn he H-tvc.n Charter wh-1 c has acn dravwn up in this
ents represented.subenittod to the ovorrennts rcprcsofntod Thc
ations upon thosearly do.es not rlrposa any abli&ntions upanhose
ga-v er.andts Theetoxt will na doubt Je stuied by thom anC in duo
rk rse thoao aeecrnnaints which cpDprove the war.- that h,s bcon
daon hcac will -rosant tha Ch.a.rtar to thoi constitutional
procedures nd requironans.
I now invite the é-elega.te to sign the Final Act.
(END OF PRESS RELEASE ITO/219) |
GATT Library | ws853wp1073 | Text of speech to be delivered by the Delegate of Brazil at the Closing Session | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 23, 1948 | Department of Public Information Havana, Cuba and United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment | 23/03/1948 | press releases | Press Release ITO/214 and ITO/195-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ws853wp1073 | ws853wp1073_90200406.xml | GATT_148 | 969 | 6,056 | UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Department of Public Information
Havana, Cuba
ADVANCE COPY Press Release ITO/214
HOLD FOR RELEASE 23 March 1948
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
TEXT OF SPEECH TO BE DELIVERED BY THE DELEGATE OF BRAZIL
AT THE CLOSING SESSION
Mr. President:
It would be superfluous on this occasion to emphasize the significance
of the indisputable success of this Conference to a world shaken by the
birth of new and terrible problems.
However, we do want to recognize how much intelligence and effort has
been spent to make the Charter of Havana the expression of a commercial
policy more closely in harmony with the principles of international
co-operation.
The growing economic interdependence, the result for the most part of
unexampled technological progress, makes imperative the integration of
international trade on a mutually advantageous basis so as to permit a
balanced expansion of trade.
All countries great and small must be able, without encountering useless
or unjust obstacles, to develop their resources to the full while
progressively seeking to ensure the well-being and social security of their
peoples.
The Charter of Havana despite the fauIts it may contain, dces without
doubt represent a categorical affirmation of this just aspiration of mankind.
At the same times it is a striking proof of the World's genuine desire to
avoid the economic chacs into which it threatens to fall.
Whatever the general or particular reservations which each country must
formulate in assessing the Charter, as a whole it undoubtedly represents an
auspicious event which we should acclaim.
In spite of this, it will be no more than a useless code, like so many
others, if all the countries which are to accept it, do not severally and
jointly, make every effort to see that the provisions of the Charter are
carried out in an ample spirit of conciliation.
However, this does not signify that we must or that we can hold to the
principle of absolute equality of concessions. They must recessarily be
evaluated in terms of the differing economic structures and resources of the
countries between which they are mutually granted.
/Without an exact ITC/214
Page 2
Without an exact knowledge of the true economic standing of the courntries
which will enter the Organization, it would be difficult, perhaps impossible,
to achieve properly satisfying results. The lack of understanding which has
characterized commercial policy during the last thirty years must be avoided.
Only a more precise and exact understanding of particular difficulties
and conditions in each country, of their just aspirations, and above all of
the real objectives and advantage of closer and more equitable co-operation
in international trade, could make possible to realization of the aims of
the Charter.
Therefore the ITO must also be a centre for investigating the true
economic state of the world. Without these essential elements, it will be
futile to demand obedience to the Charter or, to clam that International
trade is directed with justice and objectivity so as to become an instrument
creating wealth in each country and a guarantee of world economic stability
without which peace is almost impossible.
Although the Charter of Havana is not the ideal document of which each
one of us has dreamed, it does represent the best solution which could have
bean found either by compromise or by the decision of a majority.
During the discussions, each country has had an opportunity of making
its contribution and a clear statement of its true position in the present
economic circumstances.
The chapter on economic development, of the greatest interest to us
all, reaffirms, it is true, but without the precision and the balance which
might have been desired, the already accepted principle that the
industrialization of the underdeveloped countries promotes increased
consumption and, therefore, international trade, because of the growth in
purchasing power.
It was thanks to the combined effort of Brazil, Australia, India and
Chile that this chapter was inserted in the London Draft Charter and perfected
at Geneva. The active and remarkable contribution of the other countries
of Latin America, the Near East and Asia, which took part in the Havana
Conference, made it possible to give this chapter the form and the meaning
which it now has in the next of the Charter which I shall submit to the
Brazilian Government.
It will first be the task of my Government, with its high spirit of
international co-operation, to judge the provisions of this text and then to
request the National Parliament to study it and take the decision which
will allow the formal and definitive acceptance of the Havana Charter by
the United States of Brazil.
/I want now to ITC/214 Page 3
I want now to express to the Conference may profound gratitude for the
honour it recently paid by country in voting it into the position of a Member
of the Executive Committee of the Interim Commission.
In this new body whose task it will be to carry out the very important
work which will precede the final establishment of the Organization, Brazil
will afford the fullest co-operation.
I want to express to you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues in all the
delegations, the respect and esteem with which you have inspired me during
our long task. The directors and the staff of the Secretariat have given us
immeasurable assistance which I wish also to single out for praise.
In my last remarks before this Assembly and with the regret I feel that
I must shortly leave this beautiful and attractive city, I have special
pleasure in saying what happy memories I take away with me and how
whole-heartedly the delegation of Brazil joins in the gratitude which we all
owe to the Government of the Republic of Cuba for their generous hospitality
and the courtesy which they have shcwn to us. |
GATT Library | ps609qp7047 | Texts of Article 71 (Composition of the conference) and 73 (Sessions, procedure and officers of the conference) as approved by the sixth committee on second reading | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 27, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 27/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/52 and E/CONF.2/C.6/44-75 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ps609qp7047 | ps609qp7047_90170112.xml | GATT_148 | 188 | 1,370 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/52
ON DU 27 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
TEXTS OF ARTICLE 71 (COMPOSITION OF THE CONFERENCE) AND 73
(SESSIONS, PROCEDURE AND OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE)
AS APPROVED BY THE SIXTH COMMITTEE ON SECOND READING
Article 71
Composition
1, The Conference shall consist of all the Members of the Orgnization.
2. Each Member shall have one representative in the Conference and may
appoint alternates and advisers to its representative.
Article 73
Sessions, Procedure and Officers
1. The Conference shall meet at the seat of the Organizatlon in regular
annual sesion and in such special sessions as may be convoked by the
Director-General at the request of the Executive Board or of one-third
of the Mezbers. In exceptional circumstances the Executive Board may
decide that the Conference shall be held at a place other than the seat
of the Organization.
2. The Conference shall establish rules of procedure which may include
rules appropriate for the carrying out of its functions during the intervals
between its sessions. It shall annually elect its President and other
officers. |
GATT Library | hd875sg4335 | Texts of Article 97 (Withdrawal and termination) and paragraph 1 of Article 98 (Entry into force and registration) as adopted on first reading at the twentieth meeting held 5 January 1948 | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 5, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 05/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/41 and E/CONF.2/C.6/12/ADD.4-44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hd875sg4335 | hd875sg4335_90170141.xml | GATT_148 | 315 | 2,152 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTEDTRICTaD
CONFERECE NCONFERECE CO E/ oNF42/C.6/A1
ON DU J a an48ry 19 9
TRADE AND ENPLOYM T COMMERCE 'ET DE LEMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SIXTH COMMITGEE:ZORCANI7ATION
TEXTS OF ARTICLE 97 (WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION) AND
PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLNTRY (E.NTP INTO FORCE AND
REGISTRATION) AS ADOPTED ON FIRST READING AT
THE TWENTIETH MEETING HELD 5 JANUARY 1948
Article 97
Withdrawal and Termination
1. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 17,
paragraph 4 of Article 90, or paragraph 2 of Article 95, any Member may
withdraw from the Organization either on its own behalf or on behalf of
a separate customs territory on behalf of which it has accepted this
Charter in accordanctheith %ti provisions of Article 99 at any time after
the expiration of three years from the day of the entry into force of this
Charter, by written addresssddvessed to the Director-General. The
Director-General shall immediately notify all. other Members.
2. A withdrawalparagraphr1gr:)p I of this Article shall take effect upon
the expiration of six monthshfrom tie day on which written notice of
such withdrawal is received by the Director-General.
3. This Charter may be termanated a% any time by agreement of three-fourths
of the Members.
Article 98
Entry into Forcegind R&Zistration
1. instruments of acceptance of this Charter shall be dd]osite-7*
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who will inform all
go ernments represented at the United Nations Conferenca on Trede and
Employment and all Members of the United Nations tot so represented, of
the date of deposit of each instrument of acceanance sud of the day on
which this Charter enters into force.
* The text in square brackets which was suggested orally during the
meeting may be considered further on second reading. The Secretariat
points out that should this text be accepted some consequential
amendments will be required in paragraph 2 of Article 98. |
GATT Library | xf907vk5439 | Texts of Articles 96 (Review of the charter) and 97 (Withdrawl and termination) as approved on second reading | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 6, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 06/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/68 and E/CONF.2/C.6/44-75 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xf907vk5439 | xf907vk5439_90170132.xml | GATT_148 | 290 | 1,935 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/68
ON DU 6 February 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
TEXTS OF ARTICLES 96 (REVIEW OF THE CHARTER) AND 97 (WITHDRAWL
AND TERMINATION) AS APPROVED ON SECOND READING
Article 96
Review of the Charter
1. The Conrference shall carry out a general review of the provisions of
this Charter at a special session to be convened in conjunction with the
regular annual session nearest the and of the fifth year after its entry
into force.
2. The Director-General shall invite each member, at least one year
in advance, to submit any amendment or observations which they may wish to
propose and shall circulate them for consideration by the other Members.
3. Amendments resulting from such review shall become effective according
to the procedure established in Article 95.
Article 97
Withdrawal and Termination
1. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 17,
paragraph 4 of Article 90, or paragraph 2 of Article 95, my Member may
withdraw from the Organization either on its own behalf or on behalf of
a separate customs territory on behalf of which It has accepted this
Charter in accordance with the provisions of Article 99 at any time after
the expiration of three years from the day of the entry into force of
this Charter, by written notice addressed to the Director-General. The
Director-General shall immediately notify all other Members.
2. A withdrawal under paragraph 1 of this Article shall take effect
upon the expiration of six months from the day on which written notice
of such withdrawal is received by the Director-General.
3. This Charter may be terminated at any time by agreement of three-fourths
of the Members. |
GATT Library | yq154pf1190 | Texts of paragraph 1 of Article 83 (The staff), Article 84 (Relations with other Organizations ), Article 85 (International responsibilities of the director-general, staff and members of commissions), Article 86 (International legal status of the Organiza | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 2, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 02/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/37 and E/CONF.2/C.6/12/ADD.4-44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yq154pf1190 | yq154pf1190_90170090.xml | GATT_148 | 827 | 5,772 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/37
ON DU 2 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOORIGINAL; ENGLISH
SIXTH COMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
TEXTS OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 83 (THE STAAFF), ARTICLE 84 (RELATIONS WITH
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ), ARTICLE 85 (lNTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITES
OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, STAFF AND MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONS),
ARTICLE 86 (INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STATUS OF THE ORGANIZATION,
ARTICLE 87 (STATUS OF THE ORGANIZATION IN THE TERRITORY
OF MEMBERS AND ARTICLE 88 (CONTRIBUTIONS) AS
ADOPTED ON FIRST READING AT THE
SEVENIEENTHV MEETING
Article 83
The Staff
1. The Director-General, having first consulted With and having obtained the
aareement of the Executive Board, shall have authority to appoint Deputy
Directors-General .ln accordance with regulations approved by the Conference.,
The Director-General shall also appoint such further membersof the Staff as
may be required and shall fix the duties and conditions of service of the
Staff, in accordance with regulations approved by the Conference,
Article 84
Relations with Other Organizations
1. The Organization shall be brought into relationship with the
United Nations as soon as practicable as one of the specialized agencies
referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. This
relationship shall be effected by agreement to be approved by the Conference.
Any such agreement shall provide for effective co-operation and the avoidance
of unnecessary duplication in the activities of the respective organizations.
2. The Organization shall make arrangements with other Inter-governmental
organizations which have related responsibilities, to provide for effective
co-operation and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication in the activities
of the organizations. The Organization mayfor this purpose arrange for
Joint committees, reciprocal representation at meetings and establish such
other working relationships as may be necessary
3. The Organization may make suitable arrangements for consultation and
co-operation with non-governmental organizations concerned with matters
within the scope of this Charter.
/4. Whenever the E/CONF. 2/C .6/37
Page 2
4. Whenever the Conference and the dompetent authorities of any other
inter-governmental organization whose purposes ani functions lie within the
scope of this Charter, doem it desirable
(a) to incorporate such other Inter-governmental organization into
the Organization, or
(b) to effect a transfer of all or a part only of its functions and
resources to the Organization, or
(c) to bring it under the supervision or authority of the Organization,
the Director-General, subject to the approval of the Conference, may enter
into an appropriate agreement. Members shall, in conformity with their
international obligations, take the action necessary to give effect to any
such agreement.
Article 85
International Responsibilities of the Director-General,
Staff and Members of Commissions
1. The responsibilities of the Director-General and of the Staff shall be
exclusively international In character. In the discharge of their duties
they shall not seek or receive instructions from any government, or from any
authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action
which might prejudice their position as international officials.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply to
members of the Commissionsprovided for in Section D of this Chapter.
3. The Members shall respect the international character of the
responsibilities of these persons and shall not seek to influence them in
the discharge of their duties.
Article 86
International Legal Status of the Organization
The Organization shall have legal personality and shall enjoy such legal
capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions.
Article 87
Status of the Organization in the
Territory of Members
1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members
such legal capacity, privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the
exercise of its functions.
2. Representatives of the Members of the Organization and its officials
shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as may be necessary
for the independent exercise of thier functions in connection with the
Organization. /3. When the E/CONF. 2/C.6/37
Page 3
3. When the Organization has been brought into relationship with the
United Nations as provided for in Article 84, paragraph 1, of the present
section, the legal capacity of the Organization and the privileges and
immunities provided for in the preceding paragraphs will be defined by the
General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 November 1947,
as completed by an annex relating to the International Trade Organization.
Article 88
Contributions
Each Member shall contribute promptly to the Organization its share of
the expenditures of the Organization as apportioned by the Conference. A
Member which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to
the Organization shall have no vote in the organs of the Organization if the
amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions
due from it for the preceding two full years. The Conference may,
nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote, if it is satisfied that the
failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member. |
GATT Library | tv895kb5790 | Texts of paragraph 5 of Article 68 (Membership), Article 72 (Voting) and Article 80 (Composition and procedure of commissions) as approved on second reading : Article 68. Membership | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 2, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 02/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/60 and E/CONF.2/C.6/44-75 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tv895kb5790 | tv895kb5790_90170122.xml | GATT_148 | 488 | 3,205 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF2/C.6/60
ON DU 2 February 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
TEXTS OF PARAGRAPH 5 OF ARTICLE 68 (MEMBERSHIP), ARTICLE 72
(VOTING) AND ARTICLE 80 (COMPOSITION AND PROCEDURE OF
COMMISSIONS) AS APPROVED ON SECOND READING
Article 68
Membership
5. The Conference shall determine, by a two-thirds majority of the votes
cast, the conditions upon which, in each individual case, membership rights
and obligations shall be extended to:
(a) the Free Territory of Trieste;
(b) any Trust Territory administered by the United Nations; and
(c) any other special regime established by the United Nations.
Article 72
Voting
1. Each Member shall have one vote in the Conference.
2. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, decisions of the Conference
shall be taken by a majority of the Members present and voting, Provided
that the rules of procedure of the Conference may permit a Member to request
a second vote if the number of votes cast is less than one-half of the
Members of the Organization, in which case the decision reached on the
second vote would be final whether or not the majority of votes cast
comprises more than one-half of the Members of the Organization.
Article 80
1. Except as otherwise decided by the Conference, Commissions shall be
composed of persons chosen by the Executive Board. The persons so chosen
shall be qualified by training or experience to carry out the functions
of the Commissions,* **
* It was agreed that the Central Drafting Committee should be asked to
consider and decide whether or not the language used in this paragraph
made it absolutely clear that the Conference could not decide to elect
members of commissions on grounds other than personal capacity. If the
Central Drafting Committee considers that the language used does not make
this intention absolutely clear, it is requested to recommend an appropriate
redraft.
** It was agreed to insert in the Report of the Sixth Committee the opinion
of the Committee that normally not more than one person of the same
nationality should be a member of the same commission.
/2. The number E/CONF.2/C.6/60
Page 2
2. The number of members, which normally shall not exceed seven, of each
Commission and the conditions of their service shall be determined in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Conference.
3. Each Commission shall elect its Chairman, and shall adopt rules of
procedure which shall be subject to approval by the Executive Board,
4. The rules of procedure of the Conference and of the Executive Board
shall provide as appropriate for the participation in their deliberations,
without the right to vote, of the chairmen of Commissions.
5. The Organization shall arrange for representatives of inter-governmental
organizations considered by the Organization to have a special competence in
the field of activity of any of the Commissions, to participate in the work
of such Commissions. |
GATT Library | db823hr6279 | Texts of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 68 (Membership), Article 76 (Voting in the executive board), Article 77 (Sessions, procedure and officers of the execuitive board), Article 79 (Establishment) and functions of the commissions), Article 82 (The dir : Article 68. Membership | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 29, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 29/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/56 and E/CONF.2/C.6/44-75 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/db823hr6279 | db823hr6279_90170117.xml | GATT_148 | 1,533 | 10,271 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/56
ON DU 29 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SIXTH COMMMITTEE ORGANIZATION
TEXTS OF PARAGRAPHS 1, 2 AND 3 OF ARTICLE 68 (MEMBERSHIP), ARTICLE 76
(VOTING IN THE EXECUTIVE BOARD), ARTICLE 77 (SESSIONS, PROCEDURE
AND OFFICERS OF THE EXECUITIVE BOARD), ARTICLE 79 (ESTABLISHMENT)
AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONS), ARTICLE 82 (THE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL), ARTICLE 84 (RELATIONS WITH OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS), ARTICLE 85 (INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL,STAFF AND MEMBERS OF COMMSIONS),
ARTICLE 86 (INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STATUS OF THE ORGANIZATION),
ARTICLE 87 (STATUS OF THE ORGANIZATION IN THE TERRITORY OF MEMBERS) AND
ARTICLE 88 (CONTRIBUTIONS) AS APPROVED BY THE
SIXTH COMMITTEE ON SECOND READING
Article 68
Membership
1. The original Members of the Organization shall be:
(a) those States invited to the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Employment whose Governments accept this Charter by .......... 194.. in
accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 98, or, if the Charter shall not
have entered into force.by .......... 194.., those States whose
Governments agree to bring this Charter into force in accordance with
the proviso to paragraph 2 of Article 98;
(b) those separate customs territories invited to the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Employment upon acceptance by ......... 194..
of the Charter on their behalf by the competent Member in accordance
with paragraph 2 of Article 99, or, if this Charter shall not have.
entered into force by .. .194.., those separate customs
territories upon acceptance of this Charter on their behalf by the
competent Member in accordance. with the proviso to paragraph 2 of
Article 98. Should any of these customs territories have, by the time
it wishes to deposit an acceptance of the Charter, become fully
responsible for the formal conduct of its diplomatic relations, it
shall-proceed under sub-paragraph 1 (a) of this Article,
2. Any other State whose membership has been approved by the Conference
shall ,become a Member of the Organization upon its acceptance, in
/accordance with E/CONF.2/C.6/56
page. 2
acoordance with paragraph 1 of Article 98 of this Charter, as amended up to
the date of such acceptance.
3. Any separate customs territory not invited to the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Employment, proposed by the competent Member having
responsibility for the formal conduct of its diplomatic relations and which
is autonomus in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the
other matters provided for by this Charter and whose admission is approved by
the Conference shall become a Member upon acceptance of the Charter on its
behalf by the competent Member in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 99,
or, in the case of a territory in respect of which the Charter has been
accepted under paragraph 1 of Article 99, upon its becoming thus autonomous.
Article 76
Voting
1. Each member of the Executive Board shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Executive Board shall be made by a majority of the
votes cast.
Article 77
Sessions, procedure and Officers
1. The Executive Board shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including
rules concerning the convening of its sessions. The rules of procedure shall
be subject to confirmation by the Conference.
2. The Executive Board shall annually elect its Chairman and other officers,
who shall be eligible for re-election.
3. The Chairman of the Executive Board shall be entitled ex officio to
participate, without the right to vote, in the deliberations of the
Conference.
4. Any Member of the Organization which is not on the Executive Board shall
be invited to participate in the discussion by the Board of any matter of
particular and substantial concern to that Member and shall, for the purpose
of such discussion, have all the rights of Members on the Board, except the
right to vote.
Article 79
Establishments and Functions*
The Conference shall establish such Commissions as may be required for
the performance of the functions of the Organization in accordance with the
* The Central Drafting Committee is asked to consider whether the order of
Sections D and E of the Charter should not be reversed to conform with
with the order in Article 70.
/provisions of this E/CONF.2/C.6/56
Page 3
provisions of this. Charter. The Commissions shall have such functions as
the Conference may decide. Commissions shall report to the Executive Board
and shall perform such tasks as the Board may assign to them. The
Commissions shall consult each other as necessary for the exercise of their
functions.
Article, 82
The Director-General
1. The chief administrative officer of the Organization shall be the
Director-General. He shall be appointed by the Conference upon the
recommendation of the Executive Board, The powers, duties, conditions and
term of office of the Director-General shall conform to regulations approved
by the Conference. He shall be subject to the general supervision of the
Executive Board.
2. The Director-General. or his representative shall be entitled to
participate, without: the right to vote, in all meetings of the various organs
of the Organization.
3. The Director-General shall-present to the Conference an annual report
on the work of the Organization and the annual budget estimates and the
financial statements of the Organization.
Article 84
relations with Other Organizations
1, The Organization shall be brought into relationship with the
United Nations as soon as practicable as one of the-specialized agencies
referred to in Article 57 of the Charter-of the United Nations. This
relationship shall be effectd by agreement to be approved by the Conference.
Any such agreement shall provide for effective co-operation and the avoidance
of unnecessary duplication in the activitiess of the respective organizations.
2, The Organization shall make arrangements with other inter-governmental
organizations which have related responsibilities, to provide for effective
co-operation and the avoidance of unnecessary duplication -in the activities
of the organizations. The Organization may for this purpose arrange for joint
committees, reciprocal representation at meetings and establish such other
working relationships as may be necessary.
3. The Organization may make suitable arrangements for consultation and
co-operation with non-governmental organizations concerned with matters within
the scope of this Charter.
4. Whenever the Conference and the competent authorities of any other
inter-governmental organization whose purposes and functions lie within the
scope of this charter, deem it desirable
/(a) to incorporate E/CONF.2/C/6/56
Page 4
(a) to incorporate such other inter-governmental organizations-
into the Organization, or
(b) to effect a transfer of all or a part only of its functions,
and resources to the Organization, or
(c) to bring it under the supervision or authority of the
Organization,
the Director-General, subject to the approval of the Conferende, may enter
into an appropriate agreement. Members shall, in conformity with their
international obligations, take the action necessary to give effect to any
such agreement.
Articles 85
International Responsibilities of the Director-General,
Staff and Members of Commissions
1. The responsibilities of the Director-General and of the Staff shall
be exclusively international in character. In the discharge of their duties
they shall not seek or receive instructions from any government, or from;
any authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any
action which might prejudice their position as international officials.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply to
members of the Commissions provided for in Section D of this Chapter.
3. The Members shall respect the international character of the
responsibilities of these persons and shall not seek to influence them in
the discharge of their duties.
Article 86
International Legal Status of the Organization
The Organization shall have legal personality and shall enjoy such
legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions.
Article 87
Status of the Organization in the Territory of Members
1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members
such legal capacity, privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the
exercise of its functions.
2. Representatives of the Members of the Organization and its officials
shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as may be necessary
for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the
Organization.
3. When the Organization has been brought into relationship with the
United Nations as provided for in Article 84, paragraph 1, of the present
/section, the legal E/CONF.2/C.6/56
Page 5
section, the legal capacity of the Organization and the privileges and
immunities provided for in the preceding paragraphs will be defined by the
General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 November 1947,
as completed by an annex relating to the International Trade Organization.
Article 88
Contributions
Each Member shall contribute promptly to the Organization its share.
of the expenditures of the Organization as apportioned by the Conference.
A Member which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions
to the Organization shall have no vote in the organs of the Organization
if the amount of its arreans equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions
due from it for the preceding two full years. The Conference may,
nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote, if it is satisfied that the
failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member. |
GATT Library | nd099vb6215 | The Final Act | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 4, 1948 | 04/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/49/Rev.1 and E/CONF.2/45/REV.1/53/CORR.3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nd099vb6215 | nd099vb6215_90040108.xml | GATT_148 | 322 | 2,317 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE UNRESTRICTED
ON DU E/CONF.2/49 Rev.1
4 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
ORIGINAL :FNGLISH
THE FINAI ACT
There is set out below the text of the Final Act proposed by the
General Committee
Having regard to the terms of the Final Act, for General Committee
considers that there is no need to make provision for recording in the
Final Act or in the Charter any specific reservations which individual
delegations may wish to wake on any of the provisions of the Charter. The
General Committee considere the position of delegations on specific issues
can be adequately recorded in the reports of Sub-Committee and of Committees
or in the final declarations of individual delegates at the Plenary Sessions.
FINAL ACT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE
ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
The Economic and Social Council of the United Ntions, by a resolution
dated 18 February 1946, resoled to call an International Conference on
Trade and Employment for the purpose of promoting the expansion of the
production, exchange and consumption of good.
The Conference, which wet at Havana on 21 November 1947 and ended on
March 1948 drew up a "Charter of the International Trade Organization"
to be submitted to the Governments represented. The text of the Charter in
the English and French languages is annexed hereto and is hereby
authenticated. The authentic texts of the Charter in the Chinese, Russian
and Spanish languages will be established by the Interim Commission of the
International Trade Organization, in accordance with the procedure approved
by the Conference.
There are alo eanxed to this Final Act a resolution of the Conference
establishing an Iterim Commission of the International Trade Organization
and the other resolutions of the Conference.
INIWITNESSfOHEREOF,duley authorized representatives of their
Governments have subscribed their naws eselow.
DQatNEEa avaHa thi,s .......................... day of March, one thousand
nine hundred and forty-eigb. htin a single copy in the .................. languages |
|
GATT Library | zv028vn3950 | The Final Act | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 4, 1948 | 04/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/49/Rev.1 and E/CONF.2/45/REV.1/53/CORR.3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zv028vn3950 | zv028vn3950_90040108.xml | GATT_148 | 0 | 0 | ||
GATT Library | sk525nx6731 | The Final Act | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 6, 1948 | 06/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/49/Rev.2 and E/CONF.2/45/REV.1/53/CORR.3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sk525nx6731 | sk525nx6731_90040109.xml | GATT_148 | 362 | 2,511 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/49/Rev.2
ON 6 March 1948
DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THE FINAL ACT
There is set out below the text of the Final Act proposed by the
General Committee.
Having regard to the terms of the Final Act, for General Committee
considers that there is no need to make provision for recording in the
Final Act or in the Charter any specific reservations which individual
delegations may wish to make on any of the provisions of the Charter. The
General Committee considers the position of delegations on specific Issues
can be adequately recorded in the reports of Sub-Committees and of Committees
or in the final declarations of individual delegates at the Plenary Sessions.
FINAL ACT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE
ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMET
The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, by a resolution
dated 18 February 1946, resolved to call an International Conference on
Trade and Employment for the purpose of promoting the expansion of the
production, exchange nd consumption of goods.
The Conference, which met at Havana on 21 November 1947 and added on
March 1948, drew up a "Charter of the International Trade Organzation"
to be submitted to the Governments represented. The text of the Charter in
the English and French languages is annexed hereto and is hereby
authenticated. The authentic text of the Charter in the Chinese, Russian
and Spanish languages will be established by the Interm commission of the
International Trade Organization, in accordance with the procedure approved
by the Conference.
There are also annexed to this Final Act a resolution of the conference
establishing an Iterim Commission of the International Trade Organization
and the other resolutions of the Conference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives of their
Governments have subscribed their names below.
DONE at Havana, this ..................... day of March, one thousand
ninne hundred and forty-eight, in a single copy in the Chinese, Eglish French,
Russian and Spanish languages.
This Final Act and the documents annexed shall be deposited with the
Secretary-Gneral of the United Nations who will send certified copies to each
of the Governments represented at the Conference. |
|
GATT Library | tb415ry5367 | The Final Act | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 2, 1948 | 02/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/49 and E/CONF.2/45/REV.1/53/CORR.3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tb415ry5367 | tb415ry5367_90040107.xml | GATT_148 | 329 | 2,247 | United Nations Nations Unies
UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE
ON DU E /CONF.2/49
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 2 march 1984
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THE FINAL ACT
There is set out below the text of the Final Act proposed by the
General Committee.
Having regard to the terms of the Final Act, the General Committee
considers that there is no need to make provision for recording in the
Final Act or in the Charter any specific reservations which individual
delegations may wish to make on any of the provisions of the Charter. The
General Committee considers the position of delegations on specific issues
can be adequately recorded in the reports of Sub-Committees and of Committees
or in the final declarations of individual delegates at the Plenary Sessions.
FINAL ACT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE
ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
The Economic and Sccial Council of the United Nations, by a Resolution
dated 18 February 1946, resolved to call an International Conference on
Trade and Employment for the purpose of promoting the expansion of the
production, exchange and consumption of goods.
The Conference, which met at Havana on 21 November 1947, and ended on
March 1948, drew up a "Charter of the International Trade Organization"
to be submitted to the Governments represented. The text of the Charter In
the English and French languages is annexed hereto and is hereby
Authenticated. The authentic texts of the Charter in the Chinese, Russian
and Spanish languages will be established by the Interim Commission of the
International Trade Organization in accordance with the procedure approved
by the Conference.
There is also annexed to this Final Act a resolution of the Conference
establishing an Interim Commission of the International Trade Organization
and the other resolutions of the Conference.
/IN WITNESS E/CONF.2 /49
Page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly Authorized representatives of their
Governments have subscribed their names below.
DONE at Havana, this ..... ... day of .......... 1948,
in a single copy in the .......... .......................languages. |
|
GATT Library | nq693xd0597 | The Final Act : Note by the Executive Secretary | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 8, 1948 | 08/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/49/Rev.3 and E/CONF.2/45/REV.1/53/CORR.3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nq693xd0597 | nq693xd0597_90040110.xml | GATT_148 | 418 | 2,756 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE E/CONF 2. /49/Rev. 3
CONFERENCE
ON DU 8 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THE FINAL ACT
NOTE BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
There is reproduced below the text of the Final Act as recommended,
by the General Committee with certain minor drafting modifications to
bring it up to date.
If this document is to be ready for signature in all five languages
by the end of the Conference it will be necessary for the Conference to
approve a text within the near future in order that the translation and
printing may proceed while the final items of business of the Conference
are being dealt with. Accordingly, it is suggested that a Plenary Meeting
of the Conference should give consideration to this text as soon as the
method of establishing the Interim Commission has been determined.For
the purpose of approving a text of the Final Act a Plenary Meeting of the
Conference will probably be called for some date before the end of the
present week.
FINAL ACT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERNCE
ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, by a resolution
dated 18 February 1946, resolved to call an International Conference on
Trade and Employment for the purpose of promoting the expansion of the
production, exchange and consumption of goods.
The Conference, which met at Havana on 21 November 1947 and ended on
March 1948, drew up the Havana Charter for an International Trade
Organization to be submitted to the Governments represented. The text of
the Charter in the English and french languages is annexed hereto and is
hereby authenticated. The authentic txt of the Charter in the Chinese,
Russian and Spanish languages will be established by the Interim Commission
of the International Trade Organization, in accordance with the procedure
approved by the Conference.
There are also annexed to this Final Act a resolution of the Conference
establishing an Interim commission of the International Trade Organization
and the other resolutions of the Confrence.
/This E/CONF.2/49/Rev.3 page 2
This Final Act and the documents annexed shall be deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations who will send certifieds copies to
each of the Governments represented at the Conference.
IN WIWHTRNOFEESS E the duly authorized representatives of their
Governments have subscribed their names below.
DONE at Havana, this ................... day of March, one
thousand nine hundred and forty-eight in a single copy in the Chinese,
English, French, Russian and Spanish languages. |
|
GATT Library | jd806zd8023 | The Final Act : Note by the Executive Secretary | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 7, 1948 | 07/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/BUR/21, E/CONF.2/W/1-15, E/CONF.2/BUR.1-39, and E/CONF.2/BUR/W.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jd806zd8023 | jd806zd8023_90180187.xml | GATT_148 | 276 | 1,968 | United Nations Nations Unies RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/BUR/21 7 January 1948
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THE FINAL ACT
Note by the Executive Secretary
At its last meeting, the General Committee considered document
E/CONF.2/BUR/17 and agreed that at the conclusion of the Conference, there
should be a Final Act. The Committee considered that certain changes were
desirable in the draft contained in E/CONF.2/BUR/17 and the following
amended draft is therefore submitted for consideration by the Committee:
"FINAL ACTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE
ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations by a
Resolution dated 18 February 1946, resolved to call an international
Conference on Trade and Employment for the purpose of promoting
the expansion of the production, exchange and consumption of goods.
The Conference which convened in Havana on 21 November 1947,
and concluded on. 1948, drew up a Charter of the International
Trade Organization. The texts of the Charter in the English and
French languages are annexed hereto and are hereby authenticated.
There is also annexed to this Final Act an arrangement for the
establishment of an Interim Commission of the International Trade
Organization signed by the parties thereto, and the resolutions of
the Conference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Representatives signed
this Final Act.
DONE at Havana, this ............... day of ....... , 194....
in a single copy in the English and French [chinese, English, French,
Russian and. Spanish] languages, each text being equally authentic.
This Final Act shall be deposited with the Secretary-General
of the United Nations who will send certified copies to each of
the signatories of this Final Act." |
|
GATT Library | pb251hx5068 | The following changes to press release ITO/211 - Mr. P. Grousset's speech - were requested by the French Delegation | United Nations Conference on Trade & Employment, March 23, 1948 | Department of Public Information Havana, Cuba and United Nations Conference on Trade & Employment | 23/03/1948 | press releases | PRESS RELEASE ITO/211/Add.1 and ITO/195-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pb251hx5068 | pb251hx5068_90200402.xml | GATT_148 | 371 | 2,183 | UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE & EMPLOYMENT
Department of Public Information
PRESS RELEASE ITO/211/Add.1
23 March 1948
THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO PRESS RELEASE ITO/211 -
MR. P. GROUSSET'S SPEECH - WERE REQUESTED BY THE
FRENCH DELEGATION.
1. Insert the following introductory passage on top of page 1:
"In the absence of Mr. Andre Philip, Head of the French
delegation, and following the instructions I received from my Govern-
ment, it is my privilege to express in a few words before this
illustrious assembly, the feelings of the members of the French
Delegation on the eve of the signing of the Final Act of this
International Organization."
2. Insert the following passages at the end of the speech:
"After the proceding passages which express with sincerity
the true feelings of all the members of the French Delegation, I must
tell you how happy I was to speak in this room which, being the seat
of the Cuban Congress, is also the Center itself of the Cuban
Republic, If all friends of this beautiful country have had the
satisfaction to see Havana selected as the seat of the ITO Conference,
I can assure you that the choice was more than agreeable to France
because of her traditional friendship with Cuba. AIl Frenchmen are
happy to think of Victor Hugo, the first poet who, from his exile in
Guernesay, sang of the courage of the Cubans fighting for their
independence and none of my compatriots could over forget that it was
Cuba which gave us two geniuses who are the honor of France, namely
the poet Jose Maria de Heredia, and Dr. Joeaquin Albarran, who made a
tremendous contribution to the medical science in France.
It is for aIl these reasons that, in the name of France and of
all those who honor in my country the Republic of Cuba, I wish to
thank, once more, the Government of His Excellency, Dr. Grau San
Martin for the generous hospitality he has given to the Representatives
of the United Nations, who from November till today have worked so
effectively and so wholeheartedly on the construction of an edifice
which will prove itself so valuable for the peace of the world."
(END OF PRESS RELEASE ITO/211/Add.1) |
GATT Library | nk133nf2930 | The following corrections to DOC ITO/208 had been requested by the Delegate of Luxemburg. Mr. J. Woulbrown | United Nations Conference on Trade Employment, March 23, 1948 | Department of Public Information Havana, Cuba and United Nations Conference on Trade Employment | 23/03/1948 | press releases | ITO/208/Corr.1 and ITO/195-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nk133nf2930 | nk133nf2930_90200399.xml | GATT_148 | 356 | 2,127 | UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE & EMPLOYMENT
Department of Public Information
Havana, Cuba
ITO/208/Corr. 1
23 March 1948
THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO DOC ITO/208 HAD BEEN
REQUESTED BY THE DELEGATE OF LUXEMBURG. MR. J. WOULBROWN
(1) eliminate "in order" in last sentence of paragraph 5 on page 1.
(2) add following sentence to paragraph 1 on page 2:
"I still think that in the very interested of the
economically underdeveloped countries, Article 12
could have been improved."
(3) replace "love" by "like" in first sentence of paragraph 2 on
page 2. .
(4) eplace "cultivated" by "tilled" in line 2 of same paragraph.r
(5) add "when" to line 5 of same paragraph. grp hh,
sert "when" between "and" and "they" in line 6 of samelîir-1a sm
, r - a
ace "little" by "small" in line 1 of paragraph 3 on page 3.rr.nh 3 or 3.
"participated" by "prospere" in line 2 of paragraphne 2 of nr.-rqh
4 on s-oi nas.
e "this same ingenuity" in line 3 of paragraph 6 on3 oe n .,r 6 on
ow up "human ingenuity has overcome everyn-, nuity h--s oVca cvary
llffieuomet" with dn.n-1 wi es.crco future -ifficultia s"
tly insurmountable" in line 1 of paragraph 7.a" in lin2 1 oL p;ragrap7
hich seemed insuperable art whichh Sp.o insurarDe few months
in same line.if-icu1tia s" i.n sa;s 1in
to Mr. Dana Wilgress" in last line of sameilgress:I in l2-st linr oof oo
p?~rmgr-an
f paragraph ., first sant;rge cf p7r-i&grph 9 to 'humrn in-cnuity in
ved its refiduring has rlso 1r=v:-' itself -iurin, the ne-
-:ti-anitC ns rcBcarsly ov-..-l1',
13) insert aindneph oni'in line 1 of lcat poragranh cf p-ae 3
aftor " tribute ta the"
14) e insert avagraphn linage of thn first p-r-'.gr- on pie 4
bafore "skilful".
15) Chen4oas ha first p,rmgrnph of paga 2 s follows:
ful diplomat, to;o to that syilf'u1 Oip1oniat aur
, to the able 1, i--ix Suter,s, to the -ab1c
n-White and to allrtry, 14r. Uiyn-lh'r*--ihitc -nto a11
thoda elped whc cwcair-ito with us an1 hainl-1 us
weth lai their skill .n-' with all thnir he-rts,"
(END OF PRESS RELEASE ITO/203/Corr.1) |
GATT Library | fv781vm4708 | The following corrections to ITO/178 ( Sardar H. S. Malik's speech) have been requested by the India | United Nations Conference on Trade Employment, March 23, 1948 | Department of Public Information Havana, Cuba and United Nations Conference on Trade Employment | 23/03/1948 | press releases | ITO/178/Corr.2 and ITO/73-194/CORR. 1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fv781vm4708 | fv781vm4708_90200377.xml | GATT_148 | 310 | 1,790 | UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE & EMPLOYMENT
Department of Public Information
Havana, Cuba
ITO/178/Corr. 2
23 March 1948
THE FOLLOWIN CORRECTIONS TO ITO/178 ( SARDAR H. S.
MALIK'S SPECH) HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE INDIA
DELEGATION:
(1) Replace in the first line of page l "We have assembled
here today to place" by "We have now reached the stage of placing".
(2) Insert the following pgssage after the words
success here" on top of page 3;
"Reference has bfeen made at some length to Article 86 and
its bearing on the maingtenance of the Rule of Law. With regard to
this all I wish to say is that we in the Indian Delegation arc
gratified at the clear and unequivocal veodict of this Conference that
matters which are essentially political should be kept outside the
scope of this Organization ani left to the jurisdiction of those
organs of the United Nations which have beon created to deal mainly
with such matters. We believe, Mr. President, that by taking this
decision this Conference has, far from hempering the operation of the
Rule of Law rather promoted it by requiring political issues to be
judged in the political forum where alone they can be viewed in all
their aspects.
(3) Insert the following passage after "enjoyable" in line
2 od page 4:
"I confess I ias at one time one of those who shuddered at
the thought - sometimes voiced at one stage of the Conference - that
the difficulties to be overcomw were too great and that the Conference
Should be adjourned. But as the insidious charm of Havana and its
attractive people wirked on me I almost began to wish that we would
have an adjournment and another session of the Conference next year ,
always provided of course thatf it could be held at Havana!
(END OF ITO/178/Dorr. 2.) |
GATT Library | yj441tc7057 | The International Customs Tariff Bureau | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, 1948-07-00 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) and Executive Committee | 01/07/1948 | official documents | ICITO/EC.2/2/Add.4 and ICITO/EC.2/INF.1-3 ICITO/EC.2/1-2/ADD.4 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yj441tc7057 | yj441tc7057_90060180.xml | GATT_148 | 568 | 3,833 | INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE UNRESTRICTED
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE ICITO/EC.2/2/Add.4 1948
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Second session
Item 4 (e) of the provisional agenda
THE INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMS TARIFF BUREAU
Document ICITO/EC.2/Add.5 contains a description of the International
Customs Tariff Bureau. This Bureau was established in Brussels in 1891
with almost universal membership. Its object is to translate and publish
in five languages (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish) the
customs tariffs of all countries. The tariffs and amendments are published
in the International Tariff Bulletin. Enquiries reveal a high regard for
the work of the Bureau. Members of the staff of the Bureau gave valuable
assistance during the negotiations of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade.
The Bureau has, however, been experiencing increasing difficulties in
carrying on. Faced with rising costs and the increasing complexity and
variability of tariffs, the Bureau has had to limit the scope of its
publication to only the minimum of essential material. Even so, the
maintenance of its work is seriously handicapped by financial difficulties
and consequent shortage of staff. A fortiori, any extension of the work
at present being performed by the Bureau, for example, complete up-to-date
publication of all tariffs and amendments, would demand a substantial
increase in the finances and personnel of the Bureau.
