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 | ky294qy4587 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the 29th Meeting held on Wednesday, 9 July 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 10, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 10/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/29 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ky294qy4587 | ky294qy4587_90250045.xml | GATT_152 | 1,939 | 12,556 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/29
10 July 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE Original: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION A
SUMMARY RECORD
of the 29th Meeting held on Wednesday, 9 July 1947
at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
CHAIRMAN: M. M. SUETENS (Belgium)
1. Indian proposal for new Article 26A.
M. F. de LIEDEKERKE (Belgium) enquired about the Indian
proposal for the insertion of the new Article 26A (Note 40)*.
The CHAIRMAN informed the Commission that the special Sub-
Committee on Chapter IV had been instructed to consider this
article and Mr. ADAKAR (India) explained that the Indian
Delegation had consented to this procedure on the understanding
that the question of prior approval had not yet been definitely
decided.
After the delegates of Belgium and the Netherlands suggested
to discuss the Indian proposal nevertheless in the Commission,
Dr. COOMBS (Australia), as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on
Chapter IV, advocated to discuss this proposal only in the Sub-
Committee on Chapter IV with the understanding that every member
of the Commission will be entitled to express its views on this
proposal in the Sub-Committee.
* The notes mentioned in this Summary refer to the
consecutively numbered notes in E/PC/T/W/223. E/PC/T/A/SR/29
page 2.
The CHAIRMAN confirmed, upon query of the Belgian delegate,
that no final decision on the Indian proposal will be taken by
Commission A before the Sub-Cmmittee on Chapter IV will have
reported its conclusions to the Commission.
2. Article 28, Paragraph 1
(a) Sub-paragraph (e)
Mr. J.R.C. HELMORE (United Kingdom) explained that the
intention of the drafters of this sub-paragraph had been to deal
with the problem of inconvertible currencies and to enable members
who hold such currencies to deviate from the strict application
of the principle of non-discrimination if, in this manner, an
otherwise impossible increase in the volume of foreign trade
could be achieved. He explained the actual working of this
provision by quoting the example of imports of oranges to the
United Kingdom from the United States of America and Italy.
The United Kingdom was in agreement with this sub-paragraph up
to (ii) and the proviso clause. However, the United Kingdom felt
that (ii) and the proviso clause would give countries with
inconvertible currencies much greater freedom in this respect.
The effect of the sub-paragraph, as at present drafted, would be
to deter from assuming the obligation of convertibility and
would thus be harmful for the development of free multilateral
trade and general free exchangability of currencies. The
present text would also involve the danger of being used as
subterfuge for actual barter agreements.
Referring to the Australian amendment (Note 53),
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) explained that in view of the enormous
theoretical and practical difficulties involved in this problem, E/PC/T/A/SR/29
page 3.
the Australian amendmennt 'was primarily intended, during the
present Session, to promote the study and a more satisfactory
solution of all issues involved.
Mr. G. BRONZ (United States of America) stated the United
States view that as a philosophical point, free trade and non-
discrimination are practically identical and that no form of
discrimination can be an adequate means to promote freer and
fuller trade. He felt that the cases quoted by Mr. Helmore
would be covered by the present text. The present text requires
the prior approval of the Fund and the I.T.O. unless exchange
controls are permissible under Articles VIII or XIV of the
Bretton Woods Agreement. In the latter case the use of Q,.R.s
is only a different mechanism for administrating measures
already permitted to the member. Any change of the principle
of prior approval, as existing in the present text, would tend
to perpetuate discrimination and bilateralism instead of aiming
in the direction of non-discrimination and multilateralism.
Mr. F. de LIEDEKERKE (Belgium) stated the Belgian position
as considering the principle of non-discrimination one of the
most important principles of the Charter and wished that the
Sub-Committee would pay attention to not allowing changes in the
text which might open the door to more discrimination than
absolutely necessary.
M. P. BARADUC (France) fully agreed with the United States
on the desirability of the principle of non-discrimination.
He pointed to the dangers inherent in a too rigid application of
this principle, explaining that France had succeeded in re-
establishing highly satisfactory trade relations with Belgium,
the Netherlands and Switzerland and had attained an increase in E/PC/T/A/SR/29
page 4.
the volume of trade which would have been impossible under strict
application of the rules of Article 27. He recommended
careful re-consideration of all the problems involved and especially
of the problems of the transitional period. Exceptions to the
rule of non-discrimination should be applied not only according
to strictly financial considerations but also with a view to
general economic and even of political considerations.
(b) Sub-paragraphs (d) and (e)
after Mr. H. DORN (Cuba) had explained the intentions of
the Cuban amendment (Note 51), the amendments to sub-paragraphs
(d) and (e) were referred to the Sub-Committee.
3. Article 28, Paragraph 2
Mr. J.G.. PHILLIPS ( Australia) explained the intentions of
the Australian amendment (Note 54).
Mr. F. de LIEDEKERKE (Belgium) opposed the Australian amend-
ment because it would reduce tne power of the I.T.O. toward members who
did not fulfil their obligations under the Charter. He suggested
to insert a sentence that in no case shall the organization enter
into conflict with the International Monetary Fund, which clause
would remove the need for the deletion proposed by the Australian
amendment.
Mr. J. MELANDER (Norway) supported the Australian amendment.
Mr. T.R.C. HELMORE (United Kingdom) had no very definite
views on the Australian proposal and pointed out that the same
conditions ought to apply all around. The right of
discrimination should be allowed according to the need and the
justification for it and not according to the test whether a
country happens to have convertible currency or whether it
happens to exercise a defence of its balance of payments E/PC/T/A/SR/29
page 5.
position through import or exchange restrictions.
Mr. G. BRONZ (United States of America) agreed with
Mr. Helmore that the ultimate goal should be to narrow the
area of discrimination in international trade.
Mr. F. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) expressed himself against'
the principle of paragraph 2 if vital interests of members are
concerned. The Sub-Committee should give consideration to
the course of action open to a member if the organization dis-
allows discrimination despite the fact that vital interests are
affected.
4. Paragraph 3
Mr. G. BRONZ (United States of America) explained the
intentions of the United States amendment (Note 56).
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) felt that although the present
text was unsatisfactory, some other words would have to be sub-
stituted for the words deleted by the U.S. amendments.
Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) opposed the U.S. amendment in view
of the fact that general economic welfare was the supreme
objective of the Charter.
Mr. G. BRONZ (United States of A.merica) explained that the
date of the 31 December 1951 had been chosen in view of the
Five Year Provision in Article XIV of the Bretton Woods Agreement.
The intention was to provide for a joint review of the Fund and
the I.T.O. and the date should be changed to April 1952.
Mr. F. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) opposed the U.S. amendment
because it implied the principle that at a given date all
discrimination should be abolished, not because it restricts the
expansion of world trade, but for reasons of principle. E/PC/T/A/SR/29
page 6.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) proposed a compromise formula,
suggesting to delete all the words after "International Monetary
Fund" and by inserting a sentence providing for a review with a
view to the earliest possible elimination of any discrimination
after convertibility has become generally acceptable.
5. Article 29
Mr. G. BRONZ (United States of America) explained the
reasons for the U.S. amendment (Note 58). Apart from the slight
drafting changes there was a substantive amendment which would
have the effect that the International Monetary Fund should have
a final word on questions which are essentially financial in
nature. This would eliminate duplication of functions and
facilitated the personnel problem.
Mr. E.L. RODRIGUES (Brazil) supported the U.S. amendment.
Mr. L.C. WEBB (New Zealand) agreed with the objective of
non-duplication. He preferred the word "jurisdiction" for
"competence" and felt that the words "balance of payments
problems" were too narrow. He disagreed with the last sentence
of the U.S. amendment, explaining that there were three stages
to be considered: first, the collection of facts; second, the
interpretation of facts; third, final action in the light of
interpretation. Whilst he agreed with the principle that the
Fund should have exclusive jurisdiction in the first stage, joint
operation of the experts of both organizations should be the rule
in the second stage, whilst in the third stage the I.T.O. should
have the final decision.
Mr. G. BRONZ (United States of America) explained that the
Fund is getting confidential statistical information from member
governments which would not be available to the I.T.O. for E/PC/T/A/SR/29
page 7.
reasons of security. Consequently, since this information
would not be available to it, the I.T.O. could not arrive at
an intelligent judgment on the fundamental questions at issue.
Mr. H. DORN (Cuba), referring to Article 81, suggested to
leave it to the Legal Drafting Committee whether the word
"competence" or "jurisdiction" should be employed.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) pointed out that the choice
of' the word would not be a matter for the Legal Drafting Committee
but would have to be decided by the Commission since "competence"
was a wider and "jurisdiction" a narrower concept. He
supported the position of New Zealand regarding the word
"analysis". If "analysis" meant merely details of facts, then
this should be clearly expressed; it would be highly dangerous
to give the Fund the final word in trade matters even at the
beginning of the drawing of conclusions.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) shared the doubts expressed by
New Zealand and the United Kingdom as to the scope of the last
sentence of the U.S. amendment. He would not like to think that
the organization was bound to accept the opinion of the Fund
once the question of remedies or of analysis is in question.
The Australian Delegation wished the record to show that
they would not regard the issues of Articles 26, 28 and 29 as
closed until a definite text for Article 63 and Article 66,
paragraph 5, will have been established.
After a short general exchange on the relative merits of
the words "competence" and "jurisdiction", M. BARADUC (France)
stated that he agreed with the U.S. amendment as far as it
aimed at the elimination of duplication of work by the two
organizations. However, the text of the U.S. amendment gives E/PC/T/A/SR/29
page 8.
the impression that the Fund should alone be competent to judge
on matters relating to the implementation of the provisions of
Article 26 and he did not think that the organization should be
precluded from taking its own decisions on these questions and
to consider any advice which might be given to it.
6. The Commission referred Articles 28 and 29 to the Sub-
Committee which had been appointed in the previous meeting.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Chinese amendment (Note 60)
had been discussed during the special meetings of Commission A
and after Mr. ESIEH (China) requested to have this proposal
referred to a competent Sub-Committee, the CHAIRMAN ruled, with
the consent of China, to refer this proposal to the special
Sub-Committee on Chapter IV.
The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m. |
GATT Library | gv360qb3100 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting held on Wednesday, 25 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 25, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 25/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/18 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gv360qb3100 | gv360qb3100_90250032.xml | GATT_152 | 1,334 | 8,492 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/A/SR/18
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting held on
wednesday, 25 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the
Palais des Nations, Geneva.
___________________
Chairman: Mr. Max Suetens (Belgium)
ARTICLE 33
In the continuation of the discussion of the New Zealand
Amendment (W.101):
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) thought that the Charter provided
already for different types of economies, such as countries with
free trading enterprises and countries with a varying degree of
planning. In fact the Charter was a compromise, and it was
intended to be so. Nothing in the Charter ruled out the adoption
of programmes of full employment, indeed Members are under the
obligation to maintain full employment and the Section dealing
with balance of payments recognised this obligation. Under the
Charter, Members were permitted to plan their foreign trade, by
moans of tariffs and subsidies, and as to the application of
quantitative restrictions there had to be general limitations
because these restrictions, in his opinion, had the most
destructive effect upon world trade. It was necessary that all
countries made sacrifices in keeping to those limitations. The
New Zealand Amendment created a very large loophole in the
provisions which ruled quantitative restrictions.
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/18
page 2
The aims of this Amendment were already recognised by
the Charter, perhaps not in the necessary detail; to make them
applicable to the case of New Zealand, they should be examined
by the Sub-Committee. He thought that the Amendment involved
a major change in the fundamental principles of the Charter
and his delegation could not accept it.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) stated that the Australian
Delegation was in the strongest sympathy with the New Zealand
domestic policy of maintenance of high lovels of employment
and effective demand, the first two pre-requisites of an
expanding world trade policy. One could feel less concerned
for the future development of world trade if other countries
would maintain a similar approach.
It was, however, possible that an unwise interpretation
of these two principles of economic policy would lead to a
contraction of world trade and would handicap specialisation in
the production of goods between countries. It was recognised
and provisions were made in London for a situation in which a
country wished to develop its national resources without resorting
to an increase of its foreign indebtedness and, it would be
unfair to say that the London Conference did not attempt to meet
the circumstances of economies of the type of New Zealand.
The essence of the speech of the New Zealand Delegate was
that countries which so desired should have the right to plan
international trade as an end in itself, not only as a means of
realization of their domestic social policy. A policy of
planning could however succeed only if the planning of
international trade was consistent with the general purposes
of the Charter and with the interests of other countries, and
if the country did not attempt to obtain privileges which were
denied to other people. E/PC/T/A/SR/18
page 3.
Although he realised the difficulties, he did not think
that it was impossible to resolve them, because he was sure that
the New Zealand Delegation recognised that economics of its type
should assume obligations which are parellel with the obligations
of other economies.
The critical issue of the New Zealand Amendment was that
of the necessity of protection for the development of specialisation.
the misuse of protection could however destroy international
specialisation and might lead to the development of a series of
isolated independent economics, and to low standards of living.
The Charter was designed to impose a certain degree of
discipline in the use of protective devices. If the Charter
contained provisions to unable countries to plan their foreign
trade, and to plan it not only for the sake of full employment
and development of national resources, then it should impose
upon the planning countries the same obligations as were imposed
on other countrios. Dr. COOBS wished to confine the discussions
to the question whether it were possible to write into the
Charter, without destroying its general fabric, provisions for
a country with a planned international trade, on the understanding
that such countries should be subjected to the same obligations
as were imposed on other countries. Generally speaking he
thought that provisions for countries like New Zealand should be
embodied in those parts of the Charter which dealt with the
parallel obligations of other countries; for instance the Articles
on quantitative restrictions should be worded in such a way as
to apply to the varying types of economy. He was sure that the
New Zealand Delegation would agree to an approach the basis of
which was that no privileges which were not granted to other
countries should be afforded to its type of economy. page 4.
He suggested that the issue be referred to a small
Sub-Committee and felt confident that a solution would be found.
M. FORTHOMME (Belgium) supported the statement made by the
Canadian Delegate.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) stated that his Delegation
studied the New Zealand Amendment with sympathetic interest, and
found that it was largely and fairly mot by the present Charter.
He felt that the Charter must be drafted in such a way that the
United States could become a Member. Without minimising the
difficulties of this issue he shared the restrained optimism
of Dr. COOMBS masterly analysis.
Chapters III and IV of the Charter were in his opinion
modelled on the lines proposed by the New Zealand Delegation.
The Charter recognised that, in so far as it did not adversely
affect other Members interests, it was for the countries
themselves to decide an the pattern of their policy and its
implementation. He also thought that there was a good measure
of latitude in the Charter to meet special cases on the basis
of give and take. It might not be unfair to say that some
measures taken in New Zealand in the past might have led to
certain complaints by others had for instance Article 13:1 been
in force.
Thu Conference should make every effort to give reasonable
satisfaction to all countries who wished to join the Organisation
and whose individual circumstances required special attention,
and he thought that a competent Sub-Committee should be able to
deal wiith the Amendment.
Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) wished to correct the impression
that New Zealand was seeking protection for all domestic
industries with no other restraint than that resting in its will.
New Zealand did not desire that.The amendment referred to E/PC/T/A/SR/18
page 5.
Article 35, and that in itself would prevent such aims. After
careful study of Article 26, and the relevant pages of the London
Report, he thought that it entailed the forosaking of the system
of import selection if and whon a Member had enough foreign
exchange to finance all types of imports.
He thought that it was logical to introduce the Amendment
in connection with Article 33 because his Delegation wished that
the Charter should provide explicitly for their types of economy.
If nothing was provided countries like New Zealand would be
forced by the Charter into a rather damaging choice between
going over to free trading or going in the direction of state
monopoly, and he did not think that the Conference would desire
to push them further towards the state monopoly system. He shared
the optimism of Dr. COOMBS that a solution could be found.
The CHAIRMAN proposed, and the Commission approved, that a
Sub-Committee on Article 33 should be set up composed of the
representatives of the following countries:
Australia, Czechoslovakia, New Zealand, United Kingdom,
United States,
with himself as Chairman.
In replying to a. question of the Czechoslovak Delagate,
the Chairman stated that the Czeohoslovak Amendment to Article
33 (W.187) should be referred to the Sub-Committee on Artices
31 & 32.
The Meeting rose at 4 p.m. |
GATT Library | gz725nr8188 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Eighth Meeting held on Wednesday, 4 June, 1947, at 3.25 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 4, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 04/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/8 and E/PC/T/A/SR/1-10/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gz725nr8188 | gz725nr8188_90250011.xml | GATT_152 | 1,310 | 8,453 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/SR/8
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 4 June 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION A.
Summary Record of the Eighth Meeting held on Wednesday,
4 June, 1947, at 3.25 p.m. in the Palais des Nations,
Geneva.
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Erik COLBAN (Norway)
Continuation of Discussion on Article 24.
The CHAIRMAN opened the debate on the amendments
to paragraph 3 and pointed out that the idea of the amend-
ments suggested by the Delegates of BRAZIL, CHILE and CHINA
was also expressed in the United States amendment and could
therefore be discussed in that context. This being agreed
to, he invited the Delegate of the United Kingdom to oomment
on his amendment (W.135).
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) explained that
the purpose of this amendment was to emphasize that it was
not suffiloient to open negotiations but that it was also
necessary to bring them to a reasonable conclusion.
Dr. H.C. COONBS (Australia) supported the United
Kingdom amendment, adding that if these negotiations failed
then valid reasons would have to be shown.
Mr. Winthrop G. BROWN (United States) also associated
himself with the intention of the amendment.
Dr. J.E. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) pointed out
that the word "negotiate" in itself was sufficient to give
expression to this purpose.
The CHAIRMAN ruled that the amendment should be referred
to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/A/SR/8
page 2
In the discussion on the United States amendment (W.146),
Mr. E.G. OLDINI (Chile) pointed out that certain terms, such as
the words "without sufficient justification", had no precise
meaning, and would therefore like to see included sco4 exact
definition in the Comment to Charter or in the Charter itself.
Furthermore, he thought that the apparently slight distinctions
between the amendments of Brazil, Chile and China and that of
the United States might involve a considerable change of meaning,
and wished that the Sub-Committee would take those points into
consideration.
Mr. K.S. MA (China), having associated himself with this
remark, the CHAIRMAN referred the United States amendment to
the Sub-Committee, expressing the hope that an unanimously
approved draft would emerge from its work.
A suggestion to delete the last sentence of paragraph 3
did not find the approval of the Commission.
The CHAIRMAN then asked the Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM
to comment on 'is suggestion to add a new paragraph to Article
24 as contained in the last footnote to Article 24 in the New
York document.
Mr. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) stated that the purpose
of this proposal was to prevent higher duties than had been agreed
to between two parties becoming applicable as the result of a
tariff re-classification. He was not sure what would be the
appropriate place for such a provision but thought the principle
should be recognized.
Mr. Winthrop BROWN (United States) associated himself with
this view, but felt that it might be preferable to include the
principle in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. E/PC/T/A/SR/8
page 3
Dr. J.F HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) pointed out
that this proposal implied the freedom of Members to nullify
their obligations, and thought that its purpose was sufficiently
covered by the provision enabling a Member to lodge complaints
against actions conflicting with obligations undertaken.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) explained that
re-classifications may result from juridical actions which
were outside the powers of the Government concerned. It was
the purpose of the proposal to guarantee the fulfillment of
obligations in such cases.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada) supported the view of the
United Kingdom, adding that classifications are often kept in
general language which did not enumerate all commodities coming
within the separate groups and were subject to interpretation.
There would be need of machinery to reopen negotiations.
Mr. Winthrop G. BROWN (United States) stated that for the
present he must maintain his view that this matter should be
dealt with in the General Agreement.
It was decided to refer this point to the sub-Committee
for consideration. The CHAIRMAN then invited the Delegate of
France to present his amendment (W. 142).
M. BARADUC (France) explained that the Charter permitted
in some instances the imposition of high duties which served the
purpose of protecting newly created industries, but when these
would have reached a stage fit for international competition,
these duties should be correspondingly reduced. He declared
that if his amendment were adopted, France would be ready to
make reductions in some of the agreed tariff rates. E/PC/T/A/SR/8
page 4
M. DESCLEE DE MAREDSOUS (Belgium) supported the French
proposal.
Dr. H.C. COOMBS (Australia) stated that he could not
associate himself with the French suggestion as the justification
of a duty depended on a large number of factors and that a
general maximum margin was therefore impracticable,
Mr. K.S. MA (China), Mr. J.P.D. JOHNSEM (New Zealand),
Mr. M.P. PAI (India) and Mr. Garcia OLDINI (Chile) agreed with
the point of view taken by the Delegate of Australia.
M. BARADUC (France) wished to point out that his amendment
did not intend to damage undeveloped countries, but rather
to eliminate excessive duties between countries in a comparable
stage of development.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that under
present conditions old-established industries are sometimes
less favourably placed than now industries.
The CHAIRMAN ruled that as views on this problem were
very divided and that there did not seem to be a chance of
agreement, it would serve no purpose to pursue the discussion,
but it was loft to any Delegation to take the idea up again after
the Organization was established.
Dr. H.C. COOMBS .(Australia) stated that there were a few
points on which the Australia Delegation had not submitted
specific amendments, because they were uncertain as to which
was the appropriate place to deal with them. He wished to
make some remarks on these points in connection with Article
24. Neither in this Article nor anywhere else in the Charter
was there a provision concerning the time the agreements
were to run or the method of terminating them or re-opening E/PC/T/A/SR/8
page 5.
discussion on them. It had been assumed that agreements
would run for three years and, failing new arrangements between
countries, would continue after the end of this period. He
thought, therefore, that it should be clearly stated, prefer-
ably in the Charter, what would be the initial period, the
terms on which it should continue and the machinery by which
negotiations on such agreements could be re-opned by either
party. Also the machinery regarding tariff reductions should
be such as to facilitate the re-opening of negotiations. In
his mind the agreements, while being applied multilaterally,
should be bilateral in form so that if a country wished to revise
a certain tariff it would not formally be obliged to re-open
negotiations with all the other countries on the Organization
but only with that with which the reduced tariffs had been
negotiated.
Mr: J. MELANDER (Norway) wished to draw attention to the
fact that the specific duties in force in some countries would
involve a rise or fall in the ad valorem equivalents of these
duties according to whether the price level was falling or rising,
and thought the effect of this on negotiated tariff rates ought
to be considered.
The CHAIRMAN stated that both questions would have to be
considered by the Sub-Committee and whilst he was uncertain
whether the principle underlying the Australian remarks should
be included in the Charter, he felt that it was important to
insert them in the Tariff Agreement.
The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m. E/PC/T/A/SR/8
page 6.
Document E/PC/T/A/SR.7: Corrigendum affecting page 7, paragraph 3:
The delegate for China supported the Australian amendment
(W.147) only as far as Articles 14 and 15 are concerned,
and expressed no opinion on the amendment in respect of
Article 24: 1 (b). |
GATT Library | yq017mp3015 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting held on Wednesday, 1l June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 11, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 11/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/11 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yq017mp3015 | yq017mp3015_90250022.xml | GATT_152 | 2,008 | 12,836 | RESTRICTEDTED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
ECONOMIC CONSEIL
AND E/PC/T/A/SR/11
ECONOMIQUE 11 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting held on
Wednesday, 1l June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the
Palais des Nations, Geneva
Chairman: M. Max Suetens
Article 34 - Emergency Action on Imports of Particular Products
Paragraph 1
Referring to the Annotated Agenda, document W.175 of
6 June, the CHAIRMAN invited the Delegate for Belgium to speak
in support of his proposal as shown in the first item relating
to paragraph 1.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) said that Article 34, the so-
called escape clause, was of great importance and that the
words which appear in the centre of the paragraph would merely
serve in practice to enlarge the scope of the escape clause to
the sole advantage of producers in territories receiving the
benefits of a preferential system; this was an escape clause
of very general character and therefore the Committee should
be careful to limit strictly its applicability. He thought
that the reference to preferences was contrary to the principle
of providing equal means of defence for all countries.
Mr. SHACKLE (UniteddD Kingdom) sa that it was an accepted
principle of the tariff negotiations that reductions in prefer-
ences should be treated as equivalent to reductions in tariffs
and therefore this escape clause should maintain the balance
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/11
page 2.
between the concessions on tariff s and those that might be
granted in respect of preferences.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) said that the effects of the elim-
ination of preferences could not be foreseen any more than the
effects of tariff reductions, and therefore it was essential that
the escape clause should refer to both preferences and tariffs;
the very principle enunciated by the Delegate for Belgium requires
the retention of the words which he proposed to delete.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) discussed the bearing of the
Article as a whole and said that if an escape clause is to be
included in the Charter it must not be used to reduce gradually
what the British Commonwealth countries may gain in exchange for
giving up the preferential system on which their trade has been
based in the past.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) said that the reference to preferences
in the phrase in brackets merely gave expression to a principle
which had been accepted at the First Session of the Committee,
but Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) questioned whether it was
correct to refer-to it as an accepted principle and asked why,
if preferences are mentioned, the paragraph should not contain
also a reference to quantitative restrictions and state-trading.
He said that he supported the proposal of the Delegate for Belgium.
To this Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) replied that the
first part of the paragraph did cover quotas and state enterprise
as well as tariffs and preferences and that the phrasing in
brackets was required simply because the reference to "domestic
producers" was not applicable in the case of injury suffered by
those in other countries to which preferences are accorded. E/PC/T/A/SR/11
page 3
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium), replying to the discussion,
explained what he meant by equality of the means of defence;
ordinarily the tariff negotiations between independent
countries are based on most-favoured-nation treatment, but
where preferences are concerned, only those countries which
are permitted to participate enjoy the additional defence pro-
vided by the preferential system.
Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) gave further support to
the proposal by emphasizing that the Netherlands Delegation was
not opposed to excape clauses in general but only to those
which covered particular obligations.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) emphasized that the Australian
Delegation sought no privileges for industries protected by
preferences which are not enjoyed by those protected by other
means: he stated that if that is recognized he would have no
objection to embarking on a further discussion of the Belgian
proposal.
It was agreed, therefore, that the Belgian proposal and
also the suggestions of the United Kingdom and the United States
Delegations on paragraph 1 as set out in the Annotated Agenda,
should be referred to the Sub-Committee.
Mr. C.H. CHEN (China ) proposed that the words "in respect
of such product" in lines 15 and. 16 should be placed before
instead of after the words "to suspend the obligation" and it
was agreed that this proposal, which also appeared in part of the
United States proposal, should be referred to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 2
The CHAIRMAN called upon the Delegate for Canada to speak
on his reservations recorded in the Report of the Drafting
Committee regarding prior consultation. E/PC/T/A/SR/11
page 4
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) said that the Canadian Delegation
did not favour the escape clause but realized that it would be
necessary to include it in the Charter; it was hoped that the
olause would be used wisely and infrequently and that its use
would not give rise to a series of counter-actions and to
international friction; it was clearly meant to be used only
in case of emergency, and in the opinion of the Canadian
Delegation it should be used only after full consultation with
countries that would be affected; serious emergencies can
be foreseen and therefore there should usually be ample
opportunity for consultation, and if this procedure is followed
the counter-action of other countries is likely to be less
drastic. Mr. Deutsch mentioned also the second reservation
of the Canadian Delegation and urged that, if prior consultation
is not required before action may be taken, the countries
affected should also be permitted to take unilateral counter
measures.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) said that emergencies could not
always be foreseen and suggested that the second sentence should
be altered to read "In critical circumstances such that any delay
would cause irreparable damage such action may be taken pro-
visionally without prior consultation ......... "
Mr. EVANS (United States) agreed with Mr. FORTHOMME that
emergencies could not be foreseen and Dr. COOMBS (Australia)
also expressed the view that prior consultation would not
always be possible. Dr. Coombs said he was in agreement
with the spirit of the Canadian proposal, but while action
without consultation would sometimes be necessary counter measures E/PC/T/A/SR/11
page 5
should not be introduced without discussion as it was important
that retaliatory action should be delayed.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) suggested that possibly some procedure
could be devised for informing the Organization of action that
was likely to be taken; also he suggested that the Sub-Committee
might be able to give some indication of the circumstances in
which it would be necessary for countries to resort to emergency
measures.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada), replying to some of the remarks that
had been made by delegates, said that there was a lack of balance
in paragraph 2 between the rights of those Members that took
emergency action and of those that took counter measures, to the
disadvantage of the latter; he thought that if it was known that
countries likely to be affected would be free to take immediate
counter measures, this knowledge would act as a deterrent on those
countries which thought of making use of this escape clause.
Mr. BARADUC (France), said that he supported the Canadian
amendment, but at the same time appreciated the remarks made by
the Delegate for Belgium, and Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) also
gave support to the Belgian proposal to amend the second sentence
of the paragraph.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) expressed the view that it
would be necessary for the Committee to reach a compromise on the
wording of paragraph 2. He thought that thirty days was not too
long a period to require before counter measures might be applied,
but he thought it would be necessary for the Sub-Committee to
examine the wording of the paragraph with a view to making it
clear whether the country wishing to take counter action need
-ait for an expression of opinion by the Organization. E/PC/T/A/SR/11
page 6
Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Brazil) said that his government had
found by experience that it is necessary upon occasion to take
some action in order to avoid serious damage to industries;
there was often no opportunity for consultation. He said that
his Delegation had recorded two reservations to Article 17, and
he suggested that the Sub-Committee to be appointed might consider
whether the action proposed by his Delegation in connection with
Article 17 could be taken under Article 34.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) said that he could not support
the first proposal of the Canadian Delegation because governments
could not be expected to disclose difficulties which they foresaw
for the future, but on the second point he could agree because it
was to be expected that pressure groups would frequently urge
their governments to take emergency action under this Article and
if it was known that immediate counter-action could be taken this
would act as a deterrent.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) agreed with those Delegates who had
expressed the opinion that governments could not be expected to
foresee the emergencies which might give rise to the need for action
under this Article. He drew attention to the provisions of
Article 13 and said that the procedure for the introduction of
emergency measures should be the same in each case as he could
see no justification for the distinction which was drawn between
the two Articles as at present drafted. He suggested that the
Sub-Committee should examine this question.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) and Mr. OLDINI (Chile) supported the
Canadian proposal; the latter said that he could not agree to
a compromise solution.
Mr. EVANS (United States) thought that several delegates
had attached more importance than was needed to the Article; it E/PC/T/A/SR/11
page 7
was meant purely for emergencies; the United States Delegation
recognized that the wording was imperfect and was prepared to
consider amendments. In particular, he thought the paragraph
needed clarification as to whether a Member which was faced with
an emergency situation as a result of action taken by some other
Member was entitled to the same privileges as the other Member in
taking emergency action, or whether such action must be regarded
as counter-action.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said that his Delegation was prepared
to accept paragraphs 2 and 3 without alteration, and Mr. CHEN
(China) said that he would accept paragraph 2 without change.
Summing up the discussion, the CHAIRMAN said that there
appeared to be need for a compromise and that therefore the
proposals standing in the names of the Delegations for Canada,
Chile and Cuba and also the proposal of the Belgian Delegate
should be referred to the Sub-Committee so that a further effort
might be made to obtain a satisfactory wording.
Paragraph 3
The CHAIRMAN stated that the proposals of the Belgian and
United Kingdom Delegations should be referred to the Sub-Committee.
The proposal of the United States Delegation to delete the
words "substantially equivalent" in lines 12 and 13 and also the
last sentence was discussed briefly. Mr. SHACKLE (United
Kingdom) said that he had been inclined to support the proposal,
but after hearing the discussion on paragraph 1 and 2 he had
come to the conclusion that it was better to make no change.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that the proposal to delete the
words "substantially equivalent" was consequential upon the more
important proposal that the last sentence should be omitted. E/PC/T/A/SR/11
page 8
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) said that he would prefer to retain the
words "substantially equivalent" and Mr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands)
said that he was opposed to any alteration.
This proposal was also referred to the Sub-Committee.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) suggested that the Sub-Committee
should be asked to consider the bearing of the word "which" in
the third last line.
Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) expressed the opinion that the
arrangement of sixty days and thirty days for the taking of
counter-action might have an effect the reverse of that intended,
resulting in ill-considered action because of the shortness of
the time allowed.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | gm858nr2364 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting held on Thursday, 19 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 19, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 19/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/14 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gm858nr2364 | gm858nr2364_90250027.xml | GATT_152 | 2,221 | 14,525 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/14
AND ECONOMIQUE 19 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting held on Thursday,
19 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Max SUETENS (Belgium)
The CHAIRMAN introduced document W.198 and opened discussion
on Section E of Chapter V dealing with "State-trading".
Article 31
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) stated that state-trading
did not oppose free trade, and thought that it was difficult to
set up at present precise provisions for state-trading which so
far had not found its definite forms and which operated in abnormal
circumstances. The issue was obscured by considerations which
had nothing to do with state-trading as such but which were inherent
in the present shortage of commodities, hard currencies, etc.
He had no definite feeling about Article 33 but thought that
Articles 31 and 32 were intended to operate only when the special
difficulties of the post-war period disappeared and international
trade functioned under normal conditions.
There are three groups of state-trading enterprises in
Czechoslovakia: 1. Old monopolies established for revenue, health,
and security purposes for which no new provisions are required;
2. enterprises intended to maintain stable prices for primary
commodities, mainly foodstuffs, and to stabilize farmers' income.
The Czechoslovak government wished to plan agricultural production
in accordance with the recommendations of the FAO; and 3. State
enterprises which would fall into the category of this Section,
mostly nationalized industrial enterprises such as mines and large
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/14
Page 2.
key industries which acted in exactly the same way as private
enterprises. The state had no control over their commercial
activities, but they were components of an economic plan. Their
task was to inform the planning centre about their production
possibilities. Since not all raw materials could be supplied
the economic planning had to cut down materials for non-essential
goods. The raw materials actually acquired were turned over to
the industries and from that moment on the government did not
interfere with their commercial activities, nor was there any
control of exports. As to imports, these were controlled for
balance of payments reasons.
There was nothing which would distinguish in this respect
state-trading enterprises from private enterprises at this moment,
but in a few years, when the reconstruction period was over, stat. -
trading may be more clearly defined. It was therefore his opinion
that rules for state-trading in international trade should be
worked out in the light of experiences gained during the period of
transition.
He thought that there were points in common in his own and
the United States' amendments and he therefore suggested that
these two Delegations might have, with the concurrence of the
Commission, an opportunity to discuss a possible common amendment.
Mr. John W. EVANS (United States) hoped that the Czechoslovak
and United States might elaborate a text of Article 31, seeing that
the approach of the two Delegations was quite similar though not
without differences in detail.
In explaining the United States amendment (W.195) Mr. Evans
stated that the new text was intended to replace the former
somewhat cumbersome wording. E/PC/T/A/SR/14
page 3
The reference to the most-favoured-nation treatment was
introduced in order to allay the doubt that "commercial
principles" meant that exactly the same price would have to
exist in different markets. The amendment which introduced
a new paragraph (b) was intended to clarify the meaning of
the New York text.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) stated that if the interpretation of
sub-paragraph (b) in the United States amendment was that
state-trading enterprises were to be guided only by commercial
considerations he had no objection to this amendment. He also
understood that this amendment eliminated the possible
implication that the most-favoured-nation treatment should
require the state enterprise to fix identical prices for buyers
and sellers in different markets. He wished that the final
report of the Preparatory Committee should put on record
that the interpretation set out in the New York Report, page
27, sub-paragraph (e) was accepted by the Committee.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) supported the suggestion
of the Chilean Delegate to put on record:
"That the charging by a state enterprise of different
prices for its sales of a product in different markets,
domestic or foreign, is not precluded by the provisions
of Article 31, provided that such different prices are
charged for commercial reasons, to meet conditions of
supply and demand in export markets."
He suggested that the meaning of the wording "through public
offers or bids or otherwise, shall afford the enterprises of all
Members full opportunity to compete for participation in such
purchases or sales" was too narrow and suggested the following re-
wording: "and shall afford the enterprises of all Members fair
opportunity to participate in such purchases and sales." E/PC/T/A/SR/14
page 4
Dr. CHANG (China) objected to the second sentence in the
New York draft, reading "To this end such enterprise shall, ...
be influenced solely by commercial considerations, ...". This
text would not cover international loans which were essential
for his country.
As to the United States amendment Dr. Chang thought that
the introduction of the words "general most-favoured-nation
treatment" might lead to confusion and wondered if the wording
in the New York text was not sufficient. He therefore favoured
the New York text in that respect.
He was of the opinion that the United States amendment
did not cover the cases in which international loans were
involved.
He also contended that the situation might be different
in cases when a certain product was urgently needed or
disposed of in a short time, or when the policy of the country
was concerned.
He therefore could not accept the United States amendment.