The functions of the Bureau are essential to the purposes of the ITO
and Article 38 (1) makes express provision for prompt publication "in
such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted
with them", of all regulations pertaining to rates of duties, taxes, charges,
etc. It would appear that the continuation and extension of the work of
the Bureau would be the best way to fulfil this responsibility. If that
is accepted, the next question is as to the steps to be taken by the ITO.
The relevant provision of the Havana Charter is Article 87 (3) which
provides
/"3. Whenever ICITO/EC. 2/2/Add. 4
Page 2
"3. Whenever the Conference and the competent authorities of
any inter-governmental organization whose purposes and functions lie
within the scope of this Charter deem it desirable
(a) to incorporate such inter-governmental organization into
the Organization, or
(b) to transfer all or part of its functions and resources to
the Organization, or
(c) to bring it under the supervision or authority of the
Organization,
the Director-General, subject to the approval of the Conference, may
enter into an appropriate agreement. The Members shall, in conformity
with their international obligations, take the action necessary to
give effect to any such agreement."
Of these alternatives, (a) or (b) would, it is suggested, be the most
satisfactory to the International Trade Organization. If the work is to
be done, it will have, in any case, to be substantially financed by the
International Trade Organization and therefore it is desirable that the
work should be under the immediate direction of the Director-General of
the International Trade Organization. Absorption would, moreover, probably
be more economical than maintaining the Bureau as a separate entity since
the common services of the Organization would cover the requirements of the
staff engaged in this work.
If the Executive Committee concurs in this recommendation, it is
suggested that the Secretariat be instructed to prepare, in consultation
with the Bureau, a draft of a suitable arrangement for submission, after
approval by the Committee, to the first Conference of the International Trade
Organization. |
GATT Library | bh678pd6356 | The Report of Working Party II of Sub-Committee C of Committee II | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 27, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development | 27/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/C/W.8, E/CONF.2/C.2/B/W.1-14, and C.2/C/W.1-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bh678pd6356 | bh678pd6356_90180325.xml | GATT_148 | 395 | 2,814 | United Nations Nations Unies RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.2/C/W.8
ON DU 27 January, 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
THE REPORT OF WORKING PARTY II OF SUB-COMMITTE C OF COMMITTEE II
The Working Party II of Sub-Committee C, appointed to consider the text
of sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2, Article 13, and the amendment proposed
by the delegation of Cuba, agreed unanimously on the following text:
2. (c) If as a result of action initiated under this paragraph, there
should be an increase in the importations of the product or products
concerned, including products which can be directly substituted
therefor, which if continued would be so great as to jeopardize
substantially the plans of the applicant Member for the establishment,
development or reconstruction of the industry, industries or branches
of agriculture concerned, and if no preventive measures consistent
with this Charter can be found which seem likely to prove effective,
the applicant Member may, after informing, and when practicable
consulting with the Organization, adopt such other measures as the
situation may require provided that such measures do not restrict
imports more than necessary to offset the increase in imports
referred to in this sub-paragraph. Except in unusual circumstances
such measures shall not reduce imports below the level obtaining in
the most recent representative period preceding the date on which
the Member's original notification was made under sub-paragraph (a)
of this paragraph. The Organization shall determine, as soon as
practicable, whether such measures should be continued, discontinued
or modified. It is recognized that the contractual relationships
referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph involve
reciprocal advantages, and therefore any other Member with whose
contractual rights such action conflicts, and whose trade is
materially affected by the action, may suspend the application to
the trade of such Member of such substantially equivalent obligations
or concessions under Chapter IV, the suspension of which the
Organization does not disapprove. Any Member intending to suspend
such application shall consult the Organization before doing so.
/The Sub-Committee E/CONF.2/C .2/C/W.8
Page 2
The Sub-Committee also agreed that the decision reached by the
Sub-Committee established by the Sixth Committee to consider Chapter VIII of
the Charter, as set out in document E/CONF.2/C.6/49, met the purpose of the
Cuban proposal. The delegate of Cuba, present at the meeting of the Working
Party concurred with this view. |
GATT Library | py956qv3197 | The status of the Agreement and protocols. Statement by the Chairman on the question raised by South Africa | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 23, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 23/08/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/17 and GATT/CP.2/13/Add.2,3 CP.2/14-22, CP.2/22/Add.1,Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/py956qv3197 | py956qv3197_90320030.xml | GATT_148 | 962 | 5,796 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.2/17
23 August 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Contracting Parties
Second Session
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
THE STATUS OF THE AGREEMENT AND PROTOCOLS
STATEPMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON THE QUESTION RAISED BY
SOUTH AFRICA
I now wish to revert to the questions raised by the
representative of the Union of South Africa with reference
to the communication addressed by his government to the
Secretary General of the United Nations.
In his statements before the Contracting Parties, the
South African representative raised two questions, both of
which are closely related to each other. One question was
the legal validity of the Protocol modifying certain
provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The other question was the proposal to approve at this
Session a Protocol similar to the Protocol drawn up at our
First Session, but with certain words in the first
paragraph of Article XXXV deleted.
We have had a very full exchange of views on the
question of the legal validity of the Protocol drawn up at
our last Session in Havana. I have considered carefully
the arguments advanced on both sides and I have consulted
with the Legal Adviser of the Secretariat.
It is always difficult to resolve questions of a
juridical character in a body of this kind, nor can we
regard ourselves as a court of last resort. Our duty has
been to hear and weigh the arguments and then to decide
if a case has been made out to invalidate on legal grounds
action taken by the Contracting Parties on a previous
occasion. I have reached the conclusion that the South
African representative has not established his case to the
satisfaction of the Contracting Parties.
Weighty arguments have been advanced by other
representatives to support the legal validity of what was
done at Havana.
In coming to my conclusion, I have considered
carefully what in fact was done at Geneva. The signature
of the Final Act at Geneva was not an agreement between the
signatories. It was an authentication of a text drawn up
by the participants but not necessarily agreed to by all of
them. Their agreement to it was meant to depend upon
subsequent acceptance.
At any time before this text of the Agreement is
accepted in accordance with its provisions, the same
signatories could meet together to very the text, again GATT/Cp.2/17
page 2
without implying that all of them would agree with all of
the text. But if the majority do agree on a varied text,
then it appears to me logical that this text should be the
one which is then open for acceptance, otherwise you would
get the absurd position that there would be open for
acceptance a text to which only a minority could be
expected to agree and which, therefore, only a minority
could be expected ultimately to accept or apply. If some
of the signatories object to a variation which a majority
wish to introduce, their acceptance of the original text
would in effect be an acceptance of the revised text
lying for acceptance with a reservation. It would then
be for the Contracting Parties, i.e. the signatories who
have accepted the revised text, to consider the effect of
the reservation and they could either agree to admit the
government concerned notwithstanding its reservation or
regard the acceptance as not being directed to the text
lying for acceptance.
In the same way, as regards the Protocol of
Provisional Application, at Havana the then Contracting
Parties and the Geneva signatories who were still
considering becoming Contracting Parties by signing the
Protocol before 30 June, met together and by a large
majority agreed to vary the text to which the Protocol
should apply.
A number of governments thereafter, by signing the
Protocol of Provisional Application indicated their
willingness to apply and proceeded to apply the Agreement
as revised. South Africa, which dissented from the
Havana variation, signed the Protocol of Provisional
Application in the knowledge of the variation and now asks
the Contracting Parties to accord to South Africa the rights
which it would have had if the text to which the Protocol
applies had not been varied. In effect this would mean
calling upon all the signatories of the Protocol subsequent
to Havana to accept obligations which derive from a text to
which it had been agreed between them and between the prior
signatories that the Protocol should not apply. I feel
that the logical conclusion is that South Africa could not
by a signature affixed in these circumstances acquire
rights from other signatories which arise from a text which
the others did not accept. On the other hand, I do not
think that we should go to the length of saying that South
Africa by her signature which took place on one
construction of the circumstances should be held to have
accepted a provision which she has not accepted or at
least did not intend to accept. I think we should adopt a
less legalistic position and try to settle this matter
more or less on the following lines. We should not try
to force Article XXXV on South Africa but at the same time,
we could not impose on the Contracting Parties obligations
which they had not accepted. Would it not therefore be
best that we note that South Africa cannot accept Article
XXXV but at the same time we determine the obligations of
other Contracting Parties to South Africa in accordance
with the obligations which they have accepted by agreeing
to apply provisionally the revised text?
Of course if we then accept South Africa as a
contracting party, it is open to her to introduce an
amendment which would then be dealt with in accordance
with the relevant provisions of the GATT. |
GATT Library | qr706gm1216 | The status of the Agreement and protocols : Statement by the Indian Delegation in reply to the Statement by the representative of South Africa (GATT/CP.2/14) | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 21, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 21/08/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/16 and GATT/CP.2/13/Add.2,3 CP.2/14-22, CP.2/22/Add.1,Corr.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qr706gm1216 | qr706gm1216_90320029.xml | GATT_148 | 1,851 | 11,521 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.2/16
21 August 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session
THE STATUS OF THE AGREEMENT AND PROTOCOLS
State:ient by the Indian Delegation in reply to the
Statement by the representative of South Africa
(GATT/CP.2/14) .
The Indian Delegation have not had adequate notice of
this item which was not included in the Provisional Agenda
circulated to Governments like the South African Delegation;
however, the Indian Delegation also have consulted the best
legal opinion available in their country, and have advised
that the validity of the Protocols adopted at the First Session
of the Contracting Parties held at Havana is beyond question.
Before discussing the legal - position, the Indian Delega-
tion would like to stress the practical aspects of this matter.
The South African Delegate has described it as a startling,
position to amend at the discretion of a few countries which
become Contracting Parties in advance of others, an agreement
in respect of which a larger number of countries have signed
a Final Act. The position is that the Protocols of Amendments
to which the South African delegate has taken objection have
already been approved and signed by 21 out of 23 countries
which signed the Final Act at Geneva. The particular amendment
in the Protocol which has caused difficulty for South Africa
is the one relating, to the new Article XXXV which permits a
Contracting, Party to withhold his consent to the Agreement
being applied between itself and any other contracting party
with which it has had no negotiations. Of thle 22 countries
which have become contracting parties to the Agreement, only 2,
namely India and Pakistan, have taken advantage of the right
conferred by the new Article and the have done so for political
reasons of utmost gravity to them which are well-knowm to all
the countries present where. These two facts show the practical
implications of the procedure adopted be the 21 out of the 23
signatories to the Geneva Final Act.
The South African Delegate has .maintained that it would
cause a degree of uncertainty which would be ruinous to world
trade and development , if an international instrument once
established were subjected to frequent amendments. The Indian
Delegation considers that this argument assumes a finality in
human wisdom and a perfectly static condition in human affairs.
Amendments are inevitable, if the Agreement is to develop as a
dynamic instrument capable of meeting changing circumstances
and now points of view as and when they emerge. GATT/CP.2/16
page 2
The legal argument put forward by the Delegte of South
Africa may be briefly summarized as as follows: The Final Act of
Geneva and the Protocol of Provisional Application taken
together confer upon the signatories to the Final Act a right
to subscribe to the Agreement any time before the 30th June 1948
in terms agreed. No amendment to the text established by the
Final Act can , therefore, be contemplated before the 30th
June 1948 except by the unanimous consent of all the signatories
to the Final Act. The South African Delegations have made a
distinction between the rights of the contracting parties
applying the agreement on a provisional basis and those applying
it on a definitive basis. They have maintained that Article XXX
which provides for the amendment procedure come into offect
only when the Agreement enters definitively. into force, because
so far as Article XXX in concerned, there are at present no
contracting parties. On this ground, the South African
Delegation hold that. the protocols adopted at Havana are null
and void, unless their receive the consent of all the signat-
ories to the Geneva Final Act.
The Indian Delegation maintains that if the South African
contention is held valid, we shall be reduced to the extremely
anonalous position that any country which has signed the Final
Act, but has no no intention of becoming a party to the Agreement,
can voto an amendment which the parties to the Agreement wish
to carry out. The signatories of the Final Act do not by
the terms of that instrument, incur any obligation whatever.
To confor a voto on them would amount to conforring rights
without obligations Equity demands that rights and obliga-
tions should go together unless the parties to the Agreement
have themselves decided in the terms of the Agreement itself,
to give away rights without prescribing obligations, which is
certainly not the caase here The distinction drawn b the
South African Delegation between Contracting Parties amplying
the agreement provisionally and those applying it dofinitively
is also without substance. Under Article XXXII, contracting
parties applying the Agreement provisionally and those applying
it definitively have exactly the same rights. Under Article
XXV, Para. 1, it has been agreed that them contracting, parties
should meet from ime to time for the purpose of giving effect
to "those provisions of this agreement which involve joint
action and generally with a view to facilitating the operation
and furthering the objectives of this Agreement." One of the
provisions of the Agreement which involves joint action is
Article XXX dealing with amendments, If the SouthAfrican
contention that Article XXX does not apply, until the Agreement
enters definititively into force was to have any validity,
Article XX should have been specifically c::cluded froi-L tho
joint action which the contracting, parties are authorized to
take under Paral of Article XXV. If, moveover it were intended
that the contracting parties should postpone such action until
after the 30th June 1948, the provision contained in Para. 2 of
Articlc XXV for tho first meeting of the Contracting Parties
to be held in March 1948 would have been qualified to make
that intention clear. Even if therefore, for the sake of
argument and argument alone, it were assumed that the signatories
to the Geneva Final Act are entitled to subscribe to the Agree-
ment in terms agreed at Geneva we must conclude that the
right of the Contracting Parties to amend the agreements is
part of the terms agreed. The claim put forward by the Delegate
for South Africa, therefore, that the contracting parties have
no right to amend the agreement has no legal validity. GATT/CP.2/16
page 3
In fact, the contracting parties at the meeting in
Havan did not rely entirely on their legal rights but slave
the other signatories to the Geneva Final Act fullest possible
opportunities to participate in their deliberations. As
already stated, the amendments in question were duly approved
by 21 out of the 23 signatories to the Geneva Final Act.
Where the Contracting Parties have not resorted to the
amendment procedure laid down in the Agreement, they have
stipulated the unanimous consent of the Contracting Parties
for any amendment to be effective. It is the inherent right
of the parties to an agreement to amend the agreement in
any way they please by unanimous consent - a right which is
too obvious to need a specific provision in the agreement
itself.
If the Protocols contained in the new Article XXXV
wore held null and void, it is not merely that Article but
the whole lot of the other amendment contained in that
Protocol that will go by the board. One of these other amend-
ments is the one which Provides for accession by new countries
with the approval of two thirds majority was, as pointed out
by the Delegate for the United States, part of one of the key
agreements concluded at Havana with the Latin American and
other countries. It was considered imperative to carry out
this amendment immediately in order to give satisfaction to
a large number of countries represented at Havana. If we
are to go back on it we shall not merely be breaking faith
with those countries but also create a situation which will
imperil the success of the now tariff negotiations on which
we are about to embark.
The Delegate for South Africa has expressed his part-
icular objection to Article XXXVV and, despite his antipathy
to amendments which according his cause uncertainty,
has suggested an amendment to that article restricting. its
scope to Article II only. In doing so he has warned us of
the inadvisability of permitting, unilateral action and has
remainded us that we must all be prepared to sacrifice some
measure of our national autonomy in the interest of the common
good. How we wish that South Africa had herself set an
example by practicing the noble principles which she preaches
with such eloquence at international conferences. If the
Government of South Africa had not disregarded the clear
amendate given by the United Nations on the particular issue
which is the cause of dispute between South Africa and India,
all this trouble would have been saved.
The action permitted by Article XXXV would not appear
"unilateral" if it is considered in its proper contact. In
fact, the special situation between India and South Africa
was implicitly recognized by both the countries neither of
which ever expressed. any desire to enter into negotiations
with the other. The proposal of South Aflrica to make Article
1 (most-favoured-nation treatment) applicable between India
and South. Africa 'has its roots in much deeper political
circumstances and canot be affected by any logalistic
quibbling about the virtue of this Agreement. The South
African Delegae has started that his government could never GATT/CP.2/16
thingk of setting its hand to the General Agreement with
Article XXXV in it. So far as the Indian Delegation is
concerned all the benefits accuring from the General
Agreement are as nothing to that government when compared
with the serious implications with the application of the
Agreement between India and South Africa has for India' s
national prostige.
India has concluded satisfactory tariff arrangements
with may of the countries present at this table and. as
pointed out by the Delegate for the United States, it will be
a pity if all these arrangements have to be scrapped merely
because of the purely formal difficulties. experienced by
only one country namely South Africa. So long as there is
no trade between India and South Africa, any attempt at
applying agreement between them will be ipso facto fruitless
and will not be worth the sacrifice ,which it is bound to
involve, of the concessions granted by India (and I dare
say Pakistan, which is in the same position as India) to
a large number of other contracting parties. As already
stated only two Contracting Parties, namely India and
Pakistan have so far exercised teir right under A'irticle
XXXV. There has so far been no evidence of any frivolous
or arbitrary use of this right. In order to meet the fears
expressed at Havana that the right may be unjustifiably used
by some countries, the Indian Delegation was the first to
suggest the existing Para.2 of that Article, which provides
for a review of the operation of the Article by the Contracting
Parties. The statement made by by the South African Delegation
contains no evidence of any arbitrary or unjustifiable use of
that Article which would warrant such a review by the
Contracting Parties at this time. |
GATT Library | kc543cy6753 | The text of Chapter V as approved by Committee IV | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 19, 1948 | Fourth Committee: Restrictive Business Practices | 19/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.4/14 and E/CONF.2/C.4/1-25 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kc543cy6753 | kc543cy6753_90190657.xml | GATT_148 | 2,355 | 15,951 | UNRESTRICTED
United Nations Nations Unies E/CONF.2/C.4/14
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 19 January1948
ON DU ORIGINAL: . ENGLISH
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
FOURTH COMMITTEE: RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES
THE TEXT OF CHAPTER V AS APPROVED BY COMMITTE IV
Article 44
General Policy Towards Restrictive Business Practices
1. Each Member shall take appropriate measures: and. shall co-operate with
the Organization, to prevent, on the part of private or public commercial
enterprises, business practices affecting international trade which restrain
competition, limit access to markets, or foster monopolistic control,
whenever such practices have harmful effects on the expansion of production
or trade and interfere with the achievement of any of the other objectives
set forth in Article 1.
2. Without limiting the generality of paragraph 1 of this Article, and
in order that the Organization may decide in a particular instance whether
certain practices have or are about to have any of the effects described
in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Members agree that complaints regarding
any of the practices listed in paragraph 3 of this Article shall be subject
to investigation in accordance with the procedure regarding complaints
provided in Articles 45A and 47, whenever
(a) such a complaint is presented to the Organizaticn; and
(b) the practices are engaged, in or are made effective by one
or more private or public commercial enterprises or by a
combination, agreement or other arrangement between commercial
enterprises, whether between private commercial enterprises,
between public commercial enterprises, or between private and
public commercial enterprises; and
(c)such commercial enterprises, individually or collectively,
possess effective control of trade among a number of countries
in one or more products.
3. The practices referred to in paragraph 2 of this Aiticle are the
following:
(a) fixing-prices, terms or conditions to be observed in dealing
with others inl the purchase, sale or lease of any product;
(b)excluding enterprises from any territorial market or field
of business activity, allocating or dividing any territorial market
/or field E/CONF.2/C.4/14
Page 2
or field or field of business activity, allocating customers, or
fixing sales quotas or purchase quotas;
(c) discriminating against particular enterprises;
(d) limiting production or fixing production quotas;
(e) preventing by agreement the development or application of
technology or invention whether patented or unpatented;
(f) extending the use of rights under patents, trade markets
or copyrights granted by ay Member, to matters which are
determined by its system of law not to be within the scope of
such grants, or to products or conditions of production, use or
sale which are similarly determined not to be the subjects of
such grants;
(g) any similar practices which the Organization by a majority
of two-thirds of the Members present and voting may from time to
time decide are restrictive business practices.
Article 45
Procedure with Respect to Consultations
Any affected Member which considers that in any particular instance a
practice exists. (whether engaged in by private or public commercial
enterprises) which has or is about to have the effect described in paragraph 1
of Article 44 may consult other Members directly or request the Organization
to arrange for consultation with particular Members with a view to reaching
mutually satisfactory conclusions. If requested by the Member and if it
considers such action to be justified, the Oranization shall arrange for
and assist in such consultation. Action under this Article shall be without
prejudice to the procedure provided for in Article 45A.
Article 45A
Procedure with Respect to Investigation
1. Any affected Member on its own behalf or any Member on behalf of any
affected person, enterprise or organization within that Member's jurisdiction,
may in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 or Article 44 present a written
complaint to the Organization that in any particular instance a practice
exists (whether engaged in by private or public commercial enterprises) which
has or is about to have the effect described in paragraph 1 of Article 44.
PROVIDED that in the case of complaints against a single public commercial
enterprise acting independently of any other enterprise, such complaints may
be presented only by a Member on its own behalf and only after the Member has
resorted to the procedure in Article 45.
2. The Organization shall prescribe the minimum information to be included
in complaints. The information shall give substantial indication of the
/naturee and E/CONF.2/C.4/14
Page 3
nature and harmful effects of the practices.
3. The Organization shall consider each complaint presented in accordance
with paragraph 1 of this Article. If the Organization deems it appropriate
it shall request Members concerned to furnish supplementary information, for
example, information from commercial enterprises within their Jurisdiction.
After reviewing the relevant information the Organization shall decide whether
an investigation is Justified.
4. If the Organization decides that an investigation is justified, it shall
inform all Members of the complaint, request any Member to furnish such
additional information relevant to the complaint as the Organization may deem
necessary, and shall conduct or arrange for hearings on the complaint. Any
Member, and any person, enterprise or organization on whose behalf the
complaint has been made, as well as the commercial enterprises alleged to
have engaged in the practice complained of, shall be afforded reasonable
opportunity to be heard.
5. The Organization shall review all information available and decide
whether the conditions specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 44 are
present and the practices in question have had, have or are about to have
the effect described in paragraph1 of that Article.
6. The Organization shall inform all Members of its decision and the
reasons therefor.
7. If the Organization decides that in any particular case the conditions
specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 44 are present and that the
practices in question have had, have or are about to have the effect
described in paragraph 1 of that Article, it shall request each Member
concerned to take every possible remedial action, and may also recommend to
the Members concerned remedial measures to be carried out in accordance with
their respective laws and procedures.
8. The Organization may request any Member concerned to report fully to the
remedial action it has taken in any particular case.
9. As soon as possible after its proceeding in respect of any complaint
under this Article have been provisionally or finally closed, the Organization
shall prepare and publish a report showing fully the decisions reached, the
reasons therefore and any measures recommended to the Members concerned. The
Organization shall not, if a Member so requests, disclose confidential
information furnished by that Member, which if disclosed would substantially
damage the legitimate business intereste of a commercial enterprises.
10. The Organization shall report to all Members and make public the remedial
action which has been taken by the Members concerned in any particular case.
/Article 46 E/CONF.2/C.4/14
Page 4
Article 46
Studies Relating to Restrictive Business Practices
1. The Organization is authorized
(a) to conduct studies, either on its own initiative or at the
request of any Member or of any organ of the United Nations or
of any other inter-governmental organization relating to
(i) general aspects of restrictive business practices
affecting international trade; and
(ii) conventions, laws and procedures concerning, for
example, incorporation, company registration,
investments, securities, prices, markets, fair
trade practices, trade marks, copyrights, patents
and the exchange and development of technology
insofar as they are relevant to restrictive
business practices affecting international trade;
and
(iii) the registration of restrictive business agreements
and other arrangements affecting international trade;
and
(b) to request information from Members in connection with such
studies.
2. The Organization is authorized
(a) to make recommendations to Members concerning such conventions,
laws and procedures as are relevant to their obligations under this
Chapter, and
(b) to arrange for conferences of Members to discuss any matters
relating to restrictive business practices affecting international
trade.
Article 47
Obligations of Members
1. Each Member shall take all possible measures by legislation or otherwise,
in accordance with its constituting or system of law and economic organization,
to ensure, within its jurisdiction, that private and public commercial
enterprises do not engage in practices which are as specified in paragraphs 2
and 3 of Article 44 and have the effect described in paragraph 1 of that
Article; and shalI assist the Organization in preventing these practices.
2. Each Member shall make adequate arrangements for presenting complaints,
conducting investigations, and preparing information and reports requested
by the Organization.
/3. Each Member E/CONF.2/C .4/14
Page 5
3. Each Member shall furnish to the Organization, as promptly and as
fully as possible, such .information as is requested by the Organization
for its consideration and investigation of complaints and for its conduct
of studies under this Chapter; PROVIDED that any Member on notification
to the Organization, may withhold information which the Member considers
is not essential to the Organization in conducting an adequate investigation
and which, if disclosed, would substantially damage the legitimate business
interests of a commercial enterprise. In notifying the Organization that
it is withholding information pursuant to this clause, the Member shall
indicate the general character of the information withheld, and the reasons
why it considers it not essential.
4. Each Member shall take full account of each request, decision and
recommendation of the Organizatian under Article 45A and, in accordance
with its constitution or system of law and economic organization, take in
the particular case the action it considers appropriate having regard to
its obligations under this Chapter.
5. Each Member shall report fully any action taken, independently or in
concert with other Members, to comply with request and carry out
recommendations of the Organization and, when no action has been taken,
inform the Organization of the reasons therefor and discuss the matter
further with the Organization if requested to do so.
6. Each Member shall, at the request of the Organization, take part in
consultations and conferences provided for in this Chapter with a view to
reaching mutually satisfactory conclusions.
Article 48
Co-operative Remedial Arrangements
1. Members may co-operate with each other for the purpose of making more
effective within their respective jurisdictions any remedial measures taken
in furtherance of the objectives of this Chapter and consistent with their
obligations under other parts of this Charter.
2. Members shall keep the Organization informed of ay decision to
participate in any such co-operative action and of any measures taken.
Article 49.
Domestic Measures Against Restrictive Business Practices
No act or omission to act on the part of the Organization shall
preclude any Member from enforcing any national statute or decree directed
towards prevention monopoly or restraint of trade.
Article 50.
Special Procedures with Respect to Services
1. The Members recognize that certain services, such as transportation,
/telecommunications, E/CONF.2/. C 4/14.
Page 6
telecommunications, insurance and the commercial services of banks are
substantial elements of international trade and that any restrictive
business practices by enterprises engaged in these activities in
international trade may have harmful effects similar to those indicated
in paragraph 1 of Article 44. Such practices shall be dealt with in
accordance with the following paragraphs of this Article:
2. If any Member considers that there exist restrictive business practices
in relation to a service referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which
have or are about to have such harmful effects, and that its interests
are thereby seriously prejudiced, the Member may submit a written statement
explaining the situation to the Member or Members the private or public
enterprises of which are engaged in the services in question. The Member
or Members concerned shall give sympathetic consideration to the statement
and to such proposals as may be made and shall afford adequate opportunities
for consultation, with a view to effecting a satisfactory adjustment.
3. If no adjustment can be effected in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 2 of this Article, and if the matter is referred to the
Organization, it shall be transferred to the appropriate inter-governmental
organization if one exists, with such observations as the Orginization may
wish to make. If no such inter-governmental organization exists, Members
may ask the Organization, under Article 69 (c) to make recommendations for,
and promote international agreement on, measures designed to remedy the
particular situation so far as it comes within the scope of this Charter.
4. The Organization shall, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Artcice 84,
co-operate with inter-governmental organizations in connection with
restrictive business practices affecting any field coming within the scope
of this Charter and those organizations shall be entitled to consult the
Organization, to seek advice, and to ask that a study of a particular
problem be made.
Article 51
Interpretation and Definition
1. The provisions of this Chapter shall be construed with due regard for
the rights and obligations of Members set forth elsewhere in this Charter
and shall not therefore be so interpreted as to prevent the adoption and
enforcement of any measures insofar as they are specifically permitted
under other Chapters of this Charter. The Organization may however make
recommendations to Members or to any appropriate inter-governmentaI
organization concerning any features of these measures which may have the
effect described in paragraph 1 of Article 44.
2. For the purpose of this Chapter
/(a) the term E/CONF.2/C.4/14
Page 7
(a) the term "business practice" shall not be so construed
as to include an individual contract cocluded between two
parties as seller and buyer, lessor and lessee, or principal
and agent, provided, that such contract is not used to restrain
competition, limit access to markets or foster monopolistic
control;
(b) the term "public commercial enterprises" means:
(i) agencies of governments insofar as they are engaged
in trade, and
(ii) trading enterprises mainly or wholly owned by public
authority, PROVIDED the Member concerned declare that
for the purpose of this Chapter it has effective control
over or assumes responsibility for the enterprises.
(c) the term "private commercial enterprises" means all commercial
enterprises other than public commercial enterprises;
(d)the terms "decide" and "decision" as used in Articles 44, 45A
(except in paragraphs 3 and 4) and 47 do not determine the obligations
of Members, but mean only that the Organization arrives at or reaches
a conclusion. |
GATT Library | qq197yb5754 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy. Report to the Conference | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 18, 1948 | 18/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/70 and E/CONF.2/70-77 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qq197yb5754 | qq197yb5754_90040145.xml | GATT_148 | 25,625 | 168,120 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE
ON DU
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLI
UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF. 2/70
18 March 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
POLICY
REPORT TO THE CONFERENCE
1.The Third Committee of the Conference held its first meeting on
26 November 1947 under the Chairmanship of the President, Mr.Sergio I. Clark.
The Honourable L. D. Wilgrese, leader of the delegation of Canada, was
unanimously elected Chairman, and the Committee began its studies of
Chapter IV, Commercial Policy, at its second meeting on 29 November.
2. Mr. Walter Muller (Chile) was elected Vice-Chairman, but it was learned
that Mr. Muller would be unable to accept office and Mr. E. Puig Arosemena
(Ecuador) was then appointed in his stead. Later Mr. E. Puig Arosemena returned
to Ecuador and on 18 December Mr Lleras Restrepo (Colombia) was elected
Vice-Chairman.
3. The amendments submitted by delegations were compiled in an Annotated
Agenda which was issued in 8 December in six parts:
Section A - Tariffs, Preferences and
Internal Taxation and Regulation
Document Nos.
F/CONF.2/C.3/
6
Summary Records of
First Reading
E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.
5 to 9, 11 and 13
Section B - Quantitative Restrictions 7 10, 12, 14, 16, 18
and Exchange Controls 19, 21 to 25
Section C - Subsidies 8 26, 27 and 28
Section D - State Trading 9 28
Section E - General. Commercial Provisions 10 13 and 15
Section F - Special Provisions 11 17
4. The First Reading of the Chapter and the preliminary discussion of the
amendments continued up to and including the twenty-eighth meeting on
8 January. During the First Reading of the six Sections of the Chapter, ten
Sub-Committees were appointed including a.Joint Sub-Committee with Committe II
on Tariff Preferences.
5. The Second Reading of the Chapter and consideration of the Sub-Committee
Report began at the thirtieth meeting on 31 January and were complete at
the forty-seventh meeting on 17 March. All of the Sub-Committee Reports were
/approved in E/CONF .2/70
Page 2
approved in full, subject to a few changes in the text of the Articles as noted
in this Report.
6. The Reports of the Central Drafting Committee, recommending improvements
in the English and French texts of the Chapter, are listed below:
Articles Documents Approved by Committee
(Revisions, Addenda
and Corrigenda are
not enumerated)
E/CONF.2/C.8/ E/CONF. 2/SR .
16 20 48
17 16 47
18 and 19
20 and 22
21
23
24
25 to 28
30 to 31A
32 to 38
40, 41 and 43
42, 42A and 42B:
14
9
12
25
27
8
6
4
5
23
43
46
42
46
48
48
42
45
46
46
48
7. Committee III now submits for the approval of the Conference the text of
Chapter IV attached to this Report subject to the following RESERVATIONS:
SECTION A
Tariffs, Preferences, and Internal Taxation and Regulation
Article 16: General Most-favoured-nation Treatment
Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti and Iraq -
Chile and Syria - on paragraph 1, pending the decision of the contracting
parties on the final text of Article I of the General Agreement.
Uruguay - on Annex A.
Article 17: Reduction of Tariffs and Elimination of Preferences
Switzerland - on the interpretation of the term "mutually advantageous"
to cover negotiations relating both to tsariff and other related matter.
Mexico - on paragraph 3, pending decision of the contracting parties to the
General Agreement on the question of supersession.
Cuba - on paragraph 4.
/Article 18: National E /CONF.2 /70
Page 3
Article 18: National Treatment on lnternal Taxation and Regulation
Switzerland.
Cuba - on paragraph 2.
Argentina on paragraph 3.
Brazil and Ceylon - on paragraph 6.
SECTI0N B
Quantitative Restrictions and related Exchange Matters
Switzerland.
Article 20: General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions
Argentina.
Bolivia
Article 21: Restrictions to safeguard the Balance of Payments
Argentina - on paragraphs 4 (a) and 5.
Article 22: Non-discriminatory Administration of Quantitative Restrictions
Bolivia
Argentina - on paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
Article 23: Exceptions to the Rule of Non-discrimination
Argentina.
Article 24: Relationship with the International Monetary Fund and
Exchange Arrangements
Argentina.
SECTION C
Subsidies
Peru - re different treatment as between subsidies affecting exports and
those affecting imports
Article 25 in ubsidies n General
Bolivia.
Cuba re indirect subsidization of domestic industries by means of
internal tax remission.
Article 26: Additional Provisions on Export Subsidies
Argentina on-paragraph 3.
Article 27: SpecialTreatment of Primary Commodities
Argentina on paragraph 4.
Peru - on paragraph 5, re elimination of prior approval for export
subsidies on primary commodities.
/Article 28: Undertaking E /CONF.2/70
Page 4
Article 28: Undertaking regarding Stimulation of Exports of Primary Commodities
Argentina 4 on paragraph 3.
SECTION D
State Trading
Article 31A: Liquidation of Non-commercial Stocks
Chile.
SECTION E
General Commercial Provisions
Article 32: Freedom of Transit
Argetina - on paragraph 1.
Chile - on paragraph 6 and the Interpratative Note.
Article 33: Anit-dumping and Countervailing Duties
Argentina - re the use of other defensive measures.
Article 34: Valuation for Customs Purposes
Argentina - on paragraph 5.
Chile on Interpretative Note 2 on paragraph 3.
Article 35: Formalities connected with Importation and Exportation
Bolivia.
Heiti .on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
Chile - oi paragraph 1, re adding certain existing lmports to customs
duties.
Article 36: Marks of Origin
Argentina.
Chile on paragraph 7, re the use of trade names to the detriment of
distinctive regional names.
Article 37: Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations
Argentina n paragraph 3 (c).
SECTION F
Special Provisions
l;Article 40: Emergency Action on Imports of Partil Products
Peru-re the use of Import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries
products not being excluded.
Argentina.- on the Interpretative Note.
/Article 42B: Customs E/CONF. 2/70
Page 5
Article 42B: Customs Unions and Free-trade Areas
Argentna, Chile, Peru and Venezuela - on paragraph 2, re the inclusion
of the words "as between the territories of Members".
Australia had New Zealand - on paragraphs 4 and 5.
Article 43: General Exceptions to Chapter IV
Argentina, Ecuador and Uruguay - on paragraph 1 (a) (xi).
Argentina - on paragraphs 1 (b) (iii) and 2.
8. The work of the ten Sub-Committees and of the treatment of their Reports
by Committee III may be reviewed briefly as follows:
JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE OF COMMITTEES II AND III ON TARIFF PREFERENCES
ARTICLES 16 AND 42
Chairman - Mr. Stig SAHLIN (Sweden), succeeded by Mr. J. ROYER (France).
Members - The representatives of Argentina, Belegium, Brazil, Canada,
Chile, El Salvador, France, Haiti, Iran, Poland, Sweden, Syria, Turkey,
the United Kingdom, the United States and Venezuela.
Date of Appointment - 17th Meeting of Committee III, 22 December.
Number of Meetings - Fourteen.
Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF.2/C.3/78 (also Corr.1 and Add.1) of
7 March.
Second Reading of Committee III - 43rd and 44th meetings, 10 and 11 March.
General Comments - The Joint Sub-Committee, in its study of Article 15,
16 and 42 and in its examination of the amendments proposed by delegations,
took into account most of the problems which arise from exceptions to the
most-favoured-nation clause for the establishment of tariff preferences.
The detailed examination of the amendments was consigned to a Working Party
which held twenty-nine meetings.
For Article 15 a new text was prepared by the Working Party, but at a
later stage in the discussions it was taken up by the Co-ordinating Committee
of the Conference and was included in the over-all settlement of issues related
to Economic Development. The Joint Sub-Committee's Report on Article 15 was
presented to Committee II in E/CONF.2/C.2/42.
For Articles 16 and 42, the Sub-Committee's Report was submitted to
Committee III. The changes proposed in Article 16 were accepted without
much discussion and the Committee also approved the request of the
delegation of Turkey (E/CONF.2/C.3/77/Rev.1) for the insertion of a paragraph
providing for preferences es ablished under Article 15 between countries
belonging to the Ottoman Empire prior to 1923, and the request of Venezuela
(E/CONF.2/C.3/79) for exemption for a period of five years for special
/surcharges levied E/CONF.2/70
Page 6
surcharges levied on product imported via certain territories:
Committee III adopted the reocommendation that Article 42 should be
divided into three Articles dealng, separately with the Territorial Application
of Chapter IV, Frontier Traffic, and Customs Unions and Free-Trade Areas.
The first of these three Articles was amended by a Working Party prior to
final approval. The recommendation of the Sub-Committee extending the third
to cover free-trade areas as well as customs unions was accepted, but the
Committee decided to preface the first paragraph with a statement recognizing
the deserability of increasing freedom of trade by the developmont of close
integration between national economies through voluntary agreements.
The text of Articles 16 and 42, as approved in Second Reading, was
issued in E/CONF.2/C.3/85.
SUB-COMMITTEE A ON TRAIFF NEGOTIATIONS, INTERNAL TAXATION
AND REGULATION
ARTICLlES 16 TO 19
Chairman - Mr. G. A. LAMSVELT (Netherlands).
Members - The representatives of Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia,
Cuba, Denmark, France, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Turkey,
the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay. The delegate for Norway
replaced the delegate for Denmark when Articles 18 and 19 were under discussion.
Date of Appointment - 9th Meeting mf Committee III, 12 DeceMber.
Number of Meetings - Thirty-eight.
Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF.2/C.3/59, 16 February.
Second Reading in Committee II - 39th, 40th and 41st Meetings on
18 to 20 February.
General Comments - In Article 16 two paragraphs were added; (1) to bring
into the text of the Article, from two of the Annexes, a provision relating
to the imposition of a margin of tariff preference to compensate for the
elimination of a margin of pre erence in an Internal tax, and (2) to give
recognition to the principle that tariff descriptions based on distinctive
regional or geographical names should not be used in such a manner as to
discriminate against products of Member countries. Committee III decided to
transfer the second neW paragraph to Article 35. Further, an interpretative
note defining the term "margin of preference" was appended to Article 16 as
had been done in the 'corresponding Article of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. In Annex A the Sub-Committee altered the provisions for
the elimination, or replacement by tariff preferences, of certain preferential
arrangoments betveon the United Kingdom and Cannda, Australia and New Zealand
on the trade in meat.
/In Aiticle 17, the E/CONF.2/70
Page 7
In Article 17, the rules for the conduct of tariff negotiations between
Members were extended and clarified. Paragraph 4, relating to the failure
of a Member to carry out negotiations, was revised by the Sub-Committee, and
Committee III added "reconstruction" to the specified needs of Members to be
taken into account along with other relevant circumstances by the
Organization in judging the justification for a failure to carry out
negotiations. This paragraph was further amended by the Co-ordinating
Committee of the Conference (E/CONF.2/C.3/68/Corr.3) in conjunction with the
over-all settlement of issues on economic development which included also the
decision that the Charter should not provide for the establishment of a
Tariff Committee. This involved the deletion of paragraph 5. The
Sub-Committee added two interpretative notes to Article 17: the first
deals with the treatment of an internal tax, applied to a product which is
not produced domestically, as a customs duty in certain circumstances; and
the second provides that the effects of the devaluation of a Member's currency
or of a rise in prices would be a matter for consideration during tariff
n negotiations.
Article 18, which deals with national treatment on internal taxation
and regulation, was extensively revised and clarified, but the general
principle that internal taxes and regulations should not be applied in
such a manner as to afford protection to domestic production was preserved.
During consideration of the Sub-Committee's Report certain delegations
suggested that a special exception would be warranted for certain
discriminatory internal taxes, and a Working Party was appointed to review the
problem once more. The Report of the Working Party (E/CONF.2/C.3/71) contained
no definite recommendation it was discussed at the Forty-Second.Meeting of the
Committee on 8 March but it was found that there was no substantial support
for any change in the text.
The text of these Articles, as approved by Committee III in Second
Reading, was issued in E/CONF.2/C.3/68.
SUB-COMMITTEE B ON DISATaCRIMIION IN SHIPPING AND INSURANCE SERVICES
PROPOSED ARTICLE 18A
Chairman - Dr. J. E. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa).
Members - The representatives of Argentina, France, Greece, India, Norway,
Union of South Africa, United Kingdom and Venezuela.
Date of Appointment - 10th Meeting of Committee III, 16 December.
Number of Meeting - Five.
Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF.2/C.3/76, 6 March.
Second Reading in Committee III - 43rd Meeting.
/General comments E/CONF. 2/ 70
Page 8
General Comments- The Sub-Committee concluded that it was desirable to
avoid an overlapping of functions and a possible conflict of activities between
the International Trade Organization and the Inter-Governmental Maritime.
Consultative Organization and that therefore questions of shipping should not
be dealt with in the Havana Charter. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee
recommended that Article 18A should not be adopted and that Committee IV be
asked to amend Article 50 to take into account the considerations mentioned.
above, The Committee decided to recommend to Committee IV that a satisfactory
solution be sought for the relation of shipping services to Chapter V in order
to avoid conflict. with the IMCO. Committee IV inserted, an Interpretative Note
to Article 50 stipulating that the provisions of that Article would not apply
to matters relating to shipping services which are subject to the Charter of
the IMCO. In the light of the action taken by Committee IV, Committee III
decided at the Forty-Sixth Meeting to adopt the first of the Sub-Committee's
recommendations, rejecting Article 18A.
SUB-COMMITTEE C ON GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLES 32 TO 39
Chairman - Mr. C. E. MORTON (Australia). .
Members - The representatives of Afg, Anistan,a Argentina Australi, Canada,
Cuba, France, Lebanon, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Portugal, the
United Kingdom, the United State's waand Uruguay. Nor waws also appointedas a
member of th ee Sub-Committee butas succeeded after a few meetings by
South Africa.
Date of Appointment - 15th Meeting, 19 December.
Number of eotings - Nineteen.
Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF.2/C.3/38, 28 January.
Second Reading in Committee III - 30th, 31st and 32nd Meeting son
31 January and 4 and 5 February.
General Comments - The amendeonts introduced b y thede:Sub-Committeeinclu
(i) In Articole 33, the insertin of a statement recognizing that dumping
is to be condemned if it causes or tihreatens material-njury to an
established industry in a Member country or materially retards the
establishment of e damestic industry; .
(ii).he ni.stian preta rve Note o addtitoal Intenfnaragraphh
of Article 34 allowing Mnemb enbrs to coticcusea certain cirumtnces
with existing systems of applying ad valorem rates of duty to
established values;
(iii ) The ad deition of a new paaph t oe ricle35 givingrcognition to
the principle that tariff descriptions based on distinctive regional
or geographical names should not be used in such a manner as to
discriminate against products of Member countries; and
/(iv) The deletion E/CONF .2/70
Page 9
(iv) The deletion of Article 39 on Boycotte.
In the course of discussion in Second Reading, Committee III established
two Working Parties whose reports are containea in E/CONF.2/C.3/41 and
E/CONF.2/C.3/48. These Reports were approved by Committee III at the 31st and
34th meetings; the first involved the insertion of an Interpretative Note on
paragraph 9 of Article 32 and the second introduced an extension of the Note
on paragraph 3 of Article 34 mentioned under (ii) above. Also the Committee
agreed to the deletion of a paragraph inserted by the Sub-Committee in
Article 32 which provided that transportation charges on traffie in transit
were not to be considered as falling within the purview of that Article, and
Added instead an Interpretative Note to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 explaining
that the word "charges" in the English text is not to be deemed to include
transportation charges. . -*'
At aausequent moeina, tq 36h, the Committee added a paragraph to
Article 33 dealing with systems for the stabilization of domestic prices which
result at times I the sale of products for export at prices lower than the
comparable prices charGd for the like products to buyers in domestic
markets. The paragraph tgraphhus added raphe3 is similar to a para
eoeral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. ntfnin the errespongngAeclaithe ann
Thg text of Sotion Egas approved in Second Readina was Issued in
B/CONF . 2/, 1.nd E/CNF.2/C.3/60/Add ,. ,
RUB-COMSTTEE D ON SPECVS PPOIISIO* i
ARTICLS40, 41 AND 43
Chairman- Mr. R.' S1AnLEUnited Kingdom). ,
. .Member reumesativeiss onaArgna, Bolgiin; ColoaDnmrk,
gFrancod iTul u; SuthgnRhodesla,Unted .Kindo an th e,,
United States.
Date of Appointmdt- )th ing, 2 December.
t.br of Moet -
CSub-Committee aprt- E/CONF02//37, 28 January." ;
SecndondReadng in Committee andl -32 andnd 33 Meetings on 5 i .
6 February.
Gen the texts of Articles 40 and 41eral Comments - Orysl A chess ind41 ts of.,Ariclea84.an.kl
excev-yrieotduceby the Sub-Commitw eo.eI Ale 43, to ne' PXcoptio
the eovnasona, Chaeer ryIV wero, Izsotee ryly, or meues necossa
to theenforcemeet.lai.andregulations relating to public safety, and for
measgures nmtakenag in purauanag ingnter-Govrngnal oerments relativet the
conservati.on of fihrie resources, etco . ' -..
'/Duri the Secon&.. E/CONF.2/70
Page 10
During the Second Reading by committee III, two Working Parties were
established; their reports (documents E/CONF.2/C.3/49 and E/CONF.2/C.3/52)
were approved at the Thirty-Fourth and Thirty-Fifth Meetings. The former
introduced an extension of the Interpretative Note to Article 40, dealing
with the non-discriminatory aspect of emergency action on imports of
particular products, while the latter postulated that situations developing
from the fulfilment by a Member of its obligations under Article 3 or 9 might
constitute an "unforeseen development" for the purpose of Article 40.
The Committee also considered and approved the proposal of the
representatives of Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala and Uruguay
document E/CONF.2/C.3/46/Rev.1) to add an Interpretative Note to Article 41
on the obligations of Members to supply information on regulations for the
protection of human, animal or plant life or health.
The texts of Articles 40, 41 and 43, as approved by the Committee, were
issued in E/CONF.2/C.3/61.
SUB-COMMITTEE E ON QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS
ARTICLES 20 AND 22
Chairman - Dr. J. E. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa).
Members - The representatives of ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt,
France, Ireland, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, South Africa, Sweden,
the United Kingdom and the United States.
Date of Appointment - 21st Meeting, 30 December.
Number of Meetings - Eleven. Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF.2/C.3/54, 12Feb
Second Reading in Committee III - 37th Meeting, 16 February
General Comments - The Sub-Committee established nine Working Parties to
consider in detail the proposals contained in the Annotated Agenda.
In its Report to Committee III, the Sub-Committee recommended a few
changes in the text of the Articles and the addition of several interpretative
notes explaining and clarifying certain passages of the text.
In Article 20, the Sub-Committee inserted two sub-paragraphs. The first
provides that import restrictions on agricultural or fisheries products,
applied in connection with the enforcement of governmental measures of control
on domestic production or marketing, shall be applied only so long as those
measures are in force and shall not operate in such a way as to prevent imports
in quantities sufficient to. satisfy demand for current consumption during
times of the year when domestic supplies are not available. The second
requires that notice in writing of an intention to introduce import
restrictions shall be given to the Organization and to Members having a
substantial interest in supplying the products concerned with a view to the
holding of prior consultations.
/In Article 22, E/CONF.2/70
Page 11
ln Article 22, a sub-paragraph has been inserted providing for the
release of Members from the obligation of giving public notice of the total
quantity or value of quotas when the interests of the Member concerned would
be prejudiced by reason of the fact that a large part of the imports of the
products affected are supplied by non-Members.
The amendments proposed by the Sub-Committee were adopted in Second
Reading and the revised text of Articles 20 and 22 was issued in
E/CONF.2/C .3/69.
SUB-COMMITTEE F ON RESTRICTIONS TO SAFEGUARD BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
ARTICLES 21, 23 AND 24
Chairman - Mr. J. MELANDER (Norway).
Members - The representatives of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, Italy, Lebanon, Liberia,
Norway, the Philippines, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Date of Appointment - 25th Meeting, 5 January.
Number of Meetings - Fourteen.
Sub-Committee Reports - E/CONF.2/C.3/57, 16 February, on Article 21
and E/CONF.2/C.3/91, 15 March, on Articles 23 and 24.
Second Reading in Committee III - Article 21, 38th Meeting, 17 February,
Articles 23 and 24, 47th Meeting, 17 March.
General Comments - The main change introduced by the Sub-Committee in
Article 21 was the insertion of a paragraph stating that it is primarily the
responsibility of each Member to safeguard its external financial position
and to achieve and maintain stable equilibrium in its balance of payments,
that the Organization should promote consultations and action for the purpose
of correcting maladjustments in the balance of payments, and that the
methods employed by Members to restore equilibrium should be those which
will expand rather than contract international trade.
This new paragraph and the other changes proposed by the Sub-Committee
in Article 21 were adopted by Committee III and the amended text was issued
in E/CONF.2/C.3/69.
The revision of Article 23 proved the most difficult part of the
Sub-Committee's work. The Working Party on this Article held meetings
regularly from 17 January until 15 March and eventually agreed to recommend
a substantially new text. It was evident, however, that the revised
provisions governing the exceptions to the rule of non-discrimination might
not meet the needs of all Members during the difficult transitional years
which still lie ahead, and therefore the principles of the original Geneva
draft were retained in an Annex. It has been laid down that a Member which
before 1 July 1948, provisionally accepts the principles of paragraph 1 of
/that text by E/CONF. 2/70
Page 12
that text by its signature of the Protocol of Provisional Application to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, may elect, up to the and of 1948, to
operate during the transitional period under the Annex.
Article 23 itself defines the exceptions to the rule of non-discrimination
permissible during the post-war transitional period. This transitional
period and its application in respect of individual Members are defined by
reference to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.
The discriminatory Measures, including adaptations thereof, permitted under
paragraph 1 of the Article may be applied by a Member during the transitional
period without the prior approval of the Organization. After the termination
of the transitional period for each and every Member provision is made for
limited departures from the rule of non-discrimination with the prior approval
of the Organization.
The title of Article 24 was altered to read "Relationship with the
International Monetary Fund and Exchange Arrangements" A drafting change
was made in paragraph 2 while other changes were made in paragraphs 6 and 8
(formerly 9) of the Article.
The Sub-Committee recommended a change in the title of Section B to
read "Quantitative Restrictions and Related Exchange Matters". This was
approved by the Committee.
The text of Articles 23 and 24 as approved by Committee III in Second
Reading was issued in E/CONF.2/C.3/93.
SUB-COMMITTEE G ON THE SWISS PROPOSAL
PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE IN SECTION B
Chairman - Mr. L. P. THOMPSON-McCAUSLAND (United Kingdom) succeeded by
Mr. A. PHILIP (France).
Members - The representatives of Belgium, China, France, Poland, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Date of Appointment - 25th Meeting, 5 January.
Number of Meetings - Ten.
Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF .2/C.3/72, 28 February.
Second Reading in Committee III - 45th Meeting, 12 March
General Comments - The Sub-Committee examined the request of the
delegation of Switzerland for the insertion of the following Article;
"A Member, unable to invoke the provisions of Article 21 and
finding that its economic stability, particularly in the fields
of agriculture and employment, is being seriously impaired or
gravely threatened, may take such stops as are necessary for
safeguarding its vital interests."
/The Sub-Committee E/CONF.2/70
Page 13
The Sub-Committee based its enquiries on the assumption that the Member
concerned was not eligible to impose quantitative restrictions under
Article 21 but was liable to suffer damage from restrictions imposed by other
Members under that Article. A variety of factors were discussed by the
Sub-Committee as possibly justifying special measures and while no single
factor was judged to be sufficient by itself to justify special treatment
the Sub-Committee agreed that a number of factors when taken together might
represent a combination of circumstances requiring special consideration.
The Sub-Committee found that the solution proposed by the delegation of
Switzerland would constitute too great a weakening of the principles of the
Charter. However, in view of the recognition of the special consideration
required to be given to the case of Switzerland, the Sub-Committee recommended
that the Conference should direct the Interim Commission to invite the Swiss
Government to participate in a study of the problems facing the Swiss economy
with a view to submitting to the first Conference of the Organization a
report as to the measures for dealing with the Swiss problem which could be
taken in accordance with the procedures established in the Charter.
The Committee approved this recommendation.
SUB-COMMITTEE H ON SUBSIDIES
ARTICLES 25 TO 29
Chairman - Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia), succeeded at the seventh meeting
by Mr. G. WARWICK SMITH (Australia).
Members - The representatives of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Cuba, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Peru, Philippines, Sweden, Turkey, the
United kingdom, the United States and Venezuela.
Date of Appointment - 27th Meeting of Committee III, 7 January.
Number of Meetings - Eight.
Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF.2/C.3/51, 12 February.
Second Reading in Committee III - 36th Meeting, 14 February.
General Comments - A large part of the work of the Sub-Committee was
performed by a Working Party which held ten meetings.
The main changes in Section C are in Articles 27 and 28. The new
paragraph 5 (replacing paragraph 3 of the Geneva text) of Article 27 now
permit Members, considering their interests seriously prejudiced, to apply
or maintain export subsidies on primary commodities, without prior approval
by the Organization where Chapter VI procedure has failed or does not promise
to succeed or where an inter-governmental agreement is not an appropriate
solution. Paragraph 4 of Article 27 is a new provision prohibiting a Member
from granting a new subsidy or increasing an existing subsidy, affecting the
/export of a E/CONF.2 /70
Page 14
export of a primary commodity, during a Commodity Conference dealing with that
commodity, unless the Organization concurs.
In the light of the relaxation of the provisions of Article 27, the
safeguards contained in Article 28 have been strengthened. In particular,
provision has been made, where consultation fails, for the Organization to
make determinations as to what constitutes an equitable share of world trade
in the commodity concerned for the subsidizing country. Members are required
to conform to such determinations and factors are specified to which, amongst
others, the Organization shall have particular regard when making
determinations. Under the now text, Article 28 applies to all subsidies
affecting the exports of primary commodities.
The text of the four Articles as approved by Committee III in Second
Reading was issued in E/CONF.2/C.3/63.
SUB-COMMTTIEE J ON STATE TRADING
ARTICLES 30 AND 31
Chairman - Rt. Honourable Walter NASH (New Zealand).
Members - The representatives of Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Egypt, Mexico,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the
United States.
Date of Appointment - 28th Meeting, 8 January.
Number of Meetings - Seven.
Sub-Committee Report - E/CONF.2/C.3/43, 3 February.
Second Reading in Committee III - 33rd and 34th Meetings on 6 and
9 February.
General Comments - Articles 30 and 31 were not substantially altered by
the Sub-Committee but two new Articles were introduced. Article 30A entitled
"Marketing Organizations" provides that marketing boards, commissions or
similar organizations established or maintained by Members shall be subject
to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 30 with respect to their
purchases and sales and shall be subject to the other relevant provisions of
the Charter with respect o their regulations governing the operations of
private enterprises.
The seecond new Article introduced by the Sub-Committee is entitled
"Liquidation of Non-commercial Stocks". This provides that any Member deciding
to liquidate stoks of a primary commodity accumulated for non-commercial
purposes shall give four months prior notice either publicly or to the
Organization and shall,upon request,consult with other Members as to the
best means of avoiding substantial injury to the economic interests of
producers and consumers of the commodities concerned.
/Committee III E/CONF. 2/70
Page 15
Committee IlI referred this Article to a Working Party whose report was
issued in E/CONF.2/C.3/64 and was approved at the Forty-First Meeting on
23 February.
The Article as amended by the Working Party contains a more precise
obligation on the part of the Member intending to liquidate such stocks to
carry out the liquidation in a manner that will avoid serious disturbance to
world markets; also it provides for participation of the Organization in
consultations where the interests of several Members might be substantially
affected.
/CHAPTER IV E/CONF.2/70 Page 16
CHAPTER lV
COMMERCIAL POLICY
SECTION A - TARIFFS, PREFERENCES, AND INTERNEAL TAXATION AND REGULATION
Article 16
1. With respect to customs duties and Charges of any kind imposed on or in con-
nection with importation or exportation or imposed on the international transfer
or exports
of paymets for imports/, and with respect to the method of levying such duties
and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with
importation and exportation, and with reject to all matters within the scope
of paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 18, any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity
granted by any Member to any product originating in or destined for any other
country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product
originating in or destined for all other Member countries.
2. The provisions of paragraph 2 shall not require the elimination, except as
provided in Article 17, of any preferences in respect of import duties or charges
which do not exceed the margins providedo for in paragraph 4 and which fall within
the following descriptions:
(a ) preferences in force exclusively between two or more of the
territories listed in Annex A, subject to the conditions set forth
therein;
(b) preferences in force exclusively between two or more territories
which on July 1, 1939 were connected by common sovereignty or relations
of protection or suzerainty and which are listed in Annexes B, C, D and
E;
(c) preferences in force exclusively between the United States of America
and the Republic of Cuba;
(d) preferences in force exclusively between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America, including the dependent
territories of the latter;
/(e) preferences E /CONF .2/70
Page 17
(e) preferences in force exclusively between neighbouring countries
listed in Annexes F, G, H, I and J.
3. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to preferences between the
countries formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire and detsched from it on July 24,
1923, provided such preferences fulfil the applicable requirements of Article 15.
4. The margin of preference on any product in respect of which a preferences
is permitted under paragraph 2 shall not exceed (a) the maximum margin provided
for under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or may subsequent operative
agreement resulting from negotiations under Article 17, or (b) if not provided
for under such agreements, the margin existing either on April 10, 1947, or on
any earlier date established for a Member as a basis for negotiating the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, at the option of such Member.
5. The imposition of a margin of tariff preference not in excess of the amount
necessary to compensate for the elimination of a margin of preference in an
Internal tax existing on April 10, 1947, exclusively between two or more of
the territories in respect of which preferential import duties or charges are
permitted under paragraph 2, shall not be deemed to be contrary to the provisions
of this Article, it being understood that any such margin of tariff preference
shall be subject to the provisions of Article 17.
Article 17
Reduction of Tariffs and Elimination of Preferences
1. Each Member shall, upon the request of any other Member or Members,
and subject to procedural arrangements established by the Organization,
enter into and carry out with such other Member or Members negotiations
directed to the substantial reduction of the general levels of tariffs
and other charges on imports and exports, and to the elimination of the
preferences referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 16, on a reciprocal
and mutually advantageous basis.
2. The negotations provided for in paragraph 1 shall proceed in accordance
with the following rules:
(a) Such negotiations shall be conducted on a selective product-
by-product basis which will afford adequate opportunity to
take into account the needs of individual countries and
individual industries. Members shall be free not to grant
concessions on particular products and, in the granting of a
concession, they may either reduce the duty, bind it at its
then existing level, or undertake not to raise it above a
specified higher level.
/(b) No Member E/CONF.2/70 Page 18
(b) No Member shall be required to grant unilateral concessions,
or to grant concessions to other Members without receiving
adequate concessions in return. Account shall be taken of
the value to any Member of obtaining in its own right and
by direct obligation the indirect concessions which it
would otherswise enjoy only by virtue Article 16.
(e) In negotiations relating to any specifc product with
respect to which a preference applies.
(i) when reduction is negotiated only in the most
favoured-nation rate, such reduction shall operate
automatically to reduce or eliminate the marign ofinhin of. c:
preference applicable to that product;.. .
is negotiated only in the prefertialnegb( yeroeocti ohniQhfdce preeential..
rall ateate icamoefaousr-n ato ohlautomatlly
b oducd to tho xenofsuch reduction; -i.
(i1lwe js ed tht redutions will be negotiated
in both the most-favored-nation rate and the-.
prte,f the eosuiarae redctions inl each ehalbe
ed by the gaotgatigerties tgoo atihes; neSiton
margin og preferencem nf prc shall be increased.
(i Tlg against increase utielow s oies or of duty
treartment shaecognll in principle be recoga ooess a
teiive subsequivalent in value to the substantial
he elimination of duties or ttariff preferences:uttiop ft
(e) Prionnalr inatioibligtoonal osshnionselo t bo'ked td
frustrate the requirement under paragraph 1 to negotiate
withrerorettofe respegtcb to preferences, it
ments as ee reeom sfromatwhichut iations afrhnd ichub
oafict cwthsuch oligaticonns shall not requirbe theblreq not Vseue tho- .
modificationoofr twrinattion ofsuch boliag(ionx ecept) (1
with the consent of the partiesto such olbigations, oor,e tnt of othe ps, or
ch consent, (ii) by modific in thcQsn of atoaon se,ti si
bligations in accordance with theiur onsatiigaeno so suanh thoir X
terms, "
h¶ eoitions E/CONF.2/70
Page 19
3. The negotiations leading to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
concluded at Geneva on October 30, 1947, shall be deemed to be negotiations
pursuant to this Article. The concessions agreed upon as a result of
all other negotiations completed by a Member pursuant to this Article shall
be incorporated in the General Agreement on terms to be agreed with the
parties thereto. If any Member enters into any agreement relating to
tariffs or preferences which is not concluded pursuant to this Article, the
negotiations leading to such agreement shall nevertheless conform to the
requirements of paragraph 2 (c).
4. (a) The provisions of Article 16 shall not prevent the operation of
paragraph 5 (b) of Article XXV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, as amended at the First Session of the CONTRACTING PARTIES.
(b) If a Member has failed to become a contracting party to the
General Agreement within two years from the entry into force of this
Charter with respect to such Member, the provisions of Article 16 shall
cease to require, at the end of that period, the application to the trade
of such Member country of the concessions granted, in the appropriate
schedule annexed to the General Agreement, by another Member which has
requested the first Member to negotiate with a view to becoming a
contracting party to the General Agreement but has not successfully
concluded negotiations; Provided that the Organization may, by a majority
of the votes cast, require the continued application of such concessions
to the trade of any Member country which has been unreasonably prevented
from becoming a contracting party to the General Agreement pursuant to
negotiations in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
(c) If a Member which is a contracting party to the General Agreement
proposes to withhold tariff concessions from the trade of a Member country
which is not a contracting party, it shall give notice is writing to the
Organization and to the affected Member. The latter Member may request the
Organization to require the continuance of such concessions, and if such a
request has been made the tariff concessions shall not be withheld pending
a decision by the Organization under the provisions of sub - paragraph (b)
of this paragraph.
(d) In any determination whether a Member has been unreasonably prevented
from becoming a contracting party to the General Agreement, and in any
determination under the provisions of Chapter VIII whether a Member has failed
without sufficient justification to fulfil its obligations under paragraph 1 of
this Article, the Organization shall have regard to all relevant circumstances,
including the developmental, reconstruction and other needs, and the general
/fiscal E /CONF .2 /70
Page 20
fiscal structures, of the Member countries concerned and to the provisions
of the Charter as a whole.
(e) If such concessions are in fact withheld, so as to result in the
application to the trade of a Member country of duties higher than would
otherwise have been applicable, such Member shall then be free, within sixty
days, after such action becomes effective, to give written notice of
withdrawal from the Organization. The withdrawal shall become effective
upon the expiration of sixty days from the day on which such notice is
received by the Director-General.
/Article 18 E/CONF. 2/70
Page 21
Article 18
National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation
1. The members recognize that internal taxes and other internal charges and
laws, regulations and requirements affecting the internal male, offering for
sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products, and internal
quantitative regulations requiring the mixture, processing or use of products
in specified amounts or proportions, should not be applied to imported or domestic
products so as to afford protection to domestic production.
2. The products of any Member country imported into any other Member country
shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal
charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like
domestic products. Moreover, no Member shall otherwise apply internal taxes or
other internal charges to imported or domestic products in a manner contrary to
the principles set forth in paragraph 1.
3. With respect to any existing internal tax which is inconsistent with the
provisions of paragraph 2 but which is specifically authorized under a trade
agreement, in force on April 10, 1947, in which the import duty on the taxed
product is bound against increase, the Member imposing the tax shall be free to *t
od against increase, the Member imposing the tax suntil suchhal be
puntil osctpne t obiation f the provisions of paragraph 2 to such tuax l sctiu
tiv s ot ocnqtain release from the obligations of such trade agreement in
rd ri oermit the increase of such duty to the extent necessary to compensate
orhe elmitnato porf hnto u e elemnt of etax.
nto oducns of nauMember cuoiry i.pmiotedi tno any other Member country
shall be accorded treatment no lses favourable than that accorded to like
products of natt tioalta iginquisn rnespcet of all laws,regulaions, nd reiremets
ibutionafetiinsernls ale, ohase,, transportatio,n
dietrsbuiont ous e.The proivisionsgra of thll not prevent the prerent the
applciferential iifeerontili spnterniontchjarestwhich are e hwich aer based
on the ecoy o thnfe cenomic op.ration of the means of transport and not on
htepa f the pty o .fh peroduct
ber NoM eberm shall establish or maintain any internal quantitative regulation
xatini tm t, mextureo processing or use of products in specified amounts or
proportions which requires, directly or indirectly, that any specified amount
or proportion of any product which is the subject ofthe regulation must be
rupplied omom domestic sources. Moreover, no Member shall otherwise apply
internal quantitative regulations in a manner contrary to the principles set
forth in paragraph 1
ovisions of paragras paragraph 5 sphall notn ainternal quantitativetay inteaaveve
force in aetion norc in any Member cou,ntry on July 11939, April 10, 1947 or
/on the date E /CONF . 2/70
Page 22
on the date of this Charter, at the option of that Member; Provided that any
such regulation which is contrary to the provisions of paragraph 5 shall not be
modified to the detriment of imports and shall be subject to negotiations and
shall accordingly be treated as a customs duty for the purposes of Article 17.
7. No internal quantitative regulation relating to the mixture, processing or
use of products in specified amounts or proportions shall be applied is such a
manner as to allocate ans such amount or proportion among external sources of
suppy.
8. (a) The provisisons of this Article shall not apply to laws, regulations
or requirement governing the procurement by governmental agencies of products
purchasef for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale or
with a view to use in the production of goods for commerciale sale.
(b) The provisionss of this Article shall not prevent the payment of
subsidies exclusively to domestic producers, including payments to domestic
producers derived from the proceeds of internal taxes or charges applied
consistently with the provisions of this Article and subsides effected through
governmental purchases of domestic products.
9. The Members. recognize that internal maximum price control measures, even
though conforming to the other provisions of this Article, can have effects
prejudicial to the to interests of Member countries supplying imported products.
Accordingly, Members applying such measures shall take account of the interests
of exporting Member countries with a view to avoiding to the fullest practicable
extent such prejudicial effects.
Article19 .
Special Provisions Relating to Cinematograph Films
The provisions of Article 18 shall not prevent any Member establishingi
or maintaing internal quantitative regulations relatng to exposed
cinematograph films. Any such regulations shall take the ofrm of screen, quotas
which shall conform to tihe following conditons and requirement
(a) csreen quotas may require the exhibition of cinematography
films of national origin during a specified minimum proportion
of the total screen time actually utilized over a specified
period of not less than one year, in the commercial, exhibiton.
of all films of whteaver origin,and shall be computed on the uteo he '
n c0time thstheatre per year or the equivalentjeatrer yehe eSso cr reeti m pequtatre p eyar orh e eivlel,
(b) tiona With ttionahe xceptioscreen tatiorved forlms of
uding screen m ~egiderr cmnbeene quotin. srea tim
released by administrative action from time reserved for films
/of national E/CONF .2/10
Page 23
of national origin, shaIl not be allocated formally or in effect
among sources of supply.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) any Member
may maintain screen quotes conforming to the requirements of
sub-pargraph (a) which reserve a minimum proportion of screen
time for films of a specified origin other than that of the
Member imposing such screen quotas; Provided that such
minimum proportion of screen time shall not be increased above
the level in effect on April 10, 1947.
(d) screen quotas shall be subject to negotiation and shall
accordingly be treated as customs duties for the purposes
of Artcle 17.
/SECTION B E/CONF . 2 /70 Page 24
SECTION B - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND RELEATED EXCHANGE MATTERS
Article 20
General Elimination of Quantitatve Restrictions
1. No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges,
whether made effective through quotas; import or export licenses or other
measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any Member on the importation
of any product of any other Member country or on the exportation or sale for
export of any product destined for any other Member country.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not extend to the following:
(a) export prohibitions or restrictions applied for the period
necessary to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs
or other products essential to the exporting Member country;
(b) import and export prohibitions or restrictions necessary to the
application of standards or regulations for the classification,
grading or marketing of commodities in international trade; if,
in the opinion of the Organization, the standards or regulations
adopted by a Member under this sub-paragraph have an unduly
restrictive effect on trade, the Organization may request the
Member to revise the standards or regulations; Provided that it
shall not request the revision of standards internationally
agreed pursuant to recommendations made under paragraph 7 of
Article 38;
(c) import restrictions on any agricultural or fisheries product,
imported in any form, necessary to the enfrocement of governmental
measures which operate effectively:
(i) to restrict the quantities of the like domestic product
permitted to be marketed or produced, or, if there is no
substantial domestio production of the like product, of
a domestic agricultural or fisheries product for which
the imported product can be directly substituted; or
(ii) to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product,
or, if there is no substantial domestic production of the
like product, of a domestic agricultural or fisheries
product for which the imported product can be directly
substituted, by making the surplus available to certain
groups of domestic consumers free of charge or at prices
below the current market level; or
/(iii) to E/ CONF.2/70
Page 25
(iii) to restrict to quantities permitted to be produced of any
animal product the production of which is directly dependent,
wholly or mainly, on the imported commodity, if the domestic
production of that commodity is relatively negligible.
3. With regard to import restrictions applied under the provisions of
paragraph 2 (c):
(a) such restrictions shall be applied only so long as the governmental
measures referred to in paragraph 2 (c) are in force, and, when
applied to the import of products of which domestic supplies are
available during only a part of the year, shall not be applied
in such a way as to prevent their import in quantities sufficient
to satisfy demand for current consumption purposes during those
periods of the year when like domestic products, or domestic
product for which the imported product can be directly
substituted, are not available;
(b) any Member intending to introduce restrictions on the importation
of any product shall, in order to avoid unnecessary damage to
the interests of exporting countries, give notice in writing as
far in advance as practicable to the Organization and to Members
having a substantial interest in supplying that product, in
order to afford such Members adequate opportunity for consultation
in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 2 (d) and 4 of
Article 22, before the restrictions enter into force. At the
request of the importing Member concerned, the notification and
any information disclosed during the consultations shall be kept
strictly confidential;
(o) any Member applying such restrictions shall give public notice of
the total quantity or value of the product permitted to be
imported during a specified future period and of any change in
such quantity or value;
(d) any restrictions applied under paragraph 2 (c) (i) shall not be
such as will reduce the total of imports relative to the total
of domestic production, as compared with the proportion which
might reasonably be expected to rule between the two in the
absence of restrictions. In determining this proportion, the
Member applying the restrictions shall pay due regard to the
proportion prevailing during a previous representative period and
to any special factors which may have affected or may be affecting
the trade in the product concerned.
/4. Throughout E/CONF.2/70 Page 26
4. Throughout this section the terms "import restrictions" and export
restrictions" include restrictions made effective through state-trading
operations.
Article 21
Restrictions to Safeguard the Balance of payments
1. The Members recognize that:
(a) it is primarily the responsibility of each Member to safeguard
its external financial position and to achieve and maintain
stable equilibrium in its balance of payments;
(b) an adverse balance of payments of one Member country may have
important effects on the trade and balance of payments of
other Member countries, if it results in, or may lead to, the
imposition by the Member of restrictions affecting international
trade;
(c) the balance of payments of each Member country is of concern to
other Members, and therefore it is desirable that the Organization
should promote consultations among Members and, where possible,
agreed action consistent with this Charter for the purpose of
correcting a maladjustment in the balance of payments; and
(d) action taken to restore stable equilibrium in the balance of
payments should, so far as the Member or Members concerned find
possible, employ methods which expand rather than contract
international trade.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 20, any Member,
in order to safeguard its external financial position and balance of payments,
may restrict the quantity or value of merchandise permitted to be imported,
subject to the provisions of the following paragraphs of this Article.
3. (a) No Member shall institute, maintain or intensify import restrictions
under this Article except to the extent necessary
(i) to forestall the imminent threat of, or to stop, a serious
decline in its monetary reserves, or
(ii) in the case of a Member with very low monetary reserves, to
achieve a reasonable rate of increase in its reserves.
Due regard shall be paid in either case to any special factors which
may be affecting the Member's reserves or need for reserves, including,
where special external credits or other resources are available to it, the
need to provide for the appropriate use of such credit or resources.
/(b) A Member E/CONF. 2/70
Page 27
(b) A Member applying restrictions under sub-paragraph(a) shall
progressively relax and ultimately eliminate them in accordance with the
provisions of that sub-paragraph, as its external financial position improves.
This provision shall not be interpreted to mean that a Member is required to
relax or remove such restrictions if that relaxation or removal would
thereupon produce conditions justifying the intensification or institution,
respectively, of restrictions wider sub-paragraph (a).
(o) Members undertake;
(i) not to apply restrictions so as to prevent unreasonably the
importation of any description of merchandise in minimum
commercial quantities the exclusion of which would impair
regular channel of trade, or restrictions which would
prevent the importation of commercial samples or prevent
the importation of such minimum quantities of a product
as may be necessary to obtain and maintain patent, trade
mark, copyright or similar rights under industrial or
intellectual property laws;
(ii) to apply restrictions under this Article in such a way as
to avoid unnecessary damage to the commercial or economic
interests of any other Members including interests under
Articles 3 and 9.
4. (a) The Members recognize that in the early years of the Organization
all of them will be confronted in varying degrees with problems of economic
adjustment resulting from the war. During this period the Organization shall,
when required to take decisions under this Article or under Article 23, take
full account of the difficulties of post-war adjustment and of the need which
a Member may have to use import restrictions as a step towards the
restoration of equilibrium in its balance of payments on a sound and lasting
basis.
(b) The Members recognize that, as a result of domestic policies.
directed toward the fulfilment of a Member's obligations under Article 3
relating to the achievement and maintenance of full and productive employment
and large and steadily growing demand, or its obligations under Article 9
relating to the reconstruction or development of industrial and other economic
resources and to the raising of standards of productivity, such a Member may
find that demands for foreign exchange on account of imports and other
current payments are absorbing the foreign exchange resources currently
available to it in such a manne as to exercise pressure on its monotary
reserves which would justify the institution or maintenance of restrictions
/under E/CONF. 2/70
Page 28
under paragraph 3 of this Article. Accordingly,
(i) no Member shall be required to withdraw or modify restrictions
which it is applying under this Article on the ground that a
change in such policies would render these restrictions unnecessary;
(ii) any Member applying import restrictions under this Article may
determine the incidence of the restrictions on imports of different
products or classes of products in such a way as to give priority
to the importation of those products which are more essentitiaI in
the light of such policies.
(c) Members undertake, in carrying out their domestic policies, to
pay due regard to the need for restoring equilibrium in their balance of
payments on a sound and lasting basis and to the desirability of assuring
an economic employment of productive resources.
5. (a) Any Member which is not applying restrictions under this Article,
but is considering the need to do so, shall, before instituting such
restrictions (or, in circumstances in which prior consultation is impracticable,
immediately after doing so), consult with the Organization as to the nature
of its balance-of-payments difficulties, alternative corrective measures
which may be available, and the possible effect of such measures on the
economies of other Members. No Member shall be required in the course of
consultations under this sub-paragraph to indicate in advance the choice or
timing of any particular measure which it may ultimately determine to adopt.
(b) The Organization may at any time invite any Member wihich is
applying import restrictions under this Article to enter into such
consultations with it, and shall invite any Member substantially intensifying
such restrictions to consult within thirty days. A Member thus invited shall
participate in the consultations. The Organization may invite any other
Member to tike part in the consultations. Not later than two years from the
day on which this Charter enters into force, the Organization shall review
all restrictions existing on that day and still applied under this Article
at the time of the review.
(o) Any Member may consult with the Organization with a view to
obtaining the prior approval of the Organization for restrictions which the
Member proposes, under this Article, to maintain, intensify or institute,
or for the maintenance, intensification or institution of restrictions under
specified future conditions. As a result of such consultations, the
Organization may approve in advance the maintenance, intensification or
institution of restrictions by the Member in question insofar as the general
extent, degree of intensity and duration of the restrictions are concerned.
/To the extent E/CONF. 2/70 Page 29
To the extent to which such approval has been given, the requirements of
sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph shall be deemed to have been fulfilled,
and the action of the Member applying the restrictions shall not be open
to challenge under sub-paragraph (d) of this paragraph on the ground that
such action is inconsistent with the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and
(b) of paragraph 3.
(d) Any Member which considers that another Member is applying
restrictions under this Article inconsistently with the provisions of
paragraphs 3 or 4 of the Article or with those of Article 22 (subject to
the provisions of Article 23) may bring the matter to the Organization for
discussion; and the Member applying the restrictions shall participate in
the discussion. If, on the basis of the case presented by the Member
initiating the procedure, it appears to the Organization that the trade of
that Member is adversely affected, the Organization shall submit its views
to the parties with the aim of achieving a settlement of the matter in
question which is satisfactory to the parties and to the Organization. If
no such settlement is reached and if the Organization determines that the
restrictions are being applied inconsistently with the provisions of
paragraphs 3 or 4 of this Article or with those of Article 22 (subject to
the provisions of Article 23), the Organization shall recommend the withdrawal
or modification of the restrictions. If the restrictions are not withdrawn
or modified in accordance with the recommendation of the Organization within
sixty days, the Organization may release any Member from specified
obligations or concessions under or pursuant to this Charter towards the
Member applying the restrictions.
(e) In consultations between a Member and the Organization under this
paragraph there shall be full and free discussion as to the various causes
and the nature of the Member's balance-of-payments difficulties. It is
recognized that premature disclosure of the prospective application,
withdrawal or modification of any restrictions under this Article might
stimulate speculative trade and financial movements which would tend to
defeat the purposes of this Article. Accordingly, the Organization shall
make provision for the observance of the utmost secrecy in the conduct of
any consultation.
6. If there is a persistent and widespread Application of import
restrictions under this Article, indicating the existence of a general
disequilibrium which is restricting international trade, the Organization
shall initiate discussions to consider whether other measures might be taken,
either by those Members whose balances of payments are under pressure or by
/those Members E/CONF.2/70
Page 30
those Members whose balances of payments are tending to be exceptionally
favourable, or by any appropriate inter-governmental organisation, to remove
the underlying causes of the disequilibrium. On the invitation of the
Organization, Members shall participate in such discussions.
Article 22
Non-Discriminatory Administration of Quantitative Restrictions
1. No prohibition or restriction shall be applied by any Member on the
importation of any product of any other Member country or on the exportation
of any product destined for any other Member country, unless the importation
of the like product of all third countries or the exportation of the like
product to all third countries is similarly prohibited or restricted.
2. In applying import restrictions to any product, Members shall aim at
a distribution of trade in such product approaching as closely as possible
to the shares which the various member countries might be expected to obtain
in the absence of such restrictions, and to this and shall observe the
following provisions:
(a) wherever practicable, quotas representing the total amount of
permitted imports (whether allocated among supplying countries or
not) shall be fixed, and notice given of their amount in accordance
with paragraph 3 (b);
(b) in cases in which quotas are not practicable, the restrictions
may be applied by means of import licences or permits without a
quota;
(c) Members shall not, except for purposes of operating quotas
allocated in accordance with sub-paragraph (d) of this paragraph,
require that import licences or permits be utilized for the
importation of the product concerned from a particular country or
source;
(d) in cases in which a quota is allocated among supplying countries,
the Member applying the restrictions may seek agreement with
respect to the allocation of shares in the quota with all other
Members having a substantial interest in supplying the product
concerned. In cases in which this method is not reasonably
practicable, the Member concerned shall allot to Member countries
having a substantial interest in supplying the product shares of
the total quantity or value of imports of the product based upon
the proportions, supplied by such Member countries during a
previous representative period, due account being taken of any
/special E/CONF.2/70
Page 31
special factor which may have affected or may be affecting the
trade in the product. No conditions or formalities shaII be
imposed which would prevent any Member country from utilizing
fully the share of any such total quantity or value which has
been allotted to it, subject to importation being made within
any prescribed period to which the quota may relate.
3. (a) In the case of import restrictions involving the granting of
import licenses, the Member applying the restrictions shall provide, upon
the request of any Member having an interest in the trade in the product
concerned, all relevant information concerning the administration of the
restrictions, the import licenses granted over a recent period and the
distribution of such licences among supplying countries; Provided that there
shall be no obligation to supply information as to the names of importing or
supplying enterprises.
(b) In the case of import restrictions involving the fixing of quotas,
the Member applying the restrictions shall give public notice of the total
quantity or value of the product or product which will be permitted to be
imported during a specified future period and of any change in such quantity
or value. Any supplies of the product in question which were en route at
the time at which public notice was given shall not be excluded from entry;
Provided that they may be counted, so far as practicable, against the quantity
permitted to be imported in the period in question, and also, where necessary,
against the quantities permitted to be imported in the next following period
or periods, and Provided further that if any Member customarily exempt from
such restrictions products entered for consumption or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption during a period of thirty days after the day of
such public notice, such practice shall be considered full compliance with
this sub-paragraph.
(c) In the case of quotas allocated among supplying countries, the
Member applying the restrictions shall promptly inform all other Members
having an interest in supplying the product concerned of the shares in the
quota currently allocated, by quantity or value, to the various supplying
countries and shall give public notice thereof.
(d) If the Organization finds, upon the request of a Member, that the
interests of that Member would be seriously prejudiced by giving, in regard
to certain products, the public notice required under sub-paragraphs (b) and
(e) of this paragraph, by reason of the fact that a large part of its imports
of such products is supplied by non-Member countries, the Organization shall
release the Member from compliance with the obligations in question to the
/extent and E/CONF.2/70
Page 32
extent and for such time as it finds necessary to prevent such prejudice.
Any request made by a Member pursuant to this sub-paragraph shall be acted
upon promptly by the Organization.
4. With regard to restrictions applied in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 2 (d) of this Article or under the provisions of paragraph 2 (c)
of Article 20, the selection of a representative period for any product and
the appraisal of any special factors affecting the trade in the product shall
be made initially by the Member applying the restrictions; Provided that such
Member shall, upon the request of any other Member having a substantial
interest in applying that product, or upon the request of the Organization,
consult promptly with the other Member or the Organization regarding the need
for an adjustment of the proportion determined or of the base period selected,
or for the re-appraisal of the special factors involved, or for the
elimination of conditions, formalities of any other provisions established
unilaterally with regard to the allocation of an adequate quota or its
unrestricted utilization.
5. The provisions of this Article shall apply to any tariff quota instituted
or maintained by any Member and, insofar as applicable, the principles of
this Article shall also extend to export restrictions.
~~~
ti/Aeel3o2 E/CONF.2/70 Page 33
Article 23
Exceptions to the Rule of Non-discrimination
1. (a) The Members recognize that the aftermath of the war has brought
difficult problems of economic adjustment which do not permit the immediate
full achievement of non-discriminatory administration of quantitative restric-
tions and therefore require the exceptional transitional period arrangements
set forth in this paragraph. . ..:. .,;.
tions under Article 21 may, in the unde Article 21 Pay, i the
eviate from tsuch restricios, dwXi±tom the provisions of Article 22 in a
manner h4igieuvalontefect to restroictios on payoments and transfers fpr
current i enationyl transac tons w hiyc th tit Membey mayat that-te apple
theTHrE under Articlement e, 9hV clers o AgroeintInterrnational Monetay!
Fund, or under an analogous provision of a special exchange agreement entered
into pursuantto paragraph 6 of Article 24. .
(c) A plpbwhich is.aplng restrictions under Article 21 and.whih r
on Mar ach 1, 1948 waspplying import restrictions to safeguard its balance of
payments in adevia emafnner which td rom the rules of non-discrimination set
forth in Article e 22 may, to thextent that such deviation would not have been
authorized on that date by sub-paragraph (b), continue so to deviate, and may
adapt such deviation to changing. circumstances
(d) Any Member which before July 1, 1948 has signed the Protocol of
Provisional Application agreed upon at Geneva on October 30, 1947, and which
by such signature has provisionally accepted the principles of paragraph 1
of Article 23of the Draft Charter submitted to tonshe United Nati
ConferenceEm lon Trade and poyment by the Preparatory Committee, may elect,
by written notice to the Interim Commission of the Iranternational Tde
Organization or to the Organization before January 1, 1949, to be governed by
the provisions of Annex K of this Charter, which embodies such principles,
- ieu. f the provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of th.is paragraph,
,X
The provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) shall not be applicable to Members
wich have so elected to be governed by the provisions of Annex K; and conversely,
/tA:roions E/CONF.2/70
Page 34
the provisions of Annex K shall not be applicable to members which have not
so elected.