Mr. John W. EVANS (United States) in replying to the
question of tied loans raised by the Chinese Delegate, quoted
from the New York Report, page 17, Section E, item (v), as
follows:
"The view was generally held that a country receiving
a loan would be free to take this loan into account
as a 'commercial consideration' when purchasing
its requirements abroad. The position of countries
making such 'tied loans' was another question."
It should be understood that "public offers or bids" were
not the only means whereby a Member could comply with this
general provision; this was indicated in the words "or
otherwise". E/PC/T/A/SR/14
page 5
Mr. IGONET (France) supported the views expressed by the
Delegate for Czechoslovakia, and wished that during the period
of transition the provisions of Articles 31 and 32 should not
apply and that exceptions to these provisions should be stated
in the Charter.
State enterprises should not carry any burdens which were
not imposed on private enterprises; the latter were allowed to
take into consideration loans and provisions for long range
commercial policy and that should also apply to state enterprises.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) said that though his Delegation was
in sympathy with the difficulties of certain countries during
the transitional period, he thought that the articles dealing
with balance of payments difficulties took care also of state
enterprises. If import programmes were necessary they could be
carried out under the provisions relating to balance of payments.
Therefore, there was no necessity to set up special provisions
for the state-trading countries.
He agreed with the Delegate for Czechoslovakia that the
Committee should not formulate precise rules at this stage but
try to learn from experience. However, he expressed apprehension
lest state-trading enterprises should be allowed such greater
freedom and scope that they assumeda dangerous position in
relation to countries organized on the basis of private enter-
prises. Provisions regulating the operations of state trading
should in general not be more loose or provide wider scope than
those set up for private enterprises.
If certain general principles and rules were not applied
to state-trading the Charter would be seriously out of balance.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) wished that the words "through
public offers or bids or otherwise" in the United States amendment E/PC/T/A/SR/14
page 6
should be deleted, because he considered this provision unworkable.
Mr. CHANG (China) referred again to tied loans and said
that in spite of the language quoted from the London Report he
did not think that the present expression "commercial consider-
ations" covered the cases of loan arrangements. He therefore
wished a clarification of the proposed text.
Dr. AUGENTHALEF (Czechoslovakia) explained to the Delegate
of Canada that he did not wish that no rules at all should be set
up, but that too many detailed rules were impracticable at this
time when the real functioning of state enterprises was not yet
clear and when the position was obscured by the present
difficulties of balance of payments. In a period when restrictions
on exports or imports for reasons of balance of payments were general
there was no practical difference between state-trading and
private enterprises, but differences might come to light later.
The Czechoslovak law requires state enterprises to operate
according to commercial considerations. They act as private
enterprises and therefore they should not be submitted to
discriminating rules. Since a private enterprise would not be
obliged to state why, where and at what price a commercial
operation had been concluded, it should not be mandatory on state-
trading enterprises to disclose to a competitor such details.
That would be discrimination against state enterprises.
M. IGONET (France) supported the views of the Czechoslovak
Delegate and quoted examples of the necessity for a state-
trading enterprise to operate strictly according to commercial
considerations just as it might be in the case of private
enterprise. E/PC/T/A/SR/14
page 7
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) called attention to the fact
that the expression "commercial considerations" should
not be defined in narrow terms. These words did not mean
simply the lowest price but referred to other legitimate
considerations which the enterprise would be entitled to
take into account; they did not simply mean to buy and
sell at lowest or highest prices, respectively.
He stated again that in his opinion these Articles
should not contain provisions for balance of payments
difficulties. Since these were taken care of in other
articles it would confuse the issue if they were put in
two places of the Charter.
Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) did not think that the
proposed alteration of the title of Article 31 was appropriate.
He would prefer the title "The Administration of State-
Trading Enterprises".
He questioned if the interpretation that a state-
trading enterprise might buy and sell at best prices was
consistent with what was generally regarded as the most-
favoured-nation principle.
The United States amendment used the expression "such
enterprises shall", but Mr. Webb thought that here not the
enterprise but the state was meant. He did not agree with
the deletion of the words "having due regard to any dif-
ferential customs treatment maintained consistently with
the other provisions of this Charter", nor with the inclusion
of the words "through public offers or bids".
He supported the opinion of the Czechoslovak Delegate
that this was not the proper moment for precise legisla-
tion in respect of state trading.
Mr. EVANS (United States) in reply to the objections
of the Delegate for New Zealand, stated that he did not feel E/PC/T/A/SR/14
page 8 I
strongly abSrtAt the change of the title of ticle 31 and
would gofOFo beck to the original wordin the New York draft.
The words "having due regard to any differentiel
customs treatment e. te omitted because the United
States Delegatii wes,ffthe opinion that this was covered
by the c;ncapt -f commercial considerations".
With regard to the expression "such enterprises shall",
Er. vans believed that this paragraph might be recast. He
did not consider thaa either the New York dreft or the
United States amenmet went too fer towards legislating
for state enterprises.
The cntention expressed by some Delegates that the
Charter imposed more rigid reqairements on state-treding
then on privaoe trading was based (n a misunderstanding of
ohe purposes af Secti-n E. Freo mnrketing countries were
subjected tV obligetions of Chapter V with respect to
tariff negotiaboons bnd quotes and hbth these were inapplic-
ableoto ano meeainglass for a c-untry engeged rn state-
trading, and therefore, there were rules in Section E which
adid not apply t-rivEt enterprises.
Dr. HOLLOWLY (S-th A.rica) thought that the reference
to Article 14 as givea in the Unitedwatetes amendment res on
the whole an impaovement but that et this moment one could
not say what the proper interpretAtion was because Lrticle
14 referred to 15 and 15 amais to 24. The Cormiisiin
wust theref.re knd, toe Arturle wor)ing nf ^.tic' 14.
&s far asonparegdaph 2 wos cncerne-, he thmught that
bithathe Czechslnvak a.d the United Stetes amendments
dmparted from thd iain aubject an2 that £ sub-committee
should give thio matter proper c nsideration. E/PC/T/A/SR/14
page 9
The CHAIRMAN proposes, and the Commission approved,
that further discussion be conducted on the new amendment
which the Delegations of United States and Czechoslovakia
would prepare.
Article 32
Mr. OFTEDAL (Norway) found that the New York draft
of Articles 31 and 32 was satisfactory, except in one paint,
and oslled attention to the amendment of the Norwegian
Delegation, (W.197) to include the words "social, cultural
humanitarian" in paragraph 4 of Article 32.
(The meeting rose at 5.10 p.m.). |
GATT Library | cf578bg6936 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting held on Friday, 27 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 27, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 27/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/19 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cf578bg6936 | cf578bg6936_90250034.xml | GATT_152 | 1,226 | 8,234 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/19
AND ECONOMIQUE 27 June, 1947.
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting held on
Friday, 27 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the
Palais des Nations, Geneva.
__________________________
Chairman: Sr. KLX SUETENS (Belgium)
The CHAIRYMN, opening the meeting, proposed to
limit the discussion of Articles 25 and 27, on the basis
of 4ocument W/223, to amendments of substance only, amend-
ments of form to be referred to the Sub-Committee without
discussion.
ARTICLE 25.
Paragraph 2.
Sub-Paragraph (a)
Mr. ELNDER (Norway) drew attention to the Norwegian
amendment (W/227) proposing to extend the time limit from
1 July 1949 to 1 iarch 1952 to Bring it into line with
article XIV of the ionetary Fund Agreement.
Dr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) also thought the original
time limit was too short and should be extended.
It was agreed to postpone the discussion on this
amendment.
Sub-paragrath (b)
Dr. H. C. COOMBS (Australia), commenting on the
Australian amendment, stated that its purpose was to permit
-- £*vn~
l - --.l|< E/PC/T/A/SR/19
page 2
action before and not only after a critical shortage of
foodstuffs had arisen.
Mr. J. J. DEUTSCH (Canada), Mr. L. C. WEBB (New
Zealand) and Mr. C. L. TUNG (China) supported the proposal.
Mr. O. RYDER (United States) agreed with its
substance but wished to have the phraseology considered
by the Sub-Committee.
M. P. FORTHOMME (Belgium) and M. BARADUC (France)
desired to have the French translation adjusted so as
to give the correct meaning.
The Commission agreed on the substance of the
amendment and referred the drafting points raised to the
Sub-Committee.
Sub-Prragraph (c).
Dr. H. C. COOMBS (Australia), explained that
whilst not moving a formal amendment, he wished to raise
the question of marketing schemes devised to ensure
the application of standards of classification and
grading of commodities. Australia conducted a number
of such marketing schemes in which the conditions of
purchase and sale was laid down and export licenses
were granted freely on condition that the transactions
conformed to the legal requirements. He considered
this practice covered by sub-paragraph (c), but if
there was any doubt he would present an amendment.
Mr. O. RYDER (United States) and Mr. J. J.
DEUTSCH (Canada) agreed with this interpretation of
sub-paragraph (c) and thought that this should be
made clear by a note or by a change in the text. The
proposal was referred to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/A/SR/l9
page 3
Sub-Paragraph (d)
Dr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) referred to a
proposal made by the Netherlands Delegation (W/207)
suggesting a new Article 57 A. Its purpose was to
include in Chapter VII a provision applying the procedure
of that chapter to the relevant provisions of Chapter
V including Article 25.
Mr. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought the
mechanism of Chapter VII was too cumbersome to be
applied in many cases of Chapter V, without making a
great part of Chapter V practically unworkable.
Dr. A.B. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) was
prepared to consent to this issue being referred to
the Sub-Committee, if it would consult with the Sub-
Committee dealing with the Netherlands proposal. This
was agreed.
Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) pointed to the difficulty
of considering regulatory intergovernmental commodity
arrangements, whilst these were still under discussion
in the Sub-Committee on Chapter VII.
Mr. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) suggested to
postpone the debate on this matter until that Sub-
Committee had concluded its deliberations.
Mr. O. RYDER (United States) supported this sugges-
tion which was adopted.
Sub-Paragraph (e).
Mr. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said he understood
the provision to mean that when there was a regulatory
scheme, imports could be restricted not only of agricul-
tural and fisheries products to which the scheme applied,
but also to the same products in a later stage of menu-
facture. E/PC/T/A/SR/19
page 4
Dr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) added that like or
directly competitive domestic products would also have to be
included.
Mr. TUNG (China) stated that for China it was vitally
important to achieve a balance between agriculture and
industry which was extremely difficult in view of the
requirement to maintain the existing proportion between
imports and domestic production. This requirement would also
perpetuate a position due to under-development or temporary
factors such as natural calamities. Finally, the supply of
agricultural imports may not always be reliable and their
failure may have disastrous consequences. Besides, agreeing
with the Netherlands and Norwegian proposals he had to
insist on the deletion of the last three sentences of the
sub-paragraph (').
Mr. Garcia OLDINI (Chile) suggested that this provision
might be extended so as to include also industrial products.
Mr. B.N. ADARKAR (India) thought that it should apply
not only to schemes restricting domestic production, but
also to schemes for the stabilisation of prices.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada) considered that there was
substance in the claim that the provision was discriminating
against agricultural products. There was, however, some
logic for an exception being made in favour of schemes
restricting domestic production of agricultural commodities.
If, however, this provision were widened so as to include
mere regulation of production, stabilisation of prices,
or if it were extended to other competitive products, it
would be deprived of its logical force and he was therefore
opposed to the amendments suggested. E/PC/T/A/SR/19
Pege 5
Mr. Pierre FORTHOMME (Belgium) and Mr. E. McCARTHY
(Australia) expressed themselves in the same sense.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) supported the United States
amendment and expressed his opposition to the other amend-
ments submitted.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) stated that he was
in favour of the Netherlands amendment. He thought, however,
that in Article 32 there ought to be no provision discrim-
inating against state trading countries using similar
measures as those covered here.
Mr.MELADIA (Norway) thought agricultural production
justified a different approach from industrial production.
The Norwegian amendment aimed at permitting import restric-
tions on commodities which indirectly affected the production
of product for which there was a restrictive scheme. He
thought fisheries products ought not to come under this
provision, but should be provided for by a commodity agreement.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia ) thought this sub-paragraph
was favouring of importers of agricultural products and
might be used to offset agreed tariff concessions. The
amendments submitted would enlarge its scope beyond tolerable
bounds and he did not wish it to be extended beyond its
present form.
Mr. O. RYDER (United States) stated the exceptions
agreed to in Articles 25, 26 and 13 had already seriously
'weakened the prohibition of quotas. If their scope were
further extended, there would not be much left. In his
view. quantitive restrictions sholud not be permitted,
unless domestic production was also restricted. E/PC/T/A/SR/19
page 6
Dr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) stressed that measures
under this provision were not proposed to be taken unilater-
ally, but with consultation and negotiation.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out that the
case of industry was a different one from agriculture where
production was dependent on unpredictable factors. The
proposal to restrict importation of processed products was
only intended to include perishable goods. In answer to
the criticism of the last part of sub-paragraph (e) as
being too rigid, he thought the term "special factors"
took care of any genuine changes in the competitive
situation.
The meeting rose at 6.25 p.m. |
GATT Library | sv107zw3218 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Ninth Meeting held on Thursday 5 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 5, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 05/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/9 and E/PC/T/A/SR/1-10/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sv107zw3218 | sv107zw3218_90250014.xml | GATT_152 | 1,304 | 8,603 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/A/SR/9
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 5 June 1947.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Ninth Meeting held on Thursday
5 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations,
Geneva.
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Erik COLBAN (Norway).
Article 15.
The CHAIRMAN opened the discussion on this Article.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) withdrew his reservation made in
New York with reference to the fixing of a date for entering into
force of the particle.
Paragraph 1.
Mr. Oscar RYDER (United States), commenting on the United
States proposal (W.23) for the deletion of paragraph 1 and the
insertion of a second sentence to paragraph 2, stated that para-
graph 1 had no binding force. The addition of paragraph 2 was
intended to prevent discrimination being applied by internal
taxation on imported products for the purpose of protecting
competitive domestic products.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) associated himself with
the proposed deletion of paragraph 1 on condition that it would
be replaced by the addition to paragraph 2 suggested by the
United States
Mr. J. MELANDER (Norway) maintained the Norwegian proposal
for the deletion of paragraph 1, because this was not clear
enough, and paragraph 2 and the first sentence of paragraph 3
already represented its complete application. (He objected,
however, to the proposed addition to paragraph 2.)
NATIONS UNIES B/PC/T/A /SR/9.
page 2.
Mr. K.S. MA. (China) also supported the deletion of
paragraph 1.
Mr. G. GUTTIERREZ (Cuba) declared that he could not accept
paragraph 1, because it interfered with national legislation
with a view to industrialization.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE. (United Kingdom) agreed that paragraph 1
might seem too widely worded. However, there. was need for a
provision preventing a country having made tariff concessions
from offsetting these by internal taxation in order to protect
a competitive domestic product.
Mr. P. FORTHOMVE (Belgium) admitted that the Cuban
objection had a certain foundation, but did not thank it
warranted the suppression of paragraph 1, which was specifically
directed against protective taxation.
Paragraph 2.
After the Commission had passed on to the United States
amendment of paragraph 2, Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) expressed his
support.
Mr. J. MELLENDER (Norway) feared that its acceptance would
imply the principle of differential treatment of foreign
products.
Mr. K. S. MA (China), was prepared to accept, the first
sentence of paragraph 2, but not the addition proposed by the
United States.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) supported the United States amend-
ment, but reserved the right to discuss the first sentence of
paragraph 2. E/PC/T/A/SR/9
page 3
Mr. F. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile), stressing the vagueness
of certain terms of the amendment, stated that he could not
support it, because it went beyond the scope of Article 15.
He was supported by Mr.. L. KOJEVE (France) and Mr. S.RANGANATHAN
(India).
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) asked the Delegate of the
United States whether the United States Corporation income
taxation, which was somehow discriminating against foreign
countries, would come tinder the first sentence of paragraph 2.
Mr. RYDER (United States) replied that the word "indirectly"
was meant- to cover the tax not on the product itself but, for
instance, on its processing, and suggested making this point
clear by inserting instead the words "direct or indirect"
before "internal taxes" at the beginning of the first sentence
of paragraph 2.
Dr. J.E. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) supported the
United States amendment without which, in his view, any tariff
concessions could be made inoperative.
The CHAIRMAN, stating that opinions were divided, suggested
to refer the question to the Sub-Committee, which was agreed to.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile), commenting on the Chilean
amendment (W.56) , stated that if it was understood that in
expressed a recognised principle and if this fact would be
acknowledged in a note to the Charter or other official
conference documents, he would be satisfied.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out that
this principle was already incorporated in a footnote in the
New York text of article VIII of the General Agreement. The
Sub-Committee accepted this interpretation. E/PC/T/A/SR/9
page 4
on the amendment delete the word ``transportation"'from.
paragraph 3 of Article 15 (W.62). Dr. J.E.HOLLOMAY. (Union
of South Africa) referred to the report of the Sub-Committee
of Commission B, appointed to consider the inclusion or
exclusion of services in Chapter VI (W.144 - T.83). The view
arrived at there was that transportation and other services
would be too complex and too far-reaching a problem to be
dealt with in the Charter. If, however, it should be included
in this article, he would have- to insist on-dealing with all
forms of inland and international transportation in all contexts.
Mr. P. FORTHOME (Belgium) pointed out that transportation
was a major factor in international -trade and could be. manipu-
lated for protection. He was, -therefore, opposed to the deletion
of the word "transportation". In this he was supported by
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) and Dr. GUTTIERREZ (Cuba).
Mr. M. P. PAI (India) thought that, on balance, the deletion
of the word transportationt was preferable.
Dr. J. HOLLO.WAY (Union of South Africa) repeated that the
complex aspects of railway management made this question quite
unsuitable for treatment in the Charter; to include internal
transportation in Article 15 would, in addition, involve
discrimination in favour of international transportation.
Dr. H.C. COOMBS (Australia). stressed that manyof the
existing discriminations applied in transportation were of a
minor nature and often not easily detected or remedied. He
wondered, therefore, if the rule could be laid down so that
it applied fully to new laws, regulations and requirements,
but only to past ones in cases where complaints were received. E/PC/T/A/SR/9
page 5.
Mr. P. FORTHOMME (Balgium) supported this suggestion,
Dr. J. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) was prepared
to accept this view, provided the whole field of transportation
were dealt with in this way.
The discussion being closed, the amendment was referred
to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 3.
Mr. K.S. MA (China) stated that he maintained his
proposal for the deletion of this paragraph (W.79) because, as
in regard to the preceding paragraphs, China could not extend
the application of the provision beyond national taxation.
Before discussing the United States amendment (W.23),
it was a-reed to postpone consideration of the question of
cinematograph films of this paragraph until a later time.
Mr. RYDER (United States) , explaining the amendment,
stated that the United States could not agree to the exemption
of films from the provision of this paragraph, but proposed to
allow a transitional period in respect of films. The second
change was made, because the degree of restrictiveness of
other measures depended on the extent to which it was applied
and therefore the criteria should be as to whether other
measures were impracticable.
Dr. G.. GUTTIERREZ (Cuba) and Mr. F. MELANDER (Norway)
maintained their proposal for the deletion of the second part
of this paragraph, as it interfered with internal legislation.
In reply to a question by Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United
Kingdom) as to whether the intention was to treat domestic
products differently from imported products, Mr. J. M.MELANDER
(Norway) explained that the Norwegian Government wished to be
able to issue rules regarding the composition of certain E/PC/T/A/SR/9
page 6.
products without, however, discriminating in respect of the
constituent parts between domestic and foreign origin.
Mr. Stanislav MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) drew attention
to the fact that the provision concerning restriction of the
amount or proportion of imported products permitted to be
mixed or processed, which appeared in this paragraph, may or
may not be understood to involve a restriction on the
importation of such products.
Mr. Oscar RYDER. (United States) stated that this raised
aspects which had not been given consideration and he wished
to consider the implications before answering.
The Meeting rose at 6.10 p.m. |
GATT Library | dz991qb6273 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting held on Tuesday, 24 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 24, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 24/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/17 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dz991qb6273 | dz991qb6273_90250030.xml | GATT_152 | 2,976 | 19,227 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/17
AND ECONOMIQUE 24 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting held on Tuesday,
24 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: H.E. E.Colban (Norway)
later: M. Max Suetens (Belgium)
Article 32
Mr. BOGAARDT (Netherlands), referring to the amendment
of the Netherlands Delegation (W.191) explained that negotiations
on maximum price margins should generally be bilateral and a
parallel to negotiations on tariffs. Negotiations on primary
products should, however, be on multilateral basis in accordance
with the procedures laid down in Chapter VII. This was made
clear in the Netherlands amendment worded on the lines of para-
graph 4 (a) of Article 30.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that in order to retain
the character of Article 32 as a counterpart to tariff negotiations
it should remain bilateral and, therefore, proceedings of Chapter
VII could not be introduced. He preferred to maintain this
Article as it stood now in the New York Report.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) in supporting the United States
amendment (W.195) stated that paragraph 3 of this Article limited
the freedom of negotiations. Countries willing to negotiate
should not be debarred from negotiating in any way they think
suitable for a particular purpose. Under the United States
amendment this was possible; it provided for a wider latitude of
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 2
bargaining.
M.C. IGONET (France), in defending the reservation made by
the French Delegation on Article 32, stated that he wished to
support the Czechoslovak delegate in his reluctance to set up
rigid rules for state trading.
He mentioned as an example of varying types of agencies the
French 'Groupements d'Importation et de Repartition' and explained
the operations of such agencies and their difficulties.
It was true that subsidies might help in some cases, but
parliaments were sometimes difficult about budgetary provisions.
The French delegation could not accept Article 32 without
any qualifications.
Mr. J.A. MUNOZ (Chile) did not object to the principle of
paragraph 1 (a), but felt that it should apply only when a sub-
stantial proportion of the monopolised product in relation to the
total production was consumed in the country of origin. It
should not apply, however, if total exports of monopolised
product exceeded 90% of the total output. Members interested
in the import of such products could not be affected by any price
protection in the home market of the exporting country.
He wished that the sub-Committee should consider this
point.
Mr. C.H. BOGAARDT (Netherlands), in replying to the remarks
of the United Kingdom delegate, stated that all negotiations on
maximum price margins of primary products must be on a multilat-
eral basis. Stabilisation schemes were based on the fixed
difference between the world market price and stable inland prices
and, therefore, if the world market price fluctuated, the maximum
price margin could not be fixed.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) , in replying to the
Netherlands delegate, referred to averaging over time provided
for in paragraph 1. This would very much flatten the price curve. Page 3
Mr. T. OFTEDAL (Norway) referred to the Norwegian amendment
(W.197) and explained that monopolies established for cultural,
humanitarian and social reasons could not negotiate margins
because this would subordinate social policy to commercial
policy.
He contended that in this respect conditions prevailing
in Sweden, Iceland and Finland were practically identical with
those in Norway.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the present
sub-paragraph 1 (b) might be at present drawn too tightly and
in too detailed terms. He wished that the Sub-Committee would
consider a broader formulation on the following lines:
Starting in the terns of the United States amendment
the new draft should make provisions for negotiations
for the purpose of limiting or reducing the
protection afforded to domestic producers through
monopolistic operations . The Members should
negotiate on the margin between landed cost price
of the product and either the price to home consumers,
or, as a second alternative, the price paid to home
producers.
Great deal of details about subsidised margins of profits, etc.,
could be deleted if the Sub-Committee would agree on a text
on proposed lines. Paragraph 3 was not a rule for negotiations,
but a provision to ensure that the monopoly would satisfy
domestic demand. In the absence or such provision, monopolies
would have the effect of quantitative restrictions, which
should be prevented.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada) supported the proposal made
by Mr. Shackle. This would exclude negotiations on total
quantities or other methods of negotiation, as proposed in the
United States amendment, and that, he thought, was only right. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 4
As worded by Mr. Shackle, paragraph 1 (b) would be a parallel
to tariff negotiations.
He also agreed to Mr. Shackle's interpretation of
paragraph 3; since quantitative restrictions, with some
exceptions, were ruled out from free trading, they should
not be permitted in state trading.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) thought that Article 32 was
acceptable to his Delegation. Too many criteria and details
would bring more difficulties.
He thought that in some cases the test of the selling
price to home consumers would work, but not in others; the
wording proposed by Mr. Shackle and Mr. Deutsch would be some-
times, but not always, applicable.
An exporting country which could easily dispose of all
quantities of a certain commodity would not be interested in
the amount of total imports of this article in a monopolistic
country. If, however, the monopolistic country would allot a
certain quantity to one exporting country and wished to buy
the rest from other countries, then the bilateral character
of negotiations would be lost.
He thought that the Netherlands idea of applying
provisions of Chapter VII would hamper the activities of
state traders, though, in some exceptional cases - such as for
instance in the case of Wheat - this right not be so.
In the view of the Australian delegation the American
proposal to negotiate global quantities meant negotiations
on quotas with several countries and such multilateral
negotiations would not be practicable, nor were they envisaged
in Chapter V. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 5
Dr. T.T. CHANG (China) referred to the Chinese amendment
(W.69) to paragraph 1(a) of Article 32 and thought that the
word mentioned in the amendment could be deleted, because
paragraph 1 already provided for adequate quantities and reason-
able prices in cases of exportation of monopolised products.
Sub-paragraph 1(a) touched upon a purely domestic matter and
made negotiations more difficult.
He held no strong views on the question of negotiations
on margins but should this provision be retained reference should
be made to margins of profits, as was the intention of the
Conference since the London meeting.
Mr. L.C. WEBB (New Zealand) supported the Czechoslovak
redraft of this Article (W. 187) because it took.into account
economic and administrative reality. It would be unreal to -
attempt to set up an exact parallel to tareff n gotistionS.
Not in all cases negotiations on margins were possible.
With regard to parag1aph l(a), he was afraid that
negotiations might destroy the internal domestic stabilisation:
polioy of New Zealand. Violent fluctuations of world market
prices would destroy the stable level of cost of living, even
though, as Mr. Shackle stated, the price curves might be
somewhat flattened through averaging over times.
ThRMCHAIFEAN, in replying to a question of the New
Zealand. delegate, stated that a joint CzevakslnitedU, ; :
States amendment to Article 31 would go to the mmittee
Mr. C.H. BOGAARDT (Netherlands) supported the New
Zealand delegation's view that Article 32 was a very con-
siderable interference with internal policies of countries. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 6
The Netherlands had also a stabilisation scheme by which levels
of inland prices, cost of living and wages were being controlled.
He did not think that the procedure of Chapter VII would be
cumbersome and quoted as an example the Wheat Agreement. There
were also agreements on tin, rubber and sugar on the lines of
Chapter VII. Commodity agreements were designed to dispose of
all problems of subsidies, countervailing duties, etc.
Maximum margins could not be based on violently
fluctuating world market prices, and the Organization should
study the real causes of these fluctuations.
Mr. J.A. MUNOZ (Chile) informed the Commission that
Sub-Committee on Chapter VII was about to eliminate all reference
to Chapter V. The sub-Committee on state trading should take
into consideration the results of the deliberations of the
Sub-Committee on Chapter VII.
Mr. B.J. BAYER. (Czechoslovakia) referred to the Czecho-
slovak amendrient (W.187) and seated that Article 32 was of
great importance to his country. He quoted the example of
film monopolies where it was difficult to conceive negotiations
on a margin between the cost of films and the price of tickets
to visitors of the cinema. He called attention to the
opinion of the International Chamber of Commerce which preferred
to limit the charter to simple general rules on state trading,
leaving detailed interpretation and administration to the
Organization itself.
Though he would not commit at present his delegation,
he was in favour of the substance of the United States amendment
to this Article. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
Page 7.
Mr. J.W. EVANS (United States) objected to the Nether-
lands amendment and stated that he could not accept any amendment
which would tend to replace the negotiations contemplated in
Article 32 by procedures provided for in Chapter VII.
Paragraph 3 provided for negotiations comparable with
the negotiations on tariffs, in both cases the exporting country
wished to improve imports of its products in other countries.
This was a definitely bilateral situation, the exporting
country seeking to obtain a concession from the importing
country. There was no place here for procedures under Chapter
VII, which would impede the obligation of the importing country
to negotiate.
Mr. J. J.DEUTSCH (Canada) supporting in principle the
Norwegian amendment (W.197) thought that the wording could be
improved.
Mr. PAYER (Czechoslovakia) in supporting the Norwegian
amendment, thought that the final wording of paragraph 4 would
depend upon any changes in the first three paragraphs of Article
32.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the object of
the Norwegian amendment was entirely legitimate, but wondered
if perhaps Article 37 would not be the proper place for the
substance of the Norwegian amendment.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) supported the Norwegian amendment
and wished that the wording of it should be entrusted to the
Sub- Committee. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
Page 8.
Mr. BOGAARDT (Netherlands) stated that the Netherlands
Delegation was happy to negotiate, but found it impossible to
negotiate on price margins which could not be defined.
Commodity agreements could in fact provide the missing factor
and furthermore, negotiations on a bilateral basis would be
very complicated, since not only the principal supplier, but all
suppliers had to negotiate on price margins.
The CHAIRMAN closed the discussion on Articles 31 and 32.
He proposed, and the Commission approved, to set up a "Sub-
Committee on Articles 31 and 32", composed of the representatives
of Canada, Chile, Czechoslovakia, France, New Zealand, Norway,
United Kingdom and United States.
M. MAX SUETENS (Belgium) took the Chair.
Article 33
The CHAIRMAN reminded the Commission that this Article
had not been discussed at the First Session in London.
Mr. J0HN W. EVANS (United States) explained the reasons
for the deletion of this Article, as proposed by his delegation.
Many forceful objections to negotiations on global purchase
commitments of individual products had been voiced, and these
arguments applied even more forcibly to negotiations contemplated
under Article 33. He therefore considered that the provisions
of this Article would not be practicable. Article 32, as
conceived in the United States amendment, contained provisions
for additional negotiations, different from those on marginal
mark-ups, and that made Article 33 redundant. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 9
Mr. B. J. BAYER (Czechoslovakia) commented on the
Czechoslovak amendment (W.187) in respect of the
obligation of state traders to supply information and
stated that his delegation felt very strongly about
the inclusion of the proposed provision.
Mr. L.C. WEBB (New Zealand), in explaining the
amendment of his delegation (W.101), stated that he
wished to retail Article 33, which made it explicit
that a country with complete state trading monopoly
could become Member of the Organization.
The New Zealand amendment to Article 33 was
intended to fill a serious gap in the Charter which
provided for free trading and for a complete monoply of
foreign trade, but had no provision for a country like
New Zealand which planned and controlled its foreign
trade.
Planning and controlling of foreign trade was
not contrary to expansion of world trade. Chapter VII
was an example of expansionist use of control.
The expansion of foreign trade depended upon a
state of affairs in which people wanted to buy goods
and could pay for them. This was recognised in Article
4. If there was a decreasing volume of effective demand,
then the policy of elimination of trade barriers would
have no effect.
The policy of full employment and high levels of
effective demand was put into practice in New Zealand
and to this end controls were easier to administer and
observe than other measures. planning and controlling
of foreign trade did not prevent New Zealand becoming E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 10.
one of the world's best traders and it would be
unfortunate if a type of economy which succeeded in
attaining a high degree of employment and social and
economic progress should have no place in the Organization.
It was stated that Article 26 and other escape
clauses would provide for the New Zealand type of economy,
but he thought that New Zealand should come into the
Organization by the front door. The New Zealand amendment
required from Members who wished to avail themselves of
its provisions that they pledged themselves to make
available for imports the whole surplus from proceeds of
exports over requirements of imports and other foreign
commitments. The country would determine, in consultation
with the Organization, a reasonable level of necessary
monetary reserves. There was a provision in the amendment
against discrimination and for the obligation that Members
controlling foreign trade should pay due regard to the
interests of other members, and there was adequate
machinery for remedy.
Obligations set out in paragraph 2 (a), sub-paragraphs
(i) (ii) of the New Zealand amendment were in his opinion
weightier than most obligations imposed in other parts of
the Charter.
It was not true that the provisions envisaged in
the New Zealand amendment were open to misuse end to
escapes from the obligations under the Charter. There
was hardly any general rule in the Charter to which no
escape clause was attached. The success of the Organiza-
tion did not depend upon its being able to compel Members
to obey the rules of the Charter, but upon the fact that
the Members promoted their own interests by fulfilling
their obligations. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 11
Mr. B. J. BAYER (Czechoslovakie) stated that Section
E of Chapter V was of vital importance to the Czechoslovak
economy. If the Charter were a perfectly balanced docu-
ment, all states - whatever their political, economic and
social structure - would co-operate. The Charter should
not impose exclusive burdens upon any country, nor should
it give unjust benefits to others. He thought that the
New Zealand amendment was a very good contribution to a
better balanced Charter and hoped that the amendment would
be discussed in the Sub-Committtee.
Mr. JOHN W. EVANS (United .States) was not convinced
that the New Zealand, amendment was properly placed in Section
E; its proper place might be in the Section dealing with
quantitative restrictions.
In his opinion the amendment vitally affected the
balance of the Charter. It was possible to establish an
organization for the promotion of world trade without
specific obligations on Members, or such organization should
be based on a Charter of specific obligations. The Conference
adhered to the second alternative and thus it would not
suffice to state in the Charter a general rule, such as
that a Member should not act so as to injure another Members
trade. The conference decided upon specific rules, and the
amendment introduced a very radical change to this principle.
He was sure that it was not the intention of the New
Zealand amendment to destroy the structure of the Charter,
but in his opinion it might have this effect. It provided
for a complete protection of all domestic industries with
restraints rasting only in the will of the country controlling
its foreign trade. Such country would, in fact, be relieved
of obligations under Articles 15, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30,
and it was left to its own judgment to decide whether or not
its foreign trade policy injured other members. E/PC/T/A/SR/17
page 12
It seemed clear that the amendment constituted
a complete exception to specific obligations of the
Charter, an exception which did not apply to any other
Member.
Mr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) could not subscribe to
Mr. Evans' opinion that the New Zealand amendment would
destroy the structure of the Charter. The amendment
was less drastic than the present Article 33. Discrimination
was the main purpose of the Charter, but in a system which
depended on planning, i.e. on preferences in certain things,
there could not be non-discrimination. The Charter, as
now drafted, tried to compromise between two concepts -
free trading and controlled foreign trade - and of
necessity there could be no extremes in the Charter. In
the present Article 33 the monopolistic country could
do practically anything - it could apply discriminations,
quantitative restrictions, without much protection for
other members. The New Zealand amendment provided for
some degree of protection and therefore he thought that
it was nearer to the main objectives of the Charter
than the present Article 33.
The meeting rose at 6.40 p.m. |
GATT Library | fh703yy1051 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting held on Tuesday, 3 June, 1947, at 2.50 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 3, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 03/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/7 and E/PC/T/A/SR/1-10/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fh703yy1051 | fh703yy1051_90250010.xml | GATT_152 | 1,791 | 11,708 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/7
AND ECONOMIQUE 3 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION A.
Summary Record of the Seventh Meeting held on Tuesday,
3 Tune, 1947, at 2.50 p.m. in the Palais des Nations,
Geneva.
Chairman: H.E. Mr.Erik Colban (Norway)
The CHAIRMAN introduced the annotated Agenda, E/PC/T/W.150
on Articles l4, 15, 15a and 24, of the new York Draft Charter
(E/PC/T/34), and opened the general discussion on this group
of -articles.
Article 14
Dr. Gustavo GUTIERREZ (Cuba) suggested that in Paragraph
1 of Article 14 the words "subject to the provisions of
Article 24" should be inserted in line 14 after the word
"unconditionally".
The CHAIRMAN ruled that this amendment should be
referred to the Sub-Committee which would be set up after
the general discussion.
Monsieur BARADUC (France) explained the observations of
the French Delegation (E/PC/T/W.141). France would have to
make adjustment in her national legislation to comply with
the two articles 14 and 16, this would require some time and
he therefore asked for a certain delay. The changes in the
legislation might not be made before the General Tariff
Agreement would be signed,
The CHAIRMAN interpreted this observation to the
effect that the French Delegation does not wish any
RESTRICTED
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/7
page 2
change in the Charter, but expects some understanding on the
part of other delegations for the difficulties of French
legislation.
Replying to the question of Mr. FAIVOVICH (Chile),
M. BARADUC (France) stated that it was for the Commission to
decide whether a note with regard to the position of France
should be inserted in the General Agreement on Tariffs.
Mr. FAIVOVICH (Chile) stated that in his opinion the
French observations constitute an Amendment and should be dealt
with as suoh.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the French observations did not
constitute an Amendment to the Charter. The matter would have
to be raised again by the French Delegation at the time when
the final agreement was to be signed.
Mr. SHACKEL (United Kingdom) agreed with this interpretation.