(e) The policies applied in the use of import restrictions under sub-
paragraphs (b) and (c) or under Annex K in the postwar transitional period
shall be designed to promote the maximum development of multilateral trade
possible during that period and to expedite the attainment of a balance of
payments position which will no longer require resort to the provisions of
Article 21 or to transitional exchange arrangements.
(f) A Member may deviate from the provisions of Article 22, pursuant
to sub-paragraphs (b) or (c) of this paragraph or pursuant to Annex K, only
so long as it is availing itself of the post-war transitional period arrange-
ments under Article XIV of the Articles of Agreement of the International
Monetary Fund, or of an analogous provision of a special exchange agreement
entered into under paragraph 6 of Article 24.
(g) Not later than March 1, 1950 (three years after the date on which
the International Monetary Fund began operations) and in each year there-
after, the Organization shall report on any action still being taken by
Members under sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of this paragraph or under Annex. K.
In March 1952, and in each year thereafter, any Member still entitled to
take action under the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) or of Annex K shall
consult the Organization as to any deviations from Article 22 still in
force pursuant to such provisions and as to its continued resort to such
provisions, After March 1, 1952 any action under Annex K going beyond
the maintenance in force of deviations on which such consultation has taken
place and which the Organization has not found unjustifiable, or their
adaptation to changing circumstances, shall be subject to any limitations
of a general character which the Organization may prescribe in the light
of the Member's circumstances.
(h) The Organization may, if it deems such action necessary in
exceptional circumstances, make representations to any Member entitled to
take action under the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) that conditions are
favourable for the termination of any particular deviation from the
/provisions Page 35
provisions of Article 22, or for the general abandonment of deviations,
under the provisions of that sub-paragraph, After March 1, 1952 the Organi-
zation may make such representations, in exceptional circumstances, to any
Member entitled to take action under Annex K. The Member shall be given
a suituble time to reply to such representations. If the Organization finds
that the Member persists in unjustifiable deviation from provision of
Article 22, the Member shall, within sixty days, limit or terminate such
deviations as the Organization may specify. ''.;.
ears th orrod ts transitional period arrangements have eieitatedioneseonaeleinapeeiadangcmot have tcrmn;
which is applying impapurseuetetoeons paragraph u1(f), a Mmrwi io sponsplying import rstricti
unerArteclc 1 may, with thc osent of the Organization, temporarily
ddiAo fem tAhn o 8rtio 22 n respe of asmall part of
enefits to the itebecrsra trheo th oncftto the cr o Members concerned
njury ntiallyay result to the trade of other sult to th trade of other
M bs.
3. Thorovisions of Article 22 shall not preclude restrictions in
provisions of Article ccwiteitherc thosprovieonc rtiel 2ewehich ctho.
om other cp,(a) ied lieeaigaais Ipom rtse frocountries, but not s
among themselves, bym a gropof territories havmig a oomon
quota in the International Monetary Fund, on condition that
such eestrictions r ine all othr respects consistent with 1
the provisions of Article 22, or
ecember (1b)d emtes,e prsuiesounl ecomasubeo 3,951, by menuar
not involviee pbstantiale departure from thoprovisions of
Article 22, anoee een cotry whoeese onomy has boodispted
by war.
rt 4,A Membendepinder gr import rdetctions urnoAcle 21 shall not be
ion prhie pclying measures to direct ios exportstoctludedeytea4S fromp mueurcsto deirects its oxorta
encies whin ac a tmnnne eas ierosoits earnines eof curr cict can
uz ithoeotdeviatiee fr thoproviions eof Artclo22.
AMesber
'.. - '@*@. . .n*
_? I-,,- L.L -_ - - E/CONF.2/70 Page 36A
5. A Member shall not be precluded by this Section from applying quantitative
restrictions
(a) having equivalent effect to exchange restrictions authorized
under Section 3 (b) of Article VII of the Articles of Agreement
of the International Monetary Fund; or
(b) under the preferential arrangements provided for in Annex A of
this Charter, pending the outcome of the negotiations referred to
therein.
/Article 24 E/CONF.2/70
Page 37
Article 24 Relationship with the International Monetary Fund
1. The Organization shall seek co-operation with the International Monetary
Fund to the end that the Organization and the Fund may pursue a co-ordinated
policy with regard to exchange questions within the jurisdiction of the Fund
and questions of quantitative restrictions and other trade reserves within
the jurisdiction of the Organization.
2. In all cases in which the Organization is called upon to consider or deal
with problems concerning monetary reserves, balance of payments or foreign
exchange arrangements the Organization shall consult fully with the Fund.
In such consultation, the Organization shall accept all findings of statis-
tical and other facts presented by the Fund relating to foreign exchange, mone-
tary reserves and balance of payments, and shall accept the determination of
the Fund whether action by a Member with respect to exchange matters is in
accordance with the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund,
or with the terms of a special exchange agreement entered into between that
Member and the Organization pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Article. Then
the Organization is examining a situation in the light of the relevant consi-
derations under all the pertinent Provisions of Article 21 for the purpose
of reaching its Final decision in cases involving the criteria set forth in
paragraph 3 (a) of that Article, it shall accept the determination of the
Fund as to what constitute a serious decline in the Member's monetary reserves,
a vary low level of its monetary reserves or a reasonable rate of increase in
its monetary reserves, and as to the financial aspects of other matters covered
in consultation in such cases.
3. The Oranization shall seek agreement with the Fund regarding procedures
for consultation under paragraph 2 of this Article. Any such agreement, other
than informal arrangements of a temporary or administration character, shall
be subject to confirmation by the Conference.
/4. Members shall E/CONF.2/70
Page 38
4. Members shall not by exchange action frustrate the intent of the pro-
visions of this Section, nor, by trade action, the intent of the provisions
of the Article of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.
5. If the organization considers, at any time that exchange restrictions
on payments and transfers in connection with imports are being applied by
a Member in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Section with
respect to quantitative restrictions it shall report thereon to the Fund.
6. (a) Any Member of the Organization which is not a member of the Fund shall,
within a time to be determined by the Organization after consultation with the
Fund, become a member of the Fund or, failing that, enter into a special ex-
change agreement with the Organization, A Member of the Organization which
ceases to be a member of the Fund shall forthwith enter into a special ex-
change agreement with the Organization. Any special exchage agreement
entered into by a Member under this sub-paragraph shall thereupon become part
of its obligations under this Charter.
(b) Any such agreement shall provide to the satisfaction the Organiza-
tion that the objectives of this Charter will not be frustrated as sure of
action with respect to exchange matters by the Number in question.
(c) Any such agreement shall not impose obligations on the Member with
respect to exchange matters generally more restrictive than those imposed by
the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund on members of the
Fund. * '' * "' '
( d) No Lmorsall be required to centgreement so longer into any such aerc..:
as it usfes solelMemy t a durrengy oaneother bee. n.soIon, as either thQ
Ie nr thentry hbeosgc cur mrcctanyy in oinge use-ri:insexc res.
ertheles, if the Organization it any time considers tjht the 44h
ence of a special exnsange agreement may be permitting actionnchdsge aFoentmy he p.rittn. acto ;hiht
pr v mruprat thhe Cpurter, ir mpohss s o:eraianf theoisions of t.shat(y
rencl exchange agreement in accordanceihe?.eexc1aeg menr to ace.eciahnaoe()Q
wiMth ethsf rov eMiieozstion whf h . is rasrtaphw.emb o thOrganioaInhic i
has ondgentered into a swac gQeof hedg emgree oshichs not onth'dig Speial eclnperc-
nsult with the organiTant nmon ay m'ahy tre tga czation sult Orrsdne
/problem. E/CONF.2/70 Page 39
problem.
7. A Member which is not a member of the Fund, whether or not it has entered
into a special exchange agreement, shall furnish such information within the
general scope of Section 5 or Article VIII of the Articles of Agreement of
the International Monetary Fund as the Organization may require in order to
carry out its Functions under this Charter.
8. Nothing in this Section shall preclude:
(a) the use by a Member of exchange control or exchange restrictions
in accordance with the Articles of Agreement of the International
Monetary Fund or with these Member's special exchange agreement with
the Organization, or
(b) the use by a Member of restrictions or controls on imports or
exports, the sole effect of which, in addition to the effects
permitted under Articles 20, 21, 22 and 23, is to make effective
such exchange controls or exchange restrictions.
- E/CONF.2/70
Page 40
SECTION C - SUBSIDIES
Article 25
Subsidies in General
If any Member grants or maintains any subsidy including any form of income
or price support, which operates directly or indirectly to maintain or
increase exports of any product from, or to reduce, or prevent an increase
in, imports of any product into, its territory, the Member shall notify
the Organization in writing of the extent and nature of the subsidization,
of the estimated effect of the subsidization on the quantity of the affected
product or products imported into or exported from its territory and of the
circumstances making the subsidization necessary. In any case in which a
Member considers that serious prejudice to its interests is caused or
threatened by any, such subsidization, the Member granting the subsidy shall,
upon request, discuss with the other Member or Members concerned, or with
the Organization, the possibility of limiting the subsidization.
Article 26
Additional Previsions on Expert Subsidies
1. No Member shall grant, directly or indirectly, any subsidy on the export
of any product, or establish or maintain any other system, which subsidy or
system results in the sale of such product for export at a price lower
than the comparable price charged for the like product to buyers in the
domestic market, due allowance being made for differences in the conditions
and terms of sale, for differences in taxation, and for other differences
atfecting price comparability.
2. The exemption of exported products from duties or taxes imposed in respect
of like products when consumed domestically, or the remission of such duties
or taxes in amounts not in excess of those which have accrued, shall not
be deemed to be in conflict with the provisions of paragraph 1. The use
of the proceeds of such duties or taxes to make payments to domestic producers
in general of those products shall be considered as a case under Article 25
3. Members shall give effect to the provisions of paragraph 1 at the
earliest practicable date but not later than two years from the day on which
this Charter enters into force. If any Member considers itself unable to do so
in respect of any particular product or products, it shall, at least three
months before the expiration of such period, give notice in writing to the
Organization, requesting a specific extension of the period. Such notice shall
be accompanied by a full analysis of the system in question and the
/circumstances E/CONF.2/ 70
Page 41
circumstances justifying it. The Organization shall then determine whether
the extension requested should be made and, if so, on what terms.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, any Member may subsidize
the exports of any product to the extent and for such time as may be necessary
to offset a subsidy granted by a non-Member affecting the Members exports
of the product. However, the Member shall, upon the request of the
Organization or of any other Member which considers that its interests
are seriously prejudiced by such action, consult with the Organization or
with that Member, as appropriate, with a view to reaching a satisfactory
adjustment of the matter.
Article 27
Special Treament of Primary Commodities
1. A system for the stabilization of the domestic price or of the return to
domestic producers of a primary commodity, independently of the movements
of expert prices, which results at times in the sale of the commodity for
export at a price lower than the comparable price charged for the like
commodity to buyers in the domestic market, shall be considered not to
involve a subsidy on export within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 26,
if the Organization determines that
(a) the system has also resulted, or is so designed as to result,
in the sale of the commodity for export at a price higher
than the comparable price charged for the like commodity to
buyers in the domestic market; and
(b) the system is so operated, or is designed so to operate, either
because of the effective regulation of production or otherwise
as not to stimulate exports unduly or otherwise seriously prejudice
the interests of other Members.
2. Any Member granting a subsidy in respect of a primary commodity shall
co-operate at all times in efforts to negotiate agreements, under the procedures
set forth in Chapter VI, with regard to that commodity.
3. In any case involving a primary commodity, if a Member considers that
its intersst would be seriously prejudiced by compliance with the provisions
of Article 26, or if a Member considers that its interests are-seriously
prejudiced by the granting of any form of subsidy, the proucedres set forth
in Chapter VI may be followed. The Member which considers that its interests
are thus seriously prejudiced shall, however, be exempt provisionyall
from the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 26 in respect of that
commodity, but shall be subject to the provisions or Article 28. E/CONF.2/7O
Page 42
4. No Member shall grant a new subsidy or increase an existing subsidy
affecting the exports of a primary commodity, during a commodity conference
called for the purpose of negotiating an inter-governmental control agreement
for the commodity concerned unless the Organization concurs in which case
such new or additional subsidy shall be subject to the provisions of Article 28.
5. If the measures provided for in Chapter VI have not succeeded, or
do not promise to succeed, within a reasonable period of time, or if the
conclusion of a commodity agreement is not an appropriate solution, any
Member which considers that its interests are seriously prejudiced shall not
be subject to the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 26 in
respect of that commodity, but shall be subject to the provisions of
Article 28.
Article 28
Undertaking regarding Stimulation of
Exports of Primary Commodities
1. Any Member granting any form of subsidy, which operates directly or
indirectly to maintain or increase the export of any primary commodity
from its territory, shall not apply the subsidy in such a way as to have
the effect of maintaining or acquiring for that Member more then an equitable
share of world trade in that commodity.
2. As required under the provisions of Article 25, the Member granting such
subsidy shall promptly notify the Organization of the extent and nature
of the subsidization, of the estimated effect of the subsidization on the
quantity of the affected commodity exported from its territory, and of
the circumstances making the suibsidization necessary, The Member shall
promptly consult with any other Member which considers that serious
prejudice to its interests is caused or threatened by the subsidization.
3. If, within a reasonable period of time, no agreement is reached in
such consultation, the Organization shall determine what constitutes an
equitable share of world trade in the commodity concerned and the Member
granting the subsidy shall conform to this determination.
4. In making the determination referred to in paragraph 3, the Organization
shall take into account any factors which may have affected, or may be
affecting world traded in the commodity concerned, and shall have particular
regard to:
(a) the Member country's share of world trade in the commodity during a
previous representative period; ,,
(b) whethetr he Memrbe count's rysharef o world tdrae in the commodity
ito small s that the effect of the suibsdoy n such trades i i lkely
/to be of minor E/CONF. 2 /70
Page 43
to be of minor significance;
(c) the degree of importance of the external trade in the commodity
to the economy of the Member country granting, and to the economies
of the Member countries materially affected by, the subsidy;
(d) the existence of price stabilization systems conforming to the
provisions of paragraph 1 of Artice 27:
(e) the desirability of facilitating the gradual expansion of
production for export in those areas able to satisfy world market
requirements of the commodity concerned in the most effective and
economic manner, and therefore of limiting any subsidies or other
measures which make that expansion difficult.
[Note: Article 29 has been deleted.]
/SECTION D
-" - - .
. . . 1.? E/CONF .2/70
Page 44
SECTION-STATE TRADING AND RELATED MATTERS
Article 30
Non-Discriminatory Treatment
1. (a) Each Member undertakes that if it establishes or maintains a state
enterprise, wherever located, or grants to any enterprise, formally or in
effect, exclusive or special privileges, ouch enterprise shall, in its
purchases and sales involving either imports or exports, act in a manner
consistent with the genera principles of non-discriminatory treatment
prescribed in this Charter for governmental measures affecting imports or
exports by private traders.
(b) The provisions of sub-paragraph (a) shall be understood to require
that such enterprises shall, having due regard to the other provisions of
this Charter, make any such purchases or sales solely in accordance with
commercial considerations, including price, quality, availability,
marketability, transportation and other condition of purchase or sale, and
shall afford the enterprises of the other Member countries adequate opportunity,
in accordance with customary business practice, to compete for participation
in such purchases or sales.
(c) No Member shall prevent any enterprise (whether or not an enterprise
described in sub-paragraph (a)) under its jurisdiction from acting in
accordance with the principles of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to Imports of products
purchased for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale
or with a view to use in the production of goods for commercial sale. With
respect to such imports, and with respect to the laws, regulations and
requirements referred to in paragraph 8 (a) of Article 18, each Member shall
accord to the trade of the other Members fair and equitable treatment.
Article 30A
Marketing Organizations
If a Member establishes or maintains a marketing board, commission or
similar organization, the Member shall be subject:
(a) with respect to purchases or sales by any such organization, to
the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 30;
(b) With respect to any regulations of any such organization governing
the operations of private enterprises, to the other relevant
provisions of this Charter.
/Article 31 E/CONF.2/70
Page 45
Article 31
Expension of Trade
1. If a Member establishes, maintains or authorizes, formally or in effect,
a monopoly of the importation or exportation of any product, the Member shall,
upon the request of any other Member or Members having a substantial interest
in trade with it in the product concerned, negotiate with such other Member
or Members in the manner provided for under Article 17 in respect of tariffs,
and subject to all the provisions of this Charter with respect to such
tariff negotiations, with the object of achieving:
(a) in the case of an export monopoly, arrangements designed to
limit or reduce any protection that might be afforded through
the operation of the monopoly to domestic users of the
monopolized product, or designed to assure exports of the
monopolized product in adequate quantities at reasonable
prices;
(b) in the case of an import monopoly, arrangements designed to
limit or reduce any protection that might be afforded through
the operation of the monopoly to domestic producers of the
monopolized product, or designed to relax any limitation on
imports which is comparable with a limitation made subject to
negotiation under other provisions of this Chapter.
2. In order to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1 (b), the Member
establishing, maintaining or authorizing a monopoly shall negotiate:
(a) for the establishment of the maximum import duty that may be
applied in respect of the product concerned; or
(b) for any other mutually satisfactory arrangement consistent with
the provisions of this Charter, if it is evident to the
negotiating parties that to negotiate a maximum import duty
under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph is impracticable
or would be ineffective for the achievement of the objectives
of paragraph 1; any Member entering into nogotiations under this
sub-paragraph shall afford to other interested Members an
opportunity for consultation.
3. In any case in which a maximum import duty is not negotiated under
paragraph 2 (a), the Member establishing, maintaining or authorizing the
import monopoly shall make public, or notify the Organization of, the
maximum import duty which it will apply in respect of the product concerned.
4. The import duty negotiated under paragraph 2, or made public or notified
/to the E/CONF.2/70
Page 46
to the Organization under paragraph 3, shall represent the maximum margin
by which the price charged by the import monopoly for the imported product
(exclusive of internal taxes conforming to the provisions of Article 18,
transportation, distribution and other expenses incident to the purchase,
sale or further processing, and a reasonable margin of profit) may exceed.
the landed cost; Provided that regard may be had to average landed costs
and selling prices over recent periods; and Provided further that, where
the product concerned is a primary commodity which is the subject of a
domestic price stabilization arrangement, provision may be made for
adjustment to take account of wide fluctuations or variations in world
prices, subject where a maximum duty has been negotiated to agreement between
the countries partien to the negotiations.
5. With regard to any product to which the provisions of this Article apply,
the monopoly shall, wherever this principle can be effectively applied and
subject to the other provisions of this Charter, import and offer for sale
such quantities of the product as will be sufficient to satisfy the full
domestic demand for the imported product, account being taken of any
rationing to consumers of the imported and like domestic product which may
be in force at that time.
6. In applying the provisions of this Article, due regard shall be had for
the fact that some monopolies are established and operated mainly for social,
cultural, humanitarian or revenue purposes.
7. This Article shall not limit the use by Members of any form of assistance
to domestic producers permitted by other provisions of this Charter.
Article 31A
Liquidation of Non-Commercial Stocks
1. If a Member holding stocks of any primary commodity accumulated for
non-commercial purposes should liquidate such stocks, it shall carry out
the liquidation, as far as practicable, in a manner that will avoid serious
disturbance to world market for the commodity concerned..
2. Such Member shall:
(a) give not less than four months public notice of its intention to
liquidate such stocks; or
(b) give not less than four months prior notice to the Organization
of such intention.
3. Such Member shall, at the request of any Member which considers itself
substantially interested, consult as to the best means of avoiding substantial
/injury E/CONF .2/70
Page 47
injury to the economic interested of producers and consumers of the primary
commodity in question. In cases where the interests of several Members might
be substantially affected, the Organization may participate in the
consultations, and the Member holding the stocks shall give due consideration
to its recommendations.
4. The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to routine disposal
of supplies necessary for the rotation of stocks to avoid deterioration.
/SECTION E E/CONF.2/70
Page 48
SECTION E - GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROVISIONS
Article 32
Freedom of Transit
1. Goods (including baggage), and also vessels and other means of transport,
shall be deemed to be in transit across the territory of a Member country,
when the passage across such territory, with or without trans-shipment,
warehousing, breaking bulk or change in the mode of transport, is only a
portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the frontier
of the Member country across whose territory the traffic passes. Traffic of
this nature is termed in this Article "traffic in transit".
2. There shall be freedom of transit through each Member country, via the
routes moot convenient for international transit, for traffic in transit to
or from other Member countries. No distinction shall be made which is based
on the flag of vessels, the place of origin, departure, entry, exit or
destination, or on any circumstances relating to the ownership of goods, of
vessels or of other means of transport.
3. Any Member may require that traffic in transit through its territory
be entered, at the proper custom house, but, except in cases of failure to
comply with applicable customs lave and regulations, such traffic coming
from or going to other Member countries shall not be subject to any
unnecessary delays or restrictions and shall be exempt from customs duties
and from all transit duties or other charges imposed in respect of transit,
except charges commensurate with administrative expenses entailed by transit
or with the cost of services rendered.
4. All charges and regulations imposed by Members on traffic in transit
to or from other Member countries shall be reasonable, having regard to the
conditions of the traffic.
5. With respect to all charges, regulations and fromalities in connection
with transit, each Member shall accord to traffic in transit to or from any
other Member country treatment no less favourable than the treatment accorded
to traffic in transit to or from any third country.
6. The Organization may undertake studies, make recommendations and
promote international agreement relating to the simplification of customer
regulations concerning traffic in transit, the equitable use of facilities
required for such transit and other measures designed to promote the
objectives of this Article. Members shall co-operate with each other
directly and through the Organization to this end.
7. Each Member shall accord to goods which have been in transit through
/any other E/CONF.2/70
Page 49
any other Member country treatment no less favourable than that which would
have been accorded to such goods had they been transported from their place
of origin to their destination without going through such other Member country.
Any Member shall, however, be free to maintain its requirements of direct.
consignment existing on the date of this Charter, in respect of any goods in
regard to which such direct consignment is a requisite condition of eligibility
for entry of the goods at preferential rates of duty or has relation to the
Members prescribed method of valuation for customs purposes.
8. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to the operation of
aircraft in transit, but shall apply to air transit of goods (including
baggage).
Article 33
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties
1. The Members recognize that dumping, by which products of one country
are introduced into the commerce of another country at less than the normal
value of the products, is to be condemned if it causes or threatens material
injury to an established industry in a Member country or materially retards
the establishment of a domestic industry. For the purposes of this Article,
a product is to be considered as being introduced into the commerce of an
importing country at less than its normal value, if the price of the product
exported from one country to another.
(a) is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course
of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption
in the exporting country, or,
(b) in the absence of such domestic price, is lose than either
(i) the highest comparable price for the like product for
export to any third country in the ordinary course of
trade, or
(ii) the cost of production of the product in the country
of origin plus a reasonable addition for selling cost
and profit.
Due allowance shall be made in each case for differences in conditions
and terms of sale, for differences in taxation, and for other differences
affecting price comparability.
2. In order to offset or prevent dumping, a Member may levy on any dumped
product an anti-dumping duty not greater in amount than the margin of dumping
in respect of ouch product. For the purposes of this Article, the margin of
dumping is the price difference determined in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 1 /3. No E/CONF. 2/70
Page 50
3. No countervailing duty shall be levied on any product of any Member
country imported into another Member country in excess of an amount equal to
the estimated bounty or subsidy determined to have been granted, directly or
indirectly, on the manufacture, production or export of such product in the
country of origin or exportation, including any special subsidy to the
transportation of a particular product, The term "countervailing duty" shall
be understood to mean a special duty levied for the purpose of offsetting any
bounty or subsidy bestowed directly, or indirectly, upon the manufacture,
production or export of any merchandise. .
4. No prduco of any Member country imported into any other toe nr countryombvtriporrco tonto her Membez. unt
shall be subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duty by reason of the
exemption of uouct from duties or taxes borne by the like product when
destiedfor consumption in the c,ountry of oonrigin or exportonation or by reas
sred: e it s tios r tas.s. uchuue
p5. u eomported dcbf an mo other mecmpurcountryanycorc unMembe
shto all be ubetm bng abnd othm a -dupanduntervailing dutienseses to compate
fsametion of dumping or export suoir tb et eexporduppg u subsidization.
6 ny No Member shallnlevy a aling duty on the 0nti-dumping or coulgerva edutyn t
importation f atry ny esprit oducrt noasf another Member counetr urlsn dtemie
that the efft of the adu mpi ng, is su or subsidization, asa he csesuybe c
ury as to cause or threateenic in tetrraylIn toan establisheceidomtrt idusy,
or is suh to retard matereiallyindust the establishment of a doindmstiry,
The Orgnization may waive thse asrequirements of this paragraph o to permit
a Member to levy an anti-dumpinmg or ciountervailing duty on the iportaton
of ansy product for the psupossof nofettig dumping or subidization which
causes or threatens material injury to an industry in another Member country
exporting the produect concerned to the importing Mmber country
7. A sytem for the stabilization of the domestic price or of the return
to domemstic pers of a prmimmaycomodity, independently of the movements
of export prices, whih resuolts at times in tho sale f the commodity for
export at a price loer than the comparable price charged for the like
comriy to buyers in thell b domestic markletl,haU eresumed not to result
in material injury within the meaning of epeariagraph 6 if it isdtrmned by
consultation among the Membsers subta the contoially interested inmmdicdty
concerned that
(a) the system has also reshe coultdeed ein th sale of tmmoity "
for export a comt a price higher than theparable price charged
for the like commodity to buyers in the domestic market and
(b) the system is operated, either because of the effective
regulao of producs not tion,imulate or otherwise, aimntmul o stlnae
/eporto E/CONF. 2/70
Page 51
exports unduly or otherwise seriously prejudice the interests
of other Members ,
Article 34 .;
. ''
Valuation for Custms PurposeB
1 he Members shall work toward the standardization, aefaras practicable,
ofdhilteo uean. f goooduo odening valprods
rsubject to customs dutie or othiasrrictona aed uon o
regulated in any manner by value,iha view to furthering co-operation
tome this end, the OrgsItosn may study and roomndto Members such basea
and methods for determining value for customs purposes as would appear best
suld tthe needs 'f. mr a.d most capable of general adoption'.
g ubs greoizle validiyof 'theenera principles of.'
valuation set forth I aragraphs 3, 4 and 5, and they undertake to give '
effect, al date,he eap'eraticasbect yl desespect of principles in reqp0
all products subjet to duties or othar charges or retatstrictions on imporion
ated re 'wyora`inr ay na ne bvMea luae., peo vea, ; tph:shllU uPonI
a ranethquest, by oer Member directly affectgetd, reveiegwt oin tehe lih f thse
the oppratroieleetn ofny of their laws or regulations relating to value
customs fsr oes .se OrganizationThoay request from Membrseteports rn*ep
steps taken by them in pursuance of the provisions of this. Arte.icl
3,) The value for customs purposes of imported merchandise hshel de:b
bas oe dnthe actual value of the imported merchandise on which dutys i
assessed, or of likes merchandise, and should not be based on the value of
rchandims ee fr national origin or on arbitrary orcifctitous vla.e.s,
b)u"Actuil ;alue" lh9uld 'e the rice at wWich at time and tlaced
determined by the legisaltion of te country of imoprtation, and in he
ordinary courses of trade ,such or ike merchandise is sold offered for
sale under fully competitive conditions. To the extent to which the price
of such or like merchadise is governed by the quantity in a particular
transaction, the price to be considered should uniformly be related to-either
(i) comparable quantities, or (ii) quantities not less favourable to importers
than those in which the greater volume of the merchandise is sold n the trade
between the countries of exportation and importation .
(c) When the actual vauelis nto cacertinablae n accordance with
subpa-agraprh (b), vlaue for customs purposs sheolud be based on the
neresta ascertainable euivqaletn o such vfalu.e
, 4 9i?._
ue fod 4,Thelpvpurposes ofpfeeeprportee tooducm shouldyino iincludelmore octt0
itf ahy ineernal tax applicobla within thj country eenali i apqpn or
/export E/CONF.2/70
Page 52
export, from which the imported product has been exempted or has been or will
be relieved by means of refund.
5. (a) Except at otherwise provided in this paragraph, where it is
necessary for the purposes of paragraph 3 for a Member to convert into its
own currency a price expressed in the currency of another country, the
conversion rate of exchange to be used shall be based on the par values of
the currencies involved, as established pursuant to the Articles of Agreement
of the International Monetary fund or by special exchange agreements entered
into pursuant to Article 24 of this Charter.
(b) Where no such par value has been established, the conversion rate
shall reflect effectively the current value of such currency in commercial
transactions.
(c) The Organization, in agreement with the International Monetary Fund,
shall formulate rules governing the conversion by Members of any foreign
currency in respect of which multiple rates of exchange are maintained
consistently with the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.
Any Member may apply such rules in respect of such foreign currencies for the
purposes of paragraph 3 of this Article as an alternative to the use of
par values. Until such rules are adopted by the Organization, any Member may
employ, in respect of any such foreign currency, rules of conversion for the
purposes of paragraph 3 of this Article which are designed to reflect
effectively the value of such foreign currency in commercial transactions. 4
ing 6,othtbii iicll Art'ceall be construed to require anry temer.
alter the method of converting currencuicuaiccuies stoms purposess, i
apcabpi lin its le iterritory on the date of this Charter, if such aatlterion
would have the effect of increasing generally the amounts of duty payable.
7. The bases a methods for determining the value of product subect to'
duthtiesth or oer charges or restrictions based upon or regulatedaan in aanany ner
by value should be staable nd should be given sufficient publici ty toenable
traders to estimate, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the vaorlue f
customs. purposes
Arti5cle 3
Formalitiese conncteh Imd witportation
and Exportation i..;.
Th e Membes rs recogieatheacathlel chaereeercdcharges of whier ractc
(otherd than indmport ad export htiesh inthe ahother than taxes wtiburview
of Articlem .6i oe ygovetrnenotalc iautwhorciiinww t or n conneOto Vih
pirmatpor tation orxTotinshould be nlimited in xaout to the approimate
/ct of E/CONF.2/70
Page 53
cost of services rendered and should not represent an indirect protection to
domestic products or a taxation of imports or exports for fiscal purposes.
The Members also recognize the need for reducing the number and diversity of
such fees and charges, for minimizing the incidence and complexity of import
and export formalities, and for decreasing and simplifying import and export
documentation requirements.
2. The Members shall take action in accordance with the principles and
objectives of paragraph 1 at the earliest practicable date. Moreover, they
shall, upon request by another Member directly affected, review the operation
of any of thier laws and regulations in the light of these principles. The
Organization may request from Members reports on steps taken by them in
pursuance of the provisions of this paragraph.
3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall extend to fees, charges,
formalities and requirements imposed by governmental authorities in connection
with importation and exportation, including those relating to:
(a) consular transactions, such as those relating to consular invoices
and certificates;
(b) quantitative restrictions;
(c) licensing;
(d) exchange control;
(e) statistical services;
(f) documents, documentation and certification;
(g) analysis and inspection; and
(h) quarantine, sanitation and fumigation.
4. The Organization may study and recommend to Members specific measures
for the simplification and standardization of customs formalities and techniques
and for the elimination of unnecessariy customs requirements, ncluding those
relating to advertising matter and samples for use only in taking orders for
merchandise.
5. No Member shall impose substantial penaltiecs for minor breaches of ustoms
regulations or precedural requirements. In particular, no penalty in respect
of any omission or mistake in customs documentation which is easily rectifiable
and obviously made without fraudulent Intent or gross negligence shall be
greater than necessary to serve merely as a warning
6. The Members recognize that tariff descriptions based on distinctive
regiosnal or geographical name should not be used in such a manner as to
discriminate against products of Member countries. Accordingly, the Members
shall co-operate with each other directly and through the Organization with
a view to eliminating at the earliest practicable date practices which are
inconsistent with this principle. /Article 36 E/CONF. 2/70
Page 54
Article 36
Marks of Origin.
1. The Members recognize that, in adopting And implementing laws and
regulations relating to marks of origin, the difficulties and inconveniences
which such measures may cause to the commerce and industry of exporting
countries should be reduced to a minimum.
2. Each Member shall accord to the products of each other Member country
treatment with regard to marking requirements no less favourable than the
treatment accorded to like products of any third country.
3. Whenever it is administratively practicable to do so, Members should
permit required marks of origin to be affixed at the time of importation,
4. The laws and regulations of Members relating to the marking of imported
products shall be such as to permit compliance without seriously damaging the
products or materially reducing their value or unreasonably increasing their
cost.
5. The Members agree to work in co-operation through the organization towards
the early elimination of unnecessary marking requirements. The Organization
may study and recommend to Members measures directed to this end; including
the adoption of schedules of general categories of products, in respect of
which marking requirements operate to restrict trade to an extent
disproportionate to any proper purpose to be served, and which shall not in
any case be required to be marked to indicate their origin.
6. As a general rule no special duty or penalty should be imposed by any
Member for failure to comply with marking requirements prior to importation
unless corrective marking is unreasonsbly delayed or deceptive marks have
been affixed or the required marking has been intentionally omitted.
7. The Members shall co-operate with each other directly and through the
Organization with a view to preventing the use of trade names in such manner
as to misrepresent the true origin of a product, to the detriment of the
distinctive regional or geographical names of products of a Member country
which are protected by the Iegislation of such country. Each Member shall
accord full and sympathetic consideration to such requests or representations
as may be made by any other Member regarding the application of the
undertaking set forth in the preceding sentence to names of products which
have been communicated to it by the other Member. The Organization may
/recommend E/CONF .2/70
Page 55
recommend a conference of interested Members on this subject.
Article 37
Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations
1. Laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of
general application made effective by any Member, pertaining to the
classification or the valuation of products for customs purposes, or to
rates of duty, taxes or other charges, or to requirements, restrictions
or prohibitions on imports or exports or on the transfer of payments therefor,
or affecting their sale, distribution, transportation, insurance,
warehousing, inspection, exhibition, processing, mixing or other use, shall
be published promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders
to become acquainted with them. Agreements affecting international trade
policy which are in force between the government or governmental agency of
any Member country and the government or governmental agency of any other
country shall also be published. Copies of such laws, regulations, decisions,
rulings and agreements shall be communicated promptly to the Organization.
The provision of this, paragraph shall not require any Member to divulge
confidential information the disclosure of which would impede law
enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest or would
prejudice the legitimate commercial interests or particular enterprises,
public or private.
2. No measure of general application taken by any Member affecting an
advance in a rate of duty or other charge on imports under an established
and uniform practice or imposing a new or more burdensome requirement,
restriction or prohibition on imports, or on the transfer of payments therefor,
shall be enforced before such measure has been officially made public.
3. (a) Each Member shall administer in a uniform, impartial and reasonable
manner all its laws, regulations, decisions and rulings of the kind described
in paragraph 1. Suitable facilities shall be afforded for traders directly
affected by any of those matters to consult with the appropriate governmental
authorises *i
(b) achemb esssrhcjioralee instute as so osna patcael
Jdcial, arbitral or mdri r ttiv s for theetrurib,unalsor procedeu rfh s,
lmpt ravi, ft hepropr miviendrminacrettovctacioonofadnmiistrav oi
re.tln to s. Scus toms matetreshtriedbres shaunals or procduh be independent
oft the agenc wites entrunstedih andminisenttrativethefordecesm s and eir ciion
sall be yimplemente .b, and shall governathc prac tgicce of, sucha niesc
auaes ladg p elstiqorltobenorrtribnual of superior jurisdictionpf nt jto 1iorisdition
/within the E/CONF.2/70
Page 56
within the time prescribed for appeals to be Iodged by importers; Provided
that the central administration of such agency may take steps to obtain a
review of the matter in another proceeding if there is good cause to believe
that the decision is inconsistent with established principles of law or the
actual facts.
(c) The provisions of sub-paragraph (b) shall not require the elimination
or substitution of procedures in force in a Member country on the date of this
Charter which in fact provide for an objective and impartial review of
administrative action, even though such procedures are not fully or formally
independent of the agencies entrusted with administrative enforcement. Any
Member employing such procedures shall, upon request, furnish the Organization
with full information thereon in order that the Organization may determine
whether such procedures conform to the requirements of this sub-paragraph.
Article 38
Information, Statistics and Trade
Terminology
1. The Member shall communicate to the Organization, or to such agency
as may be designated for the purpose by the Organization, as promptly and
in as much detail as is reasonably practicable;
(a) statistics of their external trade in goods (imports, exports
and, where applicable, re-exports, transit and trans-shipment
and goods, in warehouse or in bond);
(b) statistics of governmental revenue from import and export
duties and other taxes on goods moving in international trade and,
insofar as readily ascertainable, of subsidy payments affecting
So far as possible, the statistics referred to in paragraph 1 shall
be related to tariff classifications and shall be in such form as to reveal
the operation of any restrictions on importation or exportation which are
based on or regulated in any manner by quantity or value or amounts of
exchange made available.
3. The Members shall publish regularly and as promptly as possible the
in paragraph 1.
4. The Members shall give careful consideration to any recommendations ren~to anyc
Organization wzaei mathem keo a wiegLztooyipmw amg rovin heg o p
information furnishedtuadeis a.aSurn..aul.1fapha?,
Memmnbseshme available to the ornization, atgaoirraquest 5.heairCe
rs r isreas asnablyepractical, e ,such otr sttistical inad1a;., thl, lnoton
/as the organization E/CONF.2/70
Page 57
as the Organization may deem necessary to enable it to fulfil its functions,
provided that such information is not being furnished to other inter-
governmental organizations from which the Organization can obtain it
6. The Organization shall act as a centre for the collection, exchange
and publication of statistical information of the kind referred to in
paragraph 1. The Organization, in collaboration with the Economic and Social
Council of the United Nations, and with any other organization deemed
appropriate, may engage in studies with a view to improving the method of
collecting, analyzing and publishing economic statiatics and may promote the
international comparability of such statistics, including the possible
international adoption of standard tariff and commodity classifications.
7. The Organization, in co-operation with the other organizations referred
to in paragraph 6, may also study the question of adopting standards,
nomenclatures, terms and forms to be used in International trade and in the
official documents and statistics of Members relating thereto, and may
recommend the general acceptance by Members of such standards, nomenclatures
terms and forms.
[Note Article 39 has been deleted.]
/SECTION F E/CONF.2/70
Page 58
SECTION F - SPECIAL PROVlSIONS
Article 40
Emergency Action on Imports of Particular Products
1. (a) If, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the
obligations incurred by a Member under or pursuant to this Chapter, including
tariff Concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of that
Member in such relatively Increased quantities and under such conditions as to
cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers in that territory of like
or directly competitive products, the Member shall be free, in respect of such
product, and to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or
remedy such injury, to suspend the obligation in whole or in part or to withdraw
or modify the concession.
(b) If any product which is the subject of a concession with respect to a
preference is being important into the territory of a Member in the circumstances
set forth in sub-paragraph (a) so as to cause or threaten serious injury to
domestic producers of like or directly competitive products in the territory of
a Member which receives or received such preference, the importing Member shall
be free, if that other Member so requests, to suspend the relevant obligation
in whole or in part or to withdraw or modify the concession in respect of the
product, to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy
such injury.
2. Before any Member shall take action pursuant to the provisions of
paragraph 1, it shall give notice in writing to the Organization as far in advance
as may be practicable and shall afford the Organization and those Members having
a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned an opportunity to
consult with it in respect of the proposed action. When such notice is given
in regard to a concession relating to a preference, the notice shall name the
Member which has requested the action. In circumstances of special urgency,
where delay would cause damage which it would be difficult to-repair, action
under paragraph 1 may be taken provisionally without prior consultation, on
the condition that consultation shall be effected immediately after taking such
motion.
3. (a) If agreement among the interested Members with respect to the action
is not reached, the Member which proposes to take or continue the action shall,
nevertheless, be free to do so, and if such action is taken or continued, the
affected Members shall then be free, not later than ninety days after such action
is taken, to suspend, upon the expiration of thirty days from the day on which
written notice of such suspension is received by the Organization, the
application to the trade of the Member taking such action, or, in the case
/envisaged in E/CONF.2/70
Page 59
envisaged in paragraph 1 (b), to the trade of the Member requesting such action,
of such substantially equivalent obligations or concessions under or pursuant
to this Chapter the suspension of which the Organization does not disapprove.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (a), where action is
taken without prior consultatlon under paragraph 2 and causes or threatens
serious injury in the territory of a Member to the domestic producers of products
affected by the action, that Member shall, where delay would cause damage
difficult to repair, be free to suspend, upon the taking of the action and
throughout the period of consultation, such obligations or concessions as may be
necessary to prevent or remedy the injury.
4. Nothing in this Article shall be construed (a) to require any Member, in
connection with the withdrawal or modification by such Member of any concession
negotiated pursuant to Article 17, to consult with or obtain the agreement of
Members other than those Members which are contracting parties to the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or (b) to authorize any Member which is not a
contracting party to that Agreement, to withdraw from or suspend obligations
under this Charter by reason of the withdrawal or modification of such concession.
Article 41
Consultation
Each Memberr shall accord sympathetic consideration to, and shall afford
adequate opportunity for consultation regarding, such representations as may
be made by any other Member with respect to the operation of customs regulations
and formalities, anti-dumping and countervailing duties, quantitative and
exchange regulations, internal price regulations, subsidies, transit regulations
and practice, state trading, sanitary laws and regulations for the protection of
human, animal or plant life or health, and generally with respect to all matters
affecting the operation of this Chapter.
/Article 42 Page 60
Article 42
Chaptor IV
1. The provisions of Chapter IV shall apply to the metropollten customs terri-
tories of the Members and to any other customs territories in respect of which
this Charter has been accepted in accordance with the provisions of Article 99.
ach much customs territory shall exclusively for the for the purposes of the territo-
rial application of Chapter IV be treatoo as though it wer a Member; Provided
that the provisions of this paragraph shall not be constructed to create any rights
or obligations as between two or more customs territories in respect of which
this Charter has been accepted by a single Member.rb(r
or2 . Tputhe fposfes o(this Chapter a customs territory shall be understood
eato F atny wrritowry 'teh rwpetcwwht e-secaha afsae tfsooi'ae otheer rcula-
nstopf m"amenmerao rma nftaienofdPo a substantialp eat foehe f traedof t'uch
etrirtoy wrti othehrt erritoreis.
rAticle4 A2
Toatiec Tra'ffit
"The provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed to prevent
(a) advantages accorde by any Member to adjacent countries in
order to facilitate frontier traffic
(h) advantages accorded to the trade with the Free Territory of Trieste
by countries contiguous to that territory, provided that such ad-
vantages are not in conflict with the Treatise of Peace arisingisingi afri8?
conout erd Wolda. 17o:-lr.
/Article 42B E/CONF.2/70
Page 61
Article
Customs Unions and Free
1. Members recognize the desirability of increasing freedom of trade by the
development, through voluntary agreements, of closer integration between the
economies of the countries parties to such agreements. They also recognize that
the purpose of a customs union or free-trade area should be to facilitate trade
between the parties and not to raise barriers to the trade of other Member
countries with such parties.
2. Accordingly, the provisions of this Chapter shall not prevent, as between the
of
territories of Members, the formation of a customs union or/a free-trade area or
the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs
of
union or/a free-trade area; Provided that:
(a) with respect to a customs union, or an interim agreement leading to
the formation of a customs union, the duties and other regulations of com-
merce imposed at the institution of any such union or interim agreement
in respect of trade with Member countries not parties to such union or
agreement shall not on the whole be higher or more restrictive than the
general incidence of the duties and regulations of commerce applicable in
the constituent territories prior to the formation of such union or the
adoption of such interim agreement, as the case may be;
(b) with respect to a free-trade area, or an interim agreement leading to
the formation of a free-trade area, the duties and other regulations of
commerce maintained in each of the constituent territories and applicable
at the formation of such free-trade area or the adoption of such interim
agreement to the trade of Member countries not included in such area or not
parties to such agreement shall not be higher or more restrictive than the
corresponding duties and other regulations of commerce existing in the
same constituent territories prior to the formation of the free-trade area;
or interim agreement, as the case may be; and
/(c) any interim E/CONF.2/70
Page 62
(c) any interim agreement referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and
(b) shall include a plan and schedule for the formation of
such a customs union or/such a free-trade area within a
reasonable length of time.
3. (a) Any Member deciding to enter into a customs union or free-
trade area, or an interim agreement leading to the formation
of such a union or area, shall promptly notify the Organiza-
tion and shall make available to it such information regard-
ing the proposed union or area as well enable the Organization
to make such report and recommendations to Members as it may
deen appropriate.
(b) In, after having studied the plan and schedule provided
for in an interim agreement referred to in paragraph 2 in
consultation with the parties to that agreement and taking
due account of the information made available in accordance
with the provisions of sub-paragraph (a), the Organisation
the formation of
finds that such agreement is not likely to result in/a cus-
toms union or/a free-trade area within the period contem-
plated by the parties to the agreement or that such period
is not a reasonable one, the Organization shall make recomen-
dations to the parties to the agreement. The parties shall
not maintain or put into force, as the case may be, such
agreement if they are not prepared to modify it in accordance
with these recommendations.
(c) Any substantial change in the plan or schedule referred
to in paragraph 2 (c) shall be communicated to the Organiza-
tion, which may request the Members concerned to consult with
it if the change seems likely to jeopardize or delay unduly
of the
the formation of the customs union or/free-trade area,
/4. For the purposes E/CONF.2/70
Page 63
4. For the purposes of this Charter
(a) a customs union shall he understood to mean the substitution
of a single customs territory for two or more Customs territo-
ries, so that
(1) duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce
(except, where necessary, those permitted under
Section B of Chapter IV and under Article 43) are
eliminated with respect to substantially all the
trade between the constituent territories of the
union or at least with respect to substantially
all the trade in products originating in such
territories, and,
(ii) subject to the provisions of paragraph 5, substan-
tially the same duties and other regulations of
commerce are applied by each of the members of
the union to the trade of territories not in-
cluded in the union;
(b) A free-trade area shall be understood to mean a group of two
or more customs territories in which the duties and other res-
trictive regulations of comrnerce (except, where necessary, those
permitted under Section B of Chapter IV and under Article 43)
between such territories are eliminated on substantially all
the trade in products originating in the constituent territories.
5. The preferences referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 16 shall not be
of
affected by the formation of a customs union or/a free-trade area but may
be eliminated or adjusted by means of negotiations with Members affected.
This procedure of negotiations with affected Members shall, in particular,
apply to the elimination of preferences required to conform with the pro-
visions of paragraph 4(a)(i) and paragraph 4(b).
/6. The Organization E/CONF. 2/70
page 64
6. The Organization may, by a two-thirds majority of the Members present
and voting, approve proposals which do not fully comply with the requirements
of the preceding paragraphs, provided that such proposals lead to the
formation of a customs union or a free-trade area in the sense of this
Article.
Article 43
General Exceptions to Chapter IV
1. Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a
manner which would constitute a mean of arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination between Member countries where the same conditions prevail,
or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Chapter
shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any Member of
measures
(a) (i) necessary to protect public morals;
(ii) necessary to the enforcement of laws and regulations
relating to public safety;
(iii) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or
health
I..; .;wi..
~~ *
/(iv} rela4lp
. * *
:. . i
'. .: - -1 I .. : E/CONF.2/70
Page 65
(iv) relating to the importation or deportation of gold
or silver;
(v) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations
which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Chapter, including those relating to customs enforcement,
the enforcement of monopolies operated under Section D of
this Chapter, the protection of patents, trade marks and
copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices;
(vi) relating to the products of prison labour;
(vii) imposed for the protection of national treasures of artistic,
historic or archaeological value;
(viii) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources
if such measured are made effective in conjunction with
restrictions on domestic production or consumption;
(ix) taken in pursuance of intergovernmental commodity agreements
concluded in according with the provisions of Chapter VI;
(x) taken in pursuance of any inter-governmental agreement which
relates solely to the conservation of fisheries resources,
migratory birds or wild animals and which is subject to the
requirements of paragraph 1 (d) of Article 67; or
(xi) involving restrictions on exports of domestic materials
necessary to assure essential quantities of such materials
to a domestic processing industry during periods when the
domestic price of such materials is held below the world
price as part of a governmental stabilization plan; Provided
that such restrictions shall not operate to increase the
exports of or the protection afforded to such domestic
industry and shall not depart from the provisions of this
Chapter relating to non-discrimination;
(b) (i) essential to the acquisition or distribution of products in
general or local short supply; Provided that any such measures
shall be consistent with any general inter-governmental
arrangements directed to an equitable international
distribution of such products or, in the absence of such
arrangements, with the principle that all Members are entitled
to an equitable share of the international supply of such
products;
(ii) essential to the control of prices by a Member country
experiencing shortages subsequent to the Second World War; or
/(iii) essential to E/CONF.2/70
Page 66
(iii) essential to the orderly liquidation of temporary surpluses
of stocks owned or controlled by the government of any Member
country, or of industries developed in any Member country
owing to the exigencies of the Second World War which it would
be uneconomic to maintain in normal conditions; Provided that
such measures shall not be instituted by any Member except
after consultation with other interested Members with a view
to appropriate international action.
2. Measures instituted or maintained under paragraph 1 (b) which are
inconsistent with the other provisions of this Chapter shall be removed as soon
as the conditions giving rise to them have cased, and in any event not later
than at a date to be specified by the Organization; Provided that such date may
be deferred for a further period or periods, with the concurrence of the
Organization, either generally or in relation to particular measures taken by
Members in respect of particular products.
/ANNEXES E/CONF.2/70
Page 67
ANNEXES PERTAINING TO PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 16
ANNEX A :
LIST OF TERRITORIES REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 (a:) OF ARTICLE 16
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Ditoriestof territories of theUnited Kingdom of Groat Britain and
Northern'Ireland
Canada
Commonwealih of Australia
Dependent territorims of the Commonwealth of Australia
New Zealand ' ;
Depeaent territoriesa of New Zealid
Union of South Africa including South West Africa
Ireland
India (as at Ap)ril 30, 1947
Newfoundland
Southern Rhodesia
Burma
Ceylon
Certain of the territories listed above have two or more preferential rates
in.orce for certain products. Any such territory may, by agreement with the
other Members which are principal suppliers of such products at the most-
favoured-nation rate, substitute for such preferential rates a single preferen-
tial rate which shall not on the whole be less favourable to suppliers at the
most-favoured-nation rate than the preferences in for.e prior to such s.ubstitution
The preferential arrangements )eferred to in par)agraph 5 (b of Article 23
/ are those existing in the UnitedKingdom on April n10, 1947, uder contractual
agreements weith the Govrnments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in respect
of chilled and frozen beef and veal, frozen mutton and lamb, chilled and frozen
pork., and bacon Without prejudice to any 1ction taken under1 paragraph (a) (ix)
of Artiocle 43, negtiations shall be entered into when practicable among the
countries substantially concerned or involved, in the manner provided for in
/Article 17, E/ .2/ 70
Page 68
Article 17, for the elimination of these arrangements or their replacement by
tariff preferences, If After such negotiations have taken place a tariff
preference is created or an existing tariff preference is increased to replace
these arrangements such action shall not be considered to contravene the
provisions of Article 16 or Article.17.
The film hire tax in force in New Zealand on April 10, 1947 shall, for the
purpose of this Charter, be treated as a customs duty falling under Articles 16
and 17. The renters! film quota in force in New Zealand on April 10,1947, shall
for the purposes of this Charter be treated as a screen quota falling under
Article 19.
The Dominions of India and Pakistan have not been mentioned separately in
the above list since they had not come into existence as such on the base date
of April 10, 1947 . . . E /CONF.2/70
Page 69
LIST OF TERRITORIES OF THE FRENCH UNION REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 (b) OF ARTICLE 1
France
French Equatorial Africa (Treaty Basin of the Congo* and other territories)
French West Africa
Cameroons under French Mandate*
French Somali Coast and Dependencies
French Establishments in India*
French Establishments in Oceania
French Establishments in the Condominium of the New Hebrides*
Guadeloupe and Dependencies
French Guiana
Indo-China
Madagascar and Dependencies
Morocco (French Zone)*
Martinique
New Caledonia and Dependencies
Reunion
Saint-Pierre and Miquelon
Togo under French mandate*
Tunisia
*For Imports into Metropolitan France and territories of the French Union.
/ANNEX C ANNEX C
LIST OF TERRITORIES OF THE CUSTOMS UNION OF BELGIUM, LUXEMMBOURG AND THE
NETHERLANDS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 (b) OF ARTICLE 16
The Economic Union of Belgium and Luxembourg
Belgian Congo
Ruanda Urundi.
The Netherlands
Netherlands Indies
Surinmu
Curacao
(For imports into the metropolitan territories of the Customs Union.)
ANNEX D
LIST OF TERrTOISOF THE UNIET RD STATES OFAMIERIAREERRRED TO IN
PARAGRAPH 2 (b) OF ARTICLE 16
United States of America (customs territory)
Dependent territories of the United States of America -
: ,
~~~~~~~~~ E E/CONF.2/70
Page 71
ANNEX E
LIST OF PORTUGUESE TERRITORIES REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 (b) OF ARTICLE 16
Portugal and the Archipelagoes of Maduira and the Azores
Archipelago of Cape Verde
Guinea
St. Tome and Principe and Dependencies
S. Joao Batista de Ajuda
Cabinda
Angola
Mozanbique
State of India and Dependencies
Macao and Dependencies
Timor and Dependencies
ANNEX F
LIST OF TERRITORIES COVERED BY PREFERENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN CHILE
AND NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 (e) OF ARTICLE 16
Preferences in force exclusively between, on the one hand,
Chile
and, on the other hand,
1. Argentina
2. Bolivia
3. Peru,
respectively,
/ANNEX G E/CONF.2/70
Page 72
ANNEX G
LIST OF TERRITORIES COVERED BY PREFERENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE
SYKO-L'BANISE CUSTOMS UNION AND NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES PREFRRED TO IN
PARAGRAPH 2 (c) OF ARTICLE 16
Preferences in force exclusively between, on the one hand,
The Syro-Lebannse Customs Union
and, on the other hand
1. Palestine
2. Transjordnn,
respectively
ANNEX H
LIST OF TERRITORIES COVERED BY PREFERENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS AMONG COLOMBIA,
ECUADOR AND VENEZUELA REFERRED TO IN PARiAGRAPH 2 (e) OF ARTICLE 16
Preferences in force exclusively between two or more of the following
countries:
Colombia
Ecuador
Venezuela
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 16, Venezuela may provisional-
ly maintain the special surcharges which on November 21, 1947, were levied
on products imported via certain territories: Provided that such surcharges
shall not be increased above the level in effect on that date and shall be
eliminated not later than five years from the date of this Charter.
/ANNEX X E/CONF 2/ 70
Page 73
LIST OF THE TERROTROIES COVERED BY PREFERENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS AMONG THE REPUBLICS OF BIXCS W1
ERICA PRCFEREED MfOAAN PARAPHRPH AI(4 bIFG22 ) LO" RICUE 1
Peeeferencs in eforce xclusively between two oro more f the following
countries:
csta Rica
El Salvador . X,
Guatemala
Bnduras
ARMX '
LIST C TS~jE COVRE By RE TEA RRAMEM.S ZWRG~AN
MIHBOURMI COUlNIS REFERRED TO IN PARlARAPI (e)CF TIC 1 1
Pref-40 -0ao= Cc01~as en. he one hawdy
m, on the other bad,
' ;' " ;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.v r , ,I * E/CONF.2/70 ANNEX PERTAINING TO ARTICLE 23
Page 74
ANNEX K
Exceptions to the Rule of Non-discrimination
(Applicable to Members who so elect in accordance with paragraph 1 (d)
of Article 23 in licu of Paragragh 1 (b) and 1 (c) of Article 23.)
1. (a) A Member applying import restrictions under Artile 21 may relax
such restrictions in a manner which departs from the provisions of Article 22
to the extent necessary to obtain additional imports above the maximum total
of imports which it could afford in the light of the requirements of para-
graphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) of Article 21 if its restrictions were fully con-
sistent with the provisions of Article 22; Provided that
(1) levels of delivered prices for products so imported are not
established substantially higher than those ruling for com-
parable goods regularly available from other Member countries,
and that any excess of such price levels for products so im-
ported is progressively reduced over a reasonable period
(ii) the Member taking such action does not do so as part of any
arrangement by which the gold or convertible currency which
the Member currently receives directly or indirectly from its
exports to other Members not party to the arrangement is
appreciably reduced below the level it could otherwise have
been reasonably expected to attain;
(iii)such action does not cause unnecessary damage to the commercial
or economic interests of any other Member, including interests
under Articles 3 and 9.
(b) Any Member taking action under this paragraph shall observe the
principles of sub-paragraph (a). A Member shall desist from transactions
which prove to be inconsistent with that sub-paragraph but the Member shall
not be required to satisfy itself, when it is not practicable to do so,
that the requirements of that sub-paragraph are fulfilled in respect of
individual transactions.
/2. Any Member E/CONF.2/70
Page 75
2. Any Member taking action under paragraph 1 of this Annex shall keep
the Organization regularly informed regarding such action and shall provide
such available relevant information as the Organization may request.
3. If at any time the Organization finds that import restrictions are
being AppIied by a Member in a discriminatory manner inconsistent with
the exceptions provided for under paragraph 1 of this Annex, the Member
shall, within sixty days, remove the discrimination or modify it as
specified by the Organization Provided.that any action under paragraph 1
f this Annex, to the extent that it hee boon approved by the Organisation
at the request of a Member under a procedure analogous to that of pars-
s, . .
gcp h A5 (clo).f.tioe21 shalel not boopen to challenge under this
parargaph oxundaer par,raph 5 (d) of Article 21 on the ground that it
is isneconsitnt with the provisions of Arti.cle 22
* .,
.. 5~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . 5. . ..
.. . ..,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r .
t -; 4 -
W W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
......... *:* ^e P. ! . TIV . E/CONF.2/70
Page 76
NTERPRETATIVE NOTES ON CHAPTER IV
ad Article 16
Note 1
The term "margin of preference" means the absolute differences between the
most-favoured-nation rate of duty and the preferential rate of duty for the like
product, and not the proportionate relation between those rates, As examples:
1. If the most-favoured-nation rate were 36 per cent ad valorem and the
preferential rate were 24 per cent ad valorem, the margin of preference
would be 12 per cent ad valorem, and not one-third of the most-favoured-
nation rate.
2. If the most-favoured-nation rate were 36 per cent ad valorem and
the preferential rate were expressed as two-third of the most-favoured-
nation rate, the margin of preference would be 12 per cent ad valorem.
3. If the most-favoured-nation rate were 2 fraccs per kilogram and
the preferential rate 1.50 francs per kilogram, the margin of preference
would be 0.50 francs per kilogram.
Note 2
The following kinds of customs action, taken in accordance with established
uniform procedures, would not be contrary to the binding of margins of preference
under paragraph 4:
(i) the re-application to an imported product of a tariff classification
or rate of duty, properly applicable to such product, in cases in
which the application of such classification or rate to such product
was temporarily suspended or inoperative on April 10, 1947; and
(ii) the Classification of a particular product under a tariff item other
than that under which importations of that product were classified
on April 10, 1947, in cases in which the tariff law clearly contem-
plates that such product may be classified under more then one ^
tariff ite.m
a/d Article 17 Page 77
ad Article 17
An interil tax a(other the a general tax uniformly applicable to a
considerable number of products) which is applied to a prodpuct not roduced
domestically in substantial quantities shall be treatced as a ustoms duty
under Article 17 in any case in which a tariff concession on the product
would not be of substantial valuec unless acompanied by a binding or a
reductiao.n of the tx
Paragraph 2 (d) .
I on a Member's curthney evreva a f.oe eo4uam'sf arc oofrsey r.q r±
in prices, the effecet of rsuch wdevalbuaation or riswin pbces Vuld P ,
sier giorcn aidrtloon.urngneor tetediationf rsi,n crder fist,ermine±ipts.
tan ine,h if e,,4 ps teti vidtc ociffcc-the speoiiqdtieof
c ronce Mem andbeaerneds t etheradly,b nding of whnthe uzpecifica3eOifiq,.
din sies r eprcas oes ac acononewsinequul to the eybsuuivale t insvasnial the +
reduction ofhigh duties or the elimination of tariff preferences.
ad Article 18
axinter n.n orotrher. iteny r awly aewge eor a lV rgulation or
requiremddent of the kin referred to in paraagraph 1 whnich pplies to a
t and to the impa e.omesti r lie. d.t thsuct and in collcted or enforce
I.he case of.te imported, product at the timportatiion, is lom,orstatiPn ,
Nvertho beless t regaranded asoo internal ttohe r ta orcnthaernal cbge, or
elaw, regulation or requirement of the kind rragrto paph 1 ngra p 1, anda raph
sojadingslyj cequbJot the prsovioion of Article 18.
oe apipatiln co4qQ paragraph 1 toi ntealrnstaxes.imsepoo by local
govnmener tsand authorities within the rritotyeof a rember psMsibjec uto t
tfprovisions op parafaraph3 W f ooArticle 99. Tehater "rmeaonabsule mea ures "
ni the las-tmentionde paragraph would not require, for xeapmle, the erpael
of xietinsg natioal negisllation authorizing local governments to impose
nternal i taesx whic h, althugho,technically inco nsisten twth the leater ifov th he letter, of.
An icln i18on,is injonstizc cclstnti ifti its spirlitw,lIw sucepea, vould
esuus naaiasl raoqs oo tel; locao governomts r authorities
h reneWilh re t4,ato taxation by locsal gvernments or auuthorties whichtoritv$.oh
is incopstent with both the letter and spirits of Article 18, the term
"ereasonabl measure" wiould permt a Memimibaer to elcnnststenethe inoit
taraxaover oueay pvra atrien psitodnuipraicu, oBbction 4pc aolcqnade oreto
s adminisssraeue and f.incia difficulties,&Waiqtr difficulties, .:.
|r~~~~~~~/araeraph2
, . . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E/CONF 2/70
Paragraph 2
A tax conforming to the requirements of the first sentence of paragraph 2
would be considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of the second
sentence only in cases where competition was involved between, on the one hand,
the taxed product and on the other hand, a directly competitive or
substitutable product which was not similarly taxed.
Paragraph 5
Regulations consistent with the provisions of the first sentence of
Pargraph shall not be considered to be contrary to the provisions of the
second sentence in any case in which all of the products subject to the
regulations are produced domestically in substantial quantities . A regulation
cannot be justified as being consistent with the provisions of the second
sentence on the gound that the proportion or amount allocated to each of the
products which are the subject of the regulation conititutes an equitable
relationship between imported and domestic products
.. ! ;J -t^
ad Article 20
ParagMh2 (a)
In tbe cdefproducts which are basic to cdiet in the e cxportinglvotry
and whsubicct h are je to ealternat shantnual ,orasges and urpeluses th
Povisionrsg of pa-raph 2 (a) do not preclude s or export pro o orhibitise
rioesstcttQa are necessary to maintain from year to year domestic stocks
sufficientvo to aid critical shos.rtage
Ptp 2 t4 . .
ecxpresal saidon 'egiultrdi A iheries prd oduct, importea.inny form"
means thhiroduct in tieform iin whiich it Isoriglnlly sold by its producer
an&ssu ch psrof fhocesoed.ctormwe prdd as are so clod sel y relate&to-he
oducts as 9* greuar utilzatmpion that eir uanrseetricte mpiWrtation
would. mak e the, restriction on the original product ineffective.
aragraph~3(b) ,|
The provioxsfor prior qonpltaion would not prevent a Member which
had oven other Membeors a fiena period of time for such consultatiOn frm
Introdt,g the rcestiric tions at the date intended. It is reoonjzdthabt
Vi rgqa.d timport restrtic tion applid under peragrap 2 (a) .(iU);the*
pe elatdcance notissce pro vi relded wotld i ome oases nceeearilyeArOlati
short. w
Pmph 3 ¢d) .
$e term pp'iatq pa ( includes Aong otheo factor
chanei nrelantivQ prdu tiv offiieoy a bewendomestic and for$lga _
. /producerA E/CONF. 2/70
Page 79
producer which may have occurred since the representative period.
ad. Article 21
With regard to the special problems that might be created for Members
which, as a result of their programmes of full employment, maintenance of
high and rising levels of demand and economic development, find themselves
faced with a high level of demand for imports and in consequence maintain
quantitative regulation of their foreign trade, it was considered that the
text of Article 21, together with the provision for export controls in certain
parts of this Charter, for example, in Article 43, fully meet the position of
these economies.
ad Article 22
Paragraph 2 (d)and 4
The term "special factors" as used in Article 22 includes among other
factors the following changes, as between the various foreign producers, which
may have occurred. since the representative period:
1. changes in relative productive efficiency;
2. the existance of new or additional ability to export; and
3. reduced ability to export
Paragraph 3
The first sentence of paragraph 3 (b) is to be understood as requiring
the Member in all cases to give, not later than the beginning of the relevant
period, public notice of any quota fixed for a specified future period, but
as permitting a Member, which for urgent balance-of-payments reasons is under
the necessity of changing the quota within the course of a specified period,
to select the time of its giving public notice of the change. This in no way
effects the obligation of a Member under the provisions of paragraph 3 (a),
where applicable.
ad Article 23
The provisions of paragraph 1 (g) shall not authorize the Organization
to require that the procedure of consultation be followed for individual
transactions unless the transaction is of so large a scope as to constitute
an act of general policy. in that event, the Organization shall, if the
Member so requests, consider the transaction, not individually, but in relation
to the Member's policy regarding imports of the product in question taken as
a whole.
/Paragraph 2 E/CONF. 2/70
Page 80
Paragraph 2
One of the situations contemplated in paragraph 2 is that of a Member
holding balance required as a result of current transactions which it finds
itself unable to use without a measure of discrimination.
ad Article 24
Paragraph 8
For example, a Member which, as part of its exchange control operated in
accordance with the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund,
requires payment to be received for its exports in its own currency or in the
currency of one or more members of the Fund would not thereby be deemed to
contravene the provisions of Articles 20 or 22. Another example would be that
of a Member which specifies on an import licence the country from which the
goods may be imported, for the purpose, not of introducing any additional
element of discrimination in its import licencing system, but of enforcing
permissible exchange controls.
ad Article 30
Paragraph 1
Note 1
Different prices for sales and purchases of products in different markets
are not precluded by the provisions of Article 30, provided that such different
prices are charged or paid for commercial reasons, having regard to differing
conditions, including supply and demand, in such markets.
Note 2
Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall not be construed as
applying to the trading activities of enterprises to which a Member has granted
licences or other special privileges
(a) solely to ensure standard of quality and efficiency in the
conduct of its external trade; or
(b) for the exploitation of its natural resources;
provided that the Member does not thereby establish or exercise effective
control or direction of the trading activities of the enterprises I question,
or create a monopoly whose trading activities are subject to effective
governmental control or direction
ad Article
Paragraphs 2 and 4
The maximum import duty referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 would cover the E/CONF.2/70
Page 81
margin which has been negotiated or which has been published or notified to
the Organization, whether or not collected, wholly or in part, at the custom
house as an ordinary customs duty.
Paragraph 4
With reference to the second proviso, the method and degree of adjustment
to be permitted in the case of a primary commodity which is the subject of a
domestic price stabilization arrangement should normally be a matter for
agreement at the time of the negotiations under paragraph 2 (a).
ad Article 32
Paragraph 1
Thei sassembly ofvehicles and mobI lachinery arriving in a knocked-down
condition or the disassembly (or disassembly and subsequent reassembly) of
bulky articles shall not be held to render the passage of such goods outside
the scope of "traffic in transit", provided that any such operation is
undertakeran solely for convenience of tnsport.
Paragraphs, 3 4and 5
The word "charges" as used in the English text of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5
shall not be deemed to Iclude transportation charges.
Paragraph 6
If, as a result of negotiations in accordance with paragraph 6, a Member
grants to a country which sha as no direct access to the emore ample facilities
than those already provided for in other paragraphs of Article 32, such special
facilities may be limited to the land-locked country concerned unless the
Organization finds, on the complaint of any other Member, that the withholding
of the special facilities from the complaining Member contravenes the most-
favoured-nation provisions of this Charter.
ad Article 33
Paragraph 1
Hidden dumping by assosciated houses (that is, the ale by an importer at
a price below thatcorresponding to the price invoiced by an exporter with
whom the importers i associated, and a elso below the price in ehexporting
country) constitutes a form of price dumping with respect to which the margin
of dumping may be calculated on the basis of the price at which the goods are
resold by the importer.
Paragraphs 2 and 3
Note 1
Ain many other cases in customs administration, a Member may require
/reasonabl E/CONF.2/70
Page 32
reasonable security (bond or cash deposit) for the payment of anti-dumping or
countervailing duty pending final determination of the facts in any case of
suspected dumping or subsidization.
Note 2 . .. .
tliple currencym acmctancebtces can in certain circus oonstitute a
subsidy to expQt wbDh b met by countervailing dut.ies under paragraph 3,
o rm od dumpifcan constsiostute a fofg by meanef a partial depreciation of a,
country's currency which may be met by action under paragraph 2. By "multiple
currency practices" gin meant practiceis by overnment or santoned by
governments.
ad Artide
Paragraph 3
Note 1
It rwould be in confomi4ty wirtsumh Article 3 to pee that "actual value"
may be reipresented by the nvoice price (or in the case of government contracts
iminy respectsoft pr1s proeucts, ec.eycontny non-ircludedact pric plus a'
charges for legitimate costs which are proper el ements ondf actualvalue a
pls anyyabnormal y discount, or anmeduction from the ordinary competitive.
price.
Note 2
Iofra eheC dratr a fem erthis Phaep 8i dh iIn orcnder whia system urAec
adiaorem dutiees oar levid on tfhe basis sQsixed valuevisions os, the prpif
poaragraph 3s f Article hall not apply:
1. I the case of values not subject to periodical revision in
regard to a particular product, as long as the vaislue establhed
for that product remains unchanged;
2. in the case of values subject to periodical revision, on
condition that the revision is based on the average "actual
value" establifesheced by reren to an immediatengly precedi
period e of n tot morthanwelve monthss ca nd that uhrevision
is ny ado t ax ihjatatcte reeqhe eastties c nof tedipintcrnd;
ersor oef Kvqzso resion smhal nmony tom the ationinport
ortationsorn iqr ret speecffeswhich stecific request forche eS
revision was made, and the revised value so establsisllhed ha
remain in force pending further revision.
note 3
Idtb UIn4i coformity with parngragrap h3e(b or a Mmbeeconstnber i
the phrase "in the ordinary course of tradeea", rd in conjuncti"on under
. E/C0NF. 2/70
Page 83
fully Competitive conditions", as excluding any transaction wherein the buyer
and seller are not independent of each other and price is not the sole
consideration.
Note 4
The prescribed standard of "fully competitive conditions" permits Members-
to exclude from consideration distributors' prices which involve special
discounts limited to exclusive agents.
Note. 5
The wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) permits a Member to assess duty
uniformly either (1) on the basis of a particular exporter's prices of the
imported merchandise, or (2) on the basis of the general price level, of like
merchandise.
Paragraph 5
If compliance with the provisions of paragraph 5 would result in decreases
in amounts of duty payable on products with respect to which the rates of
duty have been bound by an international agreement, the term "at the earliest
practicable date" in paragraph 2 allows the Member concerned a reasonable time
to obtain adjustment of the agreement.
ad Article 35
Paragraph 3
While Article 35 does not cover the use of multiple rates of exchange as
such, paragraphs 1 and 3 condemn the use of exchange taxes or fees as a device
for implementing multiple currency practices; if, however a Member is using
multiple currency exchange fees for balance-of-payment reasons not inconsistently
with the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund, the
provisions of paragraph 2 fully safeguard its position since that paragraph
merely required that the fees be eliminated at the earliest practicable date.
ad Article 40
It is understood that any suspension, withdrawal or modification under
paragraphs 1 (a), 1 (b) and 3 (b) must not discriminate against imports from
any Member country, and that such action should avoid, to the fullest extent
possible, injury to other supplying Member countries.
ad Article 41
The provisions for consultation require, subject to the exceptions
specifically set forth in this Charter, Members to supply to other Members,
upon request, such information as will enable a full and fair appraisal of
/the matters laws and regulations for the protection of human, animal or plant
life or health, and other matters affecting the application of Chapter IV.
It is understood thact the provisions of Article16 would require that,
when a product which has been imported into the territory of a member ofyof a.
to the territory of another member of such union or area, the latter
should collect a duty equal tothe difference between the duty already paid
and the most-favoured-nation rate.
It is understood that the fact that a Member is operating under the
provisions of paragraph 1-(b) (i) of Article 43 does not preclude that Member
from operation under this Annex, but that the provisions of Article 23
(including this Annex) do not in any way limit the rights of Members under
Pararagraph 1 (b) (i) of Article 43. |
|
GATT Library | tf078mp9008 | Third Committee. Paragraph 4 of article 17 : Secretariat note | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 6, 1948 | 06/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/56 and E/CONF.2/45/REV.1/53/CORR.3 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tf078mp9008 | tf078mp9008_90040119.xml | GATT_148 | 552 | 3,614 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/56
ON DU 6 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COMMITTEE
PARAGRAPH 4 OF ARTICLE 17
SECRETARIAT NOTE
In response to the enquiry contained in E/CONF.2/52, proposals have
been received from the delegations of Brazil and the United States
concerning the text of Paragraph 4 recommended by the Co-ordinating Committee
and the Heads of Delegations.
1. The delegation of Brazil proposes that the fourth line of sub-paragraph
(c) be altered as follows:
"sufficient justification to fulfil its obligation sunder paragraph 1
of this Article,"
and that the last two sentences of sub-paragraph (c), beginning "if in fact..."
should be a separate sub-paragraph under the designation "(d)".
2. The delegation of the United States has submitted the following redraft
of the paragraph:
"4. (a) The provisions of Article 16 shall not prevent the operation
of paragraph 5 (b) of Article XXV of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trads, and shall cease to require the application
to the trade of any Member which has failed to become a party to
the General Agreement within two years from the entry into force
of this Charter for such Member, of the concessions granted in
the relevant Schedule of the General Agreement by any other
Member which (a) has requested such Member to negotiate with a
view to becoming a contracting party to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade [without concluding an agreement] and (b) has
not successfully concluded the negotaitions; Provided that the
/Organization by a E/CONF.2/56
Page 2
Organization by a majority vote may require [such] the continued
application of such concessions to any Member which has been
unreasonably prevented from becoming a party to the General Agreement
pursuant to negotiations in accordance with the provisions of this
Article.
(b) If a Member which is a contracting party to the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade proposes to withhold tariff concessions from
the trade of a Member which is not a contracting party, [to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] it shall give notice in
writing to the Organization and to the affected Member, which may
request the Organization to require the continuance of such concessions,
and if such a request has been made the tariff concessions shall
not be withheld pending a decision by the Organization under
paragraph 4 (a).
(c) In any judgment as to whether a Member has been unreasonable
prevented from becoming a party to the General Agreement, and in
any judgment under Chapter VIII as to whether a Member has failed
without sufficient justification to fulfil its obligations under
this Article, the Organization shall have regard to all relevant
circumstances, including the developmental, reconstruction and
other needs and the general fiscal structures of the Member
countries concerned and to the provisions of the Charter as a whole.
If in fact such concessions are withheld, so as to result in the
application to the trade of [the other] a Member of tariffs higher
than would otherwise have been applicable, such [other] Member
shall then be free, within sixty days after such action becomes
effective, to give written notice of withdrawal from the Organization.
The withdrawal shall take effect upon the expiration of sixty days
from the day on which such notice is received by the Organization." |
|
GATT Library | mc103dg9599 | Time table for completion of the Conference : (With the exception of the Central Drafting Committee, which will meet as necessary to complete its work.) | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 13, 1948 | 13/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/64 and E/CONF.2/59/CORR.4 - 69/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/mc103dg9599 | mc103dg9599_90040133.xml | GATT_148 | 522 | 3,747 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nations Unies
CONFERENCE
DU
COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
E/CONF.2/64
13 March 1948
ORIGNAL: ENGLISH
TIME TABLE FOR COMPLETION OF THE CONFERENCE
(with the exception of the Central Drafting Committee,
which will meet as necessary to complete its work.)
Monday, 15 March
Committee VI1
Sub-Committee of Contracting
Parties on Typographical Errors
Committee III
Working Party 2 of Sub-Committee F
of Committee III; followed by
Sub-Committee F on Article 23
Contracting Parties of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (to be postponed until
after dinner if Committee III
has not completed its work by
6.00p.m.)
Tuesday, 16 March
Contracting Parties of the
General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade
Contracting Parties of the
General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (continued)
Plenary Session to approve the
resolution on the Interim
Commission, followed by
Committee VI3
1. To approve Committee report, repo
Commission and report of the oent
2. To complete report on Article 23.
rt of working party on the Interim
ral Drafting Committee on Chapter VIII.
3. to approve reports from Central Drafting Committee.
/Wednesday,
10.30 a.m.
3.00 p.m.
3.00 p.m.
6.00 p.m.
6.00 p.m.
10.30 a.m.
2.30 p.m.
4.00 p.m. Wednesday, 17 March
Committee III4
Contracting Parties of the
General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (subject to
cancellation if Committee III
continues)
Committee 115
Thursday, 18 March
Contracting Parties of the
General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade
Committee III6
Friday, 19 March
and distribution of final texts
not previously distributed.
Contracting Parties of the
General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade
Contracting Parties of the
General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade
Saturday, 20 March
E/CONF.2/64
Page 2
10.30 a.m.
2.30 P.m.
4.00 p.m.
10.30 a.m.
2.30 P. m.
Preparation
10.30 a.m.
2.30 P.m.
Consideration of final texts.
Interim Commission
Executive Committee of Interim
Commission
10.30 a.m.
2.30 p.m.
Sunday, 21 March
Consideration of final texts.
Executive Committee of Interim Commission will meet if necessary.
4. To complete agenda (including second reading of Articles 23 and 24),
5.To approve Central Drafting Committee's report on Articles 13, 14 and 15
and Committee report.
6. To approve Central-Drafting Committee's report on Articles 23 and 24,
and Committee Report.
/Monday. E/CONF.2/64
Page 3
Monday, 22 March
9.00 a.m. - 1.00 p.m.
3.00 p.m. - 8.00 p.m.
Plenary Meeting7
Plenary Meeting
9.00 a.m. - 1.00 p.m.
3.00 p.m. - 8.00 p.m.
Tuesday, 23 March
Wednesday 24 March
Plenary Meeting
Plenary Meeting
9.00 a.m. - 1.00 p.m.
3.00 p.m. .........
Plenary Meeting
Final Plenary Meeting of
Conference
(a) Resolution of thanks to Cuban
Government and people on
hospitality extended during
Conference.
(b) Speech by representative of
Cuban Government.
(c) Speech by Secretary General
of the United Nations.
(d) Speech by President of
Conference
(e) Statement by President on
Significance of Signature of
Final Act (see summary of
Plenary Session of 13 March).
(f) Signature of Final Act.
Formal presentation by the President of the text of the Havana Charter
and of the reports of the six principal Committees of the Conference,
followed by general statements by those delegations desiring to comment
thereon. General statements will continue as necessary into Tuesday and
Wednesday.
7. |
|
GATT Library | hx410xs1969 | Timetable for the Conference : Note by the Executive Secretary | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, February 21, 1948 | 21/02/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/BUR/33, E/CONF.2/W/1-15, E/CONF.2/BUR.1-39, and E/CONF.2/BUR/W.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hx410xs1969 | hx410xs1969_90180199.xml | GATT_148 | 233 | 1,496 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nations Unies
CONFERENCE
DU
COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
RESTRICTED
E/CONF. 2/BUR /33
21 February 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TIMETABLE FOR THE CONFERENCE
Note by the Executive Secretary
The General Committee has hitherto taken the view that it was premature
to try to fix any firm target dates for the termination of the Conference.
It is submitted (a) that the fixing of dates should now be practicable,
and (b) that on practical grounds it is essential that some firm decisions
should be taken.
The General Committee is, therefore, invited to consider the
following timetable:
Saturday, February
Monday March 1
Saturday, March 6
Monday, March 8
Tuesday, March 9
10/11
Thursday, March
Friday, March 12
Saturday, March
ary 28 - Termination of second readings. In order to
achieve this target, Committees should if
necessary hold night meetings in addition to
day meetings. It would appear that such
exceptional measures are justified at this late
stage of the Conference. Moreover, it there is
some unfinished work at the close of business on
Saturday, the 28th, meetings could be arranged
for Sunday, the 29th.
to - Preparation of texts by the Central Drafting
Committee and approval of these texts by the
Committees.
6 to. - Preparation, circulation and consideration of final
text of Charter and related documents.
and - Working plenaries to approve Committee reports.
or
13
- Final Plenary Sesseons. |
|
GATT Library | tk386gr9484 | Transfer of the Headquarters of the Interim Commission : Note by the Executive Secretary | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, July 16, 1948 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) | 16/07/1948 | official documents | ICITO/INF/3, ICITO/INF/1-8, and ICITO/1/1-16 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tk386gr9484 | tk386gr9484_90180004.xml | GATT_148 | 97 | 705 | INTERIM COMMISSION
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
TRADE ORGANIZATION
COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE
L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALL UNRSTRICTED
DU COMMERCE ICITO/INF/3 16 July 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
TRANSFER OF THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE INTERIM COMMISSION
NOTE BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Delegations are reminded that from 1 August 1948 the address
of the Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization
will be the Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
A representative of the Interim Commission will be stationed
at the Interim Headquarters of the United Nations at Lake Success.
For the time being this representative will be the Deputy Executive
Secretary, Mr. J. A. Lacarte. |
GATT Library | fm505dm4452 | United Kingdom Proposed Amendment | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 13, 1948 | Third Committee: Commercial Policy and Sub-Committee E (Articles 20 and 22) | 13/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.3/E/W.10 and E/CONF.2/C.3/D/W/1-13/E/CONF.2/C.3/E/W/1-23 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fm505dm4452 | fm505dm4452_90190544.xml | GATT_148 | 169 | 1,247 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERCE E/C0NF.2/C .3/E/.W.10
ON DU 13 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGISH
THIRD COMMITTE: COMMERCIAL POLICY
SUB-COMMITTEE E (ARTICLES 20 AND 22)
UNITED KINGDOM PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The delete of the United Kingdu wishes to suggest the f ollowing
amendment to paragraph 2 (c) of Article 20:
In the sentence beginning "Moreover, any restrictionse, ......"
delete the words "the total of domestic production" and substitute
the words "the total quantity domestically produced or :mairketed".
For clarity it would then be desirable to replace the words
"marketed or produced" in (i) by the words "produced or marketed"
Comment:
The restrictions on domestic agricultural production under
subparagraph 2 (c) (i) may take the form either of restrictions on the
quantity of the domestic product produced or restrictions on the quantity
marketed. In the latter event, the quantity of imports permitted should
clearly be related to the quantity of the domestic product which is marketed,
as opposed to the quantity which is produced. |
GATT Library | yx126cd5658 | United Kingdom: proposed amendment to Article 99. Article 99. Territorial application | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 28, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 28/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/12/Add.13 and E/CONF.2/C.6/12/ADD.4-44 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yx126cd5658 | yx126cd5658_90170053.xml | GATT_148 | 212 | 1,644 | United Nations Nations Unies UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/12/
ON DU 28 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ENGLISH - FRENCH
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
UNITED KINGDOM: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 99
ARTICLE 99
TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
1. Each Government accepting this Charter does so in respect of its
metropolitan territory and of the other territories for which it has
intentional responsibility except such separate customs territories as
it shall notify to the Organization at the time of ito own acceptance.
2. Each Member may at any time accept this Charter in accordance with
paragraph 1 of Article 98 on behalf of any separate customs territory
excepted under paragraph 1 of this Article.
3. Unchanged.
SIXIEME COMMISSION : ORGANISATION
ROYAUME-UNI : PROPOSITION D'AMENDMENT A L'ARTICLE 99
ARTICLE 99
Champ application
1. Chaque Gouvernement qui accepted la presented Charte l'accepte pour son
territoire métropolitain et pour lea autres territoires qu'il représents
sur le plan international, à l'exception des territoires douaniers
distincts qu'il indiquera à l'Organisation au moment de son acceptation.
2. Chaque Etat Membre pourra, à tout moment, accepter la présente Charte,
conformément au paragraphe premier de l'article 98 au nom de tout
territoire douanier distinct qui aura fait l'objet de l'exception
prevue au paragraphs premier du présent article.