M. BARADUC (France) said that in view of the present
discussion the French Delegation would urge the competent
authorities in France to make the necessary changes in
legislation as quickly as possible, perhaps before the Tariff
Agreement is signed.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out that there was
no provision for signature of the General Agreement, but if
signatures should be appended these was no need for a country
to have brought its legislation into conformity with the Charter
at the moment when the Agreement was signed; what mattered
was the date of ratification.
The Commission approved the United States Amendment to
Paragraph 1(E/PC/T/W.146): To delete in lines 9 and 10the E/PC/T/A/SR/7
page 3.
words: "in regard to which national treatment is provided
for in Article 15", and insert the words:
"referred to in paragraphs l, 2, 3 and 4 of Article 15".
After a discussion of the Australian Amendment to
insert in line 13 after the word "shall" the words "except as
otherwise provided elsewhere in the Charter, (E/PC/T/W.147),
the Commission decided to refer this Amendment to the Sub-
Committee with the instruction to seek legal opinion on the
advisability of including these words.
In the discussion of the United States Amendment
to Paragraph 2 set out in E/PC/T/W.146 objections were raised
by the Delegates for. Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
The Commission decided to refer the Amendment to the Sub-
Committee.
Mr. MA (China), withdrew the reservation of the
Chinese Delegation noted in the commentary of the New York
Report, page 10 (Specific Comments, (a)).
Mr. FAIVOVICE (Chile), maintained his reservation
noted in the commentary, page 10 of the New York Report
(Specific Comments, (b)), and declared that he wished to
take up the matter again after the Sub-Committee presented
its report.
Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) stated that the maintenance of
the reservation made by the Lebanese Delegation at the end
of the discussion in the Preparatory Committee in Geneva
(E/PC/T/EC/PV.2/6-8) depended on a satisfactory solution
of the question of regional preferences in another part of
the Charter, possibly in Article 38, in which Mr. JABBARA
(Syria) concurred. E/PC/T/A/SR/7.
page 4
The Commission approved the List of Territories, in
Annexure A of the New York Report, page 53.
Replying to a question of Mr. WINTHROP BROWN (United
States), with regard to the second note in the List of
Territories in the French Union (E/PC/T/W.49), M. BARADUC
(France) explained that some of the Overseas Territories
were treated on. the same level with regard to customs
questions as Metropolitan France itself. Since negotiations
regarding the future status of some French territories are
proceeding now the French Delegation wished to state this fact.
This did not imply that these territories were excluded from
the scope of the present tariff negotiations.
The Commission approved the List of French Territories
(E/PC/T/W49).
With regard to the reservation made by the Australian,
and Indian and South African Delegations in the General Comments
of Article 14 (New York Report, page 10), Dr. COOMBS (Australia),
declared that the Australian Delegation did not wish to maintain
its reservation referring to the extension of existing
preferences to other countries of the same preferential system
if the Commission should decide against such proposal. The
position was more difficult in the case of so-called 'accordable
preferences"; Australia was not seeking to be relieved of the
obligation, freely entered into in the past, to extend such
preferences
Mr. RANGANATHAN (lndia) declared that his Delegation
did not wish to pursue the suggestion made in the reservation
and Dr. HOLLOWAY (Union of South Africa) declared himself in
complete accord with the Indian relegation. E/PC/T/A/SR/7.
Page 5.
The CHAIRMAN expressed the hope that the position of
Australia might be cleared before the second reading of Article 14.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) wished to clear up several points
relating to this Article. Under certain bye-laws Australia
can remove or reduce, from time to time and for certain periods,
duties on certain articles, reinstating them after the circum-
stances had changed, in which case the preferential margin may
increase. Though he did not think that this was in conflict
with Paragraph 2, he wished that it be considered by the Sub-
Committee.
He also drew attention to the opportunity that now
presented itself to simplify multiple customs tariffs by sub-
stitution of a single preferential mate. This, again, might
involve increases in the preferential margin with reference to
goods from countries supplying an insignificant part of the
goods imported under the item concerned. This matter he suggested,
should also be referred to the Sub-Committee.
M. BARADUC (France) proposed are-draft of Paragraph 2
as follows:
"The stipulations of Paragraph 1 of the present Article
shall not be interpreted as necessitating the elimination of
preferences in respect of customs duties or other charges
imposed on imports as they are defined hereunder:
(a) Preferential regime in force.......
(b) Preferential regime in force.......
(c) Preferential regime in force.......
"The margin of preference in these preferential systems
referred to above shall not be higher than the level estab-
lished by negotiations as provided for in Article 24, and in
any case will not be higher than the margin existing between E/PC/T/A/SR/7 .
Page 6.
the preferential tariff and the tariff applied to States who
are beneficiaries of the Most-Favoured-Nation clause at the
date of reference established for negotiations."
This would in his opinion clarify the text and the Sub-
Committee might deal with the re-draft.
Article 24
Dr. G. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) referred to the Amendments pres-
ented at the beginning of the meeting.
A now Paragranh 4 of Article 24 should read as follows:
"Paragraoh 3 will apply correspondingly if offers made
by one Member in accordance with Paragraph 1 were not met
by equivalent concessions of the other so as to make
possible a reciprocal and mutually advantageous agreement
on tariff and/or other charges on imports, and if the
first Member considers that its interests would be
seriously prejudiced by the fact that nevertheless its
multilateral concessions could be claimed by the other
Member on the basis of the Most-Favoured Nation clause".
Another Amendment presented by the Cuban Delegation refers
to:
Sub-paragraph 1 (b) which should read as follows:
"All negotiated reductions in Most-Favoured-Nation import
tariffs shall operate [automaticallv] to reduce or elim-
inate margins of preference, as far as the Member that
enjoys the preference and will be affected by such reduc-
tion agrees, No margins of preference shall be increased,
after the negotiations are completed."
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) withdrew his Amendment of
Paragraph 1 (E/PC/T/W.135) in favour -of the wording proposed
by the United States Delegation (E/PC/T/W.146). E/PC/T/A/SR/7
page 7.
The Commission then approved the United States re-draft
(E/PC/T/W.146) of Paragraph . (a), (b), and (c) provisionally
as a basis for discussion subject to. a decision on the Australian
Amendment (E/PC/T/W. 147.). on Sub-paragraph (b).
Dr. COOMBS called attention to the Australian Amendment
to Article 24, paragraph (b) (E/PC/T/W.147) and suggested that
the Sub-Committee should consider whether this amendment should
not more properly be dealt with as part of Article 14.
In the discussion of the Australian Amendment the Delegates
for China, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the Union of South
Africa declared themselves in favour of this Australian Amendment.
Mr. WINTHROP BROWN (United States) stated that the United
States Delegation could not accept the Australian proposal as it
stands, but felt that it provided a basis of further discussion in
the Sub-Committee.
The Commission decided to refer the matter to the Sub-
Committee.
Paragraph 3. Mr. J. TORRES (Brazil) stated that, if the Sub-
Committee finds that the reservation made by the Brazilian Delega-
tion (New York Report, page 10) was covered by the American Amend-
ment (E/PC/T/W.146), he would be willing to withdraw this reserva-
tion.
A Sub-Committee on Articles 14, 15, 15a and 24 was then
appointed. It would hold its first meeting on Thursday, 5 June
at 10.30 a.m.; it would be composed of the delegates for
Australia, China, Cuba, Belgium, Norway, the United Kingdom and
the United States. The CHAIRMAN stated that all delegations had
the right to be present at the meetings of the Sub-Committee and
voice their opinions.
The Meeting rose at 6.25 p.m. E/PC/T/A/SR/7
page 8.
Corrigendum
During the meeting the following corrections were made in
documents previously presented by Delegations, and consequently
to be made also in the Annotated Agenda (E/PC/T/W.150)
E/PC/T/W.146, Amendment to Article 24 presented by the
United States Delegation, page 2, paragraph 1
delete the square brackets enclosing the words
"and other charges";
E/PC/T/W.147, Amendment to article 24 presented by the
Australian Delegation, page 2, sub-paragraph (b)(iii)
insert the words "or both" in line 3, after the word
"either". |
GATT Library | jz863pd4055 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Sixth Meeting held on Monday, 2 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 2, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 02/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/6 and E/PC/T/A/SR/1-10/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jz863pd4055 | jz863pd4055_90250009.xml | GATT_152 | 641 | 4,089 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/ASR/6
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGILSH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREpRTRAORY COIMMTTEE OF THE
NUITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND MEPLOYUeET
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Sixth Meeting held on Monday,
2 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations,
Geneva
Chairman: M. SUETENS (Belgium)
The CHAIRMNA called the meeting to order and invited
delegates to express their views concerning the amendnet
proposed by the Delegation of South Africa to paragraph 3
of Article 12 pursuant to the discussion at the Fifth Meeting.
Mr. CLAIR WILCOX (United States) stated that he believed
that Article 35 did not empower the ITO to invoke any sanction
or to require or compel any M3nbre to invoke any sanction
whatsoever and that the ITO would not be a sovereign body but
a subordinate agency. In its crudest form the retaliation
that is the only sanction against the violations of commitnmets
related to the Charter had existed from time immemorial and
would exist even if the Organization ware never brought to life.
Article 35, in his opinion, only limits the power of realliation.
He added that in the last analysis what is really provided is
not that retaliation shell be invited or sanctions invoked but
that a balance of interasto nc eestablished shall b emaintained.
Dr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba), referring to Articles 55 and 56 of
the Charter of the United Nations, explained that he believde
Article 35 does not establish any sanction in the real
juridicial sense of the term. He pointed out that in his E/PC/T/A/SR/6
page 2
opinion Article 37 should not be mentioned in different parts
of the Charter, Article 45 did not have its right place in
Chapter V and Article 35 should be put in Chapter VIII before
Article 86.
Mr. BARADUC (Francs) agreed with the Delegate of Cuba but
thought that only paragraph 2 of Article 35 should be included
in Chapter VIII.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) agreed with the view expressed
by the Australian and United States Delegations, but supported
the specific amendment proposed by Dr. Holloway. He also
agreed that tho second paragraph of Article 35 belonged with
Article 86.
Mr. BARADUC (France) also agreed with the amendment
proposed by South Africa, which was also supported by Mr.
MAS (Bazilr) subject to the removal of the second paragr ph
of ArticlG35e from Chapta Ve.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South fricAa), replying to the remarks made
by Mr. WILCOX, stated that the climate of international economic
relations created by the International Trade rganOization
ill wput every one of the states to whom sanctions have b33
applied in a position ntiral dieflferent from anything applied
before. He suggested tht M.ambers would get much further by
providing, in respect of Chapters III and IV and possibly also
soma matters in Chapters VI and VII, for consultation and
consultation only and to make the provisions of Article 35
applicable only to those specific undertakings in Chapter V.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (CIzechoslovakia), reserving his right
to present his comments on Article 35, invited thatterention
of the Commission to his amendments to paragraph 3 of E/PC/T/A/SR/6
page 3
Article 12 concerning the deletion of the words "any affected
business entity or person within that Member's jurisdiction".
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) explained that in his view the
main purpose of Article 35 is not to impose punishment but
to allow a review of obligations.
Mr. CHEN (China) associated himself with the Delegation
of South Africa and was in favour of deleting the last two
sentences of paragraph 2 of Article 33.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Commission was unanimous
in accepting the South African amendment to paragraph 2 of
Article 12 in pointing out that the question of substance
would be discussed when dealing with Articles 35 and 86.
The meeting was adjourned at 4.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | gc385zw0753 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting held on Friday 6 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 6, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 06/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/10 and E/PC/T/A/SR/1-10/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gc385zw0753 | gc385zw0753_90250016.xml | GATT_152 | 11,020 | 66,912 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/SR/10
ECONOMIC CONSEIL page 1
AND ECONOMIQUE
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting held on Friday
6 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations,
Geneva.
Note: Since there exists no Verbatim Record of this meeting,
the Secretariat has attempted to render this Summary
Record more complete than those concerning previous
meetings.
Chairman : H.E. Mr. Erik COLBAN (Norway) .
Continuation of discussion of
Article 15
CHAIRMAN: In resuming the discussion of Article 15 I
should like to remind the Commission that yesterday we were
discussing the Cuban and Norwegian proposals to delete the
second part of Paragraph 3 of Article 15. The discussion ended
by the question put by the Delegate of the United Kingdom to
the Delegate of the United States to explain the real intentions
behind these two sentences. Perhaps the Delegate of the United
States is now prepared to answer the question.
Mr. O.B. Ryder (United States): Yes, Mr. Chairman, the
question was raised as to the interpretation of Article 15,
paragraph 3, regarding mixing regulations. The language in the
New York draft is as follows: "The provisions of this paragraph page 2
shall be understood to preclude the application of internal
requirements restricting the amount of proportion of an imported
product to be mixed, processed or used." The proposed United
States amendment at the top of page 6 of document W.150 does not
change this language except to substitute the word "any" for the
Word "an" before the words "imported product" and to insert the
word "exhibited" between the words "processed" and "used".
The U.S. Delegation is aware of the complexity of the problems
presented by mixing regulations as they affect international trade,
and the difficulty of an attempt to deal with them in Article 15.
Here, as in many other places in the Charter, it is necessary to
use words or phrases which may not be fully precise and which may
raise questions of interpretations. And it may be that the
phraseology in the New York draft end in the amendment proposed
by the United States needs clarification.
In the view of the United States Delegation, however, the
purpose of this provision is clear end should receive the general
approval of all countries represented here. This purpose is to
prohibit the use of mixing requirements in order to afford
protection to the domestic production of a product.
Clearly, the mixing regulation described by the Delegate
for Norway in his illustration could not be classed as protective
in purpose. It would, therefore, in our view not be prohibited
by the Charger, and the United States Delegation is prepared
to consider in the sub-Committee the guestion of the need of
an amendment to make this clear.
The case presented by the illustration of the Delegate for
Norway is that of a mixing regulation which may be described
as follows: E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 3.
A regulation requiring a product to be composed of
two or more materials in a specified proportion, inhere
all the materials in question are produced domestically
in substantial quantities, and where there is no
requirement that any specified quantity of any of the
materials be of domestic origin.
Stated in this way, it seems obvious that this case is
not intended to be covered by Article 15.
The opposite case of mixing regulations to that covered
by the illustration of the Delegate for Norway is where the
regulation requires that a certain percentage of a product
of domestic. origin be used in the production of another
product (e.g. that 25 per cent domestic wheat be used in
making flour). Such a regulation would limit the use of the
like foreign product and, hence, would under any interpreta-
tion be contrary to paragraph 3 of Article 15.
A third and more difficult case of mixing regulations
are regulations which require that in producing an article a
certain percentage of a specified material produced domestic-
ally be used when there is a competitive imported material
which is not produced domestically in substantial quantities.
Here the protective intent is clear. It corresponds in the
field of mixing regulations to the type of excise tax sought
to be prohibited, in so far as future action is concerned, by
the amendment the United States Delegation has offered to
paragraph 2 and which we discussed yesterday and referred to
the Sub-Committee.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom): Mr. Chairman, we are
very much obliged to the United States Delegate for the inform-
ation he has just given. It seems that the second sentence of E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 4.
the paragraph about mixing is just the complement logically following.
out of the first sentence. It lays down the principle that there
shall be no discrimination in Internal treatment as between imported -
and domestic products. Further, that mixing should not be used for
protecting a directly competitive home product, such as in the case
of the orange and the apple that I mentioned yesterday. I would not
like, at this stage, to commit my delegation to any specific and pre-
cise wording, but as far as the general princlple is concerned I would
like to say that unless we have something of this kind in the Charter
it is fairly clear that there will be a loophole for regulations,
which would have the same effect as quantitative restrictions. It
will be possible to procure the same effect by means of this kind of
internal regulations -hich discriminate between imported and domestic
products. I will reserve further remarks till later.
CHAIRMAN: Any further remarks on the question whether we ought
to maintain or omit the last sentences of paragraph 3.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia): One point of clarification. We would
like to have it quite clear whether in the proviso embodied in those
two sentences the words "such requirement" refer only to the "re-
quirements" referred to in the second sentence or whether they refer
to "all laws, regulations or requirements affecting their internal
sale, offering for sale, ... or use of any kind .whatsoever," as
stated In the first sentence.
CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the United States Delegate
would like to answer that. My own interpretation is that "Internal
requirements" in paragraph 2 comprises "all laws, regulations or re-
quirements affecting ..." from the first sentence. If that is the
case, the words "such requirements" apply to both the first and the
second sentence. But I am not sure if my own way of reading it is a
the correct one. Perhaps the Delegate for the United States can
explain this. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 5
Mr. RYDER (United States): I do not know if I under-
stood your remarks correctly. It seems to me that clearly
"any such requirements" refer to the same "internal require-
ments restricting ..." as set out in the preceding; part of
the sentence.
Mr. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom): Is it not clear that
"any such requirement" in the proviso must refer to exceptions
from the principle of the first sentence? It can only be where
there is a departure from the principle of the first sentence
that a proviso can apply. I would read the words in such
proviso as referring to cases of mixing regulations which might
be held not to conform to the requirements of the first sentence.
Mr. RYDER (United States): Whether or not it is made
clear, the intent of the United States in proposing this was that
such requirements referred to the first part of that sentence
reading "internal requirements restricting the amount or propor-
tion of an imported product permitted to be mixed, processed,
exhibited, or used, are subject to the proviso, reading "Provided
that any such requirement in force on the day of the signature etc."
Dr. COOMBS (Australia): Mr. Chairman, this is quite a
matter of some importance. I do not read this in the same sense
as the Delegate of the United Kingdom. I understand the
structure of the first sentence lays down the general rule, the
second sentence gives an illustration of the application of that
rule to a particular class of provisions, then goes on to make a
proviso. That proviso may apply to the examples given in the
second sentence, or it may apply to the general rule. As I read
it it would appear grammatically to be, directed towards the
examples only, but it is obviously a matter of some importance as
to whether it does refer only to the examples or whether it applies E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 6
to the general rule of the first sentence;
Mr. RYDER (United States): .I agree with the Australian
Delegate that it is an important matter. I think if it is
not already clear it should be made clear that such requirement
refers to what Mr. Coombs called the example, rather than to all
that. is covered in the first sentence of paragraph 2.
CHAIRMAN: That would mean also that sentences 2 and 3 hang
together and sentence 3 is only a further explanation of sentence 2.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway): In order to clarify the issue I
might say this. I understand the explanation given by the Delegate
for the United States to the effect that the second sentence of
paragraph 3 is not a direct application of the first sentence.
The first sentence refers to 'like products', in other words it
should be prohibited to discriminate. Then we have, in the
second sentence, mixing regulations, such as stipulations that a
product.should include a certain percentage. of domestic raw
materials and a percentage of foreign raw materials. That would
be prohibited, in my view, in accordance with the first sentence
of paragraph 3. The second point which to my mind was included
in the statement of the United States Delegate was that the second
sentence of paragraph 3 goes further than that: It would normally
lead to the conclusion that a country would not have the right to
introduce regulations which would in affect lead to a decrease in
imports of raw materials, for example which had been, up to that
time, normally imported into the particular country; that would
be prohibited as far as I understood the interpretation of the
United States Delegate. Here, I think, we have the issue. If
this second sentence of paragraph3 means that it would be
prohibited for a country to lay down rules that products should E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 7
include raw materials of one category or another, and if these
regulations, which may load to a decrease of imports, should be
prohibited, we could not accept this. The main point is that
an essential part of a planned economic policy is to develop
the natural resources of a country. If one were to decree,
for instance, that houses should be built out of timber, and not
out of any other material, this would mean that we would not
import other building materials. In fact, in Norway, all
houses are built of timber. Supposing we had fifty per cent
of houses made of bricks and 50 per cent of timber, and supposing
we found that the bricks were practically speaking all imported,
in order to develop the natural resources of the country we
might decree that houses should not be built of any other
material but timber. That would be prohibited by the inter-
pretation of the United States Delegate. Here is the issue,
and I think we must be quite clear on that point.
CHAIRMAN: The Delegate for South Africa.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa): I doubt if we will get very
far in this Commission with this question of mixing until we have
a very much closer definition of what is meant by it. I feel
this is not the place to examine it. There is a special problem
of protectionism here which requires attention. I may give an
illustration that in a certain country in Europe a Jew would not
be admitted to a college unless he brought a Gentile with him
at the same time and pay his fees. That is the type of thing
we do not want to allow. For instance, that you are not allowed
to sell a bottle of Scotch whisker unless you sell a bottle of
soda water of domestic production with it. To define what
should be included and what should not be included under the term E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 8
"mixing" can only be discussed in the sub-Committee.
The South African delegation put a reservation to this
article and that reservation was put because some explanations
given at Church House and at New York seemed to make "mixing"
so wide that it could prevent things which are normally
happening in international trade. The importation of parts
to be further manufactured inside a country is a problem of
mixing. Nobody dreams of saying that it is an illegitimats
practice or that the rate of duty on parts must be the same
as on the fully manufactured goods. We might discuss a large
number of words in a Committee like this without making any
progress in the solving of problem.
CHAIRMAN: We have two suggestions before us to send the
whole question to the sub-committee. I think it is the right
procedure but before doing so we must have some more guidance
for the sub-committee.sttea
IRN:AN. The Delegate f ieChle.
Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile): I believe we find ourselves
confronted with a very complex problem. The text of the Article
is extremely wide and bold. For all these reasons I would have
been inclined to agree wi the Deleelegate of Cuba who proposed
the deletion of part of the Article. But since this proposal
has very little chance of being adopted, I find myself obliged
to study the Article and try to find a wording of this Article
which would be more in keeping with our own desires. This
Article is endeavouring to include all possibilities and
eventualities which could be at the disposal of a given state
in order to protect a given product. In the application of this
very bold principle there is first of all the rule of non-
discrimination which is applicable in the case of what is called E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 9
"similar products" not even the same products, and this renders
the application extremely difficult and uncertain. In addition,
there are provisions which preclude the application of internal
regulations restricting the amount of imported products allowed
to be mixed. Under-developed countries generally foster their
development in the following way. They start slowly and
utilise some of their own raw materials in their industry and
import other raw materials, machinery and so on. But at the
same time they are trying to develop their own resources in order
to improve the standard of living of their people; imports of
foreign goods and the development of domestic resources are two
parallel aspects of industrialization. In other words, new
factories have to import some raw materials in order that little
by little the industry of the country may advance. By and by
its cultural life gains impetus and this again gives rise to new
lines of production. At the outset, the new industry must be
allowed to use imported raw material together with that of
domestic origin. Paragraph 3 as it stands would paralyse very
quickly this kind of development typical, at present, for many
countries. I think in view of the very large field appIication
of the first sentence where we read "in respect of all law,
regulations or requirements affecting their Internal sale,
offering for sale, purchase, transportation , distribution,
exhibition or use of any kind whatsoever. We feel it is
dangerous to apply this Article containing such an inaccurate
definition. We do not think it would be easy to accept the
text as it is proposed.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom): Mr. Chairman, as an
illustration of the possible value of this type of Article it E/PC/T/A/SR/l0
page 10
would be quite conceivable, I think, for a country only to
require synthetic and not natural products imported. I would
think that it is definitely desirable to have this principle
stated as regards like products and directly competitive products.
When the question of balance of payments difficulties enters into
it, this is covered by the provisions of Article 26 which allow
you to restrict importation. That being laid down, there is
no reason why you should allow an internal differentiation.
The broad principle of this kind is desirable provided it is
understood it is limited to like products or directly competitive
products which are not exactly alike. Beyond that it should
not apply; it should not apply to cases of mixing butter and
margarine.
CHAIRMAN: The Delegate of Belgium.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium): Mr. President, It may be that
I speak out of turn, but I think the tine may have come to explain
the reasons for our Amendment. This amendment was submitted with
many doubts and after many hesitations, because we were in
principle in favour of the general rule provided in article 15,
and therefore we were reluctant to go in any way against that rule.
"We found reason for doing so in order to enable the interested-
parties to see their way in what is such a very complex set of
provisions covered by Article 15. We have to consider the
necessary protection which this article affords, together with the
consideration of the economic changes and various interests of
both exporting and importing countries. We have therefore tried
to find the proper criteria in order to limit the general
principle. E/PC/T/A/SR/10 .
page 11.
We found, however, that it was difficult to find such criteria
which would be applicable to define the limits of possible
exceptions and therefore we adopted two criteria both flexible
and so to speak psychological to restrict a a measure of
exception. In the second place we had to appreciate vvhether
the measure of exception is more or less restrictive than other
measures. We think that it would be a purely arbitrary
criterion if only "existing" restrictions were permitted to be
maintained. In our opinion the restrictions should be
negotiable. If, however, the interested parties cannot agree
by negotiation than the permitted exception must be less
restrictive then other measures. If no agreement is possible
then there is a strong, possibility that the measure is more
restrictive than other restrictions.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia): I would like to say
I have not yet been able to obtain a satisfactory inter-
pretation of paragraph 3 Article 15. We have heard the
Delegate of the United States state that its aims are perfectly
clear, but I am afraid that the experiance shows exactly the
contrary. The second sentence may forbid to mix imported
products with other products. "The provisions of this para-
graph shall be understood to preclude the application of
internal requirements restricting the mount or proportion of
any imported product permitted to be mixed, processed,
exhibited, or used...... " I assume that the "mixing" and
the "restricting" are closely connected because it is quite
impossible to mix two products without restricting the
quantity of one of the products to be mixed. The effect
of this paragraph would practically forbid the mixing of a
domestic product with an imported product, because mixing E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 12.
is usually done to improve the quality of a given product,
but this would be practically impossible, and the only
results of the paragraph would be to forbid importation
for the use of mixing in order to improve the domestic
product. I do not suppose this is the aim of this para-
graph, I can quote two examples from my country. In
Czechoslovakia foreign and domestic iron ores are mixed in
a certain proportion, that of foreign origin being of a
higher quality. If the mixing is forbidden we shall be
obliged to utilise only our own lower grade ore and shall
not import high grade iron ore. Our domestic flour has
to be mixed with imported flour to improve the quality.
The importation of this imported flour would have to be
stopped. We import Jamaica Rum to be mixed with our own
and, as in the case of iron ore, we would have to utilize
only domestic product without any improvement. The same
applies to the production of Slivovice for which we import
from Jugoslavia a product of higher quality. This would
not only reduce foreign trade but be also contrary to
provisions of the Charter which call for a development of
our own natural resources.
Our Amendment consists of adding the words "other
than those applied to like products of domestic origin".
I would like to repeat that generally mixing is not
used to restrict an imported product but in order to
improve the quality of the national product. E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 13.
CHAIRMAN : Before calling on the next speaker I would say
that I have understood one or two of the Delegates who gave
examples, not of government restrictions, but rather of mixing
arrangements made by private firms. This must, of course,
fall entirely outside this Article. We must interpret paragraph 3
as referring only to restrictions imposed by government action.
MR. WEBB (New Zealand) : We associate ourselves with the
Amendment which has already been spoken of by the Belgian and
Czechoslovakian Delegates. After the speech of the Czechoslovakian
Delegate there is very little for me to add, except perhaps to
amplify one point which seems to me of importance, and that is the
difficulty which I encounter with the word "restricting" in the
second sentence of paragraph 3. It seems to me that the
difficulty is that so often mixing regulations are essentially
a definition of the proportion of an imported product which is
to be mixed, and it is very difficult to decide whether the mere
fact of defining a quantity of the imported product to be mixed
constitutes a restriction. The CZECHOSLOVAKIAN Delegate gave the
example of the mixing of imported flour with domestic flour.
Our case is very closely parallel. We mix imported wheat, of
a higher quality than the local grain and define the mixing
proportions at the flour stage, simply as a measure to ensure
that the loaf produced is of a sufficiently high quality. In
cases of such mixing regulations the word "restricting" becomes,
very difficult to apply in a definite and clear-cut manner.
The other reason why we have associated ourselves with this
amendment is simply that it appears to us that the method of
mixing regulations is in many cases a very neat and administratively
efficient device as compared with other possible devices. Take
the tobacco industry for instance, the alternatives are mixing, E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 14.
or subsidisation, or a higher customs tariff - neither would
have been satisfactory. Finally, an illustration of
Dr. HOLLOWAY'S point about the complexity of the whole subject
of mixing. It is a point worth remembering prohibitions
against mixing can also be restrictive of internation trade.
There are cases where the product of a country A will have a
market in country B if they can be mix ed and provisions against
mixing in that case probably restrict international trade.
CHAIRMAN : The Delegate of France.
MR. ROUX (France): The French Delegation has so far
refrained from pressing its point of view but the time has
come to explain our position on paragraph 3. From the
discussion which has taken place it seems to emerge that the
almost unanimous opinion of the Committee is that the
question of this paragraph is very complex and difficult.
The debates in London, New York and here have shown clearly
that numerous delegations are under the impression that the
principle provided for in this paragraph is too general and
too absolute in its application. It would be practically
impossible for each country to conform its national regula-
tions as a whole with the letter of this Article. In
document E/PC/T/W 150, page 8, item 11, probably prepared by
the Secretariat, we read: "It seems likely that certain
countries which are not Members of the Preparatory Committee
but prospective Members of the I.T.O. will attribute
considerable importance to their mixing regulations, partic-
ularly when used for the purpose of agricultural production."
Thus, if this provision is kept in the Charter, and is
found to be advisable in principle, it is necessary to limit
its scope properly. This cannot be done by enumerating all
of the possible exceptions. The permissible exceptions E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 15.
should be on a large scale and it seems to us that the
proposals made by the Delegations of Benelux and Czechoslovakia
provide a basis of discussion in the Sub-Committee. When
exceptions are defined, the Organization would set up rules
for their application and watch over the application of
a general principle.
CHAIRMAN: The Delegate for the Netherlands.
Dr. C.H. BOGAARDT (Netherlands):
I wish to associate myself with the point of view
expressed by my Belgian colleague. Perhaps I may add that as
a part of the price mechanism, referred to in a note our
delegation distributed as an annex to our list on tariff
concessions, the Netherlands developed some requirements of
mixing and processing on a comparatively minor scale.
I may point out that our system is parallel to the
New Zealand system. Our home grown wheat is also of a lower
quality than imported wheat, 3o we had to improve the quality of
flour.
In the Netherlands, for instance, not the imported wheat
has been made subject to mixing requirements, but the domestic
wheat. The wording of Paragraph 3 as it stands, therefore,
hardly seems to cover the case, but in no case it would seem
appropriate not to admit mixing requirements at all whilst
admitting other methods permissible under the Charter which have
a far more serious effect on import trade. It obviously is not
the nature of the restriction which is harmful, but it is the
extent to which any measure is applied.
We therefore do not find it possible to change our policy
as long as there merely is a difference of method. On the other
hand we are quite willing by our methods not to go beyond what
is done by methods practised by other countries. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 16.
To make this clear, I think our Amendment at least has the
merit of being shorter than paragraph 3 as it stands, but I need
not to say that I have no objection to have it submitted to the
sub-committee for improvement of text.
CHAIRMAN: The Delegate for India.
Mr.PAI (India): It is clear that the Indian Delegation
attaches considerable importance to the right to maintain mixing
regulations. Whether these regulations are intended for the
purpose of protectionism or maintaining the quality of a domestic
product or for any other reason, the Indian Delegation attach
considerable importance to the use of quantitative restrictions,
whether at the source or by means of mixing regulations devised for
the purpose of building up the industrial potential of the country
and designed to facilitate the development of economic resources as
yet undeveloped. We are frankly protectionist about it. The
Amendment which stands in the name of the Indian Delegation has very
much the same effect as the Amendments proposed by Benelux,
Czechoslovakia and New Zealand, and it can perhaps be left to the
Sub-Committee to decide which is better. Our own reason for
preferring our amendment is that it does not contain anything to
the effect of the words which start "unless the effect of the
application of anysuch requirements is not more restrictive or
burdensome than. that of other measures, such as customs duties or
subsidies", which might be a source of argument. We have mixing
regulations intended to conserve certain resources., for example, in
the case of bread we have mixing regulations, and in some parts of
India alchol has to be mixed with a certain proportion of petroleum.
During the war regulations as to imported aluminium were enforced
and had to be mixed with a percentage of Indian aluminium.
We do not wish there should be anything in the Charter which
might lead to suspicion or subterfuge. The draft amendment as it E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 17.
stands seems to make an exception in the case of films. For my
own part I fail to see why films should be excepted when there are
other more vital commodities which would merit more such exception.
CHAIRMAN : The Delegate for Brazil.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) : The Brazilian reservation as to
the requirements of mixing, processing etc. was made because we
have some ruling requiring the importer to buy 10% of domestic
coal. We have also problems with regard to the mixing of
alcohol with gasoline. The general principle is a very sound
one. We should like to follow it, but I think we are dealing
with a very complex problem. As explained this paragraph deals
with public laws not private requirements. If we cancel our
legislation about mixing, mixing will go simply as private measure
and decision. We must confess that we see much confusion.
We have asked our Government to give us its final
instructions, and we shell revert to the matter at a later stage.
Mr.MINOVSKY: (Czechoslovakia). I merely wish to say
you mention Article 15 referred only to government restrictions
and requirements. It is quite true that I was aware of that fact.
The Charter was not made, only for today but also for the future.
In the particular case of mixing of iron ores any day the Ministry
for Industry may set up the prescription of officially and this will
become a government retriction.
CHAIRMAN: I take it this problem is not only one of Czechoslovakia
but other countries as well. Several delegates suggested that
the amendments should be considered by the Sub-Committee. We
must decide whether we shall give the Sub-Committee specific
terms of reference or whether simply we ask the Sub-Committee to
consider the problem in the light of this discussion, and of the
Amendments enumerated in document E/PC/T/W.150, I think we had E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 18.
better use the second alternative.
Mr.SHACKLE (United Kingdom): It would be understood that
this does not cover the particular aspect of films. You asked us
yesterday to reserve that.
CHAIRMAN: That is so. I take it this is agreed.
Mr. GARCIA-OLDINI (Chile): The impression I gather from
this debate is that the majority of this Committee is opposed to
this Article for various reasons, or at least to the way in which
the question is treated in the Article. Can this be passed on to
the sub-committee so that it was aware of the atmosphere of this
debate.
CHAIRMAN: I have already said that the sub-committee will
be guided by the report of this discussion, and I hope that will be
satisfactory.
CHAIRMAN: Now we pass on to the Australian amendment and
you will find this at the bottom of page 7, E/PC/T/W.150. We have
had the same amendment concerning Article 14, paragraph 1. We
then decided to ask the legal officer to go into it and we decided
that the legal officer's opinion should be sent on to the Ad hoc
Sub-Committee. I take it that the Australian Delegate today
maintains the same attitude towards this proposal with regard to
Paragraph 3 of Article 15.
Mr. COOMBS (Australia). As in the case of Article 14,
the result may be that a general clause will be inserted in the
Charter and then, of course, our amendment will become unnecessary.
We think that Amendment should go to the Sub-Committee.
CHAIRMAN: Agreed, we pass on to Paragraph 4. There you
have on pages 6-9 of Document E/PC/T/W150 number of reservations
and amendments. With regard to the reservations I would say that
they have been replaced by new proposals, so we can start on with
the United States proposal. I call on the United States Delegate E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 19
to explain his proposal with regard to films.
Mr. RYDER (United States). I explained yesterday what
was proposed here, and I do not think I need to repeat much of
that. Our proposal is to delete the present paragraph 4 and to
revise paragraph 3. We think that the requirement restricting
and apportioning imported films should terminate after three years
from the coming into force of the Charter. Any extension should
be subject to consultation.
I want to add that the United States Delegation agrees
fully with the Delegate for India that there is no reason why
special treatment should be accorded to the film industry. It
does not seem to us that there is any good or sound reason why one
of the largest United States products should be submitted to
discriminatory national treatment in the various countries of the
world. We think it is particularly important where, we are seeking
free trade all important industries should be treated alike.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom). Mr.Chairman, in spite
of what the United States Delegate has just said I must say that
we of the United Kingdom Delegation do feel that the case of film
quotas is something quite distinct from other processing and mixing
regulations. In the case of films it is not merely an economic
and not even material question; it brings in a very important
cultural consideration such as does not come in in the case of
other commodities.
We think it is quite clear, that countries will not allow
their own film production which affects their own culture and
ideas, to be swamped by imported films simply becausethe latter
happen to be better organized commercially. Some perfectly
reliable method of safeguarding domestic film production is needed
and will in fact be insisted on by a great many countries. The method
of the "screen-quota" is much the most effective, perhaps the only E/PC/T/A/SR/10 .
page 20.
effective method of attaining this desired object. We must
therefore preserve our right to use this method.
We had hoped that as a result of the very long discussions
which took place in New York with the provisions of Paragraph 4
of this article there might have been an effective compromise and
we are sorry to find that this is not so. The provisions of this
paragraph of this Article represent the furthest that we can go.