3. Inchangé. |
GATT Library | dg837pj4450 | United Nations ITO Interim Commission established at Geneva | European Office of the United Nations Information Centre Geneva, August 11, 1948 | European Office of the United Nations Information Centre Geneva | 11/08/1948 | press releases | Press Release No.420 and PRESS RELEASE NO.420-628 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dg837pj4450 | dg837pj4450_90260245.xml | GATT_148 | 603 | 4,252 | List of Press Releases issued for the Second Session of
the Executive Committee of ICITO
August-September 1948
.Date No. Title
1948
11.8 420 UN ITO Interim Commission established at Geneva
25.8 512 Executive Committee opens Second Session at Cenev-'
25.8 519 Opening Remarks of the Chairman
25.8 524 Second Session opens
27.8 537 Swiss Problem discussed
3.9 556 Future Work discussed including ITO Site Recommendations
30.9 628 ICITO discontinues Examination of Swiss Trade Problem. EUROPEAN OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Information Centre
Geneva.
Press Release No.420
11 August, 1948.
UNITED NATIONS ITO INTERIM COMMISSION ESTABLISHED
AT GENEVA
The Interim Commission of the International Trade
Organization has established provisional headquarters at
the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
The Interim Commission of ITO (ICITO) is a temporary
UN agency which has certain specified interim functions
pending the establishment of ITO. ICITO was established
by a Resolution of the Havana Conference, in March 1948.
ICITO held its first meeting at Havana and elected an
Executive Committee composed of 18 countries to which it
delegated its powers.
The Chairman of the Executive Committee is
Ambassador Dana Wilgress, Canada.
ICITO Secretariat
The Secretariat of the ITO Interim Commission is a
small unit, headed by the Executive Secretary, Eric Wyndham
White, who was previously-Executive Secretary of the Havana
Conference and of the earlier Preparatory Committee. The
Executive Secretary and the Secretariat are responsible
for the day-to-day work of the Commission, under the general
direction of the Executive Committee.
Other members of the ICITO Secretariat are:
Deputy Executive-Secretary
and acting Representative
at Lake Success
Special Assistant
Commercial Policy Adviser
Information Officer
Research Assistant
Research Assistant
Administrative Assistant
J.A. Lacarte (Uruguay)
Jean Royer (France)
F .A. Haight (South Africa)
Richard Ford (U.K.)
Constant Shih (China)
G. Maggio (Italy)
Dorothy Peaslee (U.S.)
and on loan from United Nations Secretariat:
Alan Renouf (Australia)
Hugh Gosschalk (U.K.)
Legal Adviser
Research Assistant.
The Work of ICITO
The functions of the ITO Interim Commission are
defined by a resolution of the Havana Conference. They can
be summarized as follows: - 2 -
Preparations for the first session of ITO. These
will include a plan of work for the first year of ITO;
budget proposals for ITO: and recommendations as to the
site of ITO headquarters and as to ITO's relationship with
United Nations, the specialized agencies, and other inter-
governmental and non-governmental organizations.
The publication of the main committee reports of the
Havana Conference.
Consultations with the International Court of Justice.
The preparation, for the first session of ITO, of a
report on the whole field of industrial and general
economic development and postwar reconstruction, parti-
cularly in so for as the United Nations, the specialized
agencies, and other organizations are concerned.
Consultation with the Government of Switzerland in
a study of certain problems facing the Swiss economy in
relation to the terms of the Havana Charter.
Second Meeting of the Executive Committee
The 18 member Executive Committee will hold its
second meeting at Geneva on August 25. This meeting is
expected to last three weeks. The agenda and other
documents will be made available before the meeting opens.
Among the items scheduled for discussion are the working
relations to be established between ITO and the UN and
between ITO and the other specialized agencies, the non-
governmental organizations and the International Court of
Justice. Consultations with the Swiss Government,
arising out of problems 'acing the Swiss economy in rela-
tion to the Havana Charter, will also be on the agenda.
Secretariat Offices
ICITO Secretariat is temporarily located on the
Presidence floor of the Assembly Building (below the
Restaurant). Information Officer - Room A- 640, extension
3021. |
GATT Library | xw872ks6538 | United States: Note with respect to its amendment to Article 67 excepting from the provisions of chapter VI Agreements necessary to meet essential requirements of national security | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 10, 1948 | Sub-Committee I of Committee VI and Joint Sub-Committee of Committees V and VI | 10/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23/Add.1, E/CONF.2/C.56/W.1/Add.1, and E/CONF. 2/C. 6/W. 1-40 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xw872ks6538 | xw872ks6538_90200131.xml | GATT_148 | 167 | 1,279 | United Nations Nations Unies RESTRICTED /E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23/
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE Add.1
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.5&6/
ON DU W.1/Add.1
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 10 JANUARY 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUB-COMMITTEE I OF COMMITTEE SIX AND JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE
OF COMMITTEE FIVE AND SIX
UNITED STATES: NOTE WITH RESPECT TO ITS AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 67
EXCEPTING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI AGREEMENTS NECESSARY TO
MEET ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
The United States delegation now proposes that this exception be
handled by amending Article 94 as follows:
Article 94 (c) (new paragraph)
To prevent any Member from entering into or carrying out any
agreement made by or for a military establishment for the purpose of
meeting essential requirements of national security.
It is believed that the revised wording meets those delegations
which falt that the exception should be drafted as narrowly as possible
consistent with achieving adequately the purposes of the exception.
Article 94 contains the other security exceptions of the Charter and is
the logical place for this amendment. |
GATT Library | mq094pn4868 | United States of America: proposal concerning Article 50 | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 10, 1948 | Fourth Committee: Restrictive Business Practices | 10/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.4/21 and E/CONF.2/C.4/1-25 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/mq094pn4868 | mq094pn4868_90190665.xml | GATT_148 | 141 | 1,090 | United Nations Nations Unies
UNRESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE
ON DU E/CONF.2/C.4/21
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI 10 O 1 March E94L8
IG:IL: ENGLISH
MMIFOUERTH CTTE:IVE RESRICT'BUSINESS PRACTICES
UTTED STASE OF AMERICA: PLROPOSA CONCERNING ARTICLE 50
In the light of the recommendation of the Third Committee, the delegation
oUnituNf tted States of America proposes that Article 50 be amended by
specifying that "Shipping services, as such, shall not be considered as subject
to the provisions of this Article".
The purposes of this amendment would be:
(1) to avoid conflict either formally stonr subatively,
with the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization;
(2) to include within the general provisions of Chapter V cases
in which restrictive business practices in respect of a particular
product are implemented. and made possible by a related control of
shipping services, which control is specifically used to this end. |
GATT Library | dg610ct7391 | United States proposal | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 11, 1948 | Fourth Committee: Restrictive Business Practices | 11/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.4/24 and E/CONF.2/C.4/1-25 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dg610ct7391 | dg610ct7391_90190668.xml | GATT_148 | 90 | 671 | United Nations
CONFERENCE
ON
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Nations Unies
CONFERENCE
DU
COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
UNRESTRICTED
E/CONF. 2/C.4/24
11 March 1948
ORIGNAL: ENGLISH
FOURTH COMMITTEE: RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES
UNITED STATES PROPOSAL
Footnote to Article 50
The provisions of this Article shall not apply to matters relating to
shipping services which are subject to the Charter of the Ienter-governmental
Maritime Consultative Oranization.
Note in Commitee Report
The Footnote to Article 50 was added ien order to avoid conflicts of
responsibility and jurisdiction between ITO and the proposed Inter-governmental
Maritime Consultative Organization. |
GATT Library | zm325dy4998 | United States proposal | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 11, 1948 | Fourth Committee: Restrictive Business Practices | 11/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.4/24 and E/CONF.2/C.4/1-25 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zm325dy4998 | zm325dy4998_90190668.xml | GATT_148 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | gg934qn2714 | United States: Proposal made in connection with paragraph 8 of document GATT/1/21 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, March 18, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 18/03/1948 | official documents | GATT/1/41 and GATT/1/29-46+38/Rev.1,40/Rev.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gg934qn2714 | gg934qn2714_90310318.xml | GATT_148 | 104 | 694 | RESTRICTED
GATT/1/41
18 March 1948
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
FIRST SESSION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
UNITED STATES: PROPOSAL MADE IN CONNECTION WITH
PARAGRAPH 8 OF DOCUMENT GATT/1/21
Add. to 5(a) XXIV
"If in fulfilling the requirements of this sub-paragraph, a
Contracting Party proposes to increase any rate of duty inconsistently
with the position of Article II of this Agreement, the procedure set
forth in Article XXVIII shall apply. ln the provision for compensatory
adjustment, due account shall be taken of the compensation already
afforded by the reductions brought about in the corresponding duty of
the other constituents of the Union." |
GATT Library | bw171dc8207 | United States: suggested redraft Article 12 | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 5, 1948 | Second Committee: Economic Development and Sub-Committee B on Article 12 | 05/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.2/B/W.5, E/CONF.2/C.2/B/W.1-14, and C.2/C/W.1-13 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bw171dc8207 | bw171dc8207_90180305.xml | GATT_148 | 1,070 | 7,043 | United Nations Nations Unies RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF. 2/C .2/B/W.5
ON DU 5 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'MEMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUB-COMMITTEE B (ARTICILE 12)
UNITED STATES: SUGGESTED REDRAFT ARTICLE 12
1. The Members recognize that international investments [, both public
and private,] can be of great value in promoting economic development and
consequent social progress. They recognize that such development [Would]
will be facilitated if Members [were to] afford reasonable opportunities
for investment upon equitable terms to the nationals of other Members and
security for existing and future investments. They recognize also that
Members have the right to prevent or limit the making of investments within
their territories, or to establish appropriate safeguards with respect to
such investment, including measures adequate to ensure that it is not used
as a basis for interference in their internal affairs or national policies.
2. Members shall promote co-operation between national and foreign
enterprises or investors for the purpose of fostering economic development
in cases where such co-operation appears to the Members concerned to be
appropriate.
3. Members undertake, for the purpose of carrying out the principles and
subject to the limitations expressed in this Article:
(a) to provide reasonable opportunities for private investment and
adequate security for existing and future investments; and
(b) upon the request of any Member to enter into consultations or
to participate in negotiations directed toward agreement with respect
to international private investments.
Comment by the Delegation of the United States
The above redraft is submitted as a working paper for the sub-committee
on Article 12, and the following comments are made:
1. The redraft attempts to reflect the views of the United States
delegation with respect to the discussion which has already taken
place on Article 12 in the sub-committee. It is not intended that
the redraft shall prejudice any amendments which have as yet not
been discussed in the sut-committee.
2. The redraft of paragraph 1 and the transposition of paragraph 3
/of the E/CONF. 2/C. 2/B/W. 5
Page 2
of the Geneva draft to paragraph 2 have been made in the interest of
clarity. As thus drafted, paragraphs 1 and 2 express the general
principles with respect to international investment and the necessary
limitations and safeguards. Paragraph 3 thus deals with the
undertakings of Members upon the basis of and subject to the principles
and .imitations expressed in paragraphs 1 and 2.
3. The redraft of paragraph 1 deletes the words "acceptable to them"
but inserts the substance of the amendment proposed by New Zealand.
It thus mikes explicitly clear that Members may prevent or limit, in
whatever manner seems appropriate to them, the making of investments
within their territories.
4. Brackets have been placed around the words "both public and
private" in the first sentence of paragraph 1, in view of the
discussion in the sub-committee on the subject of public investment
and the question whether the Article should not concern only private
international investment.
5. Minor drafting changes have been indicated in the second sentence
of paragraph 1 for the purpose of achieving greater clarity and a
more direct statement.
6. The redraft of paragraph 3, with respect to the undertakings
of Members, makes clear that:
(a) The Undertakings of Members are for the purpose of carrying
out the principles expressed in paragraphs 1 and 2 and are
expressly subject to the limitations contained in those paragraphs,
including such limitations as the right to establish appropriate
safeguards, to make sure that investment is not used as a basis
for interference in internal affairs or national policies, and
that Members have the right to prevent or limit the making of
investments within their territories;
(b) The opportunities for future private investment are to be
"reasonable" and the security to be afforded to existing and.
future investments is to be "adequate"; This alteration makes a
substantial change, along the lines suggested formally by
Pakistan and supported in the sub-committee by other delegations,
in the last sentence of paragraph 1 as contained in the Geneva
text. It is also believed that this amendment, taken in
conjunction with the redraft of the first sentence of the new
proposed paragraph 3, will take into account the amendment proposed
by Mexico in the first paragraph of the Geneva text and the
statements made by Venezuela with respect to constitutional
/provisions. E/CONF.2/C.2/B/W.5
Page 3
provisions. It is not believed that such a commitment will
in any way contravene the existing constitutional provisions
which have thus far been explained in the discussions of this
Article;
(c) The obligation of Members under paragraph 3 (b) is only
to enter into consultations or to participate in negotiations
directed for agreement based upon the principles and limitations
expressed elsewhere in the Article. This is designed to make
clear, in accordance with the views expressed by India, that
there is no obligation to reach a satisfactory conclusion in
such consultations or negotiations;
(d) The obligation of Members in connection with paragraph 3 (b)
is to participate in consultations or in negotiations and there
is no obligation expressed or implied to arrive at agreements
which would in any way contravene the Articles of Agreement of
the International Monetary Fund or any other existing international
agreement to which Members may be parties. In view of this
change, and of the proposed deletion of paragraph 2 of the Geneva
text, it is not believed that reference need be made in the
revised text to the Articles of Agreement of the International
Monetary Fund. In order to make clear beyond peradventure of
doubt what would seem to be entirely clear from the revised text,
namely, that no contravention of the Articles of Agreement of the
International Monetary Fund would be contemplated in such
agreements, it is suggested that a paragraph be included in the
report of the sub-committee stating this fact.
7. Although the amendments proposed by Peru and in paragraph 3 of
the Mexican amendment have not as yet been discussed in the sub-committee,
it is believed that the substance of these amendments is adequately
handled in the redraft, since the redraft makes explicitly clear that
Members have the right to regulate the manner in which foreign
investment may be made within their territories. In this connection,
it is recognized that the first clause, with respect to the
availability of investment of the Peruvian amendment is not handled
in the redraft. |
GATT Library | md857ng7978 | Woking party to study the question of an Interm Commission for the International Trade Organization. Notes upon the Fifth Meeting. : Held 12 March 1948 at 10.30 a.m | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, March 14, 1948 | Sixth Committee: Organization | 14/03/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/W.126 and E/CONF. 2/C. 6/W. 119-126 C. 6/J/WHITE PAPERS | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/md857ng7978 | md857ng7978_90200260.xml | GATT_148 | 14,284 | 91,869 | United Nations Nations Unies
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE RESTRICTED E/CONF.2/C.6/W.126
ON DU 14 March 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
- -
WOKING PARTY TO STUDY THE QUESTION OF AN INTERM COMMISSION
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION
NOTES UPON THE FIFTH MEETING
HALD 12 MARCH 1948 AT 10.30 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. COIBAN (Norway)
The Executives Secretary introduced the draft resolution and annex contatined
in document E/CONF.2/C.6/W.117 which he suggested for consideration as an
alternativ ttthe arngraement he had previously put forward. gaReirdng
ragraph 6 of the annhx he seattd that be haednow received :a.vce tlat tte'
Adsviory omittCo eeon thBudfeget Laatkeu Scceshas d agree tdeal asparatelyo
withhe questiont ofe expethnses of the Interim Cmossmoiin fmrthose of the o tbc
eploaatar Committaee en tHahae aen Conference. The Asdlveoym iCteo uasmtlw
prepared to advanpce u to $150,000 for the perixod epiring 30 June 1948 to the
Interommision on the basis of a resolution or arrangement as con
by the Working Party, and toconsider applications for further advne a at
that date.
\ e1Wrking ParThty then exampd the text-ionf the resolution and iox +
eaerh 2 (Paa) whgas redraed. esColdfs:
to c=vo4ethgf"irt oregukslar s eseo of thè onfesirence of tehe-
OreFnXza4t1one .iganization (hereinafter referred to as ")not l
les the fouerothss3nda a-fr e8 pract,icas ble, noas t-more than
- m fl. ths pUUpon the suggestion of the represntative of Irawq it was are
-ep,-get:in the raport of the king Partyperformance of the fvnctione:.-u
spec.tied aif Sin sub-paragraph 2):and (e) coulË not resdlt ini the
inoreaj crease of the obligationor the se o? the zi8ft& o?rights of Membe
Regarding subparerap-h ?a(B the2 regpresentative o the litëd stUn itetatesta -
aid that tis delegation was alarmed at the number inter-governmentalt.
oanizations being established which were we concerned witdevelopmen
sted that after the worskecoomie e3.reopmqint
e" -u etec t"hatc qter thenm wor as!o? sxswîne" the phrase in o-operati
ionsw ith the Secretary-General of the Unito shoudbe added.
/After E/CONF.2/C.6/W.126
Page 2
After discussion isàwon lt eWas agred-that sub-paragraphs2 (g)ehould. be deleted
and a paragraph merely referring to all the resolutions oonf the Cference or
ocuothe r dcmentwhih entrusted functions to thime Inter Commission should be
aubtIuted.. he Working Party agreed that the studies end recommendations
referred to in sub-paragraph 2 (g) should be made after the establishment of
effective collaboration whith tcree: Seteary-Gneralh of te United Nations.
It as agreed that the folglwowenenesuba-pareraph 2 s(,).eould be
inerted: ' .
"(1) generally to perforfum such asnctions may be ancillary end
necessary to the eeffecryingtiv cofarh ourt stoe pofviins o this
It as agreed thaot sone func achiXtions would be the publicaftion o.the more
important documents,cularly he partiy- tresportimsoesf csmifese, isued by the
ana Conferencea. It owes ls agreed that the publicatison of 6uc reports
wuid.nolt n.mpyuapicessely that other documessued at0anhtsHavana'itb-2i -
Confelrehnce no woud ave p.pvalue fpurposes of interpretation.
gOnthe eofgestion. ihe represenf tativae .o<nade t was agreed that
the repoert okf t h WoringParty should Include referencef to the act that
thie Exemmut e Copttee beflishore pub'ng these dsoshcumenteaure, asuld ensf
farsee po ssaible,y. weatect the rero rrect au-thats in thh. teguagesxu I- la -fi
inwere issued were identical wich tby Éw vere içlentirael. --
.~.Parargh>3 Qxhv; phrase annex;a dgleted as well as the`phl "includi "
pr'cQp9aSa earing testruture-of te Secretariat" in paragraph 6,
aph the elpg_ i ;,tter. pcagrapb.-teExecthat itecretary explained atW he.
way as n drafted. in uçb a wey eas nft to prejudice the nature oa the
necessary. t rno8ht:be.ngcesgraph 6 itIn the wording prapb 6it'
Was open to any government pastic,pwting wns a Membersaion- vhich vae:Mber
s, to aruge that the appropriats procedure foriete procedure io"r
would be re pament to o .-be-.repvmenteto the owolossesrking capital fund f asGes'
anced to the originating f9w monshould the 4ee adva Lthe Interim Commin bii&d thé
Organzatîn wnotd be within the established. Such a procedure voll e 'V th5--
ations to that Organization.ezistin, co'mmigeuLt6.0r Membere ` thé United at Orgaridatlon
Parap s agreed to insert in the -o..Tohai xhewexsX a. deleted. It-waaagréeeIn-the-'
paragraph 4 wasreport of the orking&artythet.hesfçQndrsente.oi:peraph .
drated in sucIn fwyas o for example, to enable the Exeutive.Secretary F
to le Partiesnd the services of the staff of the Commision to the ContractingeartitGe
to the Generl.Arem oi Terisaend-
win8 wording vas substituted fo eregrap9
meeting in Havanambote shall hQid..its fs iret
immediately subsequent meetings shall be -aubseçquen
/held E/CONF.2/C. 6/W.126
Page 3
held in Geneva unless it decides otherwise."
It was also agred to insert in the report a reference to the fact
that the Working Party first contemplated drafting an arrangement but later,
It view of certain legal difficulties expressed by delegations, decided to
establish the Commission by means of a resolution. This reference to be
made in the report arose out of the suggestion of the representative of
the Philippines contained at the conclusion of document E/CONF.2/C.6/W.68.
Finally it was agreed to add to the annex to the resolution the
following paragraph:
"The benefit of the privileges and immunities provided in the Convention
on Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations shall be extended., as far as
possible, to and in connection with the Commission."
Subject to the changes which have been mentioned above, the document
E/CONF.2/C.6/W117 was approved. 16 January 1943
SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
SUB-COMMITTEE J
In considering the provisions of Article 98, the Sub-Committee
tentatively inserted the date of 30 June 1949, in the proviso of the second
paragraph. However, in order to determine, more accurately the most8ost
rsonable date for this purpose, alle edulgtions earu ilndie-reuqezsidto
submit to ethe Secrtary otfe h Sixth Commitete eth following information:
(a) eteh arelist poissebl deat by which theire rspecteiv vernmentsgotrnxrrmnts
can b opctd to reatify th, Charter;
(b) if (a) above eceannmote b stiateder, the gnal reyasons wh such an
estnnimatee caeot b mad.
CoThe SeeubeEmitetorolizu etehait theuuwll ebca weidurane of dates
submitteeed by dlgaetions bcausee of eteh diffrnt teimese whn thir
isleaivo boies ceoenvuneu,tfoe dif&rn procedures by which each
governments, accorgdin to its constitution, will ehav to ratifey, tc.e Th
co-operation of all edelgations in submittinge thir answers ate earliestttharlicst
epraceticalble tieatlym wil b gre approciatd so ixthat the Steh Committe.
may hav at its dispoesal concroe data with whichl teo foermuit, thomost
logical edate toe b insertd in Article 98. ARTICLE 99
TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
1. Each Government accepting this Charter does so in respect of its
metropolitan territory and of the other territories for which it has
international responsibility except such separate customer territories as
it shall notify to the Organization at the time of its own acceptance.
2. Each Member may at any time accept this Charter in accordance with
paragraph 1 of Article 98 on behalf of any separate customs territory
excepted under paragraph 1 of this Article.
3. Unchanged. PPROVIDED If this Charter shall not have received the
required number of acceptance [or; shall not have entered into
force] by.. 194. the secretary-Gereral of the
United Nations iitil shali conske thol;e couwhich signed 5htc?. si.rned the
and which are willing to bring this i~t1rz z br-n: th Charter
irto iorcand under what conditions, t.1:it cact.ons, they desire
to do o. MEXICAN DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR ARTICLE 96
SUBMITTED TO SUB-COMMlTEE J
ARTICIE 96
Review of the Charter
1. The Conference shall review the provision of this
Charter at a special session to be convened in con-
junction with the regular session at the end of the
fifth rith yftr aite îts.entry into force.
2 Tiheecre D4or General shcalcl itrlate invitations
tco eah Member, at least one year ivann adce, to
submit any amendment which they may wish to propose
consideration for ns ideration by the other Members,
3. Amenfdmentsc resulewting rom[be suh revi shall,
approved andjbecome effective according to the
procedure established in Article 95. WOKING PARTY OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE G
OF COMMITTEE VI ON CHAPTER 8
1. The following is a sugeested text for Article 89 - Consultations
between Members.
"If any Members should consider that any benefit accruing to it
directly [or]. indirectly by reasonable implication under any of the
provisions of this Charter other than Article 1 is being nullified or
impaired., [or that the attainment of any of the objectives set forth in
Article 1 is being impeded], as a result of
(a) the failure of another Member to carry out [its] an
obligation [s] under this Charter, or
(b) the application by another Member of any measure, whether
or not it conflicts with the provisions of the Charter, or
(c) the existence of any other situation [,] outside of its own
jurisdiction, the Member may ........ discussions undertaken.
2. The following is a suggested text for Article 90 - Reference to the
Organization.
Paragraph 4
If the Conference considers that [the circumstances are serious enough]
the nullification or impairment referred to in Article 89 in fact exists
and is sufficiently serious to justify such action....etc.
3. Comments
(a) After consideration of the pointe of view expressed in the
sub-committee meeting the working party considered that it
could best reconcile these views and the sense of the meeting by
narrowing the scope of the preamble to Article 89. It was felt
that Article I of the Charter is so broad that it would be possible
to show that almost any action taken by a Member impeded the
attainment of one of the objectives set forth in Article I, and
therefore provided a basis for complaint. The working party,
therefore, felt that a considerable narrowing of the scope of
Article 89 and a consequent elimination of many of the difficulties
encountered by certain delegations would result from elimination
of the reference to article I. In order to make entirely clear
that Article I could not be read back into Article 89 by
construction of the words "any benefit", it was also decided to
qualify the words "any, benefit" in the manner shown in the redraft.
/It was agreed
2962 -2-
It was agreed further that the addition of the phrase "or by
reasonable implication" would make clear that a high level of
employment consequent to demand in another Member country was
a benefit to any Member reasonably implied under Chpter 2.
(b) The working party decided to make the indicated change in
sub-paragraph (a) of article 59 in order to make clear that it
was not necessary to allege a failure of a Member to carry out
all of its obligations under the Charter.
(c) After extensive discussion of sub-paragraph (b) of Article 89
it was decided to allow this sub-paragraph to remain as in the
Geneva text. The working party considered that this sub-paragraph
would apply to the situation of action taken by a Member such as
action pursuant to Article 94 of the Charter, Such action, for
example, in the interest of national security in time of war or
other international emergency would be entirely consistent with
the Charter, but might nevertheless result in the nullification
or impairment of benefits accuring cruinh to otber Memoers. Such other
Msembers hould, under thosesa circutances, haveg the riht to brings
the matter before the Oranization, not gon the round that the
measure taken was inconsistent w ith theCharter, but on the ground
that the measuree so takn effectively nullified benefitsg accrin
to the complaining Member.
(d) The" words outside of ijts own urisdiction" have been added
to sub-paragraph (c) of Article 89 in order further to narrow the
scope of Article 89 and to state more definitely the type of
situation which might cause a nullification or impairment of a
benefit and thereflore fal within the fscope o Article 89. SUB-COMITTEE I OF COMMITTEE VI (ARTICLE 94)
Notes Prepared by the Secretariat.
It may be a convenience for members of the Sub-Committee to have before
them the information reported below relevant to each of the various proposals
for adding new paragraphs at the end of Article 94. In this paper the
proposals are mentioned in the order listed in Part 2 of document
E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23.
(a) Proposal by the Delegation of Iraq concerning trade serving a
political purpose contrary to the essential interests of a Member.
The following is an extract from the summary record of the seventeenth
meeting of Committee IIIa at which this problem was raised by the representative
of Iraq (see E/CONF.2/C.3/SR.17):
"Mr. PACHACHI (Iraq) stated that Iraq had prohibited during the war
the entrance of certain goode which were not of purely commercial
nature, but which convoyed political ideas. In answer to his question
whether these prohibitions, still in force, were a violation of any
Articles of the Charter, and if not, what Article of the Charter
covered such exceptions, the CHAIRMANU` referred to Article 94, and
stated that the representative of Iraq might submit an amendment either
to Article 43 or to Article 94.
"Mr.JABBARA D (Syria) believed that a case such as that of Iraq
should be dealt with under Article 94 rather than Article 43."
(b) Proposal by the Delegation of Costa Rica concerning readjustmant
of specific duties in case of legal devaluatnio of the importers
currency and concerning the maintenance of existing monopolies.
Concerngin the first proposal by the representavtie of sCota Rica, the
followinisg an extract from the notes of the meeting of Sub-mComittee A of
Committee IIl (which has not yet comeplted its discussion s)relating to the
discussion of a somewhat similar proposal iwhch had been put forward with
reference to Article 17 by the representative of Peru (see.
/CONF. /.C 3//W.A 8/lov. ):
"The Sub-Committee reached substantial agreement that ... thereis
no ened to write the Peruvian proposal into Article 17 because
(1) prior to negotiations, anyM ember countryw ould be free to
increase the specific duty on nay unbound item for any reason
since Article 17 does not provie dfor a general binding of all items.
It would, however,. reamin to be edtermined during negotiations
whether a readjustment of specific duties toc ompesrate for teh
devaluation of a Member's currency had had the effect of increasing
their protective incidence or was merely equivalent compensation.
/ (2) subsequent
3007 -2-
(2) subsequent to negotiations, should a Member's currency be
devalued consistently with the articles of Agreement of the
International Monetary Fund by more than twenty percent, the
General Agreement (Article II, 6 (a)) permits the readjustment of
specific duties to take account of the devaluation, subject to
certain safeguards."
The proposal by the delegation of Paru had been to add a sub-paragraph
to the effect that:
"The readjustment of custom duties by countries using specific
rates on their tariffs, in order to compensate for a substantial
depreciation of their currencies will not be considered as an increase
of their tariffs (see E/CONF.2/C.3/6, item 33)."
The following is the text of paragraph 6 of Article II of the General
Agreement to which reference is made in the above minutes:
"(a) The specific duties and charges included in the Schedules
relating to contracting parties members of the International Monetary
Fund, and margins of preference in specific duties and charges
maintained by such contracting parties s, are expressed in the appropriate
currency at the par value accepted or provisionally recognized by the
Fund at the date of this Ageement. Accordingly, in case this par
value is reduced consistently with the Articles of Agreement of the
International Monetary Fund by more than twenty percentum, such
specific duties and charges and margins of preference may be adjusted
to take account of such reduction;
"Provided that the CONTRACTING PARTIES artiItG R.RTI23 (i.e. the iontracting part-es
acting jointly as providedXX for in article V) concur that such
adjustments will not impair the value of the concessions provided for
in the appropriate Schedule ohir eIsewhere in ts Agreement, due account
being takn oaall factors which may influence the need for, or urgerny.
of, uch adjustments.
`(b) Similarh provisions sall apply to any contracting party not a
Fundmbea iothe ?E as from wthe date on .ich such contracting party
becomefs a member o the Fund or enter into a special exchange agreement
of Article XV."in purf `rticle XV."
Coceproposal rnîg the secseond. ro)Osal by theepreoistntative of Costa Ri it la
to be noted that articless 18, 30, 31 and 43 (particularly paragraph 1, (d>)
relating to internal regulations, sta) te trading and monopolies-have recently
been referred to esub-cmwmittees of CommitteaIII Mhich have not, yet reported.
Tmhee question f "pusblic coarcial enterprisea is dealt with i. the report
mmiof Sub-Coi'CONu A.C ofCoai:t IV (Ei/olF.,i.4), in connection wlth
.ticle 44 anChd othorticles of Obapr V.
/(c Éop03iL WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 98 (2)
UNITED STATES SUGGESTION WITH REGARD TO ENTRY INTO FORCEw MMJ1D TO ETRY INTO FOECE
r United States delegation 3r having studied the suggestions of the
Colombîan, United Kingcon and Cuban delegations suggestS the following draft
which ls based upon ideas taken from als of the above papers. It i8 the
purpose of thisimplest s suWestion to obtain the eMp'est form of text possible:
"2. This Charter shall enter nto force:
(a) During the period of one year from the date of signature
of the Final Act of the United ations Conference on Trade and
Eploymengton, on the siixtieth day followinp. day on whïh a
majority of the GverDente aiig the seaid inal Act have
deposited nstruments of acceptance pursuant to paragraph 1 of
this Article.
(b) If it as not entered into raforce pursuant to sub-paxraph (a)
o thie aragraph, then on the sixtieth day following the day on
which the number of Governnents represented at the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Employment which have deposited instruments
of acceptance pursutanst to paragrapllh 1 of hi Article, sha reach
twenty: Provided that, if this Charter shall not have entered into
force by September 30, 1949, the Secretary-General of the United
nations sha. instaitute consultation mong those governments which
have deposited acceptance to determine whether, and on what
conditions, they desire to bring the Charter into force."
This ould zqire the addition of a new sentence at the end of paragraph 1
ofollowsf the Article as llowss:
"After the entry into force of this Charter pursuant to the term of
paragraph 2 of this Article, each insotrument of acceptance s deposited
hall take effect on the sixtieth day focllowing the day on whio it is
deposited."
981l -3-
(c) Proposal by the Delegation, of India concerning the special
situation of India and Pakistan as newlyly establsehod inpeaendent
states.
The provision in the Genelra Agreement to which reference is made
by thee Dlegation of India appears as part of Article XXIV, which deals
with "rTeritorial Application - oFrntier Traffic - sCutoms Unions,"
(comparable in oethr respectsi wth Articles 42 and 99 of the Dfrat Charter),
and rdeas as follows:
5. Takingin uo account tehoexceptinozl circumsatances arisini out
fo the establishment of India and Pakistan as independent states and
recognizing the fact that they have long constituted an economic unit,
the contracting parties agree that teh provisions of this Agreement
shall not prevent the two countries from entering into special
arrangements with respect ot the trade between them, pending teh
establishment of tehir mutual trade relations on a definitive basis."
This provision is accompaniedin the enGeral Agreement by the following
note in Annex I - "Interpretative Notes":
"ad. ARTICLE XXIV
"Paragraph 5
"eMasures adopted by India and Pakistan in order to carry out
definitive trade arrangements between them, once they have been agreed
upon, might depart from particular provisions of this Agreement, but
these measures would, in general be consistent with the objectives of
the Agreement."
(d) Proposla by the Delegation of Czechoslovakia concerinng the
treaties of peace and special ergimes established by teh United
Nations fors paerate territories.
The proposal by the Delegation of Italy, to which teh Czechoslovak
proposal relates in part, has bean referred to the Sub-Committee dealing
with Article 16 which has not yet completed cnosideration of that Article.
The proposal by the Delegatio nof Italy relating to Article 16 reads as
follows (E/CNOF.2/C.3/6; Item 22):
"The disposition of paragraph 1 of tihs Article do not modify the
specila regime existing between the Republicof Itlay and the Republic
f San Ma!ino and the State of the Vatican City, and do not raise
obstacles to the special regime which shall be established betweenw.en
Italy and trhe Fee Territory of Trieste." SUB-COMMITTEE I OF COMMITTEE VI (ARTICLE 94)
INFORMAL AGENDA
Third Meeting to be Held at 6.00 p.m., 12 January 1948
1. Report of the Working Party concerning the amendment by Australia
relating to "raw materials" and to the "indirect supply of another
country's military establishment."
(This item might be considered if the Working Party's report is
available or can be made orally by the time of the meeting).
2. Proposals by the Delegations of India and Iraq concerning action in
respect of trade for the purpose of protecting "essential interests."
The original amendments are given on page 2 of E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23.
The Chairman's informal proposal is given on page 1 of E/CONF.2/C.6/W.32.
In connection with the discussion of these proposals it might be noted
that the somewhat related. amendments to Article 39 (Boycotts) have not yet
been considered by the Sub-Committee to which they have been referred.
3. Proposal by the Delegation of India concerning the special situation
of India and Pakistan.
The preliminary discussion of this proposal is reported on pages
2 and 3 of E/CONF.2/C.6/W.32. The representatives of India and Pakistan
might report on the acceptability to them of the additions suggested in
the previous meeting to bring the provision into conformity with the
General Agreement.
The Sub-Committee might consider, in addition to the substance of the
proposal, the question of consultation with Committee III or its appropriate
Sub-Committee.
4. Proposal by the Delegation of Czechoslovakia concerning "special regimes
and the Treaties of Peace.
The suggestion at the previous meeting was that the provision might
read somewhat as follows:
"Nothing in this Charter shall override any of the provisions
of any treaty of peace in force at the time of the entry into
force of the Charter or any special regimes established by the
United Nations for separate territories".
5. Relation between Article 94 and Articles 89 and 90.
Sub-Committee G is considering this question. The following is an
extract from the Working Party report which is being considered by that
Sub-Committee (E/CONF.2/C.6N.30):
/"After extensive
3108 -2-
"After extensive discussion of sub-paragraph (b) of Article 89
it was decided to allow this sub-paragraph to remain as in the
Geneva text. The Working Party considered that this sub-paragraph
would apply to the situation of action taken by a Member such as
action pursuant to Article 94 of the Charter. Such action, for
example, in the interest of national security in time of war or
other international emergency would be entirely consistent with
the Charter, but might nevertheless result in the nullification
or impairment of benefits accruing to other Members. Such other
Members should, under those circumstances, have the right to bring
the matter before the Organization, not on the ground that the
measure taken was inconsistent with the Charter, but on the ground
that the measure so taken effectively nullified benefits accruing
to the complaining Member.
"The representative of India was doubtful about the necessity of
inclusion of the sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) but other Members
of the Working Party felt that there were some advantages in
keeping the sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the text of
Article 89 as it stands now." 6 February 1948
SUB-COMMITTE I OF COMMITTEE VI
ON ARTICLE 94
Note by the United Kingdom Delegation
1. Since the last meeting of Sub-Committee I of Committee VI on
Article 94, at which the U. K. amendment contained in document
E/CONF.2/C.6/W.48 of 16 January 1948 was presented, the U. K. delegation has
carried on informal discussions with certain other members of the Sub-Committee
with a view to expediting work on the U. K. amendment.
2. As a result of these discussions, it appears to the U. K. delegation
that its original amendment covered matters which involve the question of the
allocation of responsibility as between the I.T.O. and the United Nations.
Accordingly, with the permission of the Sub-Committee, the U. K. delegation
would. therefore propose to withdraw its original amendment and to submit
the following in its place:
New Article
Relations with the United Nations
1. The Organization shall be brought into relationship with the
United Nations as soon as practicable as one of the specialized agencies
referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. This
relationship shall be effected by agreement to be approved by the
Conference.
2. Any such agreement shall, subject to the provisions of the Charter,
provide for effective co-operation and the avoidance of unnecessary
duplication in the activities of the respective organizations, and for
co-operation in furthering the restoration and maintenance of
international peace and security.
3. In order to avoid conflict of responsibility between the
United Nations and the Organization with respect to political matters,
any measure which is directly related to a political matter brought
before the United Nations in accordance with Chapter IV or VI of the
United Nations Charter shall be deemed to fall within the scope of
the United Nations, and shall not be subject to the provisions of this
Charter.
4. No action, taken a member in pursuance of its obligations under
the United Nations Charter for the restoration and maintenance of
International peace and security, shall be deemed to conflict with the
provisions of this Charter.
3, The underlying idea of the U. K. amendment has always been that problems
/which are
452 -2-
which are essentially political, but which produce economic consequences,
should be dealt with by the appropriate political organs of the United Nations,
i.e. the General Assembly and the Security Council. An article on relations
with the United Nations seems to be a more appropriate place for such a
provision than Article 94 on general exceptions. The new article would
in its first two paragraphs replace paragraph 1 of the existing Article 84
and in its last two replace sub-paragraph ((d) of Article 94 as amended in
E/CONF.2/C.6/W.48 and the existing sub-paragraph (c) of the Geneva draft.
It would thus gather together into a single article the main provisions
in the Charter dealing with relations with the United Nations. This might
become a new Article 83A.
4. The U. K. delegation realizes that consideration of such an articles
does not fall entirely within the scope of Sub-Committee I. But as
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the suggested new article are substantially the same
as certain provisions of Article 94, which were referred to Sub-Committee I,
the U. K. delegation suggests for the consideration of the Sub-Committee
that it could properly discuss these two paragraphs, and, if it approves
them, could submit the proposed new article to committee VI, stating that
it had examined and approved the two paragraphs which fall within its
term of reference. 13 February 1948
SUB-COMMITTE I OF COMMITTEE VI ON ARTICLE 94
NOTE BY THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION
At the last meeting of the Sub-Committee the United Kingdom proposed
for a new Article dealing with relations with the United Nations was discussed.
After further informal discussion with some of the other delegations concerned
the United Kingdom delegation has come to the conclusion that it would be
best to retain the wording of the proposed new Article unchanged except that
the words "directly related to" in paragraph 3 should be deleted and replaced
by "directly in connection with". The text of the proposod new Article, as
amended, is given in the annex to this paper.
2. Two questions were raised at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee.
One concerned the interpretation of the words "directly related to" and the
other the method by which Members, which have no direct political concern in
the matter brought before the United Nations but which are nevertheless
injured by the economic measures taken by the Members directly concerned, can
obtain compensation. Ordinarily, any question involving interpretation of
the wording of the Charter is properly the function of the Organization, It
seems to the United Kingdom delegation, however, (and the discussion in the
Sub-Committee confirm this view) that disputes as to the interpretation of
the words "directly in connection with" would almost inevitably become part
of the general political situation or dispute. The general purpose of the
new Article proposed by the United Kingdom. delegation is to ensure that
I.T.O. does not have to pass judgement on political matters. For these
reasons it may, in the opinion of the United Kingdom delegation, sometimes
be desirable that questions involving interpretation of "directly in
connection with" should not be undertaken by I.T.O. The United Kingdom
delegation considers that this question and the other question of
compensation to "third parties" can beat be covered by an interpretative
note to the proposed now Article which might road as follows:
"(a) If any Member raises the question whether a measure taken
under paragraph 3 of this Article is in fact directly in connection
with a political matter brought before the United Nations in
accordance with the terms of Chapter IV or Chapter VI of the
United Nations Charter, the responsibility for making a determination
on the question shall rest with the International Trade Organization,
but if political issues beyond the competence of the Organization
are involved, it may decide that the question falls within the
scope of the United Nations.
/(b) If a Member
4844 (b) If a Member which has no direct political concern in the matter
brought before the United Nations finds that a measure taken under
paragraph 3 of this Article nullifies or impairs any benefit accruing
to it, it shall seek rodress only by recourse to the procedures laid
down in Chapter VIII of the Charter of the International Trade
Organization.zatizn.
e3, Th Kingdom delegationm dolcegtion ehs booenasko twe other questions
rgarding the proposed now Article:
(a) Wouled tdhe suggsete leangeuag ecovr masurs maintained. by any
eMoer,whotho o nwot ite vease hc Mcbo wich had broueght tho
matter beefore eth Unitd Nations?
Anvr: Yes, provided that ethe emoauro es takondirectly in
' cwonnecion vith the matter broughte befoee thoUnitod Nations.
(b) Wouled ethe sguggested lanuag man that the Member maintaining
the measure could ceonetinueeso th masur loeng as it felt that th
ircuwnteances veeroso nchango80awr as it ia concerned?
Ansr: Yes. -3-
ANNEX
New Article
Relations with the United Nations
1. The Organization shall be brought into relationship with the
United Nations as soon as practicable as one of the specialized agencies
referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations This
relationship shall be effcted by agreement to be approved by the Conference.
2. Any such agreement shall, subject to the provisions of this Charter,
provide for effective co-operation and the avoidancc of unnecessary duplication
in the activities of the respective organization, and for co-operation in
furthering the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security.
3 In order to avoid conflict of responsibility between the United Nationsnp
and eth Organizatiown ith respect to political matte any measures whichrsooeau j
is uidirectl n cownnection ith a politei brought before theyocal matrâfhtborô5 o
United nations in accordance werith ChaNapter IV or VI of t United tions
Chartewr hathe sUbe doetode falle vithl liqcpe of thc nitodNations lad
the provisions of 6h!ll not 'O àsJect 5 écs of this Charr. , _
4. No action, taeken by in pursuanco eof its bligations under thc
Uneited Nations Charter or thcrestoration and maintenance of international
peaceee and security, shah boe ood to conflict with thi rovisions of this
Chart.
Interpretative Note
(a) Ief any Mmber raises thcquestion ewhether a measure tako under
paragaphs 3 of thiiArticle i8 n fact directly in connection with a
political matter bought before the United Nations in accordance with
ethe terms of eChaptr IV eor Chaptr VI of th United Nations Charter,
th responsibiliety for making a doermination on the question shall
erest with th Ient=national TradcOrganization, but if political issues
tence of the Organization are involvede byond c copetnGan@ztIon arE; involvedo-
he qru_.ds tblb a1-' il i. thc scopo of t Unite& Nations.
(b) If a Lomber whech has no direct political concern in th matter
brou7ct bef-ie tho Unided Nations finds that a measure taken uncor
paiagraph 3 of this Article nullifies or impairs any benefit
indirect S =i in the absence of
such meeasurcait sh8I scrcdrss nly by recorse to tU procedurs
flaheid do in Chapter VIeII o the Charter o tUi ternational Trado
Organization. SUB-COMITTEE I OF COMMITTEE GITTAR VI (f1TICLE 94)
CATIONS COMHANGED CONCERNING THE DERNICMS EEGARDINGOMGXCEA CONCMIM hS IPROPOSAL RWABDIM
ISTANSAL 4,EM UENS BE'WE IMIA ANI PAKIST
12 February 1948
Mr. Erik Colban,
Chairman Contee VI,
Conference on Trade and poyment,
Havana, Cuba.
Dear r. Colban:
Furthewr to ledttser of l7 January,* I vri to a&vie hat the
Workg Party cftho Ji-ut b-Committee of Committees II and III has considered
thae contents of the letter dted 13 January addreassed. to you by the Chairmn
of Sub-Cmnttee I of Co-itee VI.
ommIt is noted that Sub-Cittee I of Committee VI has agreed that the
Charter should, include a provision on the relatioakiAns between India and stan
corresponding to pXXaragraph 5 of Article IV of the General Agreement on
Tasriffs and Trade annd alo a note correspoding to the Interpretative Note
oinn that same paeraph lmn-ngx I to the General gAreement. The WorkciG
Party has considered whether these provisions would be inserted most
appropriately i Chapter IV, possibly in Article 42, but from a consultation
ith the delegeton of India it appears that in certain important matters;
sucho aodis investnts, ccm d agreementsi and relamtions wît non-mezbrs,
speciald arrangements mae be required by India and Pakistan pending the
establishment of their relations on a definitive basis.
Accordingly, it is considered that if it is decided. to extend the
acope of the proposed. new paragraph beyond Chapter IV this paragraph should
be inserted in an Article of the Chapmter for which Comittee VI is
responsible.
Yours sincerely,
L. D. Wilgress,
Chairman of Cittee III.
now* Routine ackledgment not attached.
Fvana
4845 -2-
Havana, Cuba
13 January 1948
Mr. Erik Colban,
Chairman of Committee VI
United Nations Conference on
Trade and Employment
Capitolio
Havana, Cuba.
Dear Mr. Colban:
Sub-Committee I of the Sixth Committee has agreed to the inclusion
in the Charter of the following provisions:
"Taking into account the special circumstances arising out of the
establishment of India and Pakistan as independent states, and
recognizing the fact that they have long constituted an economic unit,
the Members agree that the provisions of the Charter shall not prevent
the two countries from entering into special arrangements with respect
to the trade between them, pending the establishment of their mutual
trade relations on a definitive basis."
The Sub-Committee agreed aiso to the inclusion, in an appropriate manner,
of an interpretative note to the following effect:
"Measures adopted by India and Pakistan in order to carry out
definitive trade arrangements between them once they have been agreed
upon, might depart from particular provisions of this Charter, but these
measures would in general be consistent with the objectives of the
Charter,"
The Sub-Committee feels that before making any recommendation to the
Sixth Committee concerning the location of these provisions in the Charter
it should have the benefit of the advice of Committee III, particularly in
view of the fact that in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade these
provisions were included in connection with an article corresponding to
Article 42 of the Charter. The representative of India expressed the view
that these provisions might more appropriately be included in Article 94.
The discussion in the Sub-Committee on this question is reported in Documents
E/CONF.2/C.6/W. 32 and E/CONF.2/C.6/W.40.
The Sub-Committee would be grateful if you would consult on the question
of the location of these provisions with the Chairman of Committee III who
might seek the advice of the appropriate Sub-Committee of that Committee.
/Sub-Committee I -3-
Sub-Committee I would then be in a position to take account of this
advice in making its recommendation to Committee VI.
Yours sincerely,.
Luis D. Tinoco, Chairman
Sub-Committee I of Committee VI SUB-COMMITTEE rTO O CF CCEMIETTFE VI
AGIIO aR THE SIXTH MEETING SJXET
To be Held at 6.00 p.m., Saturday, 14 Fcbruary 1948
1. Considerfatieon o th reporert of t Working Party on exceptions concerning
"peace treaties" and "speecieal rgimONFs" (E/C.2/C.6/W.44).
2. Consideratioen of th possible inclusion of the word "solely" before
e"for th purpose of" in the text of paragraph (c) or elsiewhere n
relation to, Article 94 as a wehole (se paragraph 7 Nof E/COF.2/C.6/45).
3. e Considratlon ofo ethe scp and location of the provision concerning
sprecial earangemnets betwen India and Pakieestan (s a white paper
distributed today).
A note of 13ry Febbrua sumitted bny ethKe Uitd ingdgom deloation has
ale been circulateed erto mcbo of the Sub-Ceeomelmittoroting to the matters
hich were deeiscusa eat tholast meeting. D R A F T
Subcommittee I of Committee VI
Suggestion of U.K. and U.S. Delegations Regarding
Paragraph 1(c), Article 94
At the last meeting of Subcommittee I it was
decided that prior to the next meeting the U.K. and
U. S. representatives would resolve their differences
on the use of the word. "solely" before the phrase
"for the purpose of" in paragraph 1(c), Article 94.
As a result. of discussions between the U.K. and
U.S., the U.K. delegate concurs in the present language
of paragraph 1(c), Article 94 but wishes to have a note
in the Subcommittee report to the effect that the Sub-
committee understood the exception granted in paragraph
1(c), Article 94 was granted solely for the purpose of
permitting a Member country to provide for its national
security requirements.
LFSchockner:.mb
2/27/48 SUB-COMMITTEE I OF COMMITTEE VI
ARTICLE 94
Amendment Proposed by the Delegation of the United Kingdom
Add to paragraph 1 of Article 94 the following new sub-paragraph:
"(d) to prevent action taken in accordance with the terms of Annex Y
to this Charter."
ANNEX Y
Special provisions regarding India and Pakistan
Since there are special circumstances arising out of the establishment
of India and Pakistan as independent states, and since they have long
constituted an economic unit, the provisions of the Charter shall not prevent
the two countries from entering into special arrangements with respect to the
trade between them, pending the establishment of their mutual trade relations
on a definitive basis. Measures adopted by India and Pakistan in order to
carry out definitive trade arrangements between them, once they have been
agreed upon, may depart from particuar provisions of this Charter; Provided
that such measures are in general consistent with the objectives of the
Charter.
5010 SIXTH COMMITTEE: ORGANIZATION
DRAFT REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE I (ARTICLE 94)
Terms of Reference and Composition
At its nineteenth meeting, the Sixth Committee established a sub-committeeamfittee
to examine all amendments relating to the subject matter of Article 94.
Representativeso fofollof thei wgitng deleaions comprised the memobership f the
Sub-Comittee: Australia, Costa Rica, Czechioslovakl, Guatemala, Iraq, India,
Pakistan, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States
of America. At its first meeting the Sub-Committee unanimously elected
OMr. TINC0 (Costa Rica) as Chairman. At the seventh meeting, in view of the
absenrce of M. TIomNOC0 fr the ConfeMrence, rM. J.O GOEZ-RBLES (Guatemala) was
elected unanimously to sehrve in is place as Chairman.
> Afctivitis ooma the Sb-Camittee
2 m The Sub-Comittee examined the various proposals set forth in connection
with ArtEiclNe 94 in /COFw.2/C.6/12 (ith the exception of the amendment
proposed by- the delegygation of Ept which was withdrawn prior to the
establishment of the Sub-Committee), together with the proposals in Addenda 8
and 9 to that document. The representative of Costa Rica withdrew the
amendment which his delegation had proposefd in view o the discussion of other
provhisions in te Chang roter relatit that proposal.
3 The Sub-Commi[nine]ttee held meetings. The largfe measure o
agreement reached on the textso appended t this report, relating to such
cmplfex tand difiul'questions, refleoctsg th. thoouGnessr of the efomal and
informal discussions among members of the Sub-Committee and the capable
guidance bya the Chairmn. The comments and reservations made bfy members o
mthe Sub-Comittee, collectively or individually, regarding these texts are
inowdicated bel.
. Areticle 94 (so Attachmnent 1 with rnex)
No change has been made in the text of paragraph l(a) as given in the
Geneva draft.
The preamble of sub-paragraph (b) hfias been modied to make it clear
that the action referred to might be taken by a single Member or by that
Member acting with other stateso. The Sub-Cmmittee has also modified
slightly this pwreamble, as ell as the following sub-paragraphs, in order to
5554 /indicate more -2-
indicate more clearly that the sub-paragraphs refer to "action" and not to
"essential security interests". qsæ ltà£ive
reserve l t32aei.i-f'u 3nitpe uG.' _
que I a *mbeeto "a4ember state" :%the p
a aps.
) part frcmthe light drafting change mentioned above, which required
the substitution of "relates" for "relating", the text of sub-paragraph (
in the Geneva draft as not been changed.
7, Sub-paragraph (i) has been chased to refer explicitly both to the
military establishment of the Member and of any other country rather than
merely to "a military establishment".
. Apart frc the drafting modifications consequential upon the changes
made in the preamble, sub-paragraph (iii) remains unchanged.
9, Paragraph 1 (c) has already been reended to the Fifth an& Sith
Citees bya joint sub-cammitee (E/CONF.2/C.5/14 and E/CONF.2/C.6/45).
The Fifth Committee has approved this text subect to the recommendation of
the oint sub-ccmittee that the present sub-committee should consider the
possible inclusion of the word "solely" before "for the purpose o.'...`
The present Sub-Cmrttee has considered this matter and ba concurred in
the present language of paragraph 1 (c), without the addition of the word
"solely", The Sub-Czitee understands that as now drafted the exception
granted in this paragraph is granted solely for the purpose of permitting
a Member country to provide for its national security requirements.
In the course of its consideration of the special circumstances of
Inmmdia and. akistan as newly created independent states, the Sub-Conttee
sought the advice of the appropriate Sub-Comittee of the Third Committee
concerning the proper location in the Charter of a provision on this subject.
In the light of the advice received, the present Sub-Cittee agrees that
this special situation should be dealt with in conrction with Article 94.
In view of the fact that the situation referred to is of temporary duration,
the Sub-Cnttee i of the opinion that the detailed provision should
atppear as an annex to the Charter rather than in the tex proper of a
particular article. Paragraph 1 (d) is designed to make this provision,
although contained in an annex, a integral part of the Charter.
lath preparation of paragraph 2> th Sub-CCaomit established a
orin.gparty to consider the exceptions relating to "peace treaties" and
"special regimes" -3-
special regimes". The report of this working party is contained in
E/CONF.2/C.6/W.44. The Sub-Committee has not considered it desirable to
cover in this general provision the peace treaties or permanent settlements
prior to the Second World War, particularly in the absence of authoritative
information concerning the provisions and present validity of such earlier
treaties or settlements. The representative of Iraq entered a provisional
reservation concerning paragraph 2 (a) pending final decisions on the text
of Articles 15 and. 16. The representative of Turkey, who was not a member
of the Sub-Committee, indicated that his delegation also reserved its position
pending the outcome of the discussions on Article 16 in drafting
paragraph 2 (b) the Sub-Committee has been guided by the terminology of
paragraph 4 of Article 68 as approved. by the Sixth Committee (E/CONF.2/C.6/88).
The Sub-Committee communicated to the appropriate Sub-Committee of the
Third Committee a suggestion that an exception might be made in Article 43
concerning action "necessary to the enforcement of police or other laws
relating to public safety" or "necessary for the maintenance of public order
or safety". The Third Committee has now approved the inclusion in Article 43,
as paragraph 1 (a) (ii), of measures "necessary to the enforcement of laws
and regulations relating to public safety" (E/CONF.2/C.8/5/Rev.l).
New Article 83A (see attachment 2 with interpretative note)
13 On examining several of the proposals submitted by delegations relating
to action taken in connection with political matters or with the essential
interested of Members, the Sub-Committee concluded that provisions regarding
such action should be made in connection with an article on "Relations with
the United Nations" since the question of the proper allocation of
responsibility as between the Organization and the United Nations was involved.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee recommends the inclusion in the Charter of
the article contained in Attachment 2, together with the accompanying,
interpretative note.
14 It will be noted that paragraph 1, 2 and 4 of the new text are intended
to replace paragraph 1 of Article 84, and paragraph (c) of Article 94 in
the Geneva draft.
15. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new article, which, like paragraph 4, is
independent in its operation, is designed to deal with any measure which
is directly in connection with a political matter brought before the
United Nations in a manner which will avoid conflict of responsibility
/between the between the United Nations and that Organization with respect to political
matters. In the course of the discussion on this paragraph the Sub-Committee
agreed that this provision would cover measure maintained by a member even
though another Member had brought the particular matter before the
United Nations, so long as the measure was taken directly in connection withiti.
the matter. Itwas agreled aso tunderhat r pthisDrovision the Member
maintaining the meacould continue thatt measure so long as it feltlet F iat, asure s' as it feltj that
\ the. crcunstances were m i The Sub-Conmlttte
A*_r>4e thatin th;gt of the adoption of the new artice qeàtgi changes
in eparagraph 2 (c)m of tonhe draft term of referenc;the Interim Co.issia
m re requirent/CONF.2/C.6/W,117).2; ," i
16 e representative of India indicated tbt,I p the text
with the 17 The representative of Iraq indicated that he was in agree ent`tna
text of the new article subject to cnrimation by bi government.
,Te representative o? thUnion of South Africa stated that different
members of thome Sub-Comittee had appealed to um to try to reach a comprane.
H had promised to do seand had accordingly successively proposed three
amendments to the United Kingdom mendmit which la been accepted as
paragraph 3 the proposed. ext. He had not received any support in his
attempts to arrive at a cmprcise, nor had anryother member tried to suggest
a cmprcisme text. omHe accordingly felt that he had redeeni his prcMe
and reserved full riglht to discuss the question, if necessary, in al its
bearin Cmmitee VI. He asked that his amendments be recorded in the
emereporta o the Subw-cnmttee. These amcndantrend. sfolloits:
A. The ollgowing text to be substituted for para;aph 3 of the
Sub-Committee' s text:
"3 Members recognize that the Organization should not
attempt to tae any action which would involve passing
emenz, in whole or in part, on essentially political
issues. If a complaint is referred to the Organization
don a matter which is on the agena of the United Nations,
the Organization shall refer such complaint to the
United Nations."
/.lternativaly -5-
B. Alternatively, the following changes might be made in the
present text of paragraph 3:
delete: "and shall not be subject to the provisions of
this Charter"
substitute: "and not within the scope of the Organization;
Provided that this paragraph shall not be construed as
permitting unilateral use of sanctions".
C. Or, finally, the words "brought before" in paragraph 3
might be replaced by "which appears on the agenda of the
appropriate organ of . . ,"
/ATTACHMENT 1CHIum J -6-
ATTACHMENT 1
Text Proposed by Sub-Committee I of Committee VI
ARTICLE 94
General Exceptions
1. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed
(a) to require a Member to furnish any information the disclosure of
which it considers contrary to its essentiel security intereste; or
(b) to prevent a Member from taking, either singly or with other states,
any section which it considers necessary for the protection of its
essential security interested such action
(i) relates to fissionable materials or the material from which
they are derived;
(ii) relates to the traffic in arms, ammunition end implements of
war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is
carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying
a military establishment of the Member or of any other country;
(iii) is taken in time of war or other emergency in international
relations; or
(c) to prevent a Member from entering into or carrying out any
inter-governmental ernmentaJ. agreementagreement or other aereement on behelf of a
government for the purpsose specified in thi exception, made by or for a
military establishment for the purpose of meetimentsng essential requirecnts
of the national security of one or more of the participating countries; or
( to prevent action taken in accordance with the terms of Annex 00
to the Charter.
2. Nothing in this Charter shall override
(a) ny of the provisions of peace treaties or permanent settlements
retinWorld 4 frwom the Second s:'d Wa vhich are or shall be in force and
whin ec r shall be registered with the United Nations, or
(b) nyo cthe provisionseting Trust cf nstruments crc3nTust Territories or
any other special regimes established by the United Nations.
L t0 -7-
ANNEX OOU 00
Special Provisions RegagrIdin ndia ankKdia sstn
Since there are special circumstances arising ofout the establishment of
India and Pakistan as independent states, and since they have long constituted
aneconomic unit, the provisiongfs 0the Charter shall not prevent the two
countries from entering into special agreemenwts ith respect to the trede
between them, pending the establishment of their mutuala trde relations on a
definitive basis. Measures adopted by India and Pakistan in order to carry out
definitive agreements in respect of their mutual trade, once they have been
agreed. upon, may deport from particular provisions of this Charter; Provided
that such measures are in general consistewnt ith the purpose and objectives
-of the Charter.
T/ATAECHMNT 2 -8 -
ATTACHMENT 2 2 2
Text Propdose by Submmi-Cottee I of Ciommttee VI
W ARTCIIL ( A8)
Relations with the United Nations
1. The Organization shall be brought into relationship with the United
Nations as soon as practicable as one of the specialized agencies erferred
to in Article 57 of the Charter of the nUited Nations. This relationship
shall be effected by agreement to be approved by the Conference.
2. Any such agreement shall, subject to the provisions of this Charter,
provide for effective co-operation and teh avoidance of unnecessary duplication
in the activities of the respective organization, and for c-ooperation in
furthering the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security
3. In order to avoid conflict of responsibility between the United Nations
and the Organization with respect to political matters, any measure which si
directly in connection with a political matter brought before the United Nations
in accordance with the Chapter IV or VI of the United Nations Charter shall
be deemed to fall within the scope of the United Nations, and shall not be
subject to the provisions of this Charter.
4. No action, taken by a member in pursuance of its obligations under the
United Nations Charter for the restoration and maintenance of international
peace and security, shall be deemed ot conflict with the provisions of this
Charter.
Interpretative Note
(a) If any Member raises the question whether a measure taken under
paragraph 3 fo this Article is in fact directly in connection with a
political matter brought before the United Nations in accordance with
the terms of Chapter IV or Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter,
the responsibility for making a determination on the question sahll
rest with the International Trade Organizaiton, but if political issues
beyond the competence of the Organization are involved the question shall
be deemed to fall within the scope of theU nited Nations.
(b) If a Member which has no direct political concern in the matter
broguht before the United Nations finds that a measure taken under
paragraph 3 fo this Article nullifies o ripamirs any benefit accruing
to it directly or indierctly in the absence of such measures, it shall
/seek redress -9-
seek redress only by recourse to the procedures laid dawn in
Chapter VIII of the Charter of the International Trade Organization. MODIFICATION SUGGESTED BY THE DELEGATION OF IRAN TO THE DRAFT
PROPOSED BY THE DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATED
Article 93
Relations with Non-Members
To be added at the end of paragraph 4.
In making its recommendation the Organization shall have due regard to
special conditions end economic circumatances of those Members which are
creditor countries or have substantial long-standing trade with such
non-Members and shall take appropriate account of the consequences of its
recommendations upon the interests of such Members.
MODIFICATION AU TEXTE DE L'ARTICLE 93 PROPOSE PAR LA DELEGATION DES ETATS-UNIS,
SOUMISEE PAR LA DLIGQATION DE L'IRAN
Artilce, 93
Relations vaec les Etats non Membres
Ajouter le texte suivant à la fin du paragraphe 4
n formulant ses recommunications l'Organization tiendra dûment co
des conditions et de la situation conoéconoe partculires dqui existent chz
les tats EemirMes qui snt cre5diteéditeursrs deEs L`tts non Miembres en estiodun uU
onpt deuis lonpgtems avec eux ommun cerce importaello nt; loccupera 0 seprdoccupera en
utre sdes coensâncommendations pourrent avoir peur les intérêtsérêts
de ces EMats embres.
4964 DRAFT SUGGESTED BY THE DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES
AS A BASIS OF DISCUSSION
Article 93
Relations with Non-Members
1. Bach Member recognizes that it would be inconsistent with the purposes
of this Charter to seek any arrangement with a non-Member for the purpose of
obtaining for the trade of such Member preferential treatment as compared
with the trade of other Members. Accordingly, no Member shall enter into any
new arrangement with a non-Member which guarantees to its trade any
preferential advantage over the trade of other Members.
2. The provisions of this Charter through which non-Members may receive
benefits lte incidental to those provided to Members shall not be construed to
accord to non-Members any right to such benefits.
3. Subject to the provisions of Article 16, no Member shall extend to
the trade of any Mnon-ember treatment more favourable than that whiich t
extends to the othemr Mebers.
4. If the Organization finds that any non-Member is discriminating against
the trade nyof a Memberis or failing to grant to the trade of the Members
benefits comparawiblea th ny benefits which it may receive as a result of
tariff or other concessions negotiated in accordawnce ith the provisions
of this Charter or other substantial advantages resulting from the
provisions of this Charter, it may recommend that Members which are not
already dosoing withdraw from such non-Member any or all of such benefits
or advantages.
5. The Executive Board shall make periodic studies of the matters
referredi to n paragraph 4, shall report periodically to the Conference on
the results of these studies and may submit to the Conference such
additional provisions for inclusion in this Article as it may consider
desirable. Any such recdommeation shall bel deat with in accordawnce ith
Article 95.
4701 16 February 1948
TEXT SUGGESTED BY THE DELEGATION OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA
AS A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION
Article 93
Relations with Non-Members
1. Nothing in this Charter shall preclude any Member from concluding or
maintaining commercial treaties or maintaining economic relations with
non-Members.
2. Members recognize that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of
this Charter to seek any arrangements with non-Members for the purpose of
obtaining for the trade of such Members preferential treatment as compared
with the trade of other members, or so to conduct their trade with non-Members
as to result in injury to other Members. Accordingly, no Member shall enter
into any new arrangement with a non-Member which precludes the non-Member
from extending to other Members any benefit provided for by such arrangement.
3. Subject to the provisions of Chapter IV, no Member shall extend to the
trade of any non-Member treatment which, being more favorable than thet
which it extends to any Member, injures the interests of another Member.
4. Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted to require a Member to
extend to non-Members treatment as favorable as that which it extends
to Members under the provisions of the Charter. Failure to extend such
treatment shall not be regarded as inconsistent with the terms or the spirit
of the Charter.
5. The Excecutive Board shall make periodic studies of general problems
arising out of commercial relations between Members and non-Members and, with
a view to promoting the purpose of the Charter, may make recommendations to
the Conference with respect to such relations. Any recommendation to alter
the provisions of this Article shall be dealt with in accordance with
Article 95.
5021 (COMMENTS BY THE UNITED KINGDOM bEMEGDULMATION ON ARTICLE 93
CHOSLOVAK (ZMDRAFTISLOA1 RE-DWYTT))
Paraph 1
Acceptable.
Paragraph 2
(i) The first sentence is acceptable. The second sentence seems
to nvolve a difficulty for the United Kingdom. It would appear
to rule out the continuance of the imperial preferential system
with a territory, listed in Annex A of Articlew 16, which as not
a Member of I.T.O. This difficulty could, in tohe opinion f the
Un United Kingdom delegation, best be avoided by adding the words
"Subject to the provisions of Arfticle 16" ater "accordingly".
It is true that Article 16 refers in this connection to
"territories" not to "Members" and that therefore in that respect
the fact that a territory, listed in Annex A was not a Member of
I.T.o., would na renjder it subJct to the provisions of Article 93.
But Article 16 (2) says "The provisions of paragraph 1 of this
Article shall not require the elimination etc.", which appears
to imply that Article 93 could require that Unitedi Kingdom, f a
Member of I.T.O., should not receive imperial preferences from
a territoiry listed n Annex A whi ch was nota Member, as other
Members ould be precluded from receiving such preferences.
(ii) It appeared to thei United Kngdom representative at the last
meeting but one of thme Sub-Comittee that the Sub-Cwommwitteeva
in agreement that thwe words "hich precludes the non-Member from
extending to other Members any benefit provided for by such
arrangement" should be interpreted as meaning "precludes by the
inclusion imn the ters of such arrangement a prohibition of the
extension to other countries of the benefits for which it
provides". This meaning could in the opinion of the
United Kingdom delegation best be made clear by adding the word
"spyecificall" before "precludesw" or tihe ords "n terms" after
"precludes" .
Paragraph 3
(i) The United Kingdom would prefer, for reasons stated at the last
meeting of the Sub-Committee, to amend the last clause of this
/paragraph
5267 -2-
paragraph to read "materially injures the economic interests of
another Member."
(ii) In order to prevent any possibility of this paragraph being held
to prevent the operation of Article 57 (1) the United Kingdom would
like to see the following interpretative note includod in the
Charter:
"Nothing in this article shall be construed to
prejudice or prevent the operation of the provisions
of Article 57 (1) regarding the treatment to be accorded
to non-participating countries under the term of a
commodity control agreement which conforms to the
requirements of Chapter VI".
Paragraph 4 and 5
Acceptable. February 23, 1948
The following is suggested by various Delegations
as a method of reconciling the differences arising out
of the amendments proposed by Colombia and France in
document E/CONF. 2/C. 6/Add. 23, February 1948.
1. The Colombian and French DelegatioEa;agree ns aÉree not to
press for the adoption by this Conference of the amend-
ment proposed in the document under reference.
2. It is proposed that the fAollowing nnex be
added to Article 95:
"Any.mendment to Chapter VIII of this Charter which
may b recommended by tim he InterCommission after con-
sultation with the International Court of Justice and
which relates to review by the International Court of
matters arising out of the Charter but not already covered
lnChapter VII I shall'ecome effective-upon receiving
approval of the Conference at its first regular Session
by affirmative vote of a simple majority of the Members.
eProvidQ,;that such amendment shall not provide
for review by the international Court of any economic
aorfinàcial fact as established by or through the
Organization; and provided further that suchdment amenient
shall not affect the obligation of Members to accept the
advisory opinion of the International Court as binding
uponthe points covered by such "opinion.t
3. dd the following text in the report of the
Subommittee:.
T he vlw-. -crtain delegatisoexns wap.Xessed that
ovisions othe poions.0f Chapter pVIIiId o n'rovIlie for re-
ecourse toithè-nternatlnnal Court.otall quesngtions arisir
out of th eCharter, Thoe delegations urged that the
text b :n particularo amended s5as to provide.that
embepsight rehfer suct qestions as could not be de-
by ddb y he OrgainizatXo to the InternatiConal Gort.
It was made clear, however, that these delegations did
not urge that a Member shoeuld b allowed to attack the
validofity d an avisory opinion o f thCourt nobtaied
through the procedures of Chapter VIII on the points
covered by such opinions. The views oef othr delega-
tions were expressed that the procedoures f Chapter VIII
were plenary and adequate. - 2 -
"Under these circumstances, and in view of the diffi-
culties of this subject and the limited time available for
discussion, the Subcommittee unanimously agreed that the
Interim Commission should examine the question, and the Sub-
committee has proposed a resolution providing for such exam-
ination. The Subcommittee also agreed that amendment to the
provisions of the Charter in this respect should be rela-
tively easy in the light of the report to be presented by
the Interim Commission, and has, therefore, suggested an
annex to Article 95 providing for amendments in this re-
spect by a simple majority vote of the Conference."
4. Amend the proposed resolution in the manner shown:
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment
Having given serious consideration to the relation
of the International Trade Organization and the International
Court; and
having provided, in Chapter VIII of the Charter,
procedures for review of legal questions arising out of de-
cisions and recommendations of the Organization by the Inter-
national Court,
RESOLVES
That the Interim Commission of the International
Trade Organization, through such means as may be appropriate,
[including a request by the Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations for an advisory opinion.] shall consult
with appropriate officials of the International Court or
with the Court itself, and after such consultation report
to the first regular session of the Conference of the Inter-
national Trade Organization upon the questions of:
(a) whether such procedures need to be amended to
ensure that decisions of the Court on matters referred to it
by the Organization should, with respect to the Organization,
have the nature of a judement; and
(b) whether an amendment may appropriately be pre-
sented to the Conference pursuant to and in accordance with
provisions of the annex to Article 95 of the "Charter. Insert the following in the Draft Resolution
as shown:.
THEREFORE RESOLVES and AGREES:
l..., upon the questions of:
(b) whether, having regard to the desirabi-
lity that decisions of the Court should.
have the nature of a judgmentt with
respect to the Organization, there may
be improvement of the procedures establishedtabi~shedl
rbythe Chaier ..*Court; and
2.
SJRubn PJ
2/17/48 Insert the following in the Draft Resolution
as shown:
... q
THEREFOREES ROLVES and AEGRES:
1. . . upon the questions of:
(a).. .
(b) whetheraa ving regardo t the desirabi-
lity that decisions of the Court should
have the nature of a judgment with
respect to the Organization, there may
bie mprovement of the procedures established.
by the Charter . . . Court; and
.....2.
SJRubin :PJ
2/17/48 SUB-COMMITTEE ON CHAPTER E ON CLUE VIII
MT REPORT
1. The Sub-Committee, composed of the representatives of iAustrala, Canada,
Colomnbia, Demark, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland,
South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay, was
established biy the Smxth Comittee to discuss Chapter VIII (Settlement of
Differences - Interpretation) of the draft Charter prepared by the Preparatory
Commwittee (ith the exception of par1agraph of Article 92) and the amendments
presented thereto and in the light of discussion to submwit a ne text of the
Chapter to the Sixth Committee. The Chairman of them Sub-Comittee was
iMr. Coullard (Canada).
2. The Sub-Comnmittee, having taken note of the recommendation of the
Preparatory Committee that Chapter VIII should be fully reconsidered at
Havana, made an exhaustivne examiation of all the provisions of the Chapter
wllhich fe within its term of reference holdinlg, in al, twenty meetings
as ell as establishingw four vrking parties. As a result of its discussions
the text of the Chapter has been very considerably expanded and clarified
although the principles at the basis of the original text have been retained.
3. The Sub-Committee considered that paragraph 3 of the original text of
Article 92 (Miscellaneous Provisions) should receive greater emphasis. It
therefore recommhends tat this paragraph, as recorded, should be taken out
of Article 92 and made into a new Article 89, entitled "Reliance on the
Procedures of the Charter."
4. The scope of the origeinal txt of Article 89 (Consultation between
Members*) has been narrowed by the deletion from the opwening ords of that
Article of the reference to impeding the attainment of the objectives stated
in Article 1. The new text of this arwticle as accepted by the representative
of Australia on the understanding that paragraph 1 (c) covered a situation
arising from a serious decline in employment and effective demand in any
corty of major economic importance. The Sub-Committee agreed that the
ord "matter" in paragraph 1 of the new text of Article 89 referred to the
nuflliication or impairment of a benefit and not to the failure, inaction,
* ow Article 90.
5088 /measure or situation -2-
measure or situation referred to in paragraphs 1 (a), (b) and (c). Finally,
Article 89 has been clarified so as to make it clear that under that article
resort may be had to arbitration, upon term to be agreed, the results of
which do not bind the Organization or any Member other than those parties
to the arbitration.
5. The Sub-Committee found it desirable to break down the original Article 90
(Reference to the Organization) into two articles, the first dealing with
reference to the Executive Board, the second with reference to the Conference.
In the former article the courses available to the Executive Board after a
complaint has been brought to its attention have been set out, while in both
of these articles the "compensatory" rather than "punitive" nature of any
relief to be granted is made clear. The Sub-Committee agreed that
paragraph 3 of the article dealing with reference to the Conference and the
corresponding paragraph of the article concerning references to the Executive
Board do not empower the Conference or the Board to propose the suspension
or withdrawal of a measure not in conflict with the Charter.
6. The Sub-Committee realized that it would be desirable to obtain the
advice and assistance of the International Court of Justice upon the question
of the relationship between the Court and the International Trade
Organization, as laid down in the new text of Chapter VIII, particularly from
the point of view of the improvement of the procedures established by the
Chapter. It therefore suggests that the Sixth Committee should recommend to
the Conference the adoption of the following resolution:
(Text of resolution)
7. The Sub-Committee recommends to the Sixth Committee the following text of
Chapter VIII:
(Text to be inserted) SUB-COMMITTEE ON 2I'PmE ON IIAMTER VIIi
F~EPORT
1. The Sumb-Ceeomitt, composed eof th representatives of Australia, Canada.
Colombiam, kDenar, Frannce, ldia, Iraq, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland,
South Africa, eSwitzrland, Unitegd Kindom, United States angud Uruasy, wa
established by the Sixth Committee to discuss Chapter VII (eSeettlmnt of
Differences - Ineterprtation) of the Draft eChartr prepared by tehe Prparatory
Coietteo with the exception of paragraph 1 of Article 92) and thee amnnments
presented thereto and in the light of discussion to submit a new text of the
Chapteor t the Sixth Committee, The Crhaiman of the Sub-Commietwte as
Mr.u Coillard (Canada).
2. The Subm-Comiette, having taken note of the recommendation of the
Preparatorym iCoemtte that Chapter VIII should be fully reconsidered at Havana,
made an exhaustive eixamnation of alle th provisions of the Chapter which
fewll it hinits terms of reference holding, in all, twenty-one meetings as
well as establishing four working parties. As a result of its discussions
the text ofe th Chapter haes ben very considerably expanded and clarified
although the principles at the basis of the original text havee ben retained.
3. The Sub-Committee considered that paragraph 3 of the original text of
"Article 92 (Miscelelanous Provisions) should rece ivegreatemr ephasis. It
therefore recommends that this paragraph, as reworded, shoule d btaken out of
Article 92 and emad into a new article at the comcnenement of Chapter VIII,
entitled "Reliance on the Perocdures of the Charter." The Sub-mComittee gave
serious sconideration to a doubt expressed by the delegation of Mexico whether
this provision did not confliwct ith the obligations of Members which had
depositede th declarations ereefrrd to in paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the
Statute ofe th enIntational Court of Jusetic. Ine th light of its
discussion, and particularly ine th light of instructions received by various
delegations from,e thir goveernmnts, the Sub-Committee came toe th conclusion
that no confliect xisted.
4. The scope of the original text of Article 89 (Consultation between
Members) haes ben narrowed by the edeltion from the openiwng ords of that.
Article of the reference to impeding the attainment of the objectivstatedes tatea
in Article 1. Thmme Sub-wCoittee eas of th opinion etheat a Mmbr might
propeerely haev rcours teo A rticl 89if the measures adopted by another Member
/under:
5135 -2- under the provisions of Article 3 did not produce the effects which they were
designed to achieve and thus did not result in such benefits as mightiïht
reasonabely b anticipated. The Subm-Comeitte agreed that wthe ord "matter"
in paragraph 1 of the new text of Arti8cle 9 referred teo th nullification or
impairment of a benefit and not to the failure, inactioen, measur or situation
referred to in paragraphs 1 (a) (b) and (c). Finally, Areticl 89 has been
cliedarif so as to make it clear thate undr that article resort may be had to
arbitration, upeons trm to be agreed, the results of which do not bind the
Organization or anmye Mebr other than those; parties to the arbitration.
5. The Subm-Coemitte found it desirable to break down the original Article 90
(Reference to the Organization) into two articles, the first dealing with
reference to the Execeutiv Board, the second with reference to the Confeerenc.
In the eformr articlee th courses available to the Execeutiv Board after a
complaint heenas b brought to its attention have been set out, while in both
of these articles the "compensatory" rather than "punitive" nature of any
relioef t be gedrant is maedeclar. Also while examining the eformr article,
the Summb-Ceeoitt noticed that Article 78, which is concerwned iteh th powers
and duties of thee Excutive Board, givees th Boaowrd per to,e meaok rcmendations
onoy tathe ferenceConfor to einta-egovunmental organizations. To bring this
article into conformity with Chapter VIII, the Sub-Commiette remecomnds that
paragraph 2 should bee aemndod t read:
"2. The Executive Board may makece eromndationos t the Ceoenfrnceo, t
Members ..."or.
The Submmo-Ceitte agreed that paragraph 3 of the article dealing with referen
t the Cfeoaeence and.the corresponding paragraph of the article concerning
reference to eth Executeiv Board do not empower the Confereenc or the Board
t propose, tehasuspenisan or withdraawF foa a measure not in conflict with the
Charter.
6. The only question upon which the Sub-Committee was unable to erach a
nuaniomus conclusion arose bath in connection with Article 91 (Refeernce to
the Internatoinal Court of Justice) and apragraph 3 of Article 92 concerning
non-recourse to otehr procedures for the settlement of differences arising
out of the operation of teh Charter. That question was whether or not Members
should be obliged ot confine their recourse; ot the International oCurt of
Justice to the advisory opinion proecduer through the Organization or whether,
in addition, they should be able toe exrcise their rights under Article 36o f
the Statute of teh Court. The delegations of Colombia and France submitted
teh followinga mendemnt to paragraph 3 of Article 92 now( Articel88 A)
/ebmodying - 3 -
embodying the latter proposition 4 to add at the beginning of that paragraph
the phrase "Without prejudice to their liSir rights underlArticie]36 of7* the
Statute of the International Court oicef Just," This prowposal as supported
by tehe delgations of Itealy,* Mxico*, ,Poland Switzerland and Uruguay. It
was opposed bye tghe dleations of Australia, Canada, Danmark, Nethserland,
South Africa, Unitged Kind om aendUnitd States, whilee egfthe dations of
India and. eIraqn wre uable to express a definite opinion pending the receipt
of instructions.
7. The mSub-Ceomitte realized thwat it ould be desirable to obtain the advice
d assistance of the International Court of Justice upon the question of the
relationship between the Court and thee IntrnatioTnal rade Organization, as
ldaid own ien owthe n txt of Chapter VIII, particularly from the point of
view of the oeemeimpvnt of the procedures established by the Cehaptr. It
thereforggese suts that the Sixth Comeemitt shoreeuldcomedmend teo th Conference
the adoption oef th following resolution:
(Text of resolution).
8. In the course of wits ork the Sub-Committee considered the relationship
between Chapter VIII and other chapter of the Chartere. Th Chairman of the
Sub-Commeittee, presentd the followinge intrim report on this matter to the
Sixth Comeemitt3 on February 1948:
"The Sumb-Ceoitte dishes to make known to othoer Cmmeittes and Sub-
iCoitees of the Conference that wheeru n Article of theh Cieatur
other than those contained in Cheaptr VIII establishes pedroecurs for
action by ea Mmber or bye th aOrgnization, action in accaordnwce ith
that proceedur should, unless the basis of the complaint is nullification
or impairment of a benefit accrguin to a Member, procede that provided
for in Cheaptr VIII, but shall not, unleis s tise spceifid, impair
* wIt axs epleaind that if the ameendmnt were adopted these worwds ould be
oitted so as to alwlovMembers also to have recourse to the Court as a
court of arbitrati.on
** Subject to reservation of final approval.
/eth rights - 4 - the rights of Members under Chapter VIII. However, it is the view of
the. Sub-Committee that if consultation or investigation has taken place
under the provisions of another article, the Organization may regard
such consultation or investigation as fulfilling either in whole or in
part any similar procedural requirements in Chapter VIII. This will
be made clear in the appropriate Article of Chapter VIII."
9. Subject to paragraphs 6 of this Report, the Sub-Committee recommends to
the Sixth Committee the following text of Chapter VIII:
(Text to be inserted). SUB-COMMITTEE ON CHAPTER: VIII
DRAFT REPORT
1. The Sub-Committee, composed of the representatives of Australia, Canada,
Colombia, Denmark, 'France, India, Iraq, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands,.Poland,
South Africa, Switzorland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay, was
established by the Sixth Committee to discus Chapter VIII (Settlument of.
Differences - Interpretation) of the Draft Charter prepared by the Preparatory
Committee (with the. exception of paragraph 1 of Article 92) and the amendments
presented thereto and in the light of discussion to submit a new text of the
Chapter to the Sixth Committee. The Chairman of the Sub-Committee was
Mr. Couillard (Canada).
2. The Sub-Committee, having taken note of the recommendation of the
Preparatory Committee that Chapter VIII should be fully reconsidered at Ravana,
made en exhaustive examination of all the provisions of the Chapter which
fell within its terms of reference holding, in all, twenty-one meetings as
wei as establishing four working parties. As a result of its discussions
the text of' the Chapter has been very considerably expanded. and clarif ied
although the principles at the basis of the original text have been retained.
3. The Sub-Committee considered that paragraph 3 of the original text of
Article 92 (Miscellaneous Provisions) should receive greater emphasis. It
therefore recommends that this paragraph, as rewerded, should be taken out of
Article 92 end made into a new article at the .commencement of Chapter VIII,
entitled "Relianco on the Procedures of the Charter." The Sub-Committee gave
serious consideration to a doubt expressed by the delegation of Mexico whether
this povision did not conflict with the obligations of Members which had
deposited the declarations referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice. -In the light of its
discussion, and particularly in the light of. instructions received by various
delegations from their government, the Sub-Committee came to tho conclusion
that no conflict existed.
4. The scope of the original text of Article 89 (Consultation between
Members) has been narrowed. by the deletion from the opening word of that
Article of the reference to impeding the attaimm nt of the objectives stated.
in Article 1. The Sub-Committee was of thu opinion that a Member might
properly have recourse to Article 89 f' the measures adopted by another Member
/under
5135. under the provisions of Articl 3 did not produce the effect which they were
designed to achieve and thus did not result in such benefits as might
reasonably be anticipated. The Sub-Committee agreed that the word "matter"
in paragraph 1 of the new text of Article 89 referred to the nullification or
impairment of a benefit and not to the failure, inaction, measure or situation
referred to in paragraphs 1 (a), (b) and (c). Finally, Article 89 has been
clarified so as to make it clear that under that article resort may be had to
arbitration, upon term to be agreed, the results of which do not bind the
Organization or any Member other than those parties ta the arbitration.
5. The Sub-Committtee found it desirable to break down the original Article 90
(Referenco to the organization) into two articles, the first dealing with
reference to tha Executiva Board, the second with reference to the Conference.