The provisions of this paragraph will put films on the same basis
as other goods and subject them to tariff negotiations. But we
cannot accept "screen-quotas" on a temporary basis as proposed in
the United States amendment.
We regard the New York draft as a reasonable solution and
I am afraid we could not in any case accept the suggestion that
the continuation of screen-quotas should be subjected to the
determination of the Organization.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway). Mr. Chairman. We are certainly in
agreement with the United Kingdom Delegate as to the distinction
between films and ordinary goods. I think that films ought to be
considered quite from a different angle. Films ought to be
considered as products of art. Certain films we import from the
United States might have a similarity with art in higher sphere.
We have to take into account the position in every country; one
wants to produce films of national production and of course the
reason being that films are exercising an influence on people's
ways of life and in any country it is essential not only the ways
of life of some other country should be shown. In a country whose
language does not go far beyond its frontier, not a language like
English, in a country like Norway, we make the same product but we
have not at all the same commercial advantages.
Consequently, we do not think that films ought to be
considered from a purely commercial point of view. The right
solution would be to leave films quite outside the scope of the E/PC/ T/A/SR/10.
page 21.
Charter, It is a question which ought to be considered by other
bodies of the United Nations Organization, such as the Human Rights
Commission or the Economic and Social Council. There is to be
a Conference on Information and Films this autumn, and we consider
this would be the right angle from which to tackle the problems
relating to films. In the case of Norway, and I imagine in most
other countries, there is not at all the desire to exclude
American films - most people prefer them, but there are also other
sides to it. That is the reason why we should not consider it on
the lines of ordinary goods. Consequently I think the most logical
solution would be to take films right cut of the Charter altogether
CHAIRMAN: The Delegate of Chile.
Mr.GARCIA-OLDINI: (Chile). It is true that films are
goods but not all goods are comparable. Films are exceptional
goods. As the delegate of Norway said not all films are artistic,
but all films in general have cultural and educational value.
There are simply marvellous films which appeal to the mind and
should be protected. This is not the only case when regulations
we prepared might defeat higher purposes. We are setting up
regulations on films with commercial ideas in our mind. There
is another product of the same kind as films. When we were
speaking about mixing I refrained from mentioning. Take for
instance newsprint which might also be restricted by measures we
are at present discussing. When studying the question of films we
should study it in connection with boks and newspapers. In
paper you have various mixtures of raw materials. The production
of paper is in the process of development in many countries. It
present all countries want to be free to produce their own paper,
because paper is important in the cultural and political life of
nations. There mixing regulation must be applied and countries
should be free to use them. E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 22.
Mr. H. ELBL (Czechoslovakia): Mr. Chairman, the Czechoslovak
Delegation want to make the following statement regarding
cinematograph films:
1. The Delegation welcome and fully endorse the theory regarding
cinematograph films developed in the Norwegian amendment,
document No.T/W.99 submitted on May 20th 1947 and requesting that
the provisions of Article 15 of the Charter should not apply to
cinematograph films.
2. The Czachoslovak Delegation themselves cannot consent to the
inclusion of cinematograph films together with other rawstocks
commodities and industrial products under the provisions of
Article 15 or, this being a matter of principle under any other
Article of the Charter which would try to regulate international
and national handling of films on the assumption that films are
just another commercial commodity or just another industrial
product.
3. It is the opinion of the Delegation that films are neither
a commodity nor an industrial product in the ordinary meaning of
these terms. The correctness of this argument follows even from
the method of trading with films well established during a long
period of years. Films are never being sold as a piece of
merchandise, only more or less limited rights to exhibit them
publicly in a given territory are usually granted for a certain
restricted period of time. That is a business transaction of its
type but never a simple purchase and sale as is the case with
practically all other commercial commodities. It doss not make
any difference whatever whether a mutually agreed lump sum or
a percentual share ot net box office receipts is paid in
consideration of the rights granted.
4. Beside their purely material value, the value of rawstock and
manifold work which make up their cost of production films - once E/PC/T/A/SR/10.
page 23.
created - have a far greater and this time spiritual value the
exact determination of which is almost totally dependent upon the
varying appreciation of critics of art and of domestic or
international audiences. Film trading itself depends precisely on
this immaterial spiritual value of appreciation of films.
It is, therefore, the well considered opinion of the
Czechoslovak Delegation that films, be they documents or works of
art, which roughly speaking are the two main categories of films
created today in the world, cannot and must not be handled as any
other marketable piece of merchandise.
Commodities and industrial products which in the course of
wholesale production usually attain an exactly measurable standard
of quality are therefore from both the quantitative and qualitative
points of view merely substitutional goods easily interchangeable
which is never the case with films. Films are very individual and
very unique creations of the varying artistic talents of the people
who create them and cannot be substituted for each other. Therefore
not every film is at all times and under same conditions acceptable
in any country.
The same individual handling which pertains to the creation
of any given film must be allowed to decide whether, when and how
films will be distributed and publicly distributed.
It follows that the distribution and exhibition of films
cannot be governed by the same purely commercial considerations
which underlie practically all provisions of the Charter now under
consideration by this Conference.
5. The Czechoslovak Delegation, therefore, recommend that it
be expressly stated in the paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Charter
that the provisions of this Article do not apply to cinemetograph
films, or - still better - that such a statement be inserted in
Article 37, dealing with general exceptions to Chapter V of the page 24.
Charter, making it absolutely clear that nothing in this Charter
is intended to regulate international or national distribution
and exhibition of films.
6. Instead the Czechoslovak Delegation proposes that the
whole matter of international exchange of films be either left
to bilateral negotiations of the interested countries, or, if
a more substantial and unifying international regulation seems
necessary that it be left for some other department or subsidiary
agency of the United Nations Organisation to deal with.
The Film Division of the Secretariat of the United Nations
headed by Mr. Jean Benoit Levy or UNESCO, might well be called
upon to try in co-operation with the Internetional Association of
Film Technicians, which is going to be established this summer in
Prague, to propose and to submit to Member Governments a draft of
an international convention which would regulate and simplify
at least certain aspects of the international exchange of films
considered primarily not as a merchandise but as powerful vehicles
of human thought and feeling and as a welcome means in the
service of better international understanding which is the proper
mission of any art.
It is our opinion that cinematograph films have as
creations of art or as instruments of scientific or other
documentation attained such a high degree of maturity that it
is high time to decide whether we are going to continue to handle
them indefinitely under same footing with shoes or lard or any
other industrial products just because they necessitate and
intricate technical workshop to be created in or whether we
will finally acknowledge the facts and render to films what is E/PC/T/A/SR/10 .
page 25.
their view by birthright, i.e. to place them on equal level
with all other artistic creations and means of expression and
accord them the same equitable treatment.
I do not know that it is the intention of the authors
of this Charter to regulate thereby the international exchange
of paintings, statutes or musical scores and I take it that
they did not have such an intention.
7. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress
two points:
1. That there is nothing new in this attitude of
our delegation which means that it is not just another post-war
fashion. As far as 1938 when we were negotiating for a new
trade agreement with the United States and the American
Delegation clearly intended to include films within the scope
of that trade agreement, we succeeded in convincing them that
it is far better for reasons flowing out of the subject matter
itself to negotiate as separate individual film agreement and
such agreement has been finally negotiated and signed in
Prague to the mutual satisfaction of the parties concerned.
2. That although cinematographic films ere expressly
mentioned only in Article 15 of the Charter, we would have
to discuss them again and again in connection with Article 27,
31 and 32 where there are provisions which, if films were
involved, in the same spirit governing provisions of Article 15,
Would be just as much unacceptable to my Delegation as the
provisions of Article15. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 26
The CHAIRMAN: The Delegate for South Africa.
DR.HOLLOWAY (South Africa): Mr.Chairman, there
seems to me to be an implied assumption in the American
amendment. In my opinion the film is a commercial article,
but it seems to me there is a very important other factor,
and that is the absorbative power of any country for films.
This power has its limits and inside that absorbative power
must be absorbed certain films of local cultural and educa-
tional character which can only be produced locally. Now
if you apply the conditions of Article 15 to films then the
time may quite easily come when you are faced with this
position that owing to the great technical advantages of the
American film industry they could squeeze out all your local
films.
Well, you could not obviously allow that, so what
remedies does the Charter offer you. Just push up the duty
against American films sufficiently so as to make room for
your own local cultural films which you must have. It seems
to me that by assuming that a film is an ordinary commercial
article, the Americans are sharpening a knife for their own
throat. Sooner or later when you come to that absorbative
power you will have to push up the duty to make room for
certain domestic cultural films. So it seems better to
leave room for a quota and once you leave room for a quota
you are conflicting with the provisions of Article 15.
The CHAIRMAN: We have still an amendment of paragraph
4 submitted by the Delegate for New Zealand.
Mr. L.C. WEBB (New Zealand): Mr.Chairman, the reason
for the as amendment presented by the New Zealand Delegation is
in the main explained on page 11 of the New York Report in E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 27
paragraph (c) . It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to say
more than that. The amendment is intended to cover the
peculiar difficulty which we halve found ourselves in. We
came to the conclusion that customs duties were an unsatis-
factory method of taxing films entering the country in that,
applied on a basis of so much per foot, they made no
distinction between the quality and value of films. There-
fore we applied instead of a customs duty a "film hire tax"
which seems to us a logical, fair and satisfactory method of
taxing films, but unfortunately that appears to get us
rather into trouble with Article 15.
There is a local film industry in New Zealand state-owned
which produces films, and those films pay no film hire tax
for the good reason that they are not sold or hired, they are
distributed free. There is, I should add, a certain
preferential element in the film hire tax and our amendment
expressed our willingness to negotiate that preference.
Whether this amendment is in fact necessary is not quite
certain because it would rather depend on the view which the
Commission takes of other amendments which have been presented.
I Would just like to add with reference to the more general
and important question which has been raised in connection with
paragraph 4, the question of whether films are commercial
commodities in the ordinary sense that it has seemed to me, and
I merely make the suggestion in order that it perhaps might be
considered by the Sub-Committee, as to whether the matter might
not be more satisfactorily dealt with in the say of an addition
to Article 37, that is, whether the cultural aspect of films
which I think legitimately worries small countries, might not
be dealt with in an article dealing with general exceptions. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 28
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom): I would just like
to add two or three words. We would like to support the New
Zealand amendment. It seems to us that it is only right and
proper that a "film hire tax" should be treated in the same
way as film quotas. I still feel that paragraph 4 here is a
reasonable compromise, and it is better to keep it than to re--
place it by an addition to Article 37. There is a big
commercial interest in films and it definitely seems to me
that in paragraph 4 as we have it we had the desirable con-
promise, and therefore we support the New Zealand amendment
as given in W.106.
THE CHAIRMAN : As no other Delegate has asked to
speak, I think we may call upon the Delegate for the United
States.
Mr. RYDER (United States): Mr.Chairman, I had not
thought until I heard this discussion that anyone would advocate
rationing of art like pictures, etc. All we ask for is that
the public who patronise moving pictures decide whether or not
they prefer the foreign or the domestic film. We are willing
to leave the matter to the audiences of the various countries.
It is an objective of the Charter to break down barriers between
peoples, not increase them. If films are more than goods and
on a higher plane they should be free from trade barriers and
from discrimination. Very seriously I want to appeal to the
various delegates represented were not to press in this Article
for a new extension of quantitative restictions, designed to
stifle international trade. If the Czechoslovak views should
prevail and be adopted, films, would not be subject to any
negotiation. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 29
Mr. ELBL (Czechoslovakia): Mr.Chairman, we have
no intention in Czechoslovakia to stiffen the conditions of
import of foreign pictures into our country. It was never
our Intention. We have since the liberation of our country
negotiated various film agreements and in every case it was
a short term agreement, because we are of the opinion that
the quality of the various national productions of pictures
are changing so rapidly from year to year. Take the example
of today's British production. British films are of such
high quality that they have acquired very particular interest
in all European countries. We feel that we should be free
to negotiate every single year a new agreement with any country
producing pictures and we do not want to be bound by such
an instrument as this Charter is. We would be bound,
for whatever period of time the Charter would be in force,
To certain policies regulating the expansion and distribution
of cinematographic films in our country. This we really
cannot admit and this is why we claim and stress the fact
that films are not just another purely commercial commodity.
It would be only proper to rule films out of the provisions of
the Charter and enable all interested countries to negotiate
bilateral agreements whenever they feel like it. We know
that there are other interests which are not included in the
Charter.
Czechoslovakia happens to be the only country here
today represented which has a nationalized film industry and
when we reach the sections dealing with stats-trading we will
have to raise the question of whether our nationalized industry
under the Provisions of this Charter will be placed on equal
footing with private enterprises of other countries which had
not nationalized their industry. E/PC/T/A/SR/10 .
page 30
In conclusion, the provisions of this Charter as they
are phrased today would bind the Czechoslovak Film Corporation,
which is a government agency, to follow certain lines of policy
whereas in other countries where the industry is in private
hands no such obligation would exist. This would finally
lead to the fact that international exchange of films would
be a one-way track. This is what makes us fight for the
freedom of negotiating bilateral agreements as far as films
are concerned or, if there is really any necessity for an
international regulations, this should be the task of some
other body of the United nations Organization.
The CHAIRMAN: I think we can close the discussion.
We have now considered the New York text, the New Zealand
text and the proposal of the Norwegian and Czechoslovak
Delegations, and we have the re-draft presented by the
United States delegation. We have not come very near to each
other - there is a certain preponderance in favour of not
considering films as ordinary goods, but I cannot say that
there is any majority either way and therefore the matter will
have to be thrashed out further in a Sub-Committee.
I propose that the Commission refers it to the
Sub-Committee drawing the attention of the Sub-Committee to
the different alternatives and asking the Sub-Committee to
try and find a solution. Is that agreed?
(Accepted)
You will have seen from E/PC/T/W.150 that there are
two proposals by the Norwegian Delegation for new paragraphs
3 and 4 to replace what in the Norwegian proposal has been
struck out of paragraph 3 and to introduce certain new ideas. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 31
I would ask the Delegate for Norway whether he wants
to speak on this here or whether he prefers to send it straight
to the Sub-Committee.
Mr. MELANDER (Norway): Mr.Chairman, I would just
take this opportunity to say a few words on these proposals
which I hope it will not be too difficult to accept. What
we propose are exceptions from paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
existing Article 15. The first one is paragraph 3 in our
draft which says that the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3
shall not preclude the regulation of imports, provided that
such measures are not more restrictive of international trade
than other measures permissible under the Charter.
This proposal is meant to extend the import regulation
methods. It is intended to use this method of applying inter-
nal taxes or internal regulations in order to regulate imports,
but only in the case where regulations of imports are allowed
by authority of the existing Chapters or Articles, namely the
articles relating to quantitative restrictions and restrictions
for balance of payments, as set out in Articles 25 to 29.
These methods which we have in mind do not provide for a com-
plete exclusion of goods - it is really an additional method
which is more flexible. Consequently we hope that our
proposal will be acceptable.
The second proposal is one relating to price regula-
tion. That proposal reads as follows:- "So long as
different prices for like products exist on the world market,
the provisions of Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not preclude the
establishment of a national market of equal prices for
like products, whether of foreign or domestic origin."
The point here is that at the present,as we all know,
there does not really exist a world market price on certain
commodities of basic importance, and it is necessary to E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 32
regulate the price in various countries in order to provide
for an orderly distribution of those goods on the national
market. The most efficient method through which this price
regulation can be achieved is, in our opinion, to levy taxes
or to make other regulations to provide for an equalization of
all prices, both high prices and low prices, so that you get
an internal price which is the common denominator of such
goods on the home market. This is, of course, a method only
meant to cover the transitional period which we hope will be
of comparatively short duration.
The CHAIRMAN : Does any other Delegate wish to
speak on these amendments?
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom): It would be best for
the Sub-Committee to consider them as it is a little
difficult to express an opinion here and now.
The CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable to the Norwegian
Delegate that we send it on to the Sub-Committee?
(Agreed.)
We mass on to paragraph 5 of the New York Draft.
We have almost disposed of on: amendment, the one presented
by the Norwegian Delegation and also the one about cine-
matograph films. There remains the United States amendment,
the Indian amendment and a Chinese amendment.
Mr. RYDER (United States): The amendment we have
presented is a revision of the text for clarification - no
change in substance is intended. Since we presented this
amendment, however, various matters have been brought to the
attention of the American Delegation and so we think that to
protect certain governmental operations in a number of
countries that there should be added at the end of paragraph 5,
as the United Status Delegation redrafts it, the following
sentence: E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 33
"Moreover, the provisions of this Article shall not apply
to governmental purchases in carrying out any form of
subsidy permitted under Article 30. "
Mr. Chairman: I ask that the United States proposed
amendment with the additional sentence be sent on to the Sub-
Committee for consideration.
The CHAIRMAN: And then I take it that the Sub-Committee will
also look into the Indian and Chinese amendments. The Indian
amendment does not very much differ from the United States one.
The Chinese amendment, which is rather important, proposes
the deletion of the words in square brackets in the New York draft.
reading "nor for use in the production of goods for sale."
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) (Translation): Mr: Chairman, I
would like to draw vour attention to the fact that paragraph 5 is
directly connected with Article 31 and I do not see the possibility
of establishing now a final text for paragraph 5 without knowing
what the final form of Article 32 will be.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa): In my coinion, the Indian
amendment is the very opposite of the United States amendment.
Could we get charity an that?
The CHAIRMAN (replying to Mr. Minovsky): Even if paragraph
5 may be read in conjunction with Article 31Ido not think there
is anything to prevent us from discussing paragraph 5 now and if,
after having discussed 31 we need to adjust and re-draft It, that
will be for the Preparatory Commission, but we should consider it
now.
I ask the Delegate for India to speak on his amendment, and
the question of Mr. Holloway. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 34
Mr. RANGNATHAN (India),: I do not think that the two
amendments are the same even though the addition now made by the
United States doesmeet our point up to a certain extent, it still
leaves us in some difficulties. The amendment proposed by us
contemplates the use by governmental agencies in the production of
goods for sale. We have a somewhat mixed economy today and it is
possible that we shell have more of this in the future. Our
Railway system, for example, is completely state-owned and it is
possible that shortly our electricity and coal will be state-
owned. Of the two largest fertilizer factories in India, one is
completely state-owned and the other one is largely state-
controlled. We do foresee that certain governmental purchases in
India would enter in some way or another into the production
of goods for sale. This might not be a completely commercial
transaction but it would be part of a commercial transaction. I
feel that we would want a certain relaxation of parabraph 5 which
is not covered by the addition made today by the United States
Delegate to the amendment proposed by them earlier. I think we
would be content to leave this to be thrashed out in the Sub-
Committee if that suits the Commission, subject to the remarks
I have made. .
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa): I would like to point out with
regard to the United States amendment in quite an important field
it takes away with one hand what it gives with the other. It
obviously has in mind a very much simpler state of affairs than
obtains. I tlink the other point could very well be met under
section 31 which limits the state-trading to most-Favoured-Nation
treatment and not to national treatementas it does here. The
government in South africa, and I think the same applies in a number
of other countries, produces a large number of veterinary medicines E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 35
These medicines. are used for government purposes but they are also
sold for farmers. As long as the "government uses a particular
-bottle of medicine for veterinary purposes these rules would not
apply, but as soon as a bottle is sold to a farmer, then a
different set of rules applies. I think you have got to stick to
Most-Favoured-Nation treatment as you have in state-trading.
The CHAIRMAN: Has the Delegate for China decided to speak
on this amendment?
Mr. MA (China): We can accept the text as it originally
stood, that is without the words in brackets. The words in
brackets have very wide implications which do not allow us to accept
this phrase. I shall take up the matter in the Sub-Committee.
Permit me to say that the proposal to delete the words in square
brackets applies also to the same phrase of paragraph 2 of
Article 31.
The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the Commission agrees to send
this paragraph 5 on to the Sub-Committee. The work of the Sub-
Committee will be considerably more complicated than I thought.
I had misinterpreted the Indian proposal and I see now that it is
very far-reaching, but I suppose the Sub-Committee will go into it
and let us hope, that they come to a good result.
ARTICLE 15A.
It is late but I Think we must give some consideration to
the last item - that is the United States proposal for a new Article
15A, page 10, document E/PC/T/W.150, and unless we deal with it
tonight I cannot tell you when we shall deal with it. The
Delegates have had this text before them for a considerable time
and I rake it that everyone has more or less made up his mind. May
I ask the Delegate of the United States if he has something to add
to his proposal? page 36 E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 37
On this broad ground rether than out of any special
preference for the particular type of State action which it is the
intention of the proposed article to out-law, the Indian Delegation
must oppose, and oppose strenuously, the incorporation of the
proposed Article in the Charters
Dr. COOMBS (Delegate of Australia): I understand that in
discussion of other parts of the Charter doubts have been expressed
as to the wisdom of including in the Charter measures designed to
control international services, It is clear that this Article
does in fact deal with that type of subject matter and I would
suggest generally that we should ask the Sub-Committee not to reach
a conclusion on this particular Article until it was aware of any
general conclusion that might have been reached on the incorporation
of services generally as an appropriate subject matter for the
Charter.
In particular, I understand that the question of shipping in
one form or another has received the attention of various Commissions
and Committees with the result that it has been decided on almost
each occasion, I believe, that it was preferable to leave the whole
question of shipping to be examined by an appropriate International
agency when all phases of the shipping problem would be considered.
It does appear to us to be somewhat unwise to seek to deal in the
Charter with one particular form of national assistance afforded
to shipping while leavings outside the scope of the Charter the great
bulk and variety of measures of that kind which are being practised
by one country or another. I think it is wise for us to take
those difficulties into account then we are referring this draft
Article to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/A/SR/10
page 39
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia):(Translation): I only wish
to say, Mr. Chairman, that if we accept services in the Charter the
United States new Article will be nothing but a supplement to
Article 23 on boycotts.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the proper way of handling it would
be to send it to the Sub-Committee and to ask them not to take any
decision until they know what decision will be taken on the
question of services. Is this agreed?
(Agreed).
Then we have a last item. It is at the bottom of page 9,
document E/P/T/W.150, which is a proposal by the Australian
Delegation to make a certain addition to Article II of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which would mean a corresponding
addition to Article 15.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia): My attention has been drawn to the
fact that in a footnote on page 69 of the New York Drafting
Committee's Report a suggestion was made that should be incorporated
in the schedule of tariff rates - a provision substantially
equivalent to the proposed Australian amendment. I have much
pleasure therefore in withdrawing this addition.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) Mr. Chairman, you have not said
anything about the Brazilian amendment in the last part of page 10
of W.150.
The CHAIRMAN: I thought it was understood that the Brazilian
amendment should be sent together with the United States proposal
to the Sub-Committee.
DELEGATE OF BRAZIL: Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN: The Delegate for Chile.
Mr. GARCIA-OLDINI (Chile) (Translation): Mr. Chairman,
only a word in view of the very speedy way in which we are now E/PC/T/A/SR/10
pace 39
working and sending Articles to the Sub-Committee, I hope the
silence of some Delegations, including mine, will not be
interpreted as consent.
The CHAIRMAN: The silence of Delegations will not be
interpreted as either consent or dissent and when the Sub-
Committee presents its report a final decision will be made.
The meeting rose at 6.25 p.m. |
GATT Library | jb779bd0543 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Third Meeting held on Wednesday, May 28, 1947, at 10.30 a.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 28, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 28/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/3 and E/PC/T/A/SR/1-10/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jb779bd0543 | jb779bd0543_90250005.xml | GATT_152 | 1,580 | 10,752 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL
AND ECONOMIQUE RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/SR/3
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 28 May 1947.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Third Meeting held on
Wednesday, May 28, 1947, at 10.30 a.m. in
the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: M. SUETENS (Belgium).
1. The CHAIRMAN called on Mr. Chundrigar, Head of the
Indian Delegation, for the general statement on Chapter IV
which he had requested an opportunity to make.
2. Mr. CHUNDRIGAR (India) said that his Delegation
attached the greatest importance to the question of the
economic development of the less developed countries. The
facilities required for rapid economic development were not
equally available to all countries and therefore some
arrangement for an equitable sharing of such facilities
should be made. It would be difficult to define precisely
the responsibilities in this connection of the countries
more advanced industrially, but such an obligation should
be regarded as more than a mere formality. India attached
particular importance to the assignment to the International
Trade Organization of certain positive functions with
respect to economic development. He hoped that the
proposed development commission to be established under
the Organization would be able to arrange for the
provision of necessary services to under-developed countries
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/3
page 2.
on fair and reasonable terms. Such a combination of
development and trade functions would make the proposed
international Trade organization a more effective organization.
Ha considered Chapter IV as something like a Charter for the
relatively under-developed countries. He believed that the
measures employed to achieve their development should be
judged primarily in the light of the objective of rapid
economic development. His Delegation could not accept the
premise that quantitative restrictions were inherently bad
and inadmissible, and believed it was possible to devise
adequate safeguards for their use. The use of quantitative
restrictions in the case of balance-of-payments difficulties
was already provided for exceptionally in the Draft Charter.
He believed the use of quantitative restrictions for
protective purposes should also be specifically provided for
in the Draft Charter, subject to suitable precautions.
Speaking on behalf of India and he believed a large number of
other countries as well, this Conference would succeed only
if the needs of all countries were appreciated and met and
the well-being of the world would depend to a considerable
extent on the success of this Conference.
3. The CHAIRMAN declared the meeting open for discussion of
Article 13 of Chapter IV, Governmental Assistance to Economic
Development. The Annotated Agenda (E/PC/T/W.125, Rev.1)
prepared by the Secretariat for the discussion of this
Chapter indicated that a number of Delegations had submitted
amendments to this Article, He asked these Delegations to
explain their proposals.
4. Mr. OLDINI (Chile) explained that the purpose of their
proposed amendment to paragraph 1 was to permit arrangements E/PC/T/A/SR/3
page 3.
between governments, particularly of contiguous countries, to
assure markets to new industries. Their second amendment was
designed to bring paragraph 2 into conformity with paragraph 1,
if amended as they proposed.
5. Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) stated that if his Delegation's
proposed amendment to article 33 were adopted, they would wish
to withdraw their proposed amendment to Article 13. He
therefore wished to reserve his Delegation's position regarding
Article 13 for the time being.
6. Dr. COOMBS (Australia) explained that the primary purpose
of their suggested amendments was to ensure that all applications
for permission to use protective measures other than those
permitted under the Charter would receive as expeditious treat-
ment as possible. It should be made clear in the Article
that it was obligatory upon countries whose trade was affected
and on the Organization itself not to use the complexity
involved in this type of procedure to put obstacles in the way
of a country applying for permission to use protective
measures. Since the whole Article was designed to permit a
certain flexibility to countries in their adoption of
protective measures to be used for economic development, it
was essential to ensure expeditious handling of their
applications.
7. Mr. WU (China) explained that his Delegation had submitted
certain amendments to this Article because they regarded the
procedure provided for in the present text as incompatible
with the freedom of action essential to members wishing to
achieve economic development. The proposed procedure would
be bound to be too slow, and it would be difficult to predict
accurately the effect of a proposed protective measure on the E/PC/T/A/SR/3
page 4.
trade of other members. Only after the protective measure had
been taken would the consultation with affected members through
the Organization provided for in this Article be useful.
8. Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) explained that the intention
of their proposed amendment was to provide explicitly in
paragraph 2 for the use of protective measures for purposes
of reconstruction as well us economic development.
9. Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) said that the amendments
proposed by his Delegation were primarily directed to speeding
up the procedure. stipulated in this Article. Without departing
from the principle. of prior approval by the Organization for
the use of protective Measures as agreed in London, though
subject to some reservations, his Delegation believed the
present draft could be criticized on the grounds of providing
infinite possibilities for delay.
10. Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) explained that his Delegation's
proposal was designed to provide recognition in the Charter
of the necessity for small nations to utilize regional arrange-
ments for ensuring wider markets as a protective measure for
the development of their industries.
11. Mr. GOTZEN (Netherlands), although in full accord with the
guarantees against misuse of protective devices provided for in
paragraph 2, believed these should be supplemented by an
additional guarantee making it possible to limit the duration
of protective measures. His Delegation's suggestion that a
new sub-paragraph (d) be added to paragraph 2 was submitted
with this aim in mind. His Delegation endorsed the general
principle underlying the Indian Delegation's proposed addition E/PC/T/A/SR/3
page 5
to Article 26 which would permit the use of quantitative
restrictions for protective purposes, although not the precise
wording. If the Indian amendment to Article 26 was adopted,
the Netherlands Delegation believed a time limit prior to
which such restrictions should be revoked should be established
under Article 13. They therefore proposed the addition of a
new paragraph 3.
12. Dr. LOKANATHAN (India) stated that his Delegation had
proposed the revision of paragraph 1 so as to include the
recognition that the grant of special governmental assistance
in the form of protective measures was not merely a concession
but a legitimate instrument for economic development. Their
proposed amendment to Article 26, which was directly relevant
to Article 13, was designed to permit countries to utilize
quantitative restrictions for protective purposes without
having to refer first to the Organization, subject to
prescribed limitations. Any affected country should have the
right of appeal to the Organization, and the country taking
protective measures should be obligated to consult with the
Organization and the affected country. Where there was
already a negotiated agreement between such countries, the
procedure stipulated in Article 13 as drafted should apply.
13. Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) indicated his Delegation had
withdrawn its reservations to paragraph 2 of Article 13, as
well as their support to the alternative draft to this
Article submitted in New York. They were now willing to
consider any new draft produced by the sub-committee.
14. Dr. COOMBS (Australia) explained that his Delegation had
proposed the addition of a new Article 13 A to provide for a
transitional period during which countries employing E/PC/T/A/SR/3
page 6
protective measures prohibited under the Charter could, on
first joining the Organization, make the necessary
administrative adjustments or seek the Organization's
approval for their continuance.
15. The CHAIRMAN suggested that prior to referring these
proposed amendments to the sub-committee, it might be useful
to have a general discussion of the following general
principles or points of view which had emerged from the
Commission's discussion for the guidance of the sub-committee:
1. Determination of general principles for the use of
protective measures without stipulating too rigid a
procedure - embodied in the Chilean amendment.
2. Specification of a precise and detailed procedure -
embodied in the Australian and United Kingdom
amendments.
3. The use of preferential arrangements as a protective
device - raised by the Lebanon Delegate, and implicitly
in the Chilean proposal.
4. The use of quantitative restrictions as a protective
measure - raised by the Indian Delegation.
5. Transitional period for countries first joining the
Organization - raised by the Australian Delegation.
16. Mr. TORRES (Brazil) proposed that the Australian draft
proposals (E/PC/T/W.127) be adopted as a working paper, subject
to consideration of the point that protective measures should
not be granted merely as a concession and to the possibility
of permitting countries to initiate protective measures
simultaneously with advice to the Organization to this effect. E/PC/T/A/SR/3
page 7
17. Mr. OLDINI (Chile) supported the Indian and Brazilian
point that the use of protective measures should be
recognized as a right, not a concession. However, he
believed it would be easier for the sub-committee to find a
compromise between the various views expressed if no
particular proposal was adopted as a working draft,
18. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Commission continue this
discussion at 3 p.m., after which they would revert to
consideration of the United States Delegation's proposed
amendment to Article 9 regarding capital investment.
19. The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | cg441zp2751 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting held on Friday, 13 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Netions, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 13, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 13/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/13 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cg441zp2751 | cg441zp2751_90250026.xml | GATT_152 | 1,196 | 7,698 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/13
AND ECONOMIQUE 13 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMAENT.
COMMISSION A
. Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting held on Friday,
13 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Netions, Geneva.
Chairman: Mr. Max Suetens (Belgium)
Article 35: Consultation - Nullification or
Impairment (continuation of discussion).
The CHAIRMAN proposed, and the delegates concurred, that
Article 35 should be referred to the Sub-Committee dealing with
Articles 14, 15, 15A, 24 and. 34.
Article 36: Contractual Rotations with Non-Members -
Treatment of the Trade of Non-Members (ctd.)
The CHAIRMAN invited the delegate for New Zealand to continue
the discussion of Article 36.
Mr. WEBB (New Zealend) said that he agreed with the delegate
for Australia that it was impossible to foretell which countries
would be Members of the Organization. It would be fatal to the
Organization if there were substantial advantages to be gained by
not joining. If the Non-Members were numerous or commercially
important, the Organization would be faced with a very serious issue
and countries which had joined might be forced to withdraw. At the
same time, the Charter must not be made an instrument of
discrimination in an attempt to coerce countries into becoming,
Members. Thus there may be the choice between obtaining
universality or having no Organization at ell. He thought that
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/13
page 2
it would be useful to have a sub-committee examine the problem
even though the final decision might be left to the International
Conference.
Dr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) said that he had been
greatly impressed by the points raised so far. He was not
opposed to further study of the problem but thought that the
final preparation of Article 36 would have to be left to the
Conference.
Mr. ANGUS (Canada) said that the Canadian delegation was
in general agreement with the remarks made by the earlier
speakers. It was important to remember that it would not be
a crime for a country to be a Non-Member and therefore there
should be no question of an imposition of sanctions. He hoped
that the Sub-Committee would be able to find a compromise
giving definite expression to the attitude of the Preparatory
Committee while leaving open the Determination of time of
application.
Mr. EVANS (United States) and Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom)
suggested that this Article should be referred to a special
ad hoc sub-committee.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil), Mr. CHEN (China), Dr. AUGENTHALER
(Czechoslovakia) and M. BARADUC (France) agreed with this
proposal.
The CHAIRMAN, in view of the general agreement among the
delegates, suggested that a special ad hoc sub-committee be
appointed, composed of representatives of Brazil, Czechoslovakia,
France, the Netherlcands, the United Kingdom and the United
States, with broad terms of reference to analyze the problem
and submit any recommendations that might be considered desirable.
This suggestion was accepted by the delegates. E/PC/T/A/SR/13
page 3
Article 38: Territorial AppoIication of Chapter V-
Frontier Traffic - Custons Unions.
The CHAIRMAN- said that the first amendment of substance
on Article 38 was the one proposed by the Chilean delegation
for an addition to paragraph 2 (b).
Mr. Garcia-CLDINI (Chile), in supporting this proposal,
said that one of the goals of the Charter was to encourage the
establishment of customs unions; but the means by which such
unions were to be brought bout were not mentioned and this was
a serious gap in the Charter. The Chilean proposal, he said,
was intended to indicate a procedure for achieving this goal.
Mr. GOLBAN (Norway ) enquired of the Chilean delegate whether
his proposal did not provide for a new Preferential system of
indefinite duration. To this Mr. Garcia-OLDINI replied that it
was the desire of his delegation to bridge the gap so as to
provide the means of bringing about customs unions which was the
ideal to be pursued by all Members.
Dr, SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) said that it had been Ie-
cognized at the First Session that there were two stages in the
establishment of customs unions: firstly the co-ordination of - the
customs tariffs of the countries forming the union, and secondly
the consummation of the full economic union. The bearing of
Article 38 was determined by the definition contained in para-
graph 5. it might be that Chile could obtain all it desired
Within the provisions of paragraph 4 releting to new preferential
arrangements that might. be justified in exceptional
circumstances. E/PC/T/A/SR/13
Page 4.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) said that the question of new
preferential arrangements such as those mentioned in paragraph
4 had already received the attention of the Sub-Committee on
Chapter IV and an addition to Article 14 had been proposed; he
thought it too early to forecast the conclusions of the Sub-
Committee but stressed that they would have a bearing on Article
38; he therefore proposed that if a sub-committee were appointed,
it should maintain contact with the sub committee on Chapter IV.
Dr. Coombs stated that customs unions might be formed without an
actual amalgamation of customs territories and he thought that
this might be considered in relation to paragraph 5. He also
mentioned an arrangement existing between Australia and its
dependent territories which had separate revenue tariffs. These
tariffs were applied to Australian merchandise as well as to
goods from other countries but Australin on the other hand
admitted the main products of those territories free of duty.
This arrangement, he said, was at the expense of Australia in
order to encourage the development of these territories, and
Australia might wish to extend these arrangements to other
products in terms of paragraph 4 of Article 38 as an exception
to paragraph 2 of Article 14.
Mr. BERADUC (France) and. Mr. DESOLEL (Belgium) suggested
that further discussion of Article 38 should be postponed until
resorts are obtained from. the Sub-Committees on Chapter IV and
Article 14.
Mr. EVANS (United States) and Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom),
on the other hand, proposed that the terms of Article 38 should
be discussed in relation to the problem of customs unions and
apart from questions of preferences. E/PC/T/A/SR/13
Page 5.
The CHAIRMAN then stated that it appeared evident that
there were two separate problems dealt with in the provisions of
Article 38, namely, customs unions and preferential arrangements,
and also, in connection with the latter, it would have to be
decided whether paragraph 4 should be removed to some other part
of the Charter; it would be difficult to delay the discussions of
this Article but it could be referred to the Sub-Committee dealing
with Article 14.
Mr. MOBARAK (Lebanon) and Mr. BARAD (France) expressed
agreement with these proposals, and Dr. COOMES said that since
certain aspects of the problem of new preferential arrangements
(namely its relation to industrial development) were already being
dealt with in the Sub-Committee on Chapter IV, it would be better
to refer this Article to the Sub-Committee dealing with Article 14.
The CHLAIRMAN said that Article 38 would accordingly be
referred to the Sub-Committee on Article 14 and it would be left
to this Sub-Committee to co-opt additional delegates if they so
desired. |
GATT Library | wg557cx2507 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Thirtyfirst Meeting held on Monday, 21st July 1947, at 10.30 a.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 21, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 21/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/31 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wg557cx2507 | wg557cx2507_90250047.xml | GATT_152 | 665 | 4,355 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/A/SR/31
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 21 JULY 1947
______________________ OiRIGINAL :ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE £REiALTORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFRE:CE ON TRADE PND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Thirtyfirst Meeting
held on Monday, 21st July 1947, at 10.30 a.m.
in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: X.B. Erik Colban.
The Commission resumed its discussion of the technical
articles in document E/PC/T/103.
Article 18 - Valuation for customs purposes.
Paragraph 1. The text was approved.
Paragraph 2. The Commission considered whether to retain the
explanatory note referring to bhe words "at the earliest practicaele
date" or to insert in the trxtc ts suggested by the Belgian, F'enoh
and Netherlands Delegations, a definite period of three or six
aonths forgiving effect to the vaeuetion principles set out in
this paragraph. The Commission agreed to the proposal of the
Delegate for the United States to alter the explanatory note to
the effect that the Commission appreciated that it would not be
possible for a11 Members of the Organization to give effect to
these principles by a fixed time, but it was nevertheless understood
that a majority of tme Members would give effect to thez at the
time the Charter enters into force.
Sub-paragreph 2 (a). The Corrission decided to retain the second
paragraph of the comrentary to the effect that it would be in
conformity with this Article to presume that "actual value" may be
represented by the invoice price.plus certain charges and discounts,
With reference to S-ction (ii), the delegate for Chile
enquired maether it would be permissible to i:intain a system of
UNITED NATIONS
IAT10NS UNlES E/PC/T/A/SR/31
page 2
valuation whereby a value is fixed for a tariff item and main-
tained for all imports for a certain period. The Members of
the Commission expressed the view that this system would not
be permitted, and the delegate for Chile stated that in those
circumstances it would be necessary for him to reserve his
position for the time being.
Referring to the third paragraph in the commentary in
which it was recorded that the Sub-Committee had considered
that the words "between independent buyer and seller" might be
deleted, the delegate for the United Kingdom stated that his
delegation could not agree that the phrase "under fully
competitive conditions" covered the same concept, and therefore
he could not accept the deletion of the former phrase.
After discussion it was agreed to insert the following
after the first sentence in Section (ii):
"In determining whether the conditions of sale are
fully competitive a Member may have regard to the
question whether the transaction is one between buyer
and seller who are independent of each other".
This wording was accepted subject to confirmation at the next
meeting.
The Commission decided to maintain the fourth paragraph
in the commentary relating to the phrase "fully competitive
conditions", but that it should be re-written as follows:
"The Commission considered that the prescribed standard
of "fully competitive conditions" would permit
Members to exclude from consideration distributors'
prices which involve special discounts limited to
exclusive agents."
The Commission approved a proposal, based on the
Australian delegation's suggestion in E/PC/T/W/247, to add E/PC/T/A/SR/31
page 3
the following note to the commentary:
"The Commission considered that the wording of the
present text of (i) and (ii) of sub-paragraph (a)
would permit a Member to assess duty uniformly either
on the basis of a particular exporter's prices of
the imported merchandise or on the basis of the
general price level of like merchandise."
Sub-paragraph 2 (b). The text was approved.
Sub-paragraph 2 (c). The delegate for the United States put
forward a tentative proposal for the revision of Section (iii).
The delegate for Belgium said that he would be prepared to
support its adoption. Further discussion was postponed.
The meeting was adjourned at 1 p.m. and the Chairman
stated that the Commission would continue its discussion of
Articles 18 and 37 at the next meeting on Wednesday 23 July. |
GATT Library | bt320qx7734 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Thirtysecond Meeting held on Wednesday, 23rd July 1947, at 10.30 a.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 23, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 23/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/32 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bt320qx7734 | bt320qx7734_90250048.xml | GATT_152 | 819 | 5,268 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/32
23 July 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Thirtysecond Meeting
held on Wednesday, 23rd July 1947, at 10.30 a.m.
in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: H.E. Erik Colban
1. Article 18 - Valuation for customs purposes
Paragraph 2 (a) The Commission resumed its discussion of
the use of the words "between independent buyer and seller"
in section (ii).
The United Kingdom Delegate stated that
his delegation had reconsidered the addition of the new
sentence which he had proposed at the previous meeting and
had decided that it would not be satisfactory; the United
Kingdom would prefer the text to remain unaltered.
Dr. J.E. Holloway, who had acted as Chairman
of the Sub-Committee, proposed that the note in the commentary
relating to the use of these words should be altered to read
as follows:
"The Commission deleted the words "between independent
buyer and seller" from the report of the Sub-Committee
on the understanding that the phrase "under fully
competitive conditions" should be held to cover the
same concept."
This proposal was adopted, but the Delegates E/PC/T/A/SR/32
page 2
for India and the United Kingdom stated that they would have
to reserve their positions.
Paragraph 2 (c) The proposal for the revision of section (iii),
put forward tentatively by the Delegate for the United States
at the previous meeting (W.251), was approved in a slightly
amended form as follows:
"The Organization, in agreement with the Inter-
national 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 currencies for the purposes of
paragraph 2(a) 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 2(a) which are designed to reflect effectively
the value of such currency in commercial transactions."
In adopting the above text the words "by
Members of any foreign currency" were inserted to replace "of
foreign currencies". The Commission discussed a proposal by
the Delegate for New Zealand to substitute "consultation" for
"agreement" in the first line, but decided to make no change;
and the Representative of the International Monetary Fund, when
asked for his opinion on the proposed amendment, stated that he
thought it was a great improvement on the text recommended by
the Sub-Committee.
The text of the other sections of paragraph
2(c) were then approved, but the note in the commentary referring
to section (iv) was altered by the substitution of the word E/PC/T/A/SR/32
page 3
"alteration" for "appreciation"
Paragraph 3. The text was approved.
2. Article 17 - Anti-dumping and countervailing duties.
Paragraph 2. The Delegate for Australia said that as a result
of the amendment of the text of section (iii) of paragraph 2(c)
of Article 18 his delegation wished to propose an alteration
in the commentary on paragraph 2 of Article 17.
The Commission agreed that this note should read
as follows:
"It is the understanding of the Commission that
multiple currency practices may in certain circumstances
constitute a subsidy to exports which could be met by
countervailing duties under paragraph 2 or may con-
stitute a form of dumping by means of a partial depreciation
of a country's currency which could be met by action under
paragraph 1 of this Article. By "multiple currency
practices" is meant practices by governments or sanctioned
by governments."
3. Article 37 - General exceptions to Chapter V.
The Commission resumed the discussion, begun at
the 30th meeting on 16th July, of the proposal recommended by
the Sub-Committees on Articles 14, 15 and 24 and Articles 25
and 27 (as set out in W.245), that a second paragraph should
be added to Article 37 to replace and to broaden the scope of
paragraph 2(a) of Article 25.
The Norwegian Delegate referred to document W.227
and urged the acceptance of 1 March, 1952, as the date by which
measures instituted in connection with products in short supply,
the control of prices and the liquidation of temporary surpluses E/PC/T/A/SR/32
page 4
should be removed if inconsistent with the other provisions of
Chapter V; he said that Article 14, section 4, of the Monetary
Fund Agreement provided for a similar date for the termination
of transitional arrangements.
The United States Delegate, supported by the
Delegate for the United Kingdom, thought that 1 January, 1951,
would be a more suitable date The Delegate for Norway then
proposed 1 July, 1951.
Further discussion was postponed until the next
meeting.
The Commission rose at 1.10 p.m. |
GATT Library | wq008fj2983 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting held on Thursday, 12 June 1947, at 2.45 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 12, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 12/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/12 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wq008fj2983 | wq008fj2983_90250024.xml | GATT_152 | 2,605 | 16,592 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/SR/12
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 12 June 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting held
on Thursday, 12 June 1947, at 2.45 p.m. in
the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Mr. Max SUETENS (Belgium)
Article 34 - Emergency Action on Imports of
Particular Products.
Approval was given to the proposal of the CHAIRMAN that
the existing Sub-Committee on Articles 14, 15 and 24 should
undertake also the examination of Article 34 which had been
discussed in the previous meeting, and that a new Sub-Committee
should be appointed in due course to deal with Articles 35, 36
and 38.
Article 35 - Consultation - Nullification
or Impairment
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the annotated Agenda (W.175)
recording the .proposals of several delegations for an extensive
alteration of the text of Article 35 and for the transfer of all
or part of this Article to another section of the Charter; he
noted in particular that the delegation for Cuba proposed to
delete the whole of Article 35 and to insert new articles after
Articles 85 and 86; the United Kingdom wished to transfer
paragraph 2 of Article 35 to Article 86, while the French
delegation proposed that the second paragraph should be replaced
by a new article in Chapter VIII. E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 2.
Dr. Gustavo GUTIERREZ (Cuba) in supporting his delegation's
proposal maintained that Chapter VIII was the proper place for
the provisions for the treatment of complaints, and that a uniform
procedure was desirable. He said that his delegation's proposal
appeared to be prompted by the same motive as that of the. United
Kingdom except that he did not wish to retain in its present
position paragraph 1 which provided special treatment for
complaints relating to Chapter V.
Mr. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) said that his delegation
was in favour of bringing together and of co-ordinating the
procedures relating to the settlement of disputes. He drew
particular attention to paragraph 2 of his delegation's proposed
Article 86 providing for consultation between the Members concerned
as the first step in a new uniform procedure.
Mr. ROYER (France) agreed that the three amendments
proposed appeared to have the same aim in view; the French
delegation preferred to leave paragraph 1 in Chapter V because
there would be a need for consultation on administrative details;
paragraph 2, on the other hand, related to a different set of
problems. Mr. Royer said that his delegation could agree with
most of the Australian draft.
Dr. H. C.. COOMBS (Australia) said that the amendment proposed
by his delegation was intended to clarify the intentions of this
Article; some of the wording of the original Article appeared
obscure, for example, was it possible to nullify or.impair an
"object". In its elaboration of the word. "benefits" the
Australian draft was intended to cover not only the benefits
flowing from the tariff negotiations in terms of Article 24 but
also in a wider sense those that would flow from other Chapters E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 3.
including the employment provisions of Chapter III. Dr. Coombs then
amplified the notes in the Annotated Agenda setting forth the main
purposes sought by the Australian delegation in its proposed draft.
He said that the removal of paragraph2 of this Article to Chapter
VIII seemed acceptable: he suggested that the Australian proposal
might be considered with a view to this possible transfer to
Chapter VIII but he could not at this stage commit his delegation
to support such a transfers
The CHAIRMAN expressed. the opinion that, according to the
Report of the First Session, paragraph 2 of Article 35 concerned the
whole of the Charter so that the proposal to transfer it to Article
86 was well founded.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that he would prefer to leave
paragraph 1 in its present position; he thought paragraph 2 might
be transferred but he could not commit his delegation so support
this transfer until the contents of the paragraph were determined.
Therefore he suggested that the wording of paragraph 2 be referred
to a sub-committee and that a decision be taken later as to the
position of the paragraph in the Charter.
Dr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) said that there seemed to be general
agreement among the delegations that paragraph1 and 2 required
different treatment and therefore his delegation would not insist on
the removal of both paragraphs in accordance with its original
proposal.
Dr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) favoured the removal of para-
graph 2 to Article 86 and thought that it was desirable to have
Just one procedure for the handling of complaints.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) thought that possibly paragraph 2 should
be removed from Chapter V but he could no.t commit his delegation
until he had heard the discussion in the sub-committee. Meanwhile E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 4.
he wished to suggest for consideration by the sub-committee that
the procedure provided in paragraph 2 was not sufficiently rapid
and that there. was no need to propose consultation between the
Organization and the Economic and Social Council and other inter-
governmental agencies since there was sufficient provision for such
consultation in Article 81.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) said that his delegation attached
importance to the retention of the reference to the Economic and
Social Council and other agencies because some of the disputes
might fall partly outside the scope of the Organization. For
example in the event of a deflationary situation it would be
desirable to seek to remove the causes and for this purpose con-
sultation with other bodies would be essential; in any event, the
words, "if necessary" made it clear that there was no obligation upon
the Organization to consult other bodies in any case.
Mr. J. J. DEUTSCH (Canada) said that his delegation was of the
opinion that paragraph I should remain in Chapter V, that paragraph
2 should be consolidated with Article 86 and that the Australian
text of paragraph 2 should be taken as a basis for the discussion
in the sub-committee; referring to the question of consultation
with other bodies, he said that his delegation favoured retention
of this provision and thought that it would be particularly useful
in connection with the implementation of Chapter III.
Dr. SPEEKENBRINK (Netherlands) thought that it was useful to
have a reference to the Economic and Social Council and that the
words "if necessary" were sufficient safeguard against delays
resulting therefrom.
Mr. ROYER (France) said that it would be necessary for the
sub-committee to study the report of the Sub-Committee on E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 5.
Chapter III, which contained a reference to the relationship
between Article 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 35.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) stated that the Australian
text appeared to embody many improvements and he could give it
general support but without prejudice to the question of the
transfer of paragraph 2 to Chapter VIII. He mentioned several
points of wording which should have the attention of the sub-
committee, including the use of the phrase "accruing under the
Charter" instead of "accorded by the Charter".
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) replying to suggestions made by
various delegations, said that he agreed to the use of the words
"accrued under" rather than "accorded by" and that he thought
consultation with other Members, as provided in the proposed sub-
paragraph (b), would in many cases be very helpful.
Dr. J.E. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) agreed that the Australian
proposal provided a good basis for the discussions of the sub-
committee and he stated that it contained at least one new point
of substance, namely that the complaining Member must be able to
show prejudice before bringing any complaint forward. He
suggested that possibly the proposal went further than the
Australian delegation had intended and might lead to unforseen
situations.
Dr. COOMBS, in reply to Dr. HOLLOWAY, said that an article
such as this was intended to deal with situations which could not
be precisely foreseen but the Australian delegation would be pre-
pared to rely on the Organization to interpret the Article in a
reasonable manner; although an attempt might be made to redraft
the Article in the sub-committee in order to make the limitations
on the applicability of its provisions more precise, it would E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 6
probably be difficult to do so without detracting from the real
value of the Article.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium) suggested that in a case in which the
injury to the complaining Member was indirect the Organization
should require proof of the facts and of their relationship. Mr.
Forthomme also referred to the Sections (i) and (ii) of the
proposed sub-paragraph (a) and suggested that the order of these
should be reversed.
Mr. Garcie-OLDINI (Chile) referred to the -remarks by Dr.Coombs
and said that the Article must be carefully framed by the sub-
committee so that it would not be necessary to leave too wide lati-
tude to the Organization in the interpretation of its provisions.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) said that the main point he had
raised previously was in reference to the alternative stated in
the proposed sub-paragraph (a), namely "that the promotion of any
of the purposes of the Charter is being impeded". He expressed
his opinion that in the terms of this Article it would be possible
for a Member of the Organization to call in question the tariff
policy of another Government on any number of grounds. And even
before referring such complaints to the Organization lengthy
consultations among the Members would seem to be called for.
Mr. E.L. RODRIGUES (Brazil) suggested that possibly it would
be best for all consultations to go through the Organization
instead of directly between the Members and he asked that the
sub-committee consider this proposal.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia), on the other hand, expressed-
the view that in the first instance discussions should be between
the Members concerned.
Mr. EVANS (United States) inquired whether the purpose of
paragraph 2 had not been unduly extended by the Australian amendment E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 7
and he would like the subcommittee to study this question. He
supported the proposal by the Belgian delegate that Sections (i)
and (ii) of sub-paragraph (a) of the Australian proposal should
be transposed.
The CHAIRMAN said that Article 35 would be referred to a
sub-committee which would be given the general directive to study
the Article on its merits with the Australian proposal as a basis
and. taking account of this discussion, and finally to consider
its location in the Charter.
Mr. ROYER (France) asked. that the reservations by the
Czechoslovak and French delegations recorded in the Report of the
Drafting Committee should also be referred to the sub-committee.
ARTICLE 36 - CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS WITH
NON-MEMBERS - TREATMENT OF THE TRADE
OF NON-MEMBERS
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Preparatory Committee at
its First Session in London and the Drafting Committee in New
York had deferred the preparation of this article; the
Committee had now before it only the original United States
draft together with the revised draft of the United States
delegation (document W.165) and the draft proposed by the delega-
tion of Czechoslovakia.
Mr. EVANS (United States) said that the Czechoslovak
proposal appeared to be prompted by the same considerations as
had led. to the drastic changes introduced in the text now
proposed by the United States delegation. The terms of this
article, if they were not sufficiently flexible, might have
serious consequences for some countries and therefore it was
necessary to meet this difficulty without allowing the article E/PC/ T/A/SR/12
page 8
to lose its original value. Mr. Evans then elucidated the
intentions of the United States proposal on the lines of his
delegation's commentary contained in the Annotated Agenda.
Dr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) spoke in support of
the text proposed by his delegation (W.171). He said that
by adherence to the Charter, Members would have to accept
a certain code of manners in international commercial
relations and therefore they should not forget their obliga-
tions when they have to deal with Non-Members. Each Member
will be obliged, in the terms of most favoured-nation
provisions, to accord to all Members concessions granted to
any Non-Member, but it should be realized that a Member having
important trade relations with Non-Members might thereby
be seriously prejudiced. Therefore it was necessary to
consider whether Members should be compelled to withhold
from Non-Members the benefits enjoyed under the Charter.
The Czechoslovak delegation fully appreciated the aim that
the Charter should be universal but it was doubtful if this
could be achieved by introducing economic sanctions which
might ultimately be more prejudicial to certain Members than
to Non-Members. He said that he foresaw the possibility of
serious economic conflicts arising from these provisions.
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) said that it was not possible
at this state to foresee the problems with which Article 36
was concerned, as it was not known which countries would become
Numbers and which would remain outside the Organization. To
discuss this Article, it would be necessary to assume that
there would be some non-Members, but if any important trading
country remained outside the Organization there would be an E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 9
aoute problem to be faced. There would be the question of
the status of existing commercial agreements between countries
which are Members and those outside the Organization. He
thought provision had to be made for the continuation of these
agreements and also for new agreements, although the latter
might possibly be made subject to the approval by the Organiza-
tion. Dr. Coombs expressed the view that if reasonable
commercial relations were prevented between Members and Non-
Members it could happen that some Members might be forced to
withdraw from the Organization (including not only those directly
affected but also, as a secondary stage, those indirectly affected)
with the result that rival trading blocs might be established.
Finally, Dr. Coombs proposed that the sub-committee should care-
fully consider whether the relations with Non-Members should be
determined at the present time or whether it would not be better
for the Members to accord most-favoured-nation treatment to all
countries throughout an interim period and leave to the Organi-
zation the task of examining the problem of relations with
Non-Members in the light of the economic relations between those
countries that decide to join the Organization and those that
do not.
Mr. B.N. ADARKAR (India) said that he was in agreement
with the statements of the delegates for Czechoslovakia and
Australia and thought it would be wise to leave the settlement
of the problem for the International Conference. He thought
it also unwise to create discrimination where discrimination
did not exist and that the Charter presented to the Conference
should not contain any threat of discrimination against countries E/PC/T/A/SR/12
page 10
which did not see their way clear to joining the Organization.
He thought that to frame an article on this subject would
prejudice the discussions at the Conference. Mr. Adarkar
drew attention to the procedural memorandum on tariff negotia-
tions in the Report of the London Session where it is said
that the tariff concessions should be provisionally generalized
to the trade of other countries pending consideration at the
international conference of the position of countries which do
not Join the Organization and therefore do not accept the
obligations of Article 24.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said that he was in agreement with
the last three speakers.
The CHAIRMAN said that the meeting would be continued
on the following day and the first speakers would be the
delegates for New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
The meeting closed at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | jz280pf6072 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the twenty-eighth meeting held on Tuesday, July 8th, at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 8, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 08/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/28 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jz280pf6072 | jz280pf6072_90250044.xml | GATT_152 | 1,556 | 10,379 | ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/A/SR/28
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
SUMMARY RECORD
of the twenty-eighth meeting held on Tuesday,
July 8th, at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des
Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: M.M. SUETENS (Belgium)
The Committee resumed the discussion of Article 26.
1. Paragraph 2.
Mr. J.G. PHILLIPS (Australia) briefly explained the
intention of the Australian amendment (Note 21).
Mr. C.Y. HSIEH (China) explained the reasons for the
Chinese proposal to delete sub-paragraph (c), pointing out that
this sub-paragraph would defeat the very purpose of such
schemes and must also be considered as incompatible with
paragraph 4, which deals with the same issue.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) elucidated the intentions
of the U.K. amendment to sub-paragraph (c) (Note 24). This
sub-paragraph, which had been drafted in haste in London, was
designed to remove two incidental effects of Q.R.'s instituted
for balance-of-payments reasons: the incidental protective
effect to domestic production, and the incidental effect of
completely closing channels of trade. To eliminate these
incidental effects the United Kingdom had in practice used
The notes mentioned in the Summary refer to the
consecutively numbered notes in E/PC/T/W/223.
UNITED NATION'S
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/28
page 2.
with good effect the "token import scheme", and the sub-
paragraph was designed to introduce this principle into the
Charter despite the undeniable difficulties of a policy and
administrative nature standing in the way of this scheme.
Especially in view of the administrative difficulties the
United Kingdom was opposed to the Australian and Indian
amendments to this sub-paragraph (Notos 25 and 26), if these
difficulties were the reasons for these amendments.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia) declared himself impressed with
the argument of the United Kingdom, but queried what would
obtain if no previous imports of such commodities had existed
and what was the meaning of the term "any description of goods".
He agreed with the principle but felt that the drafting needed
the attention of the Sub-Committee.
Mr. B.N. ADAKAR (India) also agreed with the principle
but felt that the proviso clause of the United Kingdom amendment
did not quite cover the difficulties involved, and that the
words "as far as possible" should be inserted in the United
Kingdom amendment.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada) expressed himself in favour
of the principle contained in this sub-paragraph, the language
of which in its present version, however, was not sufficiently
clear. He felt that, also, the language of the United Kingdom
amendment was not clear enough, and queried the term "any
description of goods". He suggested that the Sub-Committee
should also consider whether this provision was correctly
placed in paragraph 2 and should not rather be fused with
paragraph 4, which deals with a strongly related matter.
Mr. E. COLBAN (Norway) had no strong feelings, but
agreed with the Canadian delegate on the desirability of E/PC/T/A/SR/28
page 3
fusing this provision with paragraph 4, and Mr. L.C. WEBB
(New Zealand) felt that the present text did not meet
adequately the administrative difficulties involved.
Mr. BRONZ (United States of America) expressed himself
against the Australian and Indian amendments, and explained
that the main object of this sub-paragraph was to avoid the
future protective effects of Q.R.'s in the period when the
balance-of-payments difficulties had been overcome and Q.R.'s
been lifted. Without this provision commercial channels
would be destroyed and their rebuilding would take a long
time after the lifting of Q.R.'s. He agreed with the
Canadisn delegate on the desirability of fusing the provision
with paragraph 4.
Mr. L. GOTZEN (Netherlands), agreeing with the principle
of the United Kingdom amendment, wanted clarification of the
term "any description of goods", and suggested deletion of the
clause "by governmental action".
Mr. P. BARADUC (France) stressed that France was very
strongly in favour of the token import principle and seconded
the Canadian suggestion for fusion with paragraph 4.
Mr. B.J.BAYER (Czechoslovakia) withdrew his reservation
regarding preference for the London Text
(Note 27), and Mr. F. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) suggested that
all amendments and the London text be referred to the Sub-
Committee for. elaboration of a new text.
Mr. HSIEH (China) accepted the principle of the United
Kingdom amendment, but advocated deletion of the proviso
clause and stressed the need for careful consideration to be
given to a due balance of the interests of exporting and
importing countries. E/PC/T/A/SR/28
page 4.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom), supporting the Canadian
suggestion for fusion with paragraph 4, was agreeable to
improvements in the drafting of the United Kingdom amendment,
and stressed that the incidental protective effect was
considered more dangerous than the temporary closing of channels
of trade. The requirement of severe restriction of production
for domestic demand prevented the incidental protective effect.
He wished the Sub-Committee to give attention to the point
raised by Australia, as to what should prevail for commodities
which have never before been imported and which are not
domestically produced.
2. Paragraph 3.
The United States amendment (Note 28), as being of a purely
drafting character, was referred to the Sub-Committee, and the
Commission discussed the Chinese amendment (Note 29). After
the Chinese delegate explained the intentions of this amendment,
Mr. BRONZ (United States) stressed the compromise nature of
the London text, while Mr. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) felt that the
London text did not adequately express the intentions of the
London compromise, and left the question open how far
consultations should go. He seconded in principle the Chinese
amendment, but wished to see the last sentence of this
paragraph maintained.
The Chinese amendment (Note 29) and the Australian amend-
ment (Note 30) were referred to the Sub-Committee.
3. Paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (d).
Mr. BRONZ (United States) explained the reasons for the
United States amendment (Note 32), and Mr. HELMORE (United
Kingdom) agreed with the amendment in general, but opposed
the substitution of the words "this Article" for E/PC/T/A/SR/28
page 5.
"paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article" in line 18 on page 19
(W.223).
Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) seconded the United Kingdom
proposition and agreed with Mr. Garcia Oldini (Chile) in
opposing the substitution of the word "shall" for "may" in
line 15 on page 19. Mr. GARCIA OLDINI queried the meaning
of "a prima facie case" in line 4, and the use of the word
"justify" in line 7, since this word implied the presumption
of the need for justification. The Commission referred the
amendment to the Sub-Committee.
4. Note 33.
The Commission discussed the addition proposed by Belgium,
Canada and the United States for sub-paragraph (d) (Note 33).
After the delegates of Belgium, Canada and the United States
supported the proposal for this addition, the delegates of
the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France, Brazil,
Chile and Czechoslovakia expressed themselves against this
addition, because they could not see any reason why the
Organization should initiate such a procedure if no member
was damaged or had complained.
After Mr. HEXNER (Observer for the International Monetary
Fund) had pointed out that Article 28, paragraph 2, also gave
consideration
the Organization a similar initiative and stressed the angle of/
on non-conformance with an obligation under the Charter
rather than on damages to other members, the Commission, on
the motion of the Belgian delegate, referred the amendment to
the Sub-Committee.
5. Notes 34 and 35.
The Commission referred these amendments as pure drafting
matters to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/A/SR/28
page 6.
6. Proposal for a new paragraph 3(f).
In discussing the Australian proposal for insertion of a
new paragraph 3(f) (W.231), Mr. H. DORN (Cuba) suggested that
a provision corresponding to the Australian amendment should
be inserted into the Charter generally with regard to the
treatment of complaints, and wished the Commission to instruct
the competent Sub-Ccmmittee to give this matter special
attention. The delegate of the Netherlands agreed with the
principle of the amendment, but suggested the deletion of
everything but the first sentence, because he felt it
desirable that the Charter should only state the principle as
such and should not be overburdened with too much technical
detail. The amendment was referred to the Sub-Committee.
7. Paragraphs 4 and 5.
Mr. PHILLIPS (Australia), in explaining the purpose of
the Australian amendment (Note 36) stressed that the main
purpose was clarification of' the text, and that the last
sentence contained a very slight change of substance. With
the delegates of Czechoslovakia and Brazil supporting
Australia, the amendment was referred to the Sub-Committee.
Mr. DORN (Cuba) explained the intentions of the Cuban
amendment (Note 39) and suggested its reference to the
Sub-Committee.
M. HELMORE (United Kingdom) felt that there was a
danger in too many cross references within the Charter, and
that in view of differences of approach in Article 6 and
Article 26, the reference to Article 6, as suggested by
Cuba, had better be avoided. The amendment was referred to
the Sub-Committee. and the Chairman ruled that the Sub-
Committee should be composed of the delegates of France, the E/PC/T/A/SR/28
page 7.
United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Cuba
and Czechoslovakia. The Chairman stressed that all
delegations directly concerned would be entitled to consult
with the Sub-Committee, and that the Sub-Committee was to
keep in contact with the representatives of the International
Monetary Fund and the International Bank.
Adjourned until July 9th, at 2.30 p.m., the Commission
rose at 6.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | rn342yw1169 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A. Summary Record of the Twentyfifth Meeting held on Thursday, 3 July 1947, at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 3, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 03/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/25 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rn342yw1169 | rn342yw1169_90250042.xml | GATT_152 | 1,052 | 6,790 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/25
AND ECONOMIQUE 3 July, 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOC IAL ORIGINAL:ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION A
Summary Record of the Twentyfifth Meeting
held on Thursday, 3 July 1947, at 2.30 p.m.
in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: H.E. Erik Colban.
Article 19 - Formalities connected with Importation
and Exportation.
Paragraph 3. The delegate for China said that he would withdraw
his reservation recorded in Note (a) of the Commentary.
Article 21 - Publication and Administration of Trade
Regulations - Advance Notice of Restrictive Regulations.
Paragraph 3. Resuming the discussion of the proposal made by the
delegate for New Zealand at the previous meeting to add a sentence
to paragraph 3, the delegate for the United States said that this
proposal appeared to him to impair the value of the whole
paragraph; accordingly he suggested that the discussions should
be postponed for a few days to give the interested delegations
an opportunity to discuss the matter. This suggestion was
adopted and paragraph 3 was approved subject to a possible
addition later.
Article 22 - Information, Statistics and Trade
Terminology.
Paragraph 1. The text was approved and the delegate for France
agreed to the deletion of the Note in the Commentary. It was
agreed that the last sub-paragraph should be called paragraph
2 and that the subsequent paragraphs should be accordingly
renumbered. Following upon this alteration it was agreed that the
words "of paragraph 1" should be inserted in the new paragraph
2 and that it should be left to the Legal Drafting Committee to
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A./SR/25
page.2
decide whether to retain the specific reference to the sub-
paragraphs (a.) and (b).
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 (formerly 2, 3 and 4). The texts were
approved.
Paragraph 6 (formerly 5). The text was approved and the
delegates for France and the United Kingdom agreed to the
deletion of Notes (a) and (b) in the Commentary.
Paragraph 7 (formerly 6). The text was approved subject to
the alteration of "'paragraph 5" in the second line to read
"paragraph 6".
The United States proposal on consultation. The delegate for
the United States agreed to the deletion of Note (c) in the
Commentary.
Article 23 - Boycotts.
The text was approved but the delegate for Lebanon stated
that his reservation would have to be maintained; the following
wording was agreed upon:
"The delegates for Lebanon-Syria reserved their position
in regard to this Article. "
Article 37 - General Exceptions to Chapter V.
General Comments. The delegate for Canada withdrew his proposal
recorded in Note (b).
The delegate for India said that he would have to maintain
on record until the time of signature of the general Agreement
or of the Charter his suggestion contained in Note (c).
The Commission approved the recommendation to the
Preparatory Comittee that sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and
(k) should be removed to a later part of the Charter so that
they should relate to the whole Charter instead of only to
Chapter V. The Chairman mentioned that possibly other items
would be included with them in the drafting of a new Article. E/PC/T/A/SR/25
page 3
Preamble to Article 37. The text was approved. The alterations
proposed by the delegations for Belgium, France, Luxemburg and
the Netherlands, including the proposed rearrangement of
certain articles so that Articles 37 and 38 would precede
Articles 34 and 35, were referred to the Sub-Committee on
.rticles 34, 35 and 38.
Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). The texts were approved, The
delegate for Norway stated that he wished to maintain the
note in the Commentary pending a decision on his proposed
amendment to paragraph 4 of Article 32.
The delegate for Chile enquired whether the meaning of
sub-paragraph (b) could be clarified; after discussion it
was agreed that the Secretariat should prepare an explanatory
note which, subject to approval by the Chairman, would be
included in the Commission's Report.
Sub-paragraph (c). The text was approved but the Note was
altered to read, "The Commission is of the opinion that the
term 'fissionable materials' includes the materials from which
they are derived."
Sub-paragraph (d). The text was approved.
Sub-parapraph (e). The text was approved and the Chinese
delegate stated that he wished to maintain provisionally,
subject to further study by his Government, the proposal con-
tained in the note in the Commentary.
Sub-paragraphs (f) and (g). The texts were approved but it
was agreed to insert a note in the Commentary to the effect
that these sub-paragraphs would require further consideration
in the light of the work of the Sub-Committees on Articles 26,
28 and 29, end on Articles 25 and 27.
Sub-paragraphs (h) and (i). The texts were approved. E/PC/T/A/SR/25
page 4
Sub-paragraph (1). The Chairman drew attention to the fact
that Commission B had approved the recommendation of the Sub-
Committee on Chapter VII that effect should be given to the
proposal of the delegate for Brazil to omit the words "taken
pursuant to international agreements or". Consideration of
this proposal was deferred pending a decision on the proposal
of the United Kingdom delegate to add a new sub-paragraph (1)
relating to inter-governmental commodity agreements.
The delegate for India stated that he would have to
maintain provisionally his suggestion that the words following
"natural resources" should be deleted.
Sub-paragraph (k ). The text was approved.
Proposed sub-paragraph (1). The Chairman reported that
Commission B had approved the recommendation of the Sub-Committee
on Chapter VII to the effect that the additional sub-paragraph
proposed by the United Kingdom delegation should be accepted.
The delegate for the United Kingdom stated that he wished to
alter the word "arrangements" to "agreements". At the request
of the delegate for the United States, consideration of this
proposal was held over for the next meeting.
The Chairman drew attention to the Report of the Sub-
Committee on Chapter VII (W.228, page 19) which, in Article 62,
paragraph 1 (d), refers to agreements relating to fissionable
materials, etc., he pointed out that if the Preparatory
Committee decided to remove sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and
(k) to some other pert of the Charter, sub-paragraph 1 (d) of
Article 62 would disappear.
The meeting rose at 5.30 p.m. N'existe pas.
Does not exist.
E/PC/T/A/SR/26
"'J --
I |
GATT Library | ym118ns8121 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record. of the twenty-seventh meeting held on Monday, 7 July, 1947, at 4.50 p.m., at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/27 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ym118ns8121 | ym118ns8121_90250043.xml | GATT_152 | 823 | 5,367 | ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/A/SR/27
AND ECONOMIQUE 9. July 1947.
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL Original: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
C0MMISSION A
SUMMARY RECORD.
of the twenty-seventh meeting held on Monday,
7 July, 1947, at 4.50 p.m., at the Palais des
Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: M. M. SUETENS (Belgium)
Upon the closure of the 20th meeting of the Preparatory
Committee in Executive Session the meeting constituted itself at
4.50 p.m. as Commission A of the Preparatory Committee and the
Chairman opened the debate on Article 26.
Paragraph 1.
The CHAIRMAN called on the delegates who had submitted amend-
ments to paragraph 1 of Article 26 and Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia)
explained his amendment in Note* 17 in accordance with the comments
in this note. Mr. J.G. PHILLIPS (Australia) and Mr. G. BRONZ (United
States) explained their amendments to paragraph 1 in accordance
with the comments in notes 18 and 19 respectively. Mr. P. BARRADUC
(France), after recalling the general policy of France with regard
to monetary reserves and balance of payments issues, pointed out .
that his amendments were to be considered not as inflexible
propositions but as suggestions which might prove useful in the
discussion of Articles 26, 28 and 29. He explained that there were
especially three points in which the London draft ought to be improved :
The notes mentioned in this Summary refer to the
consecutively numbered notes in E/PC/T/W/223.
UNITED NATIONS
NA.TIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/ 27
page 2.
(1) the equilibrium position in the balance of
payments should not be considered as a purely
statistical equilibrium between inflow and outflow
but as a sound and lasting equilibrium based on the
stability of the currency;
(2) quantitative restrictions now in existence should be
lifted gradually in order to prevent disturbance from
a sudden and complete abolition;
(3) the, relationships between a Member State and the
Organization regarding '.R.Vj 'should be further
clarified.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada) was .of the opinion that the
Australian, French and United States amendments, at least as far
as their intentions were concerned, were in keeping with the spirit
of the London draft. He expressed doubts regarding the Czech amend-
ment, pointing out that the issue under-lying the Czech amendment
was covered in Article 28, paragraph 1 (c), and should rather be
dealt with in this place.
Mr. R.J. HELMORA (United Kingdom) agreed with the Canadian
delegate regarding the Czech amendment, and felt that this should
be discussed in conjunction with Article 28, paragraph 1 (c), or
with Article 29. He supported the Australian amendment but
expressed himself against inclusion of the word "temporarily" in
the U.S. amendment and the word "normal" in the French amendment,
suggesting regarding the letter that it would be preferable to re-
draft the last sentence .in paragraph 2 (a). E/PC/T/A/SR/27
page 3
Mr. E.L. RODRIGUES (Brazil) agreed with the Canadian
view on the Czeoh and Australian amendments and with the
United Kingdom view regarding the United States amendment.
With respect to the French amendment be requested a fuller
explanation of the implications of the word "normal" and
suggested that the opinion of the International Monetary
Fund should be obtained on this point.
Mr. BARADUC, stressing again that the French proposals
were not inflexible, expressed his view that the points
raised could easily be dealt with in the sub-Committee.
Mr. BAYER (Czechoslovakia) felt that Article 28
represented a later stage in the structure of this Section
of the Charter and did not fully cover the objectives of the
Czech amendment.
Mr. BRONZ (United States), referring to the United
States proposal to transfer the provisions of Article 28,
paragraph 1 (c), into Article 29, expressed himself against
the Czech amendment because there existed a danger of opening
up a whole new field of quantitative restrictions. He
supported the general intentions of the French and. Australian
amendments, feeling that detailed questions raised by these
amendments could be left to the Sub-Committee. Regarding
the United Kingdom objection to insertion of the word
"temporarily", he pointed out that in his opinion paragraph
1 constituted a kind of preamble to Article 26 and stressed
that no definite time limit was envisaged but that the word
"temporarily" should be interpreted in the light of the
criteria given in the following paragraphs of Article 26. E/PC/T/A/SR/27
page 4
Mr. L. C. WEBB (New Zealand) felt that the Czech
amendment raised a very important problem and was of the
opinion that on balance it was preferable to deal with this
issue under Article 26 then under Articles 28 or 29.
Regarding the United States amendment he agreed with the
United Kingdom delegate, expressing preference for the
formulation "a Member' instead of "some Members". He could
not accept the view that paragraph 1 constituted a preamble
and pointed to the danger of inserting unnecessary words.
The meeting was adjourned until 8 July, 2.30 p.m.
The meeting Tose at 6.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | dm182bk0922 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission A Summary Record Second Meeting in Executive Session held on Tuesday, 27 May 1947 at 3.00 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 27, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 27/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/2 and E/PC/T/A/SR/1-10/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dm182bk0922 | dm182bk0922_90250004.xml | GATT_152 | 1,253 | 8,307 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/2 27 May 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION A
SUMMARY RECORD
Second Meeting in Executive Seseion held
on Tuesday, 27 May 1947 at 3.00 p.m. at
the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman M. Max Suetens (Belgium)
The CHAIRMAN opened the meeting and asked Mr. HAWKINS to
introduce the Second Report of the Steering Committee (E/PC/T/78).
Mr. BARADUC's (France) remark that some of the smaller
delegations were unable to participate simultaneously in both the
Charter discussions and tariff negotiations, being supported by
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) and Mr. CHUANG (China), it was decided that
the two Steering Committees should meet to consider the complaints
of the overworked delegations.
The Report of the Steering Committee being thus approved,
the CHAIRMAN indicated that the meeting was open for the dis-
cussion of Article 9, with the exception of the United States
amendment concerning capital investments, the discussion of
which was postponed until the afternoon meeting on 28 May.
Article 9
Following Mr. WILCOX's (United States) explanation of the
United States amendment to this Article Mr. HELMORE (United
Kingdom) asked the opinion of the Committee about a general dis-
cussion at this stage of the words "dependent territories", men-
tioned in the United States proposal in connection with the terms
country, Member or territories used in other Articles. He did E/PC/T/A/SR/2
27 May 1947
page 2
not, however, favour the insertion of the words "dependent terri-
tories" as it might imply that the economic development of these
territories has bean retarded by their being dependents.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) preferred that no action be
taken on the words "standard of living" inserted in the United States
amendment before the Sub-Committee on Articles 3 and 4, which is
dealing with a similar terminology, finished its work. He further-
more thought that the word "services" should be used throughout the
whole Charter with "goods".
Mr. BARADUC (France) agreed in general with the United States
amendment but stated that he would like the French text to be cor-
rected to read "territoires en dependent".
Mr. WEBB (New Zealand) preferred that the words "contribute
ultimately to economic stability", which the United States amendment
proposed to delete, should be kept in the present text.
There being no further comment the CHAIRMAN referred these
amendments tb the Sub-Committee.
Article 10
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) explained that apart from the words
"and the Organization generally" the amendment proposed by his
delegation was merely of a drafting character and was connected with
the Australian amendment to paragraph 1 of Article 11. He also
wanted to add to that paragraph: "In carrying out this function the
Organization shall co-operate with the Commissions, sub-commissions
and specialized agencies of the Economic and Social Council". (Mr.
TORRES (Brazil) supported the Australian amendment and Mr. HELMORE
(United Kingdom) and Mr. WILCOX (United Strtos) although in agree-
ment with the purpose of the Australian proposal, preferred to de-
lete the words "the Organization generally" from the proposed draft
of Article 10. Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) preferred that the present text
of Article 10 remain unchanged. Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) agreed to E/PC/T/A/SR/2
page 3
withdraw the words "the Organization generally" from his
amendment provided that the Drafting Committee decides that
the amendment to Article 11 fully covers the point implied in
the Australian amendment.
The CHAIRMAN then referred the matter to the Sub-Committee
together with the suggestion by. Mr. GOTZEN (Netherlands) to the
effect of finding a uniform expression to be used throughout
the Charter to express the idea conveyed by the words "measures
compatible with the other provisions of this Charter", now used
in Article 10.
Article 11
Paragraph 1. The CHAIRMAN first referred to the decision
of the Economic and Social Council of 29 March 1946 that enable s
the Committee to delete the square brackets around this
paragraph. He then explained that the United States amend-
ment to paragraph 1 being purely a drafting amendment it would
be referred to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 2. After Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) explained his
amendment to this paragraph the CHAIRMAN stated that that amend-
ment could be considered together with the United States
proposal for the deletion of the words "arrange for the provision
of such assistance" and addition of the words "and assist in the
procurement of appropriate engineering and other technical
assistance".
There being no further comments it was decided that both
amendments should be referred to the Sub-Committee.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) agreed with the United
States wording of paragraph 2 and expressed the view that the
words "upon request of each Member" apply to the whole of the
Article. E/PC/T/A/SR/2.
page 4
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) and Mr. NAUDE (South Africa)
expressed the view that the last sentence of paragraph 2 does
not seem to fit into the article. Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) suggested
the inclusion of that sentence in a new paragraph and
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) was of the opinion that this
sentence can be omitted altogether. Mr. TORRES (Brazil)
explained that the second sentence had been introduced in London
to determine the specific functions of the ITO and he believed
that the execution of those functions snould depend upon the
requests of Members.
Mr. LOKANATHAN (India), Mr. TORRES (Brazil) and
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) objected to the United States proposal to
substitute the word "shall" by "may". Mr. HELMORE (United
Kingdom) was in agreement with the substance of the United
States proposal but did not oppose a new drafting that would
take into account the remarks of the delegations supporting
the present wording.
The CHAIRMAN referred the amendments to this Article to
the Sub-Committee.
Article 12
Paragraph 1. Mr. TORRES (Brazil) agreed in general with
the United States amendment to this paragraph but suggested
that the words "on equitable terms" follow the word "obtaining"
rather than the word "development".
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) suggested a re-drafting of
the words "is dependent among other things" and did not
particularly favour the word "personnel".
These amendments together with the Cuban proposal and E/PC/T/A/SR/2
27 May 1947
page 5
the comments made on that proposal by Mr. WILCOX (United States)
and Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) were referred to the Sub-Committee.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) pointed out that, as his
Delegation had previously proposed, he thought it would simplify
discussion if the Committee would decide to delete all titles
of Articles and retain Chapter titles only.
No time being left for discussion of all the amendments to
paragraph 2, the CHAIRMAN postponed the discussion until the
next meeting, to be held on Wednesday morning, 28 May. He
informed the Meeting that as Mr. CHUNDRIGAR intended to leave Gen-
eva he will explain the general views of his delegation concerning
Chapter IV at the beginning of the next meeting.
Upon the proposition made by the Chairman the delegates
of the following countries were designated to form the Sub-
Committee: Australia, Brazil, Chile, France, India, United
Kingdom and United States. The CHAIRMAN directed this Sub-
Committee to call upon another delegate of a French-speaking coun-
try other than France to prepare the rench text.
Mr. WYNDHAM WHITE (Executive Secretary) asked these
Delegations which have difficulty in participating in both Com-
mittees to advise the Secretariat before noon tomorrow, Wednesday
28 May, so that it would be able to advise accordingly the joint
Sub-Committee of *- Steering Committees which is scheduled to
meet tomorrow afternoon, Wednesday, 28 May.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | gd538vx7663 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Corrigendum | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 4, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 04/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/3.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gd538vx7663 | gd538vx7663_90250133.xml | GATT_152 | 109 | 749 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/B/SR/3.Corr .1
4 June 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
CORRIGENDUM
The title of this document should read:
"Third Meeting in Executive Session held on Friday..."
instead of:
"Second Meeting ..."
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/B/SR/3.Corr.1
4 juin 1947
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES.
COMMISSION B
CORRIGENDUM
Le titre de ce document est:
" Compte rendu de la troisième séance en Comité exécutif"
et non pas:
"Compte rendu de la deuxième séance ." |
GATT Library | nv649yh3667 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Corrigendum to Summary Record of 18th Meeting (Document E/PC/T/B/SR/18) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/18,Corr.2 and E/PC/T/B/SR/14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nv649yh3667 | nv649yh3667_90250160.xml | GATT_152 | 307 | 2,034 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/18, Corr .2
AND ECONOMIQUE 9 July 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
Corrigendum to Summary Record of 18th Meeting
(Document E/PC/T/B/SR/18)
1. The name of the delegate of the Netherlands on page 24 should
read "Mr. van Tuyll."
2. In the remarks attributed to Mr. van Tuyll (Netherlands) on
pages 9, 10 and 11, the f irst paragraph on page 10 should read as
follows:
"The Conference itself would, however, not be the best
organ for the ultimate settlement of disputes resulting from
its decisions or recommendations, These disputes should be
referred for final regulation to an independent body unaffected
by the atmosphere of the Conference itself . This viewpoint
was contained in the statement made jointly by the delegations
of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France at the
meeting in London."
In these same remarks the last sentence on page 11 should be amend-
ed to read: "It intended, however, to circulate a paper containing
its views which would be submitted to the Sub-Committee or the
Special Sub-Committee suggested by the delegate of Cuba. "
3. In the remarks attributed to Mr. van Tuyll (Netherlands) on
pages 24 and 25, the second sentence on page 24 should read as
follows: "Only disputes between two or more Members of the Organ-
isation would be submitted to the Court." In these same remarks,
the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 25 should be
amended to read: "This declaration, he continued, had been made
by twenty-five members of the United Nations, among which were
twelve members of the Preparatory Committee, including four of the
Great Powers, and must not be invalidated or prejudiced by any
decisions the Preparatory Committee might reach." |
GATT Library | bt537fs8407 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B - Corrigendum to the Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting held on 2 July, 1947. (DOC. E/PC/T/B/SR/18.) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 7, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 07/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/18 Corr.1 and E/PC/T/B/SR/14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bt537fs8407 | bt537fs8407_90250159.xml | GATT_152 | 119 | 804 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/B/SR/18
Corr. 1
7 July 1947 English
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B - CORRIGENDUM TO THE SUMMARY RECORD
OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING HELD ON 2 JULY, 1947.
(DOC. E/PC/T/B/SR/18.)
In speeches made by the French delegate:
for Mr. DIETERLEN read Mr. BARADUC throughout.
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE DE LA
CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI DE
L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
COMMISSION B - CORRIGENDUM AU COMPTE RENDU DE LA
DIX-HUITIEME SEANCE TENUE LE 2 JUILLET 1947.
(DOC. E/PC/T/B/SR/18.)
Dans les interventions du Délégué français:
lire M. BARADUC au lieu de M. DIETERLEN.
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | kt640kf0980 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Corrigendum to the Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting (Document E/PC/T/B/SR/19) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 8, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 08/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/19.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/B/SR/19-30 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kt640kf0980 | kt640kf0980_90250163.xml | GATT_152 | 275 | 1,842 | ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/19.Corr. 1
AND ECONOMIQUE ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL Original: FRENCH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON: TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
CORRIGENDUM TO THE SUMMARY RECORD OF THE
NINETEENTH MEETING
(DOCUMENT E/PC/T/B/SR/19)
1. On pages 5, 7 and 9, the name of the French delegate
should be Mr. KOJEVE.
2. On page 14, delete the second sentence of the speech made
by Mr. KOJEVE (France), and continue the first as follows:
"but that this amendment ran the risk of being ineffective
in practice."
Alter the third sentence to read:
"He would prefer to say not that the Conference could require
a Member to withdraw from the Orgarization, but that the
Conference recognises that a Member which has persistently
violated the provisions of the Charter is ipso facto no longer
a Member of the Organization."
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE DE LA CONFERENCE
DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
COMMISSION B
CORRIGENDUM AU COMPTE RENDU DE LA
DIX-NEUVIEME SEANCE
(DOCUMENT E/PC/T/B/SR/19)
1. Le nom du délégué de la France aux pages 6, 9, 11 et 16
devrait être M. Kojeve.
2. Remplacer la seconde phrase attributée à M. Kojeve (France)
à la page 16 par:
"mais que cet amendement risque d'être dénué d'efficacité en
pratique."
et faites la modification suivante à la troisième phrase:
"Il préfère dire, non pas que la Conférence peut exiger d'un
Membre qu'il se retire de l'Organisation, mais que la
Conférence constate qu'un Membre qui a enfreint les
dispositions de la Charte d'une façon persistante n'est plus
de ce fait Membre de l'Organisation."
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED |
GATT Library | kj021xw2796 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission "B". Report of the 1st Sub-Committee | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 31, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 31/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/125-150 and E/PC/T/W/125-150 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kj021xw2796 | kj021xw2796_90050280.xml | GATT_152 | 95 | 644 | UNITED NATIONS
.
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
31 May, 1947.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION "B"
Report of the 1st Sub-Committee
The symbol of document E/PC/T/W/144 distributed on
May 31st 1947 should be changed to E/PC/T/83.
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L' ORGANISATION DE NATIONS UNIES
COMMISSION "B"
Rapport du premier sous-comite.
La cote du document E/PC/T/W/144 distribue le 31 mai
1947 doit être changee an E/PC/T/83. |
GATT Library | tc854tr1266 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission "B". Report of the 1st Sub-Committee | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 30, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 30/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/83 and E/PC/T/66-91 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tc854tr1266 | tc854tr1266_92290097.xml | GATT_152 | 656 | 4,526 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/W/144
AND ECONOMIQUE 30 May 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLIGH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION "B"
Report of the 1st Sub-Committee
In its 2nd meeting, Commission "B" appointed a Sub-Committee
composed of the Delegates of CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, INDIA, the
NETHERLANDS, the UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
and instructed this Sub-Committee to elaborate proposals with
regard to the inclusion or exclusion of services in Chapter VI
of the Draft Charter.
The Sub-Committee elected as Chairman the Delegate of the
Netherlands, Dr. P. Leendertz and under his chairmanship met in
two meetings in the morning and afternoon of May 30th 1947.
In debating the issue of services, the Sub-Committee
observed that a distinction must be made between those services
for the regulation of which specialized agencies exist or are
contemplated, and other services for which no specialized bodies
are at present envisaged.
In discussing a draft proposal of the Cuban Delegate for a
proposed new Article 44 A, the Sub-Committee agreed on the
principle that restrictive business practices in the field of
those services for which specialized agencies are in existence or
contemplated should be dealt with by the respective specialized
agencies. In this connection, the Sub-Committee explored the
possibility of inserting a clause into Chapter VI or Chapter VIII
corresponding to the provisions of Article 50.
The Sub-Committee agreed that with regard to other services
the provisions of Article 61 and especially those of sub-
paragraphs (c) and (e) allowed for the possibility to regulate
restrictive practices if suoh should be found to exist.
The Sub-Committee appointed a small Drafting Group,
composed of the Delegates of Cuba and the United Kingdom, to
elaborate a to embodying the conclusions of the Sub-Committee.
The following text, prepared by this Drafting Group was
unanimously approved by the Sub-Committee and is herewith
recommended for adoption by Commission "B":
"ARTICLE 44 - A
Procedure with respect to Services
1. Members recognize that transportation, telecommunications,
P.T.O.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/W/144
page 2
insurance, banking and certain other services are substantial
elements of international trade, and that any restrictive business
practices in relation te them may have harmful consequences similar
to those described in Article 39. Such practices shall be dealt
with in accordance with the following paragraphs of this Article.
2. If a.ny Member.should".consider that there exist restrictive
business :practices international service in the
meaning of Paragraph 1 which have or are about to have such harmful
effects, and that its: interests are seriously prejudiced by this
situation, the Member may submit a written statement explaining
the situation' to the.Member or Members the public or private
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 with a view to
affording, adequate,opportunities of consultation and effecting a
satisfactory adjustment of the ratter..
3. If no adjustment can be effected, and if the matter is
referred to the Oranization it shall be transferred to the
appropriate specialized inter-governmental agency if one exists,
with such.observations as the Organization in its discretion may
wish to make. If no such specialized agency exists, Members may,
under Article 61(c) ,ask the Organization to make recommendations
for, and promote international agreement on, measures designed to
improve the conditions of.operation of the service in question so
far as they affect the.purposes of the Organization.
4. The Organization shall, subject to Articlp 61(e), co-operate
with specialized inter-governmental agencies in connection with
restrictive business practices affecting the general field covered
by the Charter and those agencies shall be entitled to consult the
Organization, to seek: advice, and to ask that a study of a
particular problem be made."
The Sub-Committee instructs the Secretariat to request the aid
of the Delegates or France and Belgium in preparing the French
version of this text |
GATT Library | dn661dx2584 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Sub-Committee on Article 30. Working paper | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 21, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 21/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/22O and E/PC/T/W/208-220 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dn661dx2584 | dn661dx2584_90050367.xml | GATT_152 | 2,531 | 16,713 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/W/22O
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 21 June 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B.
SUB-COMMITTEE ON ARTICLE 30.
WORKING PAPER
The following paper outlines the matters referred by
the Commission to the Sub-Committee.
Documentation:
The Annotated Agenda used by the Commission is E/PC/T/W.190,
and the following documents give amendments submitted by various
delegations:
Australian Delegation E/PC/T/W188/Rev.1.
Canadian " " 140
Chinese " " 72
Cuban " " 186
Czechoslovak " " 201
Indian " " 81
United Kingdom " " 182
United States " " 185
The Verbatim of the Commission discussion on this Article 30
is found in B/PV/10 and B/PV/11, and the Summary Records are
numbered B/SR/10 and B/SR/11 respectively.
GENERAL NOTES.
1. Exercise of Functions in light of provisions of Article 8:
The Report of the Sub-Committee on Chapter III T/95
recommends that Article 30 be re-examined to ensure that the
drafting adequately meets the requirements of Article 8
(formerly Article 7) which provides:
"Safeguards for Members Subject to External
Deflationary Pressure.
The Organization shall have regard, in the exercise
of its functions as defined elsewhere in this Charter, to
the need of Members to take action within the provisions
of this Charter to safeguard their economies against
deflationary pressure in the event of a serious or
abrupt decline in the effective demand of other countries."
This matter was referred by Commission B to this Sub-Committee.
(Statements in Commission by delegations are found in verbatim,
(B/PV/10, pages 3-6) ). There are a number of instances in
Article 30 where the Organization has functions in the exercise
of which it might be able to safeguard the economics of members
under the circumstances mentioned in Article 8:
TIONS UNIES E/PC/T/W/220
page 2
Para. 1(a) - whether serious prejudice to the interest of
any other member is caused or threatened by
such subsidization.
2(b) - whether extension of time for an export
subsidy should be granted.
4 whether a special difficulty of the kind
referred to in Charter VII exists: and,
if the procedures of Chapter VII fail, whether
the provision of paragraph 2 of Article 30
should be suspended.
5 consultation re adjustment of base period or
reappraisal of special factors involved in
considering effect of an export subsidy on
world trade.
Para. 3 - refers to determination by Organization, on
the basis of specific criteria, as to whether
a stabilization scheme involves an export
subsidy.
It will be noted that under paragraph 6 the Organization
makes determinations under this Article 30 by consulting "the
Members substantially interested in the product concerned"
(Article 66 (4)), It was pointed out by one delegate that no
change; would be necssary in the wordin- of the Article to meet
the points raised by the Sub-Committee on Chapter III, but that
it would be sufficient if the Organization were to exercise
leniency in makinng determinations.
If the Sub-Committee accepts this view no changes are
necessary.
2. Reference in Article 15 to subsidies under Article 30:
The United States delegation proposed the following
addition to Paragraph 5 of article 15:
"Moreover, the provisions of this Article shall not apply
to governmental purchases in carrying out any form of
subsidy permitted under Article 30. "
As this is being dealt with by tha Sub.-Committee dealing
with articles 15, the matter was left in sheyance by Commission B.
One delegation suggested the deletion of this paragraph but
the Commission decided to retain it (Discussion is recorded in
verbatim - (B/PV/10) - pages 8 to 15).
PARAGRAPH 2.
Sub-paragraph (a)
In Commission the question was raised as to whether it was
clear from the present draft whether the sentence "which results
in the sale .... domestic market" referred only to the
"system" or also to "subsidy". E/PC/T/W/220
page 3
Insertion of Sub-paragraph.
The United States delegation. proposed to insert the word
"sub-paragraph" in sub-paragraph (a) at the beginning of the second
part of the sentence.
Exemptions to paragraph 2 (a).
There was some discussion in Commission B as to the force
of the exemotions mentioned in sub-paragraph 2 (a). The first
part of this paragraph states what actions are prohibited and
the second part gives three kinds of actions that are exempt
from this prohibition:-
(1) exempting exported goods from duties or taxis imposed
in respect of like products when consumed domestically,
(2) remitting such duties or taxes which have accrued,
(3) using the proceeds of such duties or taxes to make
payments to domestic producers.s.
eha questiowas raised in Cn ommission a us twhether all11
of ehesactions permitted under paragraph 2 came under para-r ra-
1 which requires notification to the Organisation and tion nd
discussion with others.embes.r
suggested that the point should be clarified by the d by th
ittee, and the Czechoslovek Delegation notified the ifia; t
ion of its intentino to submit a proposal to the Sub- tc thob-
.cmmt.itta.
al, which has been circulsted in Document W/201,iaent W/20
i9 ".s follows:
the second part of paragraph a? pa rabeginning boginning
ords "Provided that ...."d thet..."
new paragraph 3 reading as follows:g as follo:
"(3). Th: of vision Article shall not preventnot provont
from excempting exported products from dutiesuets orn dties
d in respect of like products when con- products wbhann-
y or from remitting such duties or iitting; such duts or
red. The use of hte proceeds Thc us3 .,r tho procs
s to make payments to domestickcu p-.yr.Qnt!f tç -ûmstio
be considered as a case rcul. bs 'onl i1o. .s o
undàr p-r: gr-ph (1)"
g parabgraph accordingly. p'Irt2rth ';OrQinl.çy.
ction of time limit:i3 uction of timnD lira
proposed to substitute "one year"o" to substitute "one y
e first sentance of sub-paragraph (b). cf sub-pr!grFr.ph (b).
Thora Y:s consi '2rabl support for this suggestion it
at the present time there was a world-timi thora wvs a warl.d E/PD/T/W/220
page 4
wide scarcity of goods and so export subsidies could be a
ithdrawn without any hardship. Moreover, near the end j?
of e period of three years prices may have fallon and it d t
woule more difficult to remove subsidies. ies. was alsonls
pointed out ththere was little danger in reducing the tha
iod from three years to one year becaue the sub-pub-araphph
ntained specific provisions whereby countries finding it it
difficult tm nake the adjusemjnwithin the time stipulated -l
uld request an extension.jc
Some deleagetes pointad out that that theiattitude de to
thitime limit would depend on the final from which para-h 2ra.
graphsd3 track. It was, therefore, suggested that to.i.hct
Committee oaritt.consideroonsidIndian proposal after stL1 5rtr
alt with paragraphs 3 and 4 .hs 3 n.n
nowistarparagraph ragrrph (c).
edThi gdom delegation %lg-8-ti(Woposed the sd tha
on of the following new sub-paragraph:ragr p
"Tha provisions of aragraphegrall not at any t
teclude a Member interested in the export th-3 port
oduct, which considers that its interestsintorosts
preudiced by a subsidy applied,bsic'y 3p1ioct
directly, in respect of the r rJspz;ct of product
r a rnDn-.Ma computing exporter,ting 3xport3r,
ngzz suown expoerts to any destinationmny dastint.ti
ember deems necessary to neutralise ry t. noutraiis3
tha erests and for so long as f-r s<o 3.clng *
subsidy continues in effect,,continues in jfrt,
ide that if any other Memberth :t if rny oth3r 3rb;r
ests are being adverselyOrStS er baing zci.virsoy
f counter-subsidisationif countcJr-subsidlsStion
ioned Member, these rst-rUntionU.' .zbor, th@
ether, and , if necessaryogoth3r, awl, If nocssery
order to reach a .tiGn, in Or'3r to rSe.C ^
stment of hte matter."Ory r-A:ustrijnt Orf tri rtr.11
ditionJo1JgctOS sup :rtc, thc, 1 itio in this para-
e commission it was cussiOn in thQ Çor.li1sion it w
e right give consideration-Czi-,ittu~ . i6ht é;iv; cnirts
for prior consultationprnvilling f.^r p)ri.>r consult
y the Member contemplating:britss by th- i:.r..b.ar contoplcting
gested that the th-o pr-visimn. OthJrs suggstael thotha
role as it might -j pl-y :. r..*rà pcsitivo rolj .5s it rht
ake commonry for thi I :U1b:jr c-untri.js tD tvkG coon
-;ction egaInt noz:itbrs. E/PC/T/w/220
page 5
PARAGRAPH 3.
The following amendment has been suggested by the
Australian delegation (Document w/188/Rev.1)
"A system for the stabilization of the domestic price
or of [returns] the return to domestic producers of a
Primary product [which results over a period ln the sale
of the product for export at a. price lower than the com-
parable price charged for the like- product to buyers ln
the domestic market/ shall [may] be considered
/determined/ not to Involve a. subsidy on exportation
under the terms of paragraph 2 of this Article, If it
isdetermined that provision is made for the maintenance
at fixed levels of prices for domestic Consumption
irrespective of the movement of export prices and [it]
because of such Provision the system had [also]- resulted
or may result, over a. period, in the sale of the product
for export at a price higher than the comparable price
charged for the like product to domestic buyers and
that [if] the system Is so operated, either because of
the effective limitation of production, or otherwise,
as not to stimulate exports unduly or otherwise seriously
prejudice the interest of other Members."
The points raised during the discussion In the Commission
are set our in the order in which they occur in the text of .the
Australin amendment.
"the return to domestic producers"
Some delegates thought it necessry to provide for compari-
son between export prices and returns to domestic producers, while
others considered It desirable to retain a link between external
prices and domestic prices.
Proposed deletion of statement which results over period... to
buyers in the domestick market."
The grounds advanced for this deletion were that the words
had been considered superfluous as there was already a reference
to paragraph 2 where they were used, and it was proposed to state
the objectives.
A number of delegates opposed the deletion of this state-
ment. It was stated that it provided a useful basis for or
detminationio as twhetherha stabilizationlo scheme involved an
export subsidy.
Substitution of "ahill' for "m"y
Some deegatess supported the change whichwvould prevent the
Oranniantion from determining, except for the specificreasonss
tipulatedt, that thestabilizationoscheme did not t Involvea .
subiIdy. Others opposed the chanec.
Insertion f?"'or my resu
Thic csAnga wp.asntroduced with the idca ef a.lallowing
ste.babilizatonchemes to commence even in times when viowoldrices
v7ewreow. On the other hn.hndit -"aswpointed out thrthat herLcs
eeestablishedhewn -oworldrices viweelow nimht not be P.adhered to
-wen they were high. E/PC/T/w/22O
page 6
Deletion of the word "also" before "resulted"
It was suggested that "also" should be maintained because
it helped to show: the contrast between the prices on the overseas
and domestic markets.
Substitution of " or" for "and"
The Australlan amendment (line 14) retained the word "and"
from the New, York text but it was suggested in Commission B that
"or" might be more appropriate.
"... because of the effective limitation of production ..."
One delegate doubted whether this concept should be introduced.
not to stimulate exports unduly..."
Some delegates suggested the deletion of these words. A
number of others considered they should be retained.
otherwise seiously . members."
It was suggested in Commission that this phrase should be
deleted.
PARAGRAPH 4.
SUB-PARAGRAPH (a):
1. The UNITED STATES Delegation proposed to make the following
change at the and of sub-paragraph (a):
"...laid down therein the Member may have resort to the
procedures of [the difficulty may be: determined to be a
special difficulty-of the kind referred to ln] Chapter VII
[and ln that event the procedure laid down ln that Chapter
shall be followed.]
Comment of the United States Delegation -when submitting
this amendment:
"The procedure Of Chapter VII requires the determination by a.
Study group or a commodity conference that there is a special
difficulty."
Notes :
During the Commission meeting it was pointed. out that the
text of the New York draft really provides for the determination
of whether special difficulties exist, firstly via paragraph 6
of this Article (or Article 66(4)), and secondly via. the study
group of Chapter VII. On the other hand, it was argued that the
proposed amendment constituted a. substantive change as it eliminatde
the preliminary "screening process" which was contained in paragraphoph
6. It was pointed outathtt the change proposwas merely a P.
fting change because aus the text of Article 49 made it quite clear
t a conference!rc could called 1cd on the basis of informatiagreedrcC
be adequate .tt Membersnbaving a substantial interest, whether"'hher
oa not P. study group h.d bemally called;y cRIl uneer tms terrn of
Article 48. ai"nce n determination" under proceduparagraphregmn.h
v articlel 66 v(4)e Inolvcd consulwithonMembers substantiallybatn.ntll:.,
intewouldd"e it vîoul bo possible tG proceed airectly to n conference
ing a studylllnri n. ut group und8. Article 4s. page 7.
The different points of view expressed in thc Commission
as to interpretation seem to indicate some lack of clarity in
the text. The Sub-Committee might therefore want to revise
the text so as to make clear the implication..
SUB-PARAGAiPH (b):
wio delegations sggested ethe eoletion of this sub-aragraphp.
Itwras decided by the Cmmitteet toretain i it, but the Sub-
Cmmittete weec asked totakeu note of the discussion in teu
Commissoen.
It was pointed out that clarification was needed as to
whether the prohibition of export subsidies was to be relaxed
vhen theagreement itselft has failed orwhenn theattemptn to form
Pn agreementhasa failed
Itwas also urged tat , it should bemnade clear in the
drafting tact aragraphp 4 (b)wass meant to provide for the te
extreme case where it was nessarary to re-impose subsidies.
The b-committee might want to clarify this sub-paragraphatraph
ilight of the discussion. It was suggested that it mighthat itiiht
e to integrate this sub-paragraph with paragraph ith ptr,-r 5.
ion with this sub-paragraph the proposal submittedosal subrittod
ands delegation and contained in Documentained in Dccurt
ght be examined. mij:ht bcument proper a newent proposerW anew
Article 57ceiis made to Member entering into:enlber, entering nto
"consonsation or negotiaticnr about subsidization as referred
t. in ArtIcprovided also that s oeovidad aise that "those
consultatmays or negotiatMemberhq include non-;lembo after
invitation by the Organization uMembere request of a lvumbe or
a croup cf lenibers.
R*GRAPH 6:
Teg Unitesuggested the followingested tha folloxiin
changt s
"Any detcrmirnïtappropriate to the pproprittte to the
operatioshallthis article shn.[ be made through Junder
procedy]es estiblished bil the Organization by consultation
substantially interested in the productv Intorostd in theroduct
with paragraph or&'nce viith p6]."rpllh 4 of Article 67.l
GrCimnicntegation:itcd States DeltCation:
wTh( rincorporaterape -!uld incorpor'ttetho provisions
of Article e6, para rgph 4, thus climinatinE the cross reference. "
Notes:
In suggestion with thied Statesstio the Unitoc St.-te
d at another place the d et t Lncther place t deletion of E/PC/T/w/220
page 8.
paragraph 4 of Article 66 and the Incorporation of its substance
within Articles 30 and 52.
The text suggested by the United States Delegation onits
the reference to the duties of the Conference in this connection
as stated in Article 66, paragraph 4, namely, "the Conference
shall establish procedures. ..". If this reference is omitted
it will need to spccified probaly in Chapter VII who will
exercise the functions of the "Organization". |
GATT Library | my635my2696 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Sub-Committee on Article 30. Working paper | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 21, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 21/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/22O and E/PC/T/W/208-220 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/my635my2696 | my635my2696_90050367.xml | GATT_152 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | qx807tc8133 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record 16th Meeting held on Friday, 27 June 1947, at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 27, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 27/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/16 and E/PC/T/B/SR/14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qx807tc8133 | qx807tc8133_90250156.xml | GATT_152 | 4,442 | 27,907 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNlES
RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/16
AND ECONOMIQUE 27 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
16th Meeting held on Friday, 27 June 1947, at 2.30 p.m.
in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
CHAPTER VI - RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the meeting, said that the
Commission would go through Articles 39-45 once more in the
light of the reports from the two Sub-Committees. The new
drafting of these Articles was contained in document E/PC/T/102.
Article 39. Paragraph 1.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) proposed that the comma at
the end of line 4, after "enterprises" should be deleted.
Decision: Article 39, Paragraph 2 was adopted with
this deletion.
Article 39. Paragraph 2.
Mr. VAN DER POST (South Africa) said that the proposal
made by his delegation in document E/PC/T/W/226 did not raise
any question of principle. Its object was to make it clear
that when complaints were made, the Organization had to inves-
tigate the complaints and not the practices themselves. E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 2.
Mr. TERRILL (United States) thought that if a complete
re-draft of the Article as proposed in the South African document
were necessary, it would have to be referred to a Sub-committee.
This was undesirable, as it would delay the work of the Commission.
He sympathised with the point raised, and thought it might be
met by inserting the words "complaints regarding any of" after
the words "paragraph 1" in line 5, and substituting the word
"such" for the word "a" after (a) in paragraph 2 (a).
Mr. VAN DER POST (South Africa) agreed with the observ-
ations of the United States delegate, and the suggested solution
had also occurred to him, but sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) were
connected by the word "and", and in his opinion, this prejudged
the issue. It was for the Organization to decide whether the
practices were actually engaged in, and by what enterprises.
This was made quite clear in the text submitted by his delegation.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) explained that the burden of
the complaint was not that the practices were engaged in, but
that the practices were or were about to have harmful effects
on the expansion of production or trade, as specified in
Paragraph 1. He thought that perhaps the South African del-
egate was under a misapprehension on this point.
Mr. VAN DER POST (South Africa) considered that his
document clarified the point raised by the United Kingdom
delegate.
A discussion then took place and agreement was reached
on the possibility of incorporating the United States amendment
in the French text.
Decision: Paragraph 2 (a) and (b) were approved with
the addition of the United States amendment. E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 3.
Paragraph 2 (c).
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) questioned the substitution of the
words "two or more" for the words "a number of". He had
stated in the Sub-committee that his delegation understood that
Article 39 was not applicable to enterprises which did not
control in the world market the products they sold. He was
not sure whether the substitution was a matter of substance
or merely a matter of drafting.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought that this change
had been made before the Drafting Sub-committee had been app-
ointed. He did not see any real difference between the two
phrases.
Decision: Paragraph 2 (c) was adopted.
Paragraph 3.
Decision: The South African suggestion to replace the
word "as follows" by the words "the following"
was adopted without comment.
Paragraph 3 (f).
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) referred to the observations
he had made at the last meeting with regard to the deletion of
sub-paragraph (f). It had been argued that only changes of a
drafting character had b.en submitted by his delegation, and
that therefore it was not in order for him to propose the
delegion of this sub-paragraph. He therefore now proposed
the deletion of the words "properly" at the beginning of line
four, and "immediately" in the last line of this sub-paragraph. E/PC /T/B/SR/16
page 4
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) agreed that these
words were superfluous. They had been held over from the
original London text, in which extensive changes had been made.
Mr. VAN DER POST (South Africa) proposed the deletion of
the, letter "s" from the word "Subjects" in the last line of
paragraph (f).
The CHAIRMAN thought that this change could be left to
the Legal and Drafting Committee.
Decision: Paragraph 3 was adopted with the proposed
deletions proposed by the Netherlands delegate.
Mr. VAN DER POST (South Africa) felt that the words "over
which there is effective control by public authority" in para-
graph 4 (b) were redundant and unnecessary.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) explained that the words
were part of a compromise on a point of major difficulty.
The CHAIRMAN took it that as a point of substance was in-
volved the delegate of South Africa would not wish to maintain
his objection.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) felt that the wording of paragraph 4
implied exemptions under Articles 45 end 59, and that clarifica-
tion was required.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that sub-paragraph (b) of Article
45 had been left in square brackets by the Sub-Committee pending
clarification of Article 59.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) said the Sub-
Committee had recognised the existence of the point to which
the delegate of Chile had just called attention, and had realised
that it would be an absurdity to exempt from the provisions of
Chapter VI all arrangements between state trading enterprises and E/PC /T/B/SR/16
page 5
enterprises in other countries relating. A given state
trading enterprise, holding a monopolistic position in some
commodity or some type of technology, might through a series of
bi-lateral agreements with other enterprises control the world
market and engage in harmful business practices, and should be
at least subject to a complaint to the Organization. It had
not been intended to exempt such situations, and Article 45
should be appropriately modified in the light of any changes
that might be made in Article 59.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) thanked the delegate of the United
States of America for his explanation, which covered the point
his own delegation had had in mind.
The CHAIRMAN explained that after the Sub-Committee dealing
with Chapter VII had submitted its report to the Commission, and
when the report had, been approved and the text of Article 59
established, Commission B would be asked to complete the text of
Article 45.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said he had submitted the report of
the Sub-Committee on Article 39 to his Government, but had been
informed by telegram that consideration of the article had not
yet been completed. He wished, therefore, to reserve the final
position of his Government, but was asking for a decision as
soon as possible, and hoped to be able to give some definite
information befor; the matter came up in the Preparatory Committee.
Decision: Article 39 was approved.
ARTICLE 40: PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATIONS AND CON-
SULTATIONS.
Decision: Paragraphs 1 to 8 (inclusive) of Article 40 were
approved. E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 6
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the amendment proposed
by the delegation of South Africa to paragraph 9 (E/PC/T/W/226,
page 2). The paragraph, as amended, would read:
"The Organization may request any Member concerned to
report fully on remedial action it has taken in any particular
case."
Mr. MULHERKAR (India) was opposed to the South African
proposal: he felt it should be an obligatory function of the
ITO to see that the remedial action recommended by it was pro-
porly carried out by the Member concerned.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) said the motive behind the
amendment was that the Organization should not be compelled to
request all Members to report, as in some cases a report might
be unnecessary.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) noted two points with regard to
the proposed amendment. The replacement of "shall" by "may"
was a change in substance, and the French delegation opposed
such a change. The other proposed alterations in the text were,
however, an improvement on the original, and he felt that the
Commission might consider them.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) considered that a
procedural question was involved which related also to paragraph
5 of Article 42. It seemed to him that members should report
without being specifically requested to do so. If, however,
a certain member had not reported after a period of, say, 90
days, the Organization would then write and request information
on what action had been taken in the case. If that were under-
stood to be the nature of the procedure, the South African
amendment made sense and the point appeared to be merely pro-
cedural rather than substantive. E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 7
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) suggested that the paragraph
should read: "All members concerned shall report fully on
the remedial action they have taken in any particular case".
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that such an amendment would
require the paragraph to be placed under Article 42:
Obligations of Members.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) considered that the delegate of
the United States of America had correctly interpreted the
implications of the proposed amendment. To his own mind
also it was a procedural question when linked with paragraph
5 of Article 42, and he adhered to the interpretation by the
delegate of the United States of America..
Decision: The amendment proposed by the South African
delegation to paragraph 9 of Article 40 was approved.
Decision: Paragraph 9, as amended, was approved.
Decision: Paragraphs 10 and 11 were approved.
ARTICLE 41: STUDIES RELATING TO RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.
Decision: Paragraphs 1 and 2 were approved.
ARTICLE 42: OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) recalled that he had spoken
at the previous week's meeting on the relationship between
paragraph 1 of Article 39 and paragraph 1 of Article 42. Two
points had been at issue, and he thought one of them could be
overcome by striking out the words "other Members and" in E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 8
paragraph 1 of Article 42, and by inserting between the
words "and" and "shall"' the words "in addition". He did
not propose to pursue at present the other point he had
raised, and it might not be necessary to do so at all.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) pointed out that the meeting
of the members of Sub-Committee II, which had been called to
discuss the difficulties felt by the delegate of New Zealand,
had been an informal one, and therefore it had not seemed
necessary to submit a report; but he thought the members of
the Sub-Committee would all agree with the proposal now put
forward by the delegate of New Zealand. As the meeting had
not been a formal one, the proposal had to come from that
delegate; otherwise he felt that the Sub-Committee would have
reported along the same lines.
Decision: The amendment proposed by the delegate of New
Zealand to paragraph 1 of Article 42 was approved.
Mr. ANGUS (Canada) felt that the phrase "all possible
steps" in the first line of the paragraph and the phrase "such
measures" in the sixth line should be made consistent with each
other.
Decision: It was agreed that the word "steps" in the
first line of paragraph 1 should be replaced by the word
"measures".
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium), supported by Mr. DIETERLIN (France)
proposed that in the French text the words "qui produiraient"
should be replaced by "qui produisent".
Decision: The amendment proposed to the French text
was approved. E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 9
Decision: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article 42
were approved.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that they had before them
a consequential amendment from the South African delegate
in relation to paragraph 9 of Article 40. The amendment
proposed in paragraph 5 of Article 42 was the deletion of
the words "as requested by the Organization".
Decision: The amendment was agreed to and paragraph
5, as amended, was approved.
Decision: Paragraph 6 was approved.
ARTICLE 43: SUPPLEMENTARY ENFORCEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.
Decision: Paragraphs 1 and 2 were approved.
ARTICLE 44: CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OF DOMESTIC MEASURES
AGAINST RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.
Decision: Article 44 was approved.
ARTICLE 44 - A: PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO SERVICES
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) stated that on the basis of the
reasons he had previously given for reserving the position of
his government in regard to Article 44 - A, he must maintain
that reservation.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) associated his delegation with
the reservation made by the delegate of Norway with regard
to Article 44 - A. E/PC/T/B/SR.16
Page 10
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the revised text of
Article 44 - A was given in document E/PC/T/104. Subject
to the reservations by the delegates of Norway and France,
it would be considered paragraph by paragraph.
Decision: Paragraphs 1 and 2 were approved.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) proposed that the words
"specislised inter-governmental agency" in lines 4 and 5
of paragraph 3 be replaced by "inter-governmental organiza-
tion", which was the expression used throughout the Draft
Charter. He made the same suggestion with regard to line
7.
Decision: The amendments proposed by the delegate of the
United Kingdom to paragraph 3 were approved and the paragraph,
as amended, was approved.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) proposed that in paragraph 4
the words "specialised inter-governmental agencies" be re-
placed by, "inter-governmental organizations".
Decision: The amendment was approved.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa), speaking with regard to
the reference in paragraph 4 to Article 61 (e), pointed out
that there was a possibility that Article 61 (e) might be
deleted.
The CHAIRMAN side the text of all the Articles under
consideration was subject to alterations in other Articles.
Should Article 61 (e) be deleted, paragraph 4 of Article 44 - A
Would have to be re-considered either by Commission B or by
the Legal and Drafting Committee.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) proposed that the word "agencies"
in the sixth line be replaced by "inter-governmental organi-
zations".
Decision: The amendment was agreed to, and paragraph 4,
as amended, was approved. E/PC/T/B/SR.16
Page 11
ARTICLE 45: EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) pointed out that in document
E/PC/T/W/131 his delegation had proposed amendments to Article
45. He was no happy to withdraw those proposals and his
delegation was satisfied with Article 45 in view of the
adoption of Article 44 - A, although it had been noted that
that Article was subject to reservations on the part of the
delegates of Norway and France. He wished however his
withdrawal of the proposed amendments to be regarded as con-
tingent upon ultimate approval of Article 44 - A.
The CHAIRMAN state that s note would be made in the
report indicating that the withdrawal of the proposed amendments
by the United Kingdom was contingent upon approval of Article
44 - A.
The Chairman noted that the portion of Article 45 in
square brockets would be held over until a definitive text
had been established for Article 59.
Decision: Article 45 was approved, subject to the
reservatin stated by the Chairman.
AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE DELEGATION OF BRAZIL
TO ARTICLE 15 -A.
The CHAIRMAN drew the sttention of delegates to the
proposed Brazilian amendment to Article 15- A, which had been
considered in a sub-committee of Commission A. The proposal
would be found in document E/PC/T/B/150, page 10. The
United States delegation had suggested insertion of the
following new article 15 - A:
"The products of any Member country exported to any
other Member country shall not be subject to any measure
imposed by either the exporting or the importing
country requiring such exports to be financed, shipped
or insured by enterprises of any proscribed nationality." E/PC/T/B/SR.16
Page. 12
The Brazilian delegation, seconding the United States
proposal, proposed the addition of the following paragraph:
"Member countries shall take the necessary steps to
prevent transport or insurance undertakings from
establishing discriminatory rates in favour of
countries of origin or of destination."
The Sub-Committee on Articles 14,15, 15 - A and 24"
had decided to refer the proposed mendment to Commission B
to ascertain whether in the opinion of the Commission there
was any conflict between the proposed amendment Chapter VI
(Restrictive Business Practices).
Mr. MONTEIRO de B3 RROS (Brazil) said his delegation
had submitted an amendment to complement the proposal of the
delegation of the United States for the insertion of Article
15A. The United States proposal would ensure that services
connected with international trade would be granted the
necessary freedom and that goods need not necessarily be
shipped upon vessels belonging to the countries selling
those goods. His delegation considered that Governments
should take action to prevent insurance end shipping companies
from establishing discriminatory rates in regard to the
transport of such goods. If the United States proposal
were adopted, then the Brzilian amendment to that proposal
should also be adopted. Should the United States proposal
be adopted and the Brazilian amendment rejected, then his
delegation would have to reserve its position vis-à-vis the
United States proposal, and would not be able to support
it. E/PC/T/B/SR.16
Page 13
He would also like to know how the commission interpreted
sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 39. It seemed
to him a general text which drew no distinction between
services and goods. Article 44A tended to place services
under the provisionsof the Charter and sub-paragraph (c) of
Article 39 dealt with discriminatory practices in general
regardless of whether they concerned goods or services. If that
was the interpretation given by the Commission, then the point of
view of his delegation would be covered.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) considered that it was not within
the competence of the Commission to pronounce on a question the
substance of the Brazilian amendments to Article 15 A. The
Commission had to decide whether there was a conflict between the
two proposals for Article 15 A and the provisions adopted for
Chapter VI. He felt that there was no such conflict.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) agreed with the remarks of the
representative of Belgium that there was no conflict between the
general provisions of Chapter VI, Article 15 A as proposed by
the United States delegation, and the amendment to that Article
proposed by the Brazilian delegation. Referring to the remarks
of the Brazilian representative regarding the interpretation
to be given to sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 39
he said it would be for the Organization to decide in each
particular case whether the practices referred to were, harmful
or not. The Commission should not present the adoption of the
provisions in question. E/PC/T/B/SR.16
Page 14.
The CHAIRMAN said the Commission was concerned with the
substance of the proposed amendment to the new Article 15A.
Commission A had asked for guidance from Commission B as to the
relation of the proposal by the Brazilian delegation to Chapter VI.
The question should be considered from two points of view:-
(1) Was there any conflict with the provisions of Chapter VI ?
The Belgium and French representatives considered that there was
no such conflict. (2) Both the United States proposal and the
Brazilian amendment placed certain obligations on Members with
respect to services, and it was necessary to consider the
Brazilian amendment in relation to Article 44A as well as with
other parts of Chapter VI.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) said that, considered
on the practical level, the proposal of the Brazilian delegation
regarding Article 15A: upset everything the Commission had
attempted to do by way of settling the question of services in
Article 44A. He recalled that the issue had been settled
by provision, consultation between Members in regard to restrictive
practices in the field of services and that ITO, on presentation of
a complaint, would bring it to the attention of the proper
agency, or, if no such agency existed, would make recommendations
requested to do so. The decision as to what was a discriminatory
shipping, aviation, telecommunications or insurance rate was
a highly complicated matter, and if ITO were to take action
in the field of services it would destroy the integrity of any
future international organization that might be established
in that field. E/PC/T/B/SR. 16
Page 15
The amendment proposed by the Brazilian delegation was in
no way complementary to the United States proposal which related
to services tied directly to particular export shipments and
proscribed such tying legislation. The Brazilian amendment re-
ferred to a question connected with the performance of the
service as such.
The ITO could not be put intp specialised fields such as
shipping, aviation, telecommunications and insurance for which it
was proposed there should be international agencies established
in the near future.
Mr. MONTEIRO DE BARROS (Brazil) did not agree that the amend-
ment suggested by his delegation would upset the application
of Article 44 On the contrary, his delegation wished to
clarify the question and to know whether, in the interpretation
of the United States representative, if a country considered that
discriminatory rates had been imposed regarding shipping and in-
surance, it might apply to the Organization, in conformity with
Article 44 A, and atsk for the matter to be referred to the
competent agency. Se considered that that point should be
elucidated and made clear in the records of the present meeting
in order that it might serve as an aid for the interpretation
of the provisions of the Charter.
Mr.DIETSRLIN (France): said the explanations given by
the representative of the United States referred to the
substance of the proposals. It was not for the Commission
to discuss the substance of the proposals but to see how those
proposals would bear on Chapter VI.
If articles 134 and 44A were adopted, the Organization
would in Article 15A have another means of judging such cases.
submitted to it,regardless whether the Brazilian amendment was adopted E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 16
submitted to it, regardless whether the Brazilian amendment
was adopted or not. If, on the other hand, Article 44A were
not adopted, the Organization would not be competent to deal
with such matters and the Commission would have to find other
means of implementing Article 15A.
The CHAIRMAN said that the representatives of Belgium
and France had indicated that they felt that the Brazilian
amendment to Article 15A aid not come within the scope of
restrictive business practices, i.e. did not fell within the
purview of Chapter VI. The United States representative had
pointed out that the adoption of the Brazilian amendment
would bring services within the scope of the Charter to an
extent which went beyond that agreed upon in Article 44A Chapter VI. He
felt the Commission would be fulfilling its duty in relation
to the request referred to it by Commission A if it informed
the latter that Commission B was of the opinion that the
Brazilian amendment related more to the field of commercial
policy than to that of restrictive business practices, but,
at the same time, that Commission B was of the opinion that
the adoption of the Brazilian amendment would bring services
within the scope of the Charter to an extent that went beyond
that agreed upon in Article 44A of Chapter VI with respect
to restrictive business practices in relation to services.
Mr. MONTEIRO DE BARROS (Brazil) said he had asked for
a clarification of the mattter and had not received a reply.
If the reply to his question was that Article 44A covered
the question of discriminatory rates he would be satisfied.
But if Article 44A did not cover the case his delegation
would have to reserve its position and study the matter further.
Mr. COLEAN (Norway) agreed with the proposal of the
CHAIRMAN and suggested that a copy of the minutes should be E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 17.
attached to Commission B's report to Commission A.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) did not agree with the
drafting of the United States proposal and did not understand
the Brazilian amendment. He considered that it was difficult
to discuss this matter without prior notice.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that it was difficult to discuss
the subject without prior study. He pointed out that since
this was the last time that Chapter VI would be discussed
for some weeks it was necessary to consider the issue at this
meeting.. Commission A could not shirk the responsibility of
dealing with the substance of the matter. The proposal
before the Commission related chiefly to the field of commer-
cial policy and he felt it should be possible for Commission B
to give some indication to Commission A as to the relation
of the Brazilian proposal to Chapter VI, and that was why he
had suggested his formula. The Brazilain representative had
raised certain questions regarding the interpretation of
Chapter VI, in particular in relation to discriminatory rates.
He felt it was for the representative of Brazil to judge how
far the practices listed in paragraph 3 of Article 39 covered
or did not cover the cases referred to in his amendment.
Mr. MONTEIRO DE BARROS(Brazil) thanked the Chairman
for his explanations, and pointed out that as he was a legal
expert he had his own opinion as to how the Chapter should
be interpreted, but he wished to know the Commission's interpre-
tation of it.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) supported the Chairman's
proposal, If the Commission were to attempt to express an
opinion on the relationship between the Brazilian proposal
and Chapter VI it would first be necessary to have a
definition of what was meant by a discriminatory rate. E/PC/T/B/SR/16
page 18
Perhaps Commission B could inform Commission A that so far
as Chapter VI was concerned it would not matter whether both
Particle 15A and the Brazilian amendment were adopted or
rejected.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether Commission B was agreed on
the reply to be sent to Commission A, i.e. along the lines of
the proposal of the Chairman supplemented by the addition
suggested by the Australian representative and attaching a
copy of the Minutes of the meeting.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) said he supported the
Chairmen's first formulation and did not propose that anything
else should be added.
Decision: It was agreed to reply to Commission
A in accordance with the Chairman's proposal.
The CHAIRMAN announced that Commission B would probably
meet on the following Monday if the report of Sub-Committee
on Chapter VII could be prepared in time for circulation on
Saturday. Before the meeting of Commission B there would
be a meeting of the Plenary Committee in executive session
to consider the Ninth Report of the Tariff Negotiations
Working Party.
The meeting rose at 6.5 p.m. |
GATT Library | dk770fg0297 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record Eighth Meeting held on Wednesday, 11 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 11, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 11/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/8 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dk770fg0297 | dk770fg0297_90250139.xml | GATT_152 | 2,534 | 16,578 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/B/SR/8
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 11 June 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE
AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B.
SUMMARY RECORD
Eighth Meeting held on Wednesday, 11 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m.
at the Palai- des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada).
CHAPTER VII
ARTICLE 50:
The discussion on Article 50 was continued from the
previous meetings of the Commission.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) stated that his delegation
wished to withdrew their proposed new Article 50 from con-
sideretion at this stage. They wished however to place
before the sub-comittee a new form of Article 50 which would
take into account the various views expressed by the other
delegates in their amendments and in the Commission discus-
sions.
The CHAIRMAN agreed to this procedure.
Mr. C. D. L. WHITE (New Zealand) thought it desirable
to make it quite clear that the Organization should have dis-
cretion to take action on the basis of a Study submitted by
any inter-governmental organization. It was not felt necessary
to specifically stipulate that inter-governimental organizations-
would be entitled to request a conference.
Mr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands) thought it better to give
inter-governmental organizations a right to request a conference E/PC/T/B/SR/8
page 2
otherwise there would be a tendency for tham to call for a
conference themselves.
Mr. W. T. DOIG (Australia) said that he believed that the
addition of a clause such as that suggested would reduce to a
minimum the possibility of duplication between two organize-
tions which had responsibilities in the field of commodity
studies end policy,, His delegation felt that Article 49
left the calling of the conference entirely to the discretion
of I.T.O., and suggested that their proposal would not in
any way remove that right. They were anxious to record, at
this stage, that they wished to ensure that the right of a
Member having a substantial interest in the trade of a com-
modity would be preserved insofar as the request that a
conference be called is concerned. It would seen clear that
Article 49 states that in all cases, no matter who requests
or recommends that s. conference be called, the ITO Members
who are interested in the commodity will themselves have
to agree first that the information, no matter where it
comes from, is adequate to werrent the calling of the con-
ference. He therefore suggested that the initiative for
calling such a conference must rest with the I.T.O.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) associated his delegation with
the proposal made by the United Kingdom delete, that the
Sub-Committee be entrusted with further study of this question
and should endeavour to meet the various points of view
expressed. He wished, however, to state that his delegation
considered that the Organization is fully competent to decide
whether difficulties arising in connection with production
problems should be solved by a conference convened at the
request of either an organization or a Member. E/PC/T/B/SR/8
page 3
If an inter-governmental organisation asked for a
conference it would not be in the seme position because it
usually had its own means of solving difficulties. The
Trade Organisation should first of all find out whether the
difficulties were likely to affect international trade or
would perhaps need to obtain information from other
specialised agencies.
It was agreed to refer this Article to the Sub-
Committee.
ARTICLE 51:
As no proposals have been made concerning the preamble
the Committee passed to discussion of sub-paragraph (a).
Sub-paragraph (a):
The CHAIRMAN esked the United Kingdom delegate to
introduce the amendment. suggested by his delegation.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) stated that the changes
his delegation suggested to this sub-paragraph were the result
of the experience acquired at the recent Wheat Conference in
London. This Conference was of the opinion that it was more
reasonable to leave the problem of accession of countries to
commodity arrangements in the hands of the appropriate
Commodity Council.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) asked that the drafting should
bring out clearly the fact that even though the conditions of
participation are established by the participants themselves,
the approval of the Organization is nevertheless needed,
especially in view of the fact that an exception to the
provisions of Chapter V is made.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovekie) asked the United Kingdom
delegate whether the word "procedure" contained in his amend-
ment should not be replaced by the word "principles". E/PC/T/B/SR/8
page 4
Mr. PETER (France) pointed out that the remarks of the
Czechoslcvak delegate were due to an error in the French text,
and that his point would be covered by replacing the words
`'ce procédé'' by the words "ces procédés".
The CHAIRMAN then referred sub-pararaph (a) to the
Sub-Committee.
No proposals were made concerning sub-paragraph (b).
Concerning the amendment suggested to sub-paragraph (c)
Mr . SCHWENGER (United States) stated that it was not Meant to
be a substantive change. The sensor of the part. of the sentence
his delegation proposed to delete was already contained in a
previous Article and therefore would not constitute an addition
to the present sub-paragraph.
Mr. WARWICK SMITH (Australia) opposed the deletion
proposed by the United States. He stated that his delegation
favoured the following three principles: (1) the advantages
afforded to countries should be commensurate with the obligations
they accepted; (2) no impediment should be made to the
participation of non-Members of ITO in commodity arrangements;
(3) the position of non-participating countries should be left
to the Commodity Council and not to the Organization, even
though the Organization may essume certain supervisory functions.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) stated thet he agreed with
the Australian representative about the importance of maintaining
the possibility of participation for the non-Members. He thought
however, that the principals mentioned by his Australian colleague
were safeguarded even if the American amendment were agreed.
He disagreed with the Australian delegate on the position of
non-participating Members, and stated that sub-paragraph (c) E/PC/T/B/SR/8
page 5
constituted a guarantee of equitable treatment to those
Members who, because their interest in the commodity was
small, did not participate.
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) suggested the addition of
the words. "under the Charter" after the words "with obligations
accepted''.
The CHAIRMAN referred the problem to the Sub-Committee
and it was decided to deal with it Only after Commission A
had clarified the position of non-Members and had drafted a
text. of Article 36 in this connection.
ARTICLE 52.
The CHAIRMAN asked the delegates to confine their.
discussion to the points contained on pages 8,9 and 10 of
the Secretetriat's paper and. not to deal with the question of
widening the scope of Article 52, as this question was already
being dealt with by the Sub-Comittee.
Sub-Paragraph (a):
Concerning the amendment proposed by the Chilean
delegation to sub-paragraph (a), Mr.MUNOZ (Chile) stated
that his delegation head held the opinion that the problem of
countries with a small volume of international trade did not
receive careful consideration at the First Session. However,
his delegation was now of the opinion that the problems the
Chilean. amendment intended to cover were covered by the
addition of the words "or under-employment" after the words
"widespread unemployment'' in sub-paragraph (b). He was
therefore in a position to withdrew the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of the Committee to
the proposal of the United States delegation in connection
with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). E/PC/T/B/SR/8
Page 6.
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (.United States) stated that the change
suggested by his delegation, namely the inclusion of the words
"in the. absence of specific governmental action", was only a
drafting change aimed at clarifying the text.
Mr. de SWARDT (South Africa) agreed with the United
States delegate, but preferred the words "inter-governmental
action" to the words "governmental action".
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) answered that he had no
strong views on the subject, but that the word "governmental"
as used in the text included "inter-governmental action".
Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) were referred to the Sub-
Committee.
Sub-paragraph (c) .
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) stated that his delegation
favoured the deletion of this sub-paragraph because the definition
of. "primary commodity" as devised by the Drafting Committee in
New York and contained in the present Article 60 included
substitute and complementary products. If unforeseen
circumstances developed then paragraph 3 of Article 66 could
become operative and sub-paragraph (c) of Article 52 did therefore
not constitute an important addition to the text.
M. PETER (France) was in favour maintaing sub-
paragraph (c) because he considered that a reference to Article
66 would not be enough. As to the definition contained in
Article 60, he stated that it did not cover all the cases in which
commodity arrangements might be necessary. A commodity like
steel, for example, was not necessarily a substitute or a
complementary commodity.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) supported the delegate of France. E/PC/T/B/SR/8
Page 7.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) stated that in his opinion
'now that a new definition had been devised for primary
commodities it was useless and even dangerous to keep sub-
paragraph (c). As to a particular commodity like steel, he did
not see any reason which would preclude it from being dealt
with in a group with primary commodities like pig-iron or iron ore.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) stated that he could not
accept the United States proposal for the deletion of sub-
paragraph (c).
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) stated that he too wanted to
retain sub-paragraph (c). In his opinion it is the economic
circumstances of production and consumption which should
determine whether an agreement could be concluded, and not so
much whether a commodity was a primary one or not.
Baron de GAIFFIER (Belgium) supported the statement made
by his Netherlands colleague.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile), Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) and Mr. FRESQUET
(Cuba) expressed themselves in favour of the deletion of sub-
paragraph (c).
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada) was also in favour of removing sub-
paragraph (c).
Mr. DOIG (Australia) was also of the opinion that sub-
paragraph (c) should be deleted.
Additional paragraph proposed by F.A.O.
Mr. YATES (F.A.O) explained the purpose of the additional
paragraph suggested by F.A.O. Various F.A.O. conferences had
recognized the possibilities of using inter-governmental commodity
arrangements for the expansion of both production and consumption.
He pointed out that such arrangements might, by providing for the
expansion of consumption, actually reduce the need for limitations E/PC/T/B/SR/8
Page 8.
on Production. However, an agreement can only be permitted
under those circumstances and for those purposes if Article 52
were amended along the lines proposed by the F.A.O. Rice
expansion would probably require substantial investment and
the countries concerned would possibly want some assurance
regarding the future of the international market, and it might
become necessary to make provision for an agreement which would
give the necessary assurance. He pointed out that under the
suggested amendment of F.A.O. the responsibility for determining
the degree of necessity would still rest with I.T.O.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) agreed with the sentiments
expressed by the F.A.O. Observer, but submitted the following
form of words:
"such an agreement is necessary to enable the governments
concerned to promote the orderly expansion of production
and consumption of a primary commodity."
Under this suggestion the Organization would still be left with
the power to determine whether the necessity existed for taking
action.
Baron de GAIFFIER (Belgium) supported the proposal of the
F.A.O. representative, but wished to have an opportunity to study
the text of the United Kingdom proposal before expressing an
opinion on it.
Mr. RAHIMTOULA (India) supported the F.A.O. proposal.
Agreements should be possible in cases when it is necessary; to
plan expansion of production to meet consumption needs. Such
agreements should be recognized by the I.T.O.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) expressed sympathy with the
objects of the proposed additional clause. He considered that
there should be every appropriate means open for the expansion
of production and consumption whenever that would be an advantage E/PC/T/B/SR/8
Page 9.
to the producers and consumers, and agreements for the purpose
should certainly be allowed by the Chapter. However, he had
little doubt as to whether the insertion of a sub-paragraph at
this particular point would be the best method. In the first
place, such agreements seem to have been provided in the Chapter.
A good deal of the expansion would also be done through national
agricultural organizations related to the work of the F.A.O.
Much of this development would take place on un over-all or
regional basis rather than on a commodity basis. In addition,
many cases of the type envisaged in the amendment would be
covered by the non-regulatory agreements. He also pointed out
that many such arrangements would probably be regulatory to a
minor extent. As the Sub-Committee was examining the definition
of regulatory agreements, he considered that a decision on any
one of the sugested new paragraphs might await on the preparation
by the Sub-Committee of a definition of regulatory agreements.
M. PETER (France) supported the substance of the F.A.O.
proposal, but shared the doubts of the United States Delegation
with regard to the form which it should take. He was inclined
to think that the matter submitted by the F.A.O. might be better
inserted somewhere else in the Charter.
He proposed that the Commission should agree to adopt
in principle the .substance of the F.A.O. proposal and leave the
Sub-Comiittee to decide the appropriate place for the insertion
of such a paragraph.
Mr. E.A. RICHARDS (Canada) pointed out that the suggested
amendment was designed to relate production to consumption needs.
He believed that such a purpose would best be achieved by a
regulatory agreement. He supported the principle and the
revised text. Page 10.
Mr. FPESQUET (Cuba) agreed that the principle should
be inserted in the. Charter, but did not think that Article 52
was the right place.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) supported the proposal of the F. A.O.
and considered that Article 52 was the only satisfactory place
for its insertion.
Mr. DE VRIES (Netherlands) also supported the insertion of
a paragraph in Article 52. The insertion was necessary as the
matter was not covered at present.
Mr. GANGULI (India) said the type of agreement envisaged
in the F.A. O. proposal should be inserted in Article 52. The
I.T.O. approach might be different from that of the F.A..O. The
latter favoured commodities being supplied through non-commercial
channels at special prices so that there might be equilibrium
of world production and consumption it a high level.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kindom) denied that there would be any
differences between the approach of I.T.O. and that of F.A.O.
The same governments would be members of both Organizations, so
that their aims and objectives would not conflict.
The CHAIRMAN. pointed out that there was general agreement
in the Commission with the proposal of the F.A.O. but a
difference of opinion as to the exact place in the Charter where
this provision should be inserted. He suggested approval of the
suggestion of the French Delegation under which the question of
the place of insertion would be left to the Sub-Committee.
This was agreed.
The Cuban representative stated that at this stage it was
necessary to reserve the position of his Delegation. |
GATT Library | sp991tq4369 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record Eleventh Meeting held on Tuesday, 17 June 1947, at 2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 17, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 17/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/11 and E/PC/T/B/SR/9/CORR.1-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sp991tq4369 | sp991tq4369_90250145.xml | GATT_152 | 2,175 | 13,847 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/11
AND ECONOMIQUE 17 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMTTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
Eleventh Meeting held on Tuesday, 17 June 1947, at
2.30 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
ARTICLE 30.
Suggested Paragraph 2 A
(Continuation of discussion from 10th Meeting)
M. DESCLEE DE MAREDSOUS (Belgium) considered Article
30 to be logical in that it was opposed to all subsidies
hampering international trade. Undeveloped countries
could find required facilities under Article 13. Members
affected by subsidies granted to other Members could apply
to the Organization, but would have to supply evidence.
As prejudice would be indirect and only appear through
world trade, it seemed to be desirable to extend the
prohibition of subsidies and reverse the burden of proof.
M. LECUYER (France) thought the proposal was dangerous,
because it amounted to a special tax on foreign products,
which could cancel out agreed concessions. It was also
unnecessary, because under the circumstances it would be
possible to resort to some form of subsidy. The Cuban
amendment should rightly be discussed in connection with
Article 15.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 2
Mr. R. B. SCHWENGER (United States) and H. E. Erik
COLBAN (Norway) also thought the right place for this
amendment was in connection with Article 15.
It was agreed to refer the proposal to the Sub-
Committee dealing with Article 15.
Paragraph 2 (a).
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) pointed out that
there were doubts in regard to whether, in the fourth line
of sub-paragraph (a) the sentence beginning "which results
in the sale of such product ......" only referred to the
preceding word "system" or also to the word "subsidy"
earlier in the sentence.
Mr. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) explained that
the intention was to relate these words to both "subsidy"
and "system" and thought that this was clear. He thought
that in view of the possibility of typographical errors,
however, a safer drafting would be desirable.
Appointment of Sub-Committee:
The CHAIRMAN proposed for membership on the Sub-
Committee on Article 30 the delegates of Australia,
Lebanon-Syria, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom and the United States. This was agreed. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 3
Paragraph 3.
Australian Amendment.
This paragraph was discussed largely on the basis
of the Australian Amendment (W/188). (Verbatim of Report
of speeches is in PV/11, but the following summarises the
points raised).
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia) explained that the
present paragraph 3 had been inserted to distinguish between
subsidies stimulating production, perhaps artificially or
uneconomically, and subsidies relating to primary products,
which were intended to stabilise domestic prices or returns
to domestic producers. On examination of the present draft,
the Australian Delegation felt that it was not complete,
because it did not provide for stabilisation schemes that
might be instituted at the stage when the export price was
higher than the domestic price. The amendment proposed
would fill this gap,
"The return to domestic producers"
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) stated that the
purpose of the New Zealand Reservation in London and New
York was to allow comparison between export price and the
returns to the domestic producers. Schemes in New Zealand
aimed at the stabilisation not only of price for domestic
consumers, but also of returns for producers. He was
prepared to accept a wording similar to the present draft,
but had some suggestions to make. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 4
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) felt it necessary to
eliminate the reference to domestic producers as this would
raise doubts as to interpretation in respect of paragraph 2 (a).
The comparison should be with the price to buyers in the home
market.
M. LECUYER (France) thought it desirable to retain a
link between external prices and domestic prices.
Proposed Deletion of Statement "which results over a period
. to buyers in the
domestic market."
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia) stated his proposal involved
the deletion of these words which were quoted in paragraph 2,
to which reference is made and the insertion of the objective
of the scheme,
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) agreed that the phrase
was cumbersome but thought the idea should be retained, because
without it the stabilisation scheme might be determined not to
involve an export subsidy, whether or not it actually resulted
in the export price being lower.
Mr. A.P. van der POST (South Africa), Mr. B.N.
ADARKAR (India) and M. LECUYER (France) also opposed the
deletion.
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia) stated these words had
been considered superfluous as there was a reference to paragraph
2 where they were used. The deletion had been considered a mere
drafting change and he agreed that it should go to the Drafting
Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 5
Substitution of "shall" for "may".
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) supported the suggested
change which would prevent the Organization from determining,
except for the specific reasons stipulated, that the stabili-
sation scheme did not involve a subsidy.
M. DESCLEE DE MAREDSOUS (Belgium) was opposed to the
change, because he considered it a matter of the greatest
importance that it should be the task of the Organization to
examine the work of the scheme in detail.
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia), replying to the point
made by the South African Delegate, stated that by keeping
domestic prices higher than export prices, home consumers
were, in effect, being taxed. It would be wrong to allow
domestic prices to follow export prices when these went
very high. Producers received lower prices for supplies to
the home market than for export when export prices were high,
because they would get a higher price when the world price was
low. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 6
Insertion of "or may result",
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia) explained that this insertion
was designed to provide for the introduction of new stabilisation
schemes where past compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph could not be proved.
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Z aland) supported the amendment.
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) stated that the
present amendment was liable to be used for exempting certain
types of subsidies from the Charter and he could not agree
with changes that would extend the Article to a larger sphere.
Under the amendment the system would be exempt if it might, at
some time, result in the export price being higher than the
domestic price. But schemes established when world prices were
low might not be adhered to when world prices were high, and it
would be dangerous to extend the principle to schemes which had
not in the past proved to work on those lines which it was
intended to exempt. The provision might be resorted to at a
time when world prices were low without being continued when the
price situation changed.
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia) replied that if the principle
underlying this paragraph was accepted, and it had been
accepted, then there should be a provision allowing to
start new schemes of this sort to commence even at times when
world prices are low. The Australian schemes have stood the
test of varying conditions and he could not agree that they
should be ruled out because at the beginning it could not be shown
that they would be maintained even when world prices were high. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 7
Deletion of the word "also" before "resulted".
Mr. A.P. van der POST (South Africa) thought it was
essential to retain this word because it helped to show the
contrast between the prices on the overseas and domestic markets.
Possibility of Substituting "or" for "and" relating to the
to the operation of the Scheme.
The Australian amendment retained the word "and" from the
New York text, but Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) would have
preferred to use the word "or" which, in his view, was more
appropriate, but if the reference to the effective limitation of
production and to not unduly stimulating exports were deleted, he
would be able to agree to the retention of the word "and".
Mr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands) thought the word "and" very
important because otherwise, once a product had been sold for a
higher than the domestic price, there would be complete freedom
to do as one liked indefinitely afterwards. In that instance the
case would not come under the determinations of the interested
Members any more.
"Because of the effective limitation of production."
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) doubted whether this concept
should be introduced here. It would apply to all types of
stabilization schemes under this paragraph but there were
instances where stabilization schemes were merely designed to
assure primary producers of adequate returns for their programme
of production.
Insertion of "the export price is held below ... current export
prices."
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia) proposed to withdraw this amend-
ment which was intended to cover a special contingency, but which
had given rise to some misunderstanding. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 8
"Not to stimulate exports unduly".
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) suggested to omit this
reference as well as that to the limitation of production,
because they might be interpreted as being against the interests
of other Members. The word "unduly" was not a sufficient quali-
fication. He would prefer to restrict this sentence by only
leaving as a condition that the interests of Members would not
be prejudiced.
Mr. B.N. ADARKAR (India) supported this view, adding that
he would also suggest the deletion of the words referring to the
prejudice to the interests of other Members.
Dr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands), Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada),
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) and M. LECUYER (France)
thought the words should be retained. It was considered
important that stabilization schemes should not hinder world
trade.
Mr. B.N. ADARKAR (Inida) suggested deletion of this phrase
"Otherwise seriously prejudice the interests of other
Members".
It was agreed that the Sub-Committee should be asked to
examine the New York text to see to what extent it would be
possible to introduce the amendment presented by the
Australian delegate.
PARAGRAPH 4.
Sub-paragraph (a)
The United States Amendment
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United states) stated that the amend-
ment was intended to avoid the duplication of procedure.
Dr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands) supported the amendment. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 9
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) thought that the exist-
ing draft served a useful purpose, because it provided for a
preliminary screening which would leave only cases of real
importance to be dealt with under Chapter. VII.
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) shared this view.
The amendment was referred to the Sub-Committee.
Sub-paragraph (b)
The Canadian and New Zealand delegations had suggested
(New York Report, page 27) deletion of this sub-paragraph.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada) explained that it was not clear
whether this provision should apply when the attempt to form a
commodity agreement had failed or when the agreement had been
formed but its operation had failed. In the first case, the
possibility of some countries using export subsidies if the neg-
otiations failed, would disturb the prospect of the negotiations.
Even if an agreement failed, the resorting to export subsidies
would not make the situation any better. If the rule was sound
to have no export subsidies, then it was sound in all circum-
stances and should not be suspended during the negotiations.
For these reasons he suggested the deletion of this sub-
paragraph.
M. DESCLEE de MAREDSOUS (Belgium) and Mr. G.D.L. WHITE
(New Zealand) supported this proposal.
Dr. T.T. CHANG (China) thought deletion was insufficient
unless a constructive provision could be inserted instead.
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) opposed the suggestion.
Paragraph 4 dealt with cases of special difficulty, which were
dealt with under the provisions of Chapter VII because they
called for different treatment than was provided for in the rest
of Chapter V. If in cases of special difficulty this procedure
failed, then subsidies ought to be permitted. E/PC/T/B/SR/11
page 10
Mr. de VRIES (Netherlands) thought that sub-paragraph (b)
was justified as an escape clause for the extreme case for which
it was provided. Article 30 provided for the termination of
subsidies but not for their re-institution. This possibility
ought to be covered, but it should be made clear in the drafting
that it applied only to the extreme case.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada) declared that if the majority
would favour the London text, he would accept it, but in that
case it would have to be greatly clarified. The determination
under sub-paragraph 4 (b) was not a real determination, because
it concerned the plain fact whether or not an agreement had
failed. If the right to re-impose subsidies depended on whether
the situation was unduly burdensome to a Member, he would not
object to it.
It was decided to refer the proposal to the Sub-Committee
with the request to take note of the discussion.
PARAGRAPH 6:
The United States amendment was referred to the Sub-
Committee, whose attention was drawn to the solution made
regarding Article 52 in the hope that a similar one might be
found. |
GATT Library | jy108dq2952 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record. Fifth Meeting held on Friday, 6th June, at 2.30p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/5 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jy108dq2952 | jy108dq2952_90250135.xml | GATT_152 | 1,619 | 10,719 | UNITED NATIONS NATION UNIES N JESRESTRICTED
/SR/5
9 June 1947
ECONOMIC CONSEIL
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF
TAHEOUNITED NTIUNS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND
EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B.
SUMMARY RECORD.
Fifth Meeting held on Friday, 6th June, at 2.30p.m.
at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILLGRESS (Canada).
CHAPTER VII
Procedure for consideration of Chapter VII.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Drafting Committee's
text of Chapter VII should be used as a basis of discussion
by the Commission. Amendments and suggestions submitted
by Delegations had been incorporated in the annotated
agenda (E/WC/T/1/1571Rev.l) prepared by the Secretariat
and would be taken in the order listed in that document.
Views of the delegations that could not be reconciled
during the meeting of the Commission wbulr }e Deferred to
a sub-committee which would also consider drafting changes.
Arrangement ap CheDter VII.
TAe CHLIRMAN outlined the arrangement of the Chapter
es 4n the Loadon end New York drafts and drew attention to
the proposals for rearrangement submitted by the UNITED
KINGDOM and AUSTRALIAN delegations. He suggested a general
discussion of the question of the rearrangement of the
Chapter, to be followed by a discussion of the individual
articles.
Mr. E. MCCARTHY (Australia) pointed out the necessity
to clarify the meaning of the words "arrangements" and
"agreements" as used in the London and New York drafts. E/PC/T/B/SR/5
page 2
In his opinion the four sections contained in the Report of
the First Session should be restored in a modified form.
The word "arrangements" should be applied to the whole of
Chapter VII. For clarity those arrangements might then
be divided into two classes of agreaments: regulatory
and non-regulatory. In his opinion the meaning of the
phrase "regulatory agreements" was clear from the text,
but the words "non-regulatory agreements" would need
definition. For this reason the Australien delegation
suggested the addition of an article defining the types
of agreement.
Mr. J. R. C. HELMORE explained the rearrangement
of the Chapter suggested by the United Kingdom Delagation.
The proposed addition of an Article 47A was an attempt to
explain at an early stage of the Chapter the different
conditions and procedures surrounding regulatory and
non-regulatory arrangements. If all reference to non-
regulatory arrangements were omitted from the Chapter,
the whole of Chapter VII would need re-organisation. In
his opinion arrangements of a non-regulatory character
could be useful; such arrangements might be expansionary
measures not necessarily involving regulations of trade
but yet limiting the degree of action which governments
might take.
Mr. J. A. GUERRA (Cube) was of the opinion that the
changes submitted by the United Kingdom delegation were
only changes in form and not in substance. He did not
consider that the Australian amendment for the addition
of a new Section would constitute an improvement to the
Chapter.
Mr. J. J. DEUTSCH (Canada) agreed that the present
text was lacking in clarity especially as to the procedure E/PC/T/B/SR/5
page 3
to be followed in the development of a commodity agree-
ment and therefore approved of the amendment submitted
by the United Kingdom Delegation. He doubted whether
the distinction between regulatory and non-regulatory
agreements was realistic and useful.
Dr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands) found the distinction
between regulatory and non-regulatory agreements useful
as he thought there was scope for the conclusion of non-
regulatory agreements. He cited as examples the permanent
Study Groups, expansionist agreements and agreement which
require regulations only if certain conditions should be
realized.
Mr. C. O. L. WHITE (New Zealand) stated that he did
not have any strng views on the arrangement of the
Chapter. He thought the additional Article 51A as drafted
by the Australian delegation constituted a change in sub-
stance with which he agreed. He supported the new type of
definition or non-regulatory agreements contained in
this suggested Article.
Mr. R. B. SCHWENGER (United States) expressed the
opinion that it was useful to attempt an improvement
in the form of the Chapter, but he thought that no change
should be made in the substance incorporated in the
London and New Yorrk drafts. The distinction between
regulatory and non-regulatory agreements was a basically
useful one.
Mr. S. J. de SWARDT (Union of South Africa) was
of. the opinion that the only difference which existed between
the two kinds of agreements was one of degree and,
therefore, there was no justification to deal with
them under different headings. E/PC/T/B/SR/5
page 4
Mr. E. McCARITHY (Australia) reiterated his opinion in
favor of maintaining a clear distinction between regulatory
and non-regulatory agreements. It would be undesirable to
preclude a useful arrangement containing a minor degree of
regulation merely because it was strictly a "regulatory agreement".
If, for example, the number of countries participating in an
arrangement were small, or the arrangement involved only a small
degree regulation or if public opinion were not ready for the
acceptance of a regulatory agreement it should nevertheless be
possible to conclude an agreement of a non-regulatory character.
Mr. J.R.C. HELMORE (United Kingdom) stated that in his
opinion there were two solutions to the problem faced by the
Commission; either to re-consider Article 52 which sets out the
circumstances in which a regulatory agreement may be used, or to
revise the definition of regulatory agreements. He was opposed
to substantial alteration of Article 52 as that would involve
extension of the circumstances justifying departure from the
provisions of Chapter V. He favoured the second alternative
but considered that the amendment suggested by the Australian
delegation went too far and would require some provision for
independent determination of what was a "substantial" degree of
regulation.
Mr. E McCARTHY (Australia) suggested that the Organization
might be given some criteria.
Mr, J.J.DEUTSCH (Canada) suggested that an attempt should
be made to narrow the definition of a regulatory agreement.
This would allow certain commodity situations to be met with
arrangements that might not fulfiI the rigorous conditions
stipulated for regulatory agreements, E/PC/T/B/SR/5
page 5
Mr. PETER (France) emphasized the need for careful
distinction in order to allow a certain amount of freedom in the
drafting of arrangements not subject to strict rules.
Mr. J.A. GUERRA (Cube) said that the discussion had made
it clear that there was no such thing as a non-regulatory
arrangement. There were, in fact, two kinds of agreement, both
of which were regulatory, the one, however, involving a greater
degree of regulation than the other. If this were agreed in
principle it would necessitate not only re-arrangement of the
Chapter, but also chances in the types of difficulties and
conditions under which those arrangements could be established.
At this staffs he could not commit his delegation to any view
on such changes.
Mr. H.E.Z. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) suggested that
it might help to clarify these problems of definition and
arrangement if further discussion were deferred until after the
amendments to the Chapter had been considered.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the arrangement of the Chapter
should be referred to a sub-committee, and this was agreed.
Functions of Specialized Agencies in relation to Commodity
Arrangements.
It was agreed to defer consideration of the French
delegation's proposal for study of a division of competence
between the F.A.O. and the I.T.O. until Article 50 came up for
discussion.
Brazililan Reservation to Chapter VII
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) explained the reservation of his
delegation regarding the whole Chapter insofar as its operation
might interfere with the production of primary commodities for E/PC/T/B/SR/5
page 6
home consumption. He argued that commodity arrangements should
not prevent insufficiently developed countries from increasing
their production. He proposed to submit an amendment to Article
59 which, if accepted, would enable him to withdraw his
Delegation's reservation.
Mr. J.A. GUERRA (Cuba) asked for clarification of the
Brazilian position. He pointed out that commodity arrangements
were entirely voluntary, and that there was no compulsion on
under-developed countries to participate if they thought that
participation would be to their disadvantage.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) replied that in practice countries
outside an agreement would not have the same opportunities for
development and expression as those inside, and therefore had no
alternative but to join.
The CHAIRMAN expressed the hope that after Article 59 had
been discussed the Brazilian Delegation would be able to withdraw
its reservation.
Matters in Chapter V arising out of consideration of
Chapter VII.
( a ) article 36:
The CHAIRMAN stated that in connection with the note of the
Drafting Committee' s Report regarding the relation of Chapter VII
to article 36, the Secretariat was drawing the attention of
Commission A to this matter, and there was no need for Commission
B to consider it.
(b) Article 37:
Mr. J.R. C. HELMORE (United Kingdom) explained the purpose
of his delegation' s proposal to insert a reference to Chapter VII
in Article 37 ("General Exceptions"). He stated that the only
reference to Chapter VII at present to be found in Chapter V E/PC/T/B/SR/5
page 7
applied to quantitative restrictions. Commodity arrangements
under Chapter VII, however, would involve other forms of
regulation; hence the need for a more general reference in
Chapter V. There would be a consequential change involving
deletion of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph (2) of Article 25.
Mr. T. GUERRA (Cuba) stated that he had no particular
objection to the United Kingdom proposal, but suggested that
the matter should be deferred until decisions were reached on
the questions discussed earlier in the meating.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Cuban Delegate's suggestion
should be accepted, but pointed out that the matter right have
to be brought up sooner if, in the meantime it was found that
Article 37 was coming up for discussion by Commission A. This
was agreed.
The Meeting adjourned until Monday, 9th June, at 2.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | hq829pd5331 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record First Meeting held Thursday, 29 May 1947, at 10.30 a.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 29, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 29/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/1 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hq829pd5331 | hq829pd5331_90250130.xml | GATT_152 | 1,609 | 10,337 | UNITED NATlONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/1
AND ECONOMIQUE 29 May 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED- NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
First Meeting held Thursday, 29 May 1947, at
10.30 a.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: First - M. Max SUETENS (Belgium)
Then - Hon. L.D. WILLGRESS (Canada)
The Chairman of the Preparatory Committee, M. SUETENS
(Belgium) opened the Meeting and announced that the Preparatory
Committee was to meet at 10.30 a.m. on Friday, May 30th,
in Executive Committee for the purpose of examining the Report
of the Working.Party on Tariff Negotiations (document
E/PC/T/76). After examination of this report the comrnittee
would constitute itself as Commission A to proceed with, and to
conclude the examination of Chapter VI of the Charter.
Explaining that the Committee was to sit today in its
function as Commission B of the preparatory Committee, the
CHAIRMAN designated the Hon. L.D. WILLGESS (Canada) as Chairman
of Commission B and invited Mr. Willgress to take the Chair.
Mr. WILLGRESS, in taking the Chair, expressed his
appreciation of the honour conferred upon his country and upon
himself by nominating him as Chairman of Commission B and asked E/PC/T/B/SR/1
page 2
for nominations of the Vice-Chairman. Upon the nomination
of Belgium, M. ROYER (France) was nominated Vice-Chairman of
Commission B.
The CHAIRMAN designated the annotated agenda prepared by
the Secretariat for discussion of Chapter VI (document
E/PC/W/132) as the working document of Commission B for its
examination of Chapter VI and opened the debate on this Chapter,
proposing to proceed in the order of the annotated agenda.
The Delegate of INDIA stated that before debate of
Chapter VI in the Sequence of Articles 39 - 45, a matter of
fundamental importance, raised by the amendment of the United
Kingdom to Article 45, would have to be debated. It had been
the understanding of the preparatory Committee in London and in
New York that services were to be excluded from the purview
of the Charter and of Chapter VI. The amendment to Article 45,
proposed by the United Kingdom, however, implies by excepting
specific services from Chapter VI that other services were to
be included in the Charter and in Chapter VI. Consequently
it would be necessary before the examination of any other
amendments to settle definitely the question whether services
are to be included or excluded from the scope of the Charter and
of Chapter VI.
The CHAIRMAN, directing the attention of the Commission to
the reservations mentioned in General Notes 1 and 2 to Chapter VI
in document E/PC/W/132, opened the debate on the principle
involved in the amendment proposed by the Delegation of the
United Kingdom.
The Delegate of the United Kingdom explained that the
purposes of the amendment proposed for Article 45 was not to
eliminate restrictive business practices with regard to services E/PC/T/B/SR/1
from investigation, but to ensure that such practices with
regard to services would be dealt with by other more appropriate
specialised bodies. The I.T.O. was designed to deal with
practices in trade but not with practices regarding shipping,
insurance, banking and other services, all of which constituted
very complex specialised fields.
The Delegate of CZECHOSLOVAKIA associated himself with
the position of the Delegate of India and remarked that services
such as, for instance, transit were dealt with in other parts of
the Charter. Outside of transport there are other services
which are equally important for a great number of countries and
whereas there is no need for detailed regulation of services in
the Charter, the principle of the inclusion of services should be
clearly stated.
The Delegate of CUBA observed that the exclusion of services
from the Charter and Chapter VI would constitute a severe gap
in the regulation and promotion of internation trade. In view
of past experience of Cuba with regard to the importance of re-
strictive practices of shipping companies, Cuba concurs with the
Indian and Czechoslovakian position that banking, shipping and
insurance should be included in the Charter.
The Delegate of CHILE also seconded the position of the
Delegate of India observing that countries who are principally
exporters of their national products are vitally dependent upon
sea transport for their conduct of foreign trade.
The Delegate of AUSTRALIA, expressing his sympathy with the
views voiced by the Delegations of India, Cuba, Czechoslovakia
and Chile, explained that Australia also is vitally interested
in removing restrictive practices with regard to services.
However, upon careful consideration Australia had arrived at E/PC/T/B/SR/1
Page 4
the conclusion that services could not be dealt with in a
cursory manner, by merely including them in Chapter VI, but
would have to be treated in a much more comprehensive manner
by a body of experts on the subject. The present composition
of the Preparatory Committee would not allow adequate coverage
of the subject and services were most likely not within the
Terms of Reference of the Preparatory Committee.
The Delegate of BRAZIL stated that the inclusion of
services in this Chapter "as not only desirable but of vital
necessity. There exists a close link between transport and
trade and no attempt to deal with trade but excluding trans-
port can be envisaged. There is no necessity to deal with
restrictive practices regarding services in detail but the
principle of their inclusion must be acccepted, so that later
agreements with regard to services might find this principle
firmly established.
The Delegate of SOUTH AFRICA expressed himself against
the proposal to deal with services in the I.T.O. _arter
because this should be the object of other specialised agencies
and it would be fatal to overload the I.T.O. by inclusion of
services. The mere acceptance of the principle would be
nothing but a general statement without any real consequences.
The Delegate of FRANCE expressed himself against the
inclusion of services in view of the very complex nature of
the questions involved and despite the fact that France was
in extreme sympathy with the view that a regulation of services
was needed.
The Delegate of the NETHERLANDS expressed himself in the
same sense pointing to the fact that the Maritime Conference
was about to be established and would have to be the body to deal
with practices in maritime shipping. E/PC/T/B/SR/l
page 5
The Delegate of INDIA explained his opinion that there
must be a clear-cut straight forward decision for the inclusion
or exclusion of services from the I.T.O. Charter. His
Delegation had given to the matter a great deal of thought and
in view of the close connection of international trade and
services connected with international trade, was for their
inclusion in the Charter. However, his Delegation also
recognised the force of the argument not to overburden the I.T.O.
from the outset with too many and too varied functions.
The CHAIRMAN, pointing to the fact that Chapter VI in its
New York version did not expressly exclude services, queried
whether the New York text would be agreeable to India inasmuch
as this text would mean that any Member who considered that
certain practices relatlng to services were having a harmful
effect on international trade could raise the question in the
I.T.O. and it would then be considered by the I.T.O. in
consultation with the speciaIised agency concerned with such
services.
The Delegate of INDIA expressed his consent to the
Chairman's interpretation of his position.
The Delegate of CHILE stated that he could not subscribe
to this interpretation; unless services were included expressly
in one or the other part of the Charter he would be forced to
record formal reservation in this respect.
The Delegate of BRAZIL concurred in this observation and
registered his adherence to the Chilean reservation.
The Delegates of SOUTH AFRICA, AUSTRALIA and the UNITED
KINGDOM said that they could not accept the Chairman's inter-
pretation of the New YorK text, rs implying that complaints with
regard to services could be lodged and that these would be
dealt with by the I.T.O. in consultation with other competent
bodies. E/PC/T/B/SR/1
page 6
The CHAIRMAN stated that the debate had shown that one
group of countries was for the outright exclusion of all
services from the purview of Chapter VI, another group for
the outright inclusion, while a third group would favour the
Indian position. In view of the fact that the principle
involved had been amply discussed he opened the debate on the
amendment proposed by the United Kingdom for Article 45,
requesting the Delegate of the United Kingdom to explain the
object of this amendment.
The Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM explained that his
amendment was designed to put things into their right place
and to ensure that the I.T.O. would not be overburdened with
too many complexities, by having to deal with the specialised
subjects involved in banking, shipping and insurance.
According to the plans for international regulation of various
activities, definite bodies with clearly circumscribed functions
will be charged with various aspects of the highly complex
international post-war economy. There are already in
existence or in the process of development specialised agencies
to deal with transport and with banking. Although there is no
specialised agency in existence or at the moment contemplated
for the international regulation of insurance practices,
Article 61(c) would enable the I.T.O. to take the initiative
in the creation of agencies for those economic activities which
are not yet covered by specialised bodies. If I.T.O. were to
be charged with supervision of all kinds of economic activities
nothing but confusion might arise.
The CHAIRMAN adjourned the meeting for continuance of
the debate of Chapter VI for 3 p.m.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m. |
GATT Library | wr856tn5591 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record Fourth Meeting held on Saturday, 31 May at 10.30 a.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 3, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 03/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/4 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wr856tn5591 | wr856tn5591_90250134.xml | GATT_152 | 1,469 | 9,478 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/4
3 June, 1947.
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
Fourth Meeting held on Saturday, 31 May at 10.30 a.m.
at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILLGRESS (Canada)
1. In continuing the debate on Article 40 the CHAIRMAN
opened the discussion on the French and British re-formulation
of paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b) (D.C. Report, page 35,
note (a) to paragraph 1 (b)).
The Delegate of FRANCE explained that only the general
interests and not private interests should be considered in
the procedure established by Chapter VI. Only the Governments
concerned can accurately judge which practices are harmful
from the point of view of the general interest and consequently
it should be reserved to Governments and not to private
persons to file complaints and appear before the I.T.O. The
Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM and the Delegate of CZECHOSLOVAKIA
concurred with the explanations of the Delegate of France.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES stated that the
British and French re-formulation would involve a prior
investigation of business practices within the jurisdiction
of the Member and consequently each complaint lodged with the
UNITED NATIONS
NATlONS UNIES page 2.
I.T.O. would to some extent involve a charge of breach of
faith against another country. Such implications should by
all means be avoided, apart from the fact that such a prior
investigation on the national level would prove to be slow,
cumbersome and ineffectual. The present United States re-
draft of Article 40 takes pains to prevent any malicious
complaints and thus removes any need for prior national approval
of complaints. The Drafting Committee's formulation, which
substitutes the word "authorization" for "permission" is
sufficient in bringing about a higher degree of Government
control over private complaints.
The Commission agreed to refer this issue to Sub-Committee 2.
2. In debating the United States amendment to Article 40,
The Delegate of BELGIUM stated that the changes in para-
graph 7 involved an extension of scope, and reserved his right
to further comments in the Sub-Committee.
The Delegate of CZECHOSLOVAKIA, although considering some
parts of the revision useful and acceptable, objected to the
changes in paragraph 9 of the United States revision.
The Delegate of CANADA concurred with the Delegate of
Czechoslovakia in this respect, and the Delegate of the
NETHERLANDS seconded the position taken by the Delegate of
Belgium.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES pointed out that after
publication of the New York text the American public had taken
strong exception to the clause on suppression of parts of
reports and that for this reason, if for none other, the United
States revision should be very seriously considered by the
Commission. page 3.
The Delegate of CZECHOSLOVAKIA suggested a drafting
change which would allow for the withholding of parts of the
report only in exceptional cases when vital interests of
Member States are affected.
The Commission agreed to refer the United States revision
of Article 40 to Sub-Committee 2 with the instruction to give
due consideration to the points of view advanced in the
Commission and especially the suggestion of the Delegate of
Czechoslovakia. The Commission also agreed to refer all other
amendments to Article 40 to Sub-Committee 2, including the Czecho-
slovak amendment in document E/PC/T/W/119, which is to be
inserted in the Annotated Agenda between points 4 and 5 on
page 9 of document E/PC/T/W/132.
The amendments proposed by the Delegate of the
NETHERLANDS (documents E/PC/T/W/138 and 139), the revision of
the BELGIAN amendment (document E/PC/T/W/130 - correction 1),
and the amendment proposed by the Delegation of CHINA (document
E/PC/T/W/151) were also referred directly to Sub-Committee 2.
The suggestion of the Delegate of SOUTH AFRICA that the pro-
cedural details contained in Article 40 should not form a
part of the Charter but rather ought to be put into an annexure
Or protocol to the Charter, was also referred to the consider-
ation of Sub-Committee 2.
3. Article 41: The Delegate of NORWAY proposed an amendment
to Article 41 regarding which he would submit a formal working
paper, and the Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM suggested that
the sources of information for studies of the I.T.O. should
be defined in conformity with such sources as enumerated in
Article 48, paragraph 2. page 4.
The Delegate of NEW ZEALAND suggested that the Sub-
Committee might study the question of an international census
and compulsory registration of restrictive agreements, and
the Delegate of BRAZIL reserved his right to present to the
Sub-Committee amendments to Article 41 regarding studies
on effective means for the international registration of
restrictive business practices. The Delegate of CHILE
queried the substitution of the term "discussion" for
"consultation" in paragraph 2(b) of Article 41 and the
Commission decided to refer Article 41 to Sub-Committee 2
with the instruction to take the observations of the Delegates
of NORWAY, the UNITED KINGDOM, NEW ZEALAND, BRAZIL and CHILE
into due consideration.
4. Article 42: The CHAIRMAN proposed, and the Commission
agreed, to deal in the Commission only with the United States
revision of Article 42, referring all other amendments and
observations with regard to this article to Sub-Committee 2.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES explained the purpose
of his revision and directed the attention of the Commission
to the words "forbid and prevent" in paragraph 1, and remarked
that the words "and initiate..... " in paragraph 4 did not
involve that action must be taken under all circumstances as
was duly borne out in paragraph 5 of his re-draft.
The Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM objected to the sub-
stitution of the words "forbid and prevent" in paragraph 1,
stressing that the original New York text, by using the word
"ensure" was stronger in this respect than the revision. He
also objected to the insertion of the words "and initiate",
suggesting that an acceptable clause would be the following:
"decide on and initiate the appropriate action to be taken, if
any".
The Commission agreed to refer the United States re-
draft of Article 42 to Sub-Committee 2 along with all other page 5.
proposed amendments and observations on Article 42, instruct-
ing the Sub-Committee to take due account of the debate in
the Commission.
5. Article 43 and 44: The Commission approved the New York
text of Articles 43 and 44,
6. Article 44-A: The CHAIRMAN proposed to open the debate
on the report of Sub-Committee 1 and the Delegate of NORWAY
suggested to defer consideration of this report which in-
volved highly important questions of principle calling for
further study .
The CHAIRMAN, pointing out that the report of Sub-
Committee 1 had been distributed during yesterday's afternoon
session suggested, nevertheless, to defer consideration of
this report for the time when the Commission would be
examining the report of Sub-Committee 2, and the Delegates
of CUBA and INDIA pointed out that the new Article 44-A
represented an exceedingly fortunate manner for resolving
the issue of services in Chapter VI. Both Delegates stressed
that restrictive business practices in the field of those
services for which specialized agencies are in existence or
contemplated would fall under the jurisdiction of these
specialized bodies, while restrictive practices in the field
of other services would be dealt with under Article 61.
7. Article 43; The Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM pointed
out that in case the Commission had been ready to adopt at
present the new Article 44-A, the United Kingdom would have
been able to withdraw its amendment to Article 45; failing
the adoption of this new article by the Commission the UNITED
KINGDOM had to maintain for the time being and until
adoption of Article 44, its amendment proposed for Article 45. page 6.
The Delegate of SOUTH AFRICA requested clarification
whether the Canadian re-draft of Article 39 mould result in
having Chapte: VI. apply to the case of South African citrous
growers associations in asmuch as these associations controlled
the trade in citrousproducts between South Africa and the
United Kingdom.
The Delegate of CANADA suggested that Sub-Committee 2
in its deliberation of Article 39 should take this observation
into account and the CHAIRMAN ruled accordingly.
The Delegate of BRAZIL directed attention to the tact
that the French text of document E/PC/T/S.R.2
referred on page 5 erroneously to private instead of public
enterprises and the Chairman instructed that a correction to
this effect should be made in the French text of document
E/PC/T/S.R.2.
The Commission referred Article 42, including all the
amendments, reservations and observations recorded on pages
13 and 14 of document E/PC/T/W/132 to Sub-Committee 2 and
adjourned the meeting until such time as the report of Sub-
Committee 2 would be ready for examination by the Commission.
The Meeting rose at 1.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | tm935cd3253 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record Ninth Meeting held on Thursday, 12 June, 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 12, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 12/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/9 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tm935cd3253 | tm935cd3253_90250141.xml | GATT_152 | 7,455 | 47,323 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/B/SR/9 12 June, 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPRATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
Ninth Meeting held on Thursday, 12 June, 1947
at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations. Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Chapter VII
(Mr. ROYER (France), Vice-Chairman,
presided at the outset in the absence
of the Chairman).
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Royer) said it was hoped to conclude
the work of the Commission that afternoon. He reminded the
delegates of the procedure laid down by the Steering Committee:
the object of the general discussion was to indicate to the
Sub-Committee that had been set up the general feeling of the
Commission, to guide it in the preparation of texts to be
submitted to the Preparatory Committee,
ARTICLE 52 - CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE USE OF REGULATORY
AGREEMENTS.
The CHAIRMAN said the Czechoslovak delegation had proposed
a new sub-paragraph (d), which naturally followed their amendment
to Article 47, paragraph (e). The proposed new sub-paragraph
read:
"(d). A shortage of a primary commodity, whether of a
short term or a long term character, which seriously
prejudices the interests of consumers and cannot be
remedied by normal market forces alone, has developed
and it is, therefore, necessary to raise production
and secure an equitable distribution and stable prices
of that commodity".
Mr. L. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) said that at the first
session of the Preparatory Committee the principle was
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 2.
admitted that inter-governmental arrangements for primary
products should also be applied in cases of scarcity of primary
products, and a new paragraph had been added to that effect to
Article 47. It was evident that international regulation of
production, distribution and prices constituted the only suitable
means of remedying insufficiency of an essential product, the
mal-distribution which would result and exaggerated price
fluctuations.
Regulatory agreements should also therefore be applied in
cases of scarcity seriously affecting the interests of consuming
countries.
It was to remedy difficulties of that kind that the Czech
delegation suggested adding the present amendment to Article 52.
He emphasized that the amendment was only a natural and logical
sequel to paragraph (e) of Article 47. That paragraph had
determined in principle that the necessity of increasing
production of a given article should be taken into account.
The adoption of that principle had been only the first step;
the second step must be taken within the framework of Article
52. It was necessary to ensure the possibility of regulatory
agreements governing not only the production but also the
equitable distribution and the stabilization of the price of
a product.
If Chapter VII envisaged only the means of remedying
difficulties arising in cases of a surplus of a product, and
neglected difficulties arising from the scarcity of some
other product, it would suggest that Chapter VII protected in
too exclusive a manner the interests of production and was
neglecting the interests of consumption, despite the fact that
the interests of consumers were in many cases more important
than the interests of production. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 3.
The Charter should not be interested in a unilateral
manner in surpluses and neglect shortages, when one remembered
that the world of to-day was suffering not from surpluses but
on the contrary from scarcity; and when it was considered that
there was not much hope of improvement in the situation in the
immediate future.
The shortage of certain primary products might continue
for a very long time. An example was provided by primary
products for the manufacture of vegetable oils, the lack of
which was greatly felt at present.
On the other hand, his delegation wished to see the
Charter come into effect as soon as possible, and if it dealt
with matters which for the moment were only dreams. such as
surpluses of primary products, and ignored important
immediate questions with regard to the shortage of certain
primary products, it would be very difficult to convince the
world that such a procedure was fair and prudent.
Furthermore, the question of production in connection
with equitable distribution and stabilization of price was
very important for those countries that were preparing their
own industrial nation.
The members of the Commission had warmly welcomed the
proposal made on the previous day by FAO, which was basically
similar to his own delegation' s amendment, and he hoped that
the amendment would be received in the same way.
Mr. D. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said the delegate of
Czechoslovakia was already aware that in principle the
United Kingdom delegation had a good deal of sympathy with
his conception of the problem. He agreed that they must
think of the problems before them as problems demanding
solution in the interest of both producers and consumers. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 4.
He felt, however, that Chapter VII was designed as much to
protect consumption as production.
There were two points in the proposed amendment with
regard to which he saw some difficulty. The words "equitable
distribution" would, if inserted in the Charter, require
definition; it would be very difficult to define what
constituted equitable distribution of a commodity in serious
short supply. The term "stable prices" had also been used,
but the movement of prices during a period of serious shortage,
and their behaviour as the shortage was overcome, was not
related to the normal concept of stability of prices with
which they had been dealing.
He felt that the Drafting Sub-Committee should go
further into those two important points.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wilgress) asked whether it was
agreed that the matter should be referred to the Drafting
Sub-Committee.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) said, with regard to the
comments by the delegate of the United Kingdom on the words
"equitable distribution", that the same difficulty of
definition had been encountered in respect of other terms,
and he did not consider that that was sufficient reason for
the avoidance of an endeavour to define the phrase.
With regard to the United Kingdom delegate's observations
on "stable prices", he realised that it would not be possible
to fix prices; he was suggesting not that they should be
fixed but that they should be stabilised. If an agreement
could be reached with regard to surpluses there was no reason
why an agreement should not be reached on the matter of
shortages. The scope of Chapter VII could quite easily be
widened to cover shortages as well as surpluses. At the suggestion of the Chairman it was decided that
the proposal of the Czechoslovak delegation for the inclusion
of the new sub-paragraph (d) should be referred to the Drafting
Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the United States delegation
had proposed the addition of the following new paragraph:
"Determinations under this Article shall be made
through the Organization by consultation among the
Members substantially interested in the commodity
concerned".
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said the proposed
new paragraph was simply to transfer materiel which applied
to the present Article but which had previously been stated
in another Chapter. The object was to avoid misunderstanding
through the use of a cross-reference.
The new paragraph proposed by the delegation of the
United States of America was referred to the Drefting Sub-
committee.
ARTICLE 53 ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING REGULATORY AGREEMENTS
Preamble:
The CHAIRMAN said the delegation of the United States of
America had proposed the substitution of the word "shall" for
the words "undertake to" in the first line of the preamble.
It appeared to be merely a drafting amendment. It was agreed
to refer the matter to the Drafting Sub-committee.
SUB-PARAGRAPH (a):
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said his
delegation was of the opinion that sub-paragraph (a) did not
express a basic principle in the same sense as the other sub-
paragraphs. The matter was dealt with in Article 49 and it
seemed unnecessary to retain the sub-paragraph. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 6
M. PETER (France) was unable to share the view of the
delegate of the United States of America and maintained that
it was necessary to provide for the possibility of direct
negotiations between states. Such a possibility would be
an incentive to the Conference and Study Group to work as
quickly as possible. Furthermore, in certain cases the
governments concerned might be under the necessity of
reaching an agreement quickly and avoiding the delay that
the Conference or Study Group might involve. The sub-
paragraph reserved to governments the possibility of
defending their vital interests, should they find that the
work of the conference or study group would be too slow.
He was therefore in favour of its retention.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) supported the position or the
delegate of France.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that, as there were no further
observations, the matter be referred to the Drafting Sub-
Committee.
SUB-PARAGRAPH (b):
The Chairman drew attention to the note on sub-
paragraph (b) in the Annotated Agenda (E/PC/T/W/157/Rev.1,
page 11). There were amendments from the delegations
or Chile, Czechoslovakia and the Netherlands, the United
States of America and the United Kingdom. As they seemed
to be purely points of drafting, he proposed their reference
to the Drafting Sub-Committee.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt he must point out
that the United Kingdom amendment was open to objection E/PC/T/B/SR/O
page 7
on precisely the some grounds as those on which he himself
had objected to the proposal by the Czechoslovak delegation
a few minutes previously. Perhaps the proposed amendment
might be further considered by the Drafting Sub-Committee.
The wording used in Article 47 might provide a clue to
suitable wording for sub-paragraph (b) in Article 53.
It was agreed that the proposed amendments of the
delegations of Chile, Czechoslovakia and the Netherlands,
the United States of America and the United Kingdom to
sub-paragraph (b) were referred to the Drafting Sub-Committee.
SUB-PARAGRAPH (c):
The CHAIRMAN said with regard to sub-paragraph (c)
that the United Kingdom delegation at the Drafting Committee
in New York had reserved its position regarding the transfer
of that sub-paragraph from Article 51. The Australian and
New Zealand delegations had made certain reservations and
drafting changes had been proposed by the United Kingdom,
Chile, France, and the United States. He felt the points
should go to the Drafting Sub-Committee.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said his delegation now
felt that it was able to withdraw its request that the
words "according to its interests in the circumstances"
and "within one or other category without altering the
equality between the two" should be put between square
brackets. He felt that it would be a valuable guide to
the Drafting Sub-Committee to have some discussion on the
principle involved.
The CHAIRMAN