In the former article the courses available to the Executive Board after a
complaint has been brought to its attontion have been set out, while in both
of these articles the "compensatory" rather than "punitive" nature of eny
relief to be granted is made clear. Also while examining the former article,
the Sub-Committee, noticed that Article 78, which is concerned with the powers
and duties of the Excutive Board, gives the Board power to make recommendations
only to the Conference or to inter-governmental organizations. To bring this
article into conformity with Chapter VIII, the Sub-Committee recommends that
paragraph 2 should be amended to read:
"2. The Executive Board may make recommendations to the Conference, to
Members or ........
The Sub-Committee agreed that paragraph 3 of the article dealing with referen
to the Conference and the corresponding paragraph of the article concerning
reference to tho Executive Board do not empower`the Conference or the Board
to propose the suspension or withdrawal of a measure not in conflict with the
Charter.
6. The only question upon which the Sub-Committee was unable to reach a
unanimous conclusion arose both in connection with Article 91 (Reference to
the International Court of Justice) end paragraph 3 of Article 92 concerning
non-recourse to other procedures for the settlement of' differences arising
out of the operation of the Charter. That question was whether or not Members
should be obliged to confine their recourse to the International Court of
Justice to the advisory opinion procedure through the Organization or whether,
in addition, they should be able to exercise their right under Article 36 of
the Statute of the. Court. The delegations of Colombia and France submitted
the following amendment to paragraph 3 of Article 92 (now Article SSA)
embodyingg
-2- -3-
embodying the latter proposition to add at the beginning of that paragraph
the phrase "Without prejudice to their rights under [Article 36 of7* the
Statute of the International Court of Justice." This proposal was supportsed
by the delegations of Italy, Mexico**, Poland, Switzarland and Uruguay. It
was opposed by the delesatIons of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands,
South Africa, United Kingdom and United States, while the delegations of
India and Iraq were , unable to express a dofinite opinion pending the receipt
of instructions.
7. The Sub-Committee realized that it would be desirable to obtain the advice
and assistance of the International Court of Justice upon the question of the
relationship between the Court and the International Trade Organization, as
laid down in tho nuv toxt of Chapter VIII, particularly from the point of
view of the improvomùnt of the procedures established by the Chaptur. It
therefore suggests that the Sixth Committee should recommend to tho Conference
the adoption of tho following resolution
(Text of resolution).
8. In the course of its work the Sub-Committee considered the relationship
between Chapter VlII and other chapters of the Charter. The Chairman of the
Sub-Committee presented the following interim report on this matteXr to the
Sixth Committve on 3 February 1948:
"The Sub-Committee wishes to make known to other Committes .and Sub-
Commmittees of the Conference that where an Article of the Charter
other than those contained In Chaptur VIII establishes procedures for
action by a Momber or by thu Organization, action in accordance with
that procedure should, unless the basis of the complaint is nullification
or impairment of a benefit accruing to a Member, precpde that provided.
for in Chaptur VIII, but shall not, unless itlis so specified, impair
* It was explained that if the amendment were adopted these words would be
omitted so as to allow Members also to have recourse to the Court as a
court of arbitration.
** Subject 'to reservation of final approval.
/thu rights the rights of Members under Chapter VIII. However, it is the view of
the Sub-Committee that if consulation or investigation has taken place
under the.provisions of another article, the Organization may regard
such consultation -or investigation as fulfilling. either in whole or in
part any similar procodural requirements in Chapter VIII. This will
be made clear in the appropriate Article .of Chapter VIII."
9. Subject to paragraph 6 of this Report, the Sub-Committee rocommends to
the Sixth Committee the following text of Chapter VIII:
(Text to be inserted). 16 February 1948
SUB-COMMITTEE G OF COMMITEE VI
Article 91
New Paragraph 6 proposed by the French delegation:
6. When the procedure established in Chapter VIII as thus
been concluted, Members may exercise the rights they poseess in
virtue of Aticle 36 of the Statute of the international Court
of Justice.
16 février 1948
SOUS-COMMISSION G DE LA SIXIEME COMMISSION
Article 91
Nouveau paragraphe 6 propose par la délégation française;
6. Lorsque la procédure établie au Chapitre VIII aura ainsi atteint
son terme, les Etats Membres pourront faire valoir les droits qu'ils
possèdent en vertu de l'article 56 des statuts de la Cour interna-
tionalo de Justice.
4~930, SUB-COMMITTEE G OF COMMITTEE VI
16 February 1948
Article 92, Paragraph 3
Amendment of the new Paragraph 3 of Article 92, proposed. by the French
3. Without prejudice to their rights under Article 36 of the Statutes
of the International Court of Justice, the Members undertake, in
relation to other Members or the Organiation, that ......
SOUS-COMMISSION G DE LA SIXIME, COMISSION
16 février 1948
Article 92, paragraphe 3
Amendement au nouveau paragraph 3 de l'article 92 propose par la
delegaton de la France :
3. Sans Préjudice des droits qu'ils tiennent de l"Article 36 du Statut
de la Cour international de Justice, les Etats Membres s'engagent
vis-a-vis des autres Etats Membres ou de l'Organisation à n'avoir
recours...
4940 16 February 1948
SUB-COMMITTEE G OF COMMITTEE VI
Article 91
New Paragraph 6 proposed by the French delegation:
6. When the procedure established. in Chapter VIII has thus
been concluded1 Members may exercise the rights they possess in
virtue of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice.
16 février 1948
SOUS-COMMISSION G DE LA SIXIEME COMMISSION
Article 91
Nouveau paragraphe 6 proposé par la délégation française
6. Lorsque la procédure établie au Chapitre VIII aura ainsi atteint
son term, los Etats Membres pourront faire valoir les droits qu'ils
possèdent en vertu de l'article 36 des statuts de la Cour interna-
tionale de Justice.
4939 SUB-COMMMITTE G OF COMMTITEE VI
16 February 1948
Article 92, Paragraph 3
Amendment of the nev Paragraph 3 of Article 92, proposed by the French
Delegation:
3. Without prejudice to their rights under Article 36 of the Statutes
of the International Court of Justice, the Members undertake, in
relation to other Members or the Organization, that.
SOUS-COMMISSION G DE LA SIXIEME COMMISSION
16 février 1948
Article 92, paragraphe 3
Amendement au nouveau paragraph 3 de l'article 92 proposé par la
délégation de la France :
3. Sans préjudice des droits qu'ils tiennent de l'article 36 du Statut
de la Cour international de Justice, les Etats Membres s'engagent
vis-à-vis des autres Etats Membres ou de l'Organisation à n'avoir
recours...
4940 |
GATT Library | bk034sm4479 | Working Paper for Sub-Committee on Administration : Item 5 of the Agenda - Relations of the ITO with Non-Governmental Organizations | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization, September 2, 1948 | Interim Commission for the International Trade Organization (ICITO/GATT) and Executive Committee | 02/09/1948 | official documents | ICITO/EC.2/SC.3/5 and ICITO/EC.2/SC.3/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bk034sm4479 | bk034sm4479_90180091.xml | GATT_148 | 495 | 3,632 | Limited C
INTERIM COMMISSION COMMISSION INTERIMAIRE DE ICITO/EC. 2/SC. 3/5
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL L'ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE 2 September 1948
TRADE ORGANIZATION DU COMMERCE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Executive Committee
Second Session
Working Paper for Sub-Committee 3 on Administration
Item 5 of the Agenda - Relations of the ITO with
Non-Governmental Organizations
The following is a summary of the oral statement of the
Executive Secretary to the Executive Committee supplementing
ICITO/EC. 2/11.
The Executive Secretary said that he would like to
supplement the somewhat inadequate description which was
given in document ICITO/EC.2/11 of the practical arrangements
which he would suggest for putting into effect the recommend-
ations which he had made regarding relations with non-
governmental organizations.
1. The Conference should adopt a list of "consultants"
chosen preferably from the Economic and Social Council list
of non-governmental organizations with consultative status,
on the recommendation of the Director-General with the
approval of the Executive Board.
2. The non-governmental organizations thus listed by the
Conference should receive invitations to send observers to
the Annual Conference of the Organization. They should also
be provided with the Conference documentation. These
organizations should also have the right to propose items
for the Conference agenda; items so proposed would be
considered by the Executive Board and the Board should hear
the representative of a non-governmental organization which
had proposed an item.
3 . As regards the activities of the Organization other
than the Annual Conference, where specific projects were
entrusted to the Director-General or to subsidiary organs
of the Organization there should be consultation with any
listed non-governmental organization competent in the field
of such project. In the first instance such consultations
should be undertaken by the Director-General in preparing
the documentation of the subisidary organ of the Organization
concerned. The committee or commission concerned could also
hear representatives of non-governmental organizations
which had a contribution to make to the matter under enquiry.
On more general matters the Director-General should
have authority to set up, if he thought fit, an advisory
committee of representatives of the non-governmental
organizations. If such an advisory committee were established
it might most conveniently meet just before the Annual
Conference. ICITO/EC. 2/SC.3/5
Page 2.
5. Documentation -The listed non-governmental organizations
should receive copies of all unrestricted documents of the
Organization. Documents submitted to the Organization by
listed non-governmental organizations should be distributed
at the discretion of the Director-General, one of whose
functions it will be to see that appropriate documentation
is available to the Conference. The Director-General would
also circulate a list of all communications received from
listed non-governmental organizations and any document so
listed should receive full distribution at the request
of any member government.
6. The Director-General should refer to the Executive
Board any difference of view between himself and any listed
non-governmental organization regarding the implementation
of these arrangements.
7. These arrangements should be subject to review from
time to time, and in such review the views of the non-
governmental organizations should be given full consideration. |
GATT Library | yv700tz9173 | Working Paper Prepared by the Secretariat | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 7, 1948 | Sub-Committee I of Committee VI and Joint Sub-Committee of Committees V and VI | 07/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23, E/CONF.2/C.56/W.1, and E/CONF. 2/C. 6/W. 1-40 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yv700tz9173 | yv700tz9173_90200130.xml | GATT_148 | 1,764 | 11,754 | United Nations Nations Unies
RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23
ON DU E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1 7 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUB-COMMITTEE I OF COMMITTEE SIX AND JOINT
SUB-COMMITTEE OF COMMITTEES V AND VI
Working Paper Prepared by the Secretariat
A. Sub-Committee I of Committee Six
The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee I of Committee Six, composed
of representatives of Australia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Iraq,
India, Pakistan, South Africa, United Kingdom and UnitedStates, are to
examine all amendments proposed to Article 94. For the functions of
Sub-Committee Iof Committee Six concerning the proposal to exclude from
Chapter VI inter-governmental comodity agreements relating to natioal
security see Sectidn B. Set out hereunder are the amendments presented to
Article 94: ''General Exceptions";
1. Amendments relating to parts of Article 94
Paraeraph (a) No amendments,
Paragraph (o) (i) No amendments.
Paragraph (b) (ii)
The delegation of Australia makes the following comment:
It appears to the delegation of Australia that in view of the
importance of paragraph (b) (ii) of Article 94 the intention of the
Preparatory Committee, in this regard should be made perfectly clear.
'"Doubts are felt as to whether the words "for the purpose of
supplying a military establishment" are sufficiently explicit without
interpretàtive comment. These words, it is considered, are capable of
being interpreted as- applying merely to a military establishment
maintained or controlled by a Member country imposing a.restriction on
exports. It may however, be necessary to consider wheter a paticular
product or products are intended for use by a military establishment
maintained or controlled by another country. For example, before the
last war Australia found it necessery to prohibit, the export of iron ore
to a particular foreign country for the reason that it was being used
for military purposes and that the Australian product might be used in
military action against Australia. Events proved that this action was
fully justified. It is therefore suggested that this Conferrence should
approve the interpretation of 94.(b). (ii) that the words "a military
establishment" include such establishments maintained by any other
/country E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23
E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
Page 2
country as well as those maintained by the member itself and that this
interpretation should be inclùdéd in the records of the Conference.
"Again, in the course of the Geneva Conference the delegation of
Australia questioned whether the wording of Article 94 (b) (il) could
be iterpreted as applying to any goods and Materials and in particular
raw materials used for the production of goods for military purposes.
It was agreed that this was the intention of the provision and the
inclusion of the words "directly or indirectly" was accepted by the
Conference. This amendment partly met the Australian delegation's
viewpoint, but a reservation was maintained on this sub-paragraph
pending further consideration. It is now suggested that this
Conference should endorse the interpretation approved at Geneva, that
this sub-paragraph covers raw materials such as iron ore (the oxemple
montioned above) or any other goods or materials used directly or
indirectly for military purposes and that this endorsement should be
included in the records.
"If the suggestions embodied in paragraphs 2 and 3 above are
approved and suitably recorded the delegation of Australia will be in
a position to withdraw its reservation to Article 94 (b) (ii)."
Paragraph (b) (iii)
The delegation of Egypt has withdrawn the proposed amendents to
paragraph (b) sub-division (iii).
Proposed new Paragraph between Paragraphs (b) and (c)
The delegation of India proposed to add a new paragraph (c) between
the present paragraphs (b) and (c), reading as follows:
"(c) to require any Member to extend the benefits of the Charter to
any other Member with which it is unable, without detriment to its
essential interests, to maintain trade relations, or..."
The delegation of India explains that this amendment is intended to
cover the special situation existing between India and South Africa.
Paragaph (c): No amendments.
2. Proposed additions of new Paragraph (d) at the end of Article 94
(a) The delegation of Iraq suggests the addition of a new paragraph
to Article 94. reading as follows:
"(d) to prevent any Member from taking any action in respect of
trade which serves a political purpose contrary to the essential
interests of that Member."
(b) The delegation of Costa Rica proposes to add the following two
paragraphs at the end of Article 94:
"(d) to prevent any Member from readjusting its customs tariffs,
here such duties are based on the eight, quantity or measurement
/of articles E/CONF.2/C.66/W.23
E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
Page 3
of articles imported asd not on their value, and when such
readjustment is made necessary by a legal devaluation of the
currency of the importer."
"(b) to oblige any Member to abolish existing monopolies.
established in favour of the State or of its dependent organs, or
legislative provisions granting the State the sole right to
purchase, seil, produce or distribute certain articles or to
provide certain services.";
(c) The delegation of India proposes to add a new paragraph at the end
of Article 94 readings as follows:
"2. Taking into account the exceptional circumstances arising out
of the establishment of India and Pakistan as independent states
and recognizing the tact that they have long constituted an
oconomic unit, the Members agree that the provisions of the Charter
shall not prevent the two countries from entering into special
arràngements with respect to the trade between them."
The delegation of India explains that its proposed amendment has beer
adapted from the corresponding provision in Article XXIV of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
(d.) The delegation of Czechoslovakia proposes to insert a new
paragraph 2 to Article 94 reading as follows:
"2, Nothing in this Charter shall override any of the provisions
in the treaties of peace between the Allied and Associated. powers
and the States which were their enemies during the First and the
Second World War or any special regimes established by the
United Nations for separate territories."
The delegation of Czechoslovakia explained that it suggests the
deletion of the words "which may be established between Italy and the
Free Territory of Trieste" which appear in the proposal of the
delegation of Italy regarding Article 16 (document E/CONF.2/ll/Add.18)
because the United Nations may establish a special regime not
exclusively between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste, but
between Trieste and several other countries.
B. Joint Sub-Committee of Fifth and Sixth Committees
1 Among the amendments presented to Chapter VI was a United States
proposal to exclude from the provisions of Chapter VI inter-governmental
commodity agreements relating to national security. Sub-Committee `A' of
the Fifth Committee recommended that the decision on this matter might best
be taken connection with the discussion of the related portion of
Article 94,
/2. At the E/CONF.2/C .6/W.23
E/CONF. 2/C .5&6/W.1
Page 4
2. At the Thirteenth Meeting of the Fifth Committee it, was agreed that a
Joint Sub-committee with the Sixth Committee would be the best way of dealing
with this matter.
The Fifth Committee noted that the Sixth Committee had already
established a Sub-Committee on Article 94 suggesting that members of the
Fifth Committee could be added if desired and decided to add Fifth Committee
representatives from the delegations of the Netherlands, Chile, New Zealand,
Denmark and the Philippines to form the Joint Sub-Committees.
3. It was agreed that the Joint Sub-Committee should., with reference to the
exception proposed in the amendment submitted to Article 67:
(a) draft an exception for national security in relation to
inter-governmental commodity agreements on the basis of the
recommendations contained in paragraphs (ii) (a) and (b) on page 9 of
the Report of Sub-Committee 'A' of the Fifth Committee (document
E/CONF. 2/C.5/9), and
(b) recommend regarding the location in the Charter of such an
exception,
Note: The relevant extracts from the Report of Sub-Committee 'A'
.
of the Fifth Committee are attached.
Details on the discussion in Fifth Committee on this matter are contained
document E/CONF. 2/C.5/SR.13. E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23
E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1 Page 5
ANNEX
EXTRACTING FROM THE REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 'A' OF THE FIFTH COMMITTEE
"Regarding the amendment proposed by the delegation of the United States
(C.5/3/Add,5), the Sub-Committee reached agreemen on the following points:
(a) That the Charter should be amended to make clear that it was
intended to have an exception for action relating to primary commodities
as defined Article 53, taken in concert as well as taken unilaterally,
applying to the requirements of national security - in whatever way the
reference to national security should appropriately be drafted.
(b) That it was desirable that the exception be drafted as narrowly
as possible consistently with achieving adequately the purpose of the
excetptions.
(c) That decision as to
(i) the drafting of the exception, and
(ii) Its location in the Charter
might best be taken in connection with the discussion of the related
portion of Article 94, though not necessarily by the Committee
responsible for that Article.
(d) That the Sub-Committee should report that the following two texts
(shown in square brackets In the Annex) had been before it for discussion
Proposal 1 - the addition of the following sub-paragraph (to
Article 67, paragraph 1):
'(e) to any inter-governmental commodity agreement, or any
provision in such an agreement, made to meet the essential
requirents of national security.'
Proposal 2
(i) The addition of the following sub-paragraph (to Article 67,
paragraph l) ;
'(e) to any inter-governmental agreement concluded solely for
the purpose of the non-commercial accumulation or reserves of
primary commodities for military purposes or of the expansion of
facilities for the production of such primary commodities:
Provided that any Member, not being a party to such agreement,
may bring a complaint that its commercial interests are seriously
prejudiced by the operation of the agreement and the Organization,
if it so finds, shall request the participating Members to consult
with the complaining Member in order to safeguard the latter's
conercial interested.
(il) The addition of the following new paragraph 2 (to Article 67):
`Any Member accumulating non-commercial reserves of primary
commodities for military purposes under an inter-governmental
/agreement E/CONF.2/C .6/W.23
E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
Page 6
agreement, to whioh paragraph (1) (e) of this Article applies,
shall not make arrangements for the commercial liquidation off such
reserve stocks in such a way as to injure the commercial interests
of producers of the commodities in question, and shall consult
with the Organization as to the best means to that end;."'
Note: In the Thirteenth Meeting of the Fifth Committee it was recorded
that the undestanding of the Sub-Committee was that the narrow
drafting mentioned in its recommendation (b) might includes the
provision of safeguards. |
GATT Library | hs317jb7334 | Working Paper Prepared by the Secretariat | United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, January 7, 1948 | Sub-Committee I of Committee VI and Joint Sub-Committee of Committees V and VI | 07/01/1948 | official documents | E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23, E/CONF.2/C.56/W.1, and E/CONF. 2/C. 5/W. 1-6 C. 56/W. 1-3 WHITE PAPERS | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hs317jb7334 | hs317jb7334_90200078.xml | GATT_148 | 1,765 | 11,839 | United Nations Nations Unies
RESTRICTED
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23 E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
ON DU 7 January 1948
TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SUB-COMMITTEE I OF COMMITTEE SIX AND JOINT
SUB-COMMITTEE OF COMMITTEES V AND VI
Working Paper Prepared by the Secretariat
A. Sub-Committee I of Committee Six
The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee I of Committee Six, composed
of representatives of Australia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Iraq,
India, Pakistan, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States,are to
examine all amendments proposed to Article 94. For the functions of
Sub-Committee I of Committee Six concerning the proposaI to exclude from
Chapter VI inter-governmental commodity agreements relating to national
security, see Section B. Set out hereunder are the amendments presented to
Article 94: "General Exceptions":
1. Amendments relating to parts of Article 94
Paragraph (a) No amendments.
Paragraph (b) (i) No amendments.
Paragraph (b) (ii)
The delegation of Australia makes the following comment:
"It appears to the delegation of Australia that, in view of the
importance of paragraph (b) (ii) of Article 94 the intention of the
Preparatory Committee in this regard should be made perfectly clear,
"Doubts are felt as to whether the words "for the purpose of
supplying a military establishment" are sufficiently explicit without
interpretative comment. These words, it is considered, are capable of
being interpreted as applying merely to a military establishment
maintained or controlled by a Member country impose a restriction an
exports, It may, however, be necessary to consider whether a particular
product or products are intended for use by a military establishment
maintained or controlled by another country. For example, before the
last war Australia found it necessary to prohibit the export of iron ore
to a particular foreign country for the reason that it was being used
for military purposes and that the Australian product might be used in
military action against Australia. Events proved that this action was
fully justified. It is therefore suggested that this Conference should
approve the interpretation of 94 (b) (ii) that the words "a military
establishment" include such establishments maintained by any other
/country E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23
E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
Page 2
country as wall as those maintained by the member itself and that this
interpretation should be included in the records of the Conference.
"Again, in the course of the Geneva Conference the delegation of
Australia questioned whether the wording of Article 94 (b) (ii) could
be interpreted as applying to any goods and materials and in particular
raw materials used for the production of goods for military purposes.
It was agreed that this was the intention of the provision and the
inclusion of the words "directly or indirectly", was accepted by the
Conference. This amendment partly met the Australian delegation's
viewpoint, but a reservation was maintained on this sub-paragraph
pending further consideration. It is now suggested that this
Conference should endorse the interpretation approved at Geneva, that
this sub-paragraph covers raw materials such as iron ore (the examples-
mentioned above) or any other goode or materials used directly or
indirectly for military purposes and that this endorsement should be
included in the records.
"If the suggestions embodied in paragraphs 2 and 3 above are
approved and suitably recorded the delegation of Australia will be in
a position to withdraw its reservation to Article 94 (b) (li)."
Paragraph (b) (iii)
The delegation of Egypt has withdrawn the proposed amendments to
paragraph (b) sub-division (iii).
Proposed new Paragraph between Paragraphs (b) and (c)
The delegation of India proposed to add a new paragraph (c) between
the present paragraphs (b) and (c), reading as follows:
"(c) to require any Member to extend the benefits of the Charter to
any other Member with which it is unable, without detriment to its
essential interests, to maintain trade relations, or..."
The delegation of India explains that this amendment is intended to
cover the special situation existing between India and South Africa,
Paragraph (c): No amendments.
2. Proposed additions of new Paragraph (d) at the end of Article 94
(a) The delegation of Iraq suggests the addition of a new paragraph
to Article 94, reading as follows:
"(d) to prevent any Member from taking any action in respect of
trade which serves a political purpose contrary to the essential
interests of that Member."
(b) The delegation of Costa Rica proposes to add the following two
paragraphs at the end of Article 94:
"(d) to prevent any Member from readjusting its customs tariffs,
where such duties are based on the eight, quantity or measurement
/of articles E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23
E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
Page 3
of articles imported and not on their value, and when such
readjustment is made necessary by a legal devaluation of the
currency of the importer."
"(e) to oblige any Member to abolish existing monopolies
established in favour of the State or of its dependent organs, or
legislative provisions granting the State the sole right to
purchase, sell, produce or distribute certain articles or to
provide certain services."
(c) The delegation of India proposes to add a new paragraph at the end
of Article 94 reading as follows:
"2. Taking into account the exceptional circumstances arising out
of the establishment of India and Pakistan as independent states
- and recognizing the fact that they have long constituted an
economic unit, the Members agree that the provisions of the Charter
shall not prevent the two countries from entering into special
arrangements with respect to the trade between them."
The delegation of India explains that its proposed amendment has baer
adapted from the corresponding provision in Article XXIV of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
(d) The delegation of Czechoslovakia proposes to insert a new
paragraph 2 to Article 94 reading as follows:
"2. Nothing in this Charter shall override any of the provisions
in the treaties of peace between the Allied and Associated powers
and the States which were their enemies during the First and the
Second World War or any special regimes established by the
United Nations for separate territories."
The delegation of Czechoslovakia explained that it suggests the
deletion of the words "which may be established between Italy and the
Free Territory of Trieste" which appear in the proposal of the
delegation of Italy regarding Article 16 (document E/CONF.2/ll/Add.18)
because the United Nations may establish a special regime not
exclusively between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste, but
between Trieste and several other countries.
B. Joint Sub-Committee of Fifth and Sixth Committees
1. Among the amendments presented to Chapter VI was a United States
proposal to exclude from the provisions of Chapter VI inter-governmental
commodity agreements relating to national security. Sub-Committee 'A' of
the Fifth Committee recommended that the decision on this matter might best
be taken in connection with the discussion of the related portion of
Article 94.
/2. At the E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23
E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
Page 4
2. At the Thirteenth Meeting of the Fifth Committee it was agreed that a
Joint Sub-Committee with the Sixth Committee would be the best way of dealing
with this matter.
The Fifth Committee noted that the Sixth Committee had already
established a Sub-Committee on Article 94 suggesting that members of the
Fifth Committee could be added if desired and decided to add Fifth Committee
representatives from the delegations of the Netherlands, Chile, New Zealand,
Denmark and the Philippines to form the Joint Sub-Committee.
3. It was agreed that the Joint Sub-Committee should, with reference to the
exception proposed in the amendment submitted to Article 67:
(a) draft an exception for national security in relation to
inter-governmental commodity agreements on the basis of the
recommendations contained in paragraphs (ii) (a) and (b) on page 9 of
the Report of Sub-Committee 'A' of the Fifth Committee (document
E/CONF.2/C.5/9), and
(b) recommend regarding the location in the Charter of such an
exception.
Note: The relevant extracts from the Report of Sub-Committee 'A'
of the Fifth Committee are attached.
4. Details on the discussion in Fifth Committee on this matter are contained
in document E/CONF.2/C.5/SR.13. E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23 E/CONF.2/C.5&6/W.1
Page 5
ANNEX
EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT OF SU-COMMITTEE 'A' OF THE FIFTH COMMITTEE
"Regarding the amendment proposed by the delegation of the United States
(C.5/3/Add.5), the Sub-Committee reached agreement an the following points:
(a) That the Charter should be amended to make clear that it was
intended to have an exception for action relating to primary commodities
as defined in Article 53, taken in concert as well as taken unilaterally,
applying to the requirements of national security - in whatever way the
reference to national security should appropriately be drafted.
(b) That it was desirable that the exception be drafted as narrowly
as possible consistently with achieving adequately the purpose of the
exceptions.
(c) That decision as to
(i) the drafting of the exception, and
(ii) its location in the Charter
might best be taken in connection with the discussion of the related
portion of Article 94, though not necessarily by the Committee
responsible for that Article.
(d) That the Sub-Committee should report that the following two texts
(shown in square brackets in the Annex) had been before it for discussion
Proposal 1 - the addition of the following sub-paragraph (to
Article 67, paragraph 1):
'(e) to any inter-governmental commodity agreement, or any
provision in such an agreement, made to meet the essential
requirements of national security.'
Proposal 2
(1) The addition of the following sub-paragraph (to Article 67,
paragraph 1):
'(e) to any inter-govornmental agreement concluded solely for
the purpose of the non-commercial accumulation of reserves of
primary commodities for military purposes or of the expansion of
facilities for the production of such primary commodities:
Provided that any Member, not being a party to such agreement,
may bring a complaint that its commercial interests are seriously
prejudiced by the operation of the agreement and the Organization,
if it so finds, shall request the participating Members to consult
with the complaining Member in order to safeguard the latter's
commercial interests.'
(ii) The addition of the following new paragraph 2 (to Article 67):
'Any Member accumulating non-commercial reserves of primary
commodities for military purposes under an inter-governmental
/agreement E/CONF.2/C.6/W.23
E/CONF.2/C. 5&6/W.1
Page 6
agreement, to which paragraph (1) (a) of this Article applies,
shall not make arrangements for the commercial liquidation of such
reserve stocks in such a way as to injure the commercial interests
of producers of the commodities in question, and shall consult
with the Organization as to the best means to that end."
Note: In the Thirteent Meeting of the Fifth Committee it was recorded
that the understanding of the Sub-Committee was that the narrow
drafting mentioned in its recommendation (b) might include the
provision of safeguards. |
GATT Library | xf925np6012 | Working Party 2 on Tariff Negotiations. First Report to the Contracting Parties | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, August 27, 1948 | General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Organization) and Contracting Parties | 27/08/1948 | official documents | GATT/CP.2/23 and GATT/CP.2/22/Rev.1+Rev.1/Corr.1 CP.2/22/Rev.1/Annex II/Rev.1 CP.2/23-27 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xf925np6012 | xf925np6012_90320040.xml | GATT_148 | 2,938 | 19,052 | RESTRICTED
LIMITED B
GATT/CP.2/23
27 August 19148
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Contracting Parties
Second Session
Working Party 2 on Tar if Negotiations
First Report to the Contracting Parties
The Working Party on Tariff Negotiations.was. appointed
at the third meeting of the Second Session of the
Contracting Parties on 17 August 1948.
The Working Party has held five meetings under the'
Chairmanship of Mr. B.N. ADARAR, the representative of
India. All the members of the Working Party namely, the
representatives of Belgium, Brazil, France, Lebanon, South
Africa, United Kingdom and United States, have participated
in the deliberations and, by ineitation, the representatives
of other contracting parties, particularly Australia and
the Netherlands, and the observers for Finland, Italy and
Sweden, also took part in the discussions.
The Working Party was instructed to study the question
of the scheduling of future tariff negotiations and to
report on the procedures to be followed. Subsequently two
further questions were referred to the Working Party,
namely the requests of Pakistan and Cuba for the
renegotiation of certain items in Schedules to the General
Agreement.
The present report relates only to the arrangements
for tariff negotiations. The Working Party will report on
the other two questions at a later-date.
The main task undertaken by the Workirng Party was the
preparation of a memorandum to be issued by the contracting
parties for the guidance of the governments wishing to
accede to the Agreement. The memorandum recommended by the
Working Party is given as an Annex to this Report.
In Section V of the draft memorandum, which describes
the procedures at Goneva, the Working Party has not in-
cluded a definite recommendation for the incorporation of
the results of the negotiations in the General Agreement,
since they consider that it is not possible to foresee the
circumstances and requirements so far in advance and that
it is therefore premature to take a decision at this stage
on the exact nature of the instruments to be signed.(
There is a point to which the working Party wishes to
draw attention. Section V provides that at the conclusion'
of the Geneva meeting each participating government will
supply a supplementary consolidated list of all the
concessions granted to the other participating governments GATT/CP.2/23
page 2
showing the country with which each concession was initially
negotiated. Similar lists were to have been exchanged at
the conclusion of the negotiations in 1947, but it appears
that many of the Contracting Parties have not yet been
abler to comply with the request which was then made. It
is now recommended by the Working Party that steps should
be taken by all contracting parties to ensure that each
other contracting party and the Secretariat receive a
consolidated list in the form indicated.
The representative of Australia, in a statement to
the Working Party, explained that his Government would
experience difficulties in commencing negotiations with cer-
tain countries as early as 11 April, 1949. He suggested that
the ultimate date for the completion of the negotiations
should be 31 December 1949. The Working Party considers
that it would be impracticable to postpone commencement
of the negotiations beyond 11th April. The Working Party
recommends that Australia may seek a solution for its
particular difficulties in the course of their negotiations
with the countries concerned. GATT/CP, 2/23
page 3
.to the Re ort of Working Party No. 2 on Tariff Negotiations
Draft Memorandum on Tariff Negotiations
I. Purpose of the Negotiation
The contracting parties to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, at their Second Session in Geneva in
August 1948, resolved to invite the governments which showed
their interest in the proposed International Trade Organiza-
tion, by accepting the invitation to the United Nations
Conference on.Trade and Employment at Havana to enter into
negotiations with a view to their accession to the Agreement.
In 1947 the contracting parties, in their capacity as
members of the Preparatory Committee for the Trade and
Employment Conference, gave effect to one of the fundamental
principles of the draft Charter by carrying out negotiations
directed to the substantial reduction of the general level
of tariffs and to the elimination of preferences on a
reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis. In order that
further progress may be made towards expanding the volume of
world trade, the contracting parties invite the governments
referred to above to enter upon similar negotiations with
them. In most cases these countries are enjoying the
benefit of the tariff reductions negotiated by the contracting
parties and incorporated in the Schedules to the General .
Agreement; But even so they will welcome the opportunity
to obtain these benefits in their own right and to negotiate
for Aurther concessions on the products of most interest to
them.
The main part and the final phase of the negotiations
will take place in Geneva commencing on 11 April, 1949, but
it will be necessary to begin preparations immediately. In
order that no time will be lost in the preparatory work, the
Secretariat of the contracting parties will notify by
telegraph not later than 13 september, 1948, a list of
governments which will participate in the next series of
negotiations, i.e. the contract ing parties and the governments
which wish to participate with a view to acceding to the
Agreement; An acceding government should be prepared to
negotiate with any contracting party and with any other
acceding government. There will, generally, be no
negotiations between the contracting parties themselves, but
it may be that by mutual and by general agreement, some of
them will take the opportunity to complete certain
negotiations which were left unfinished at the Geneva
meeting in 1947 and to make certain adjustments found to be
necessary in the existing Schedules to the Agreement; GATT/CP.2/23
page 4
II.Scope of the Negotiations
It is intended that the countries participating in the
negotiations in 1949 will propose for negotiation those of their
products of which they individually, or collectively, are,
or are likely to be, the principal suppliers to the countries
from whom the concessions are asked. In other words, an
acceding government will be expected to consider the grant of
concessions, as a general rules on products of which any
participating country or any group of participating countries
is, or is likely to be, the principal supplietr. And a
contracting party will, as a general rules be expected to
consider the grant of concessions on products of which any
acceding country by itself or together with other participating
countries, constitutes, or is likely to constitute, the
principal source of supply. This latter rule will not apply
to products which already appear in the Schedules to the
Agreement except that it is not meant to prevent an acceding
government from asking for concessions on products appearing
in the Schedules in which it has a special interest; in
such cases, however, the government submitting the request
will be expected to take fully into account the concessions
already granted on the products concerned
The Havana Charter provides that, in addition to
customs tariffs and other charges on imports and exports,
certain regulations, quotas, protection afforded through the
operations of import and export monopolies, etc. shall be
subject to negotiation in the manner provided in Article 17.
The relevant provisions are contained in Articles 16
(including the Annexes thereto), 18, 19 and 31. Accordingly,
requests may be submitted for concessions in respect of matters
covered by these provisions in the same way as requests for
tariff concessions"
III. Methods of Negotiation
The negotiations will be conducted in accordance with
the rules set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the
Havana Charter
(a) the negotiations will be conducted on a selective
product-by-product basis which will afford adequate
opportunity to take into account the needs of individual
countries and individual industries. Participating
governments will be free not to grant concessions on
particular products and, in the granting of a concession,
their may reduce the duty, bind it at its then existing
level, or undertake not to raise it above a specified
higher level,
(b) No participating government will be required to
grant unilateral concessions, or to grant concessions
to other governments without receiving adequate
concessions in return. Account shall be taken of the
value to any government of obtaining in its own right
and by direct obligation the concessions already
embodied in the Schedules to the General Agreement GATT/ CP. 2/ 23
page 5
(c) In negotiations relating to any specific product
with respect to which a preference applies,
(i) when a reduction is negotiated only in the
most-favoured-nartion rate, such reduction shall
operate automatically to reduce or eliminate
the margin of preference applicable to that
product;
(ii) when a reduction is negotiated only in the
preferential rate, the most favoured-nation
-rate shall automatically be reduced to the
extent of such reduction;
(iii)when it is agreed that reductions will be
negotiated in both the most-favoured-nation rate
and the preferential rates the reduction in each
shall be that agreed by the parties to the
negotiations;
(iv) no margin of preference shall, be increased.
(d) The binding against increase of low duties or of
duty-free treatment will in principle be recognized
as a concession equivalent in value to the substantial
reduction of high duties or the elimination of tariff
preferences
(e) Prior international obligations shall not be
invoked to frustrate negotiations with respect to
preferences, it being understood that agreements which
result from such negotiations and which conflict with
such obligations shall not require the modification or
termination of such obligations except (i) with the
consent of the parties to such obligations; or, in the
absence of such consont (ii) by modification or
termination of;such obligations in accordance with
their terms.
(f) It is important that members do not effect new
tariff measures prior to the negotiations which would
tend to prejudice the success of the negotiations in
achieving progress toward the objective set forth in
Article 17 of the Havana Charter, and they should not
seek to improve their bargaining position by tariff or
other restrictive measures in preparation for the
negotiations. In the event of a change in the form
of tariff or a revision of rates of duties to take
account of either a rise in prices or the devaluation
of the currency of the country maintaining the tariff,
the effects of such change or such revision would be a
matter for consideration during the negotiations in
order to determine, first, the change, if any, in the
incidence of the duties of the country concerned, and
secondly, whether the change is such as to afford a
reasonable basis for negotiations. GATT/CP. 2/23
page 6
(g) In a few exceptional cases, a general revision
of tariffs prior to the negotiations may be found
unavoidable. In making any such revision, the
countries concerned should have regard to the principles
stated in the preceding paragraph. It is suggested
that such countries should notify the Secretariat, by
telegram, not later than 13 September 1948, of their
decision in regard to participation in the forthcoming
negotiations and the latest date by which copies of
their existing and revise. Customs Tariff will be
supplied to other participating governments as provided
in the time-table below. They should comply with all
the requirements of the time-table except those relating
to copies of the Customs Tariff. Negotiations will
take place with such countries if the supply of copies
of the revised tariff is not delayed so long as to
render such negotiations impracticable and if the
principles stated in paragraph (f) have been observed.
IV.Timetable for the Negotiations
(i) At the earliest possible date and in no case later
than 15 September 1948, each contracting party will send to
each acceding government; and each of the latter will send to
each other participating government, three copies of its
customs tariff and one copy (if possible, three) of its
latest annual import trade statistics. In addition, it is
requested that every effort should be made to supply average
import statistics for 1936 to 1938, or, if this is not
possible, for 1936, 1937 and 1938, or if neither of these is
possible, statistics for the most representative of those
three years. Each participating government will advise the
participating government concerned and the Secretariat, by
telegram, the particulars of the documents dispatched and the
date and method of despatch.
(ii) The United States Government are required by their
statutory procedure to give public notice of all items in
their tariff which are to be the subject of negotiations.
Not later than 31 October 1948, therefore each acceding
government will transmit to the United States Government, by
the most expeditious means available, a list of the products
on which it intends to request concessions from that govern-
ment. The United States Government will. take reciprocal
action not later than 31 October 1948. It will not be
possible for the United States Government to enter into
negotiations on any products which are not included in these
first lists. Any other participating government which wishes
to exchange preliminary and provisional lists with participa-
ting governments other than the United States in advance of
the definitive lists provided for in paragraph (iv), will
notify the Secretariat to that effect not later than the 13
September 1948, and the last date for the transmission of such
lists will be the 30 November 1948. It is hoped that exchange
of such preliminary lists will not be requested except where
it is considered absolutely essential, since many of the
acceding governments may find it difficult to prepare a large GATT/CP .2/23
page 7
number of such lists within the time prescribed. Forty
copies of the preliminary lists, including. the lists exchanged
between the United States Government and acceding governments
will be sent to the Secretariat simultaneously with their
transmission to the governments to which they are addressed
for distribution to the other participating governments.
(iii) It is essential for the successful conduct of
the forthcoming negotiations that the above time-table should
be strictly adhered to. It is understood, however that
certain governments (other than contracting parties) may be
Unable, for reasons beyond their control to notify their
decisions in regard to participation by 13 September 1948,
or to supply the necessary documents by 15 September 1948.
Such governments will nevertheless be expected to take the
necessary action within a very short time after the dates
prescribed and to conform to the remainder of the time-table
so as to make the negotiations practicable.
(iv) Not later than 1 January 1949, each government
will transmit to each other participating government a final
list of the tariff and other concessions which it requests
from that government. Forty copies of these lists will be
sent simultaneously to the Secretariat for distribution to
the participating governments. When compiling lists of
requests whether preliminary or definitive, participating
governments should not include products which appear in the
Schedules to the Agreement unless they propose to request a
concession going beyond those provided in the Schedules.
(v) On 11 April, 1949, - that is on the first day of
the meeting in Geneva - each government will make known to
all participating governments the concessions which it is
prepared to offer to each government from which a request for
concessions was received. These offers should include.
indications of the existing and the proposed rate of duty
on each item.
(vi) It will be understood that any two participating
governments may arrange between themselves to conduct
bilateral talks in advance of the multilateral negotiations
in Geneva. In that event the exchange of preliminary requests
and offers may be arranged to take place at earlier dates than
those envisaged above, but the concessions offered need not be
disclosed to other participating governments until the opening
of the Geneva meeting. In the event that bilateral talks
should be successfully concluded prior to 11 April, the results
will be reported to the other participating governments at the
opening of the Geneva meeting and will be subject to review
and adjustment in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the following paragraphs.
V. Procedures at Geneva
When the concessions offered by all participating
governments have been exchanged and distributed, negotiations
between pairs of delegations will begin. Any alterations
in the initial list of offers will be immediately notified to
the Secretariat for the information of all participating
governments. At this stage as in the distribution of lists
of requests arrangements will be made to prevent the
leakage of any confidential material to the public. GATT/CP. 2/23
page 8
To follow the successful procedure adopted in 1947,
the participating governments may decide to establish a.
"Tariff Negotiations Working Party", which will be responsible
for ascertaining the progress of the negotiations and which.
will make recommendations on questions of procedure and other
matters connected with the conduct of the negotiations and
prepare the legal instruments to be signed at the conclusion
of the proceedings.
As each negotiation.is concluded, lists of the
concessions to be exchanged will be conveyed to the Secretariat
and to all other delegations. These results will be subject
to review and adjustment in the light of the results of other
negotiations. Each participating government will arrange
through the Secretariat for the distribution to each other
participating government of a consolidated list of all
concessions granted.
When all the negotiations are completed the concessions
will be incorporated in the Agreement, and the accession of
governments, not previously contracting parties will be
effected by appropriate instruments. Each participating
government will prepare for distribution through the
Secretariat a supplementary list of the concessions granted
showing the country with which each concession was initially
negotiated. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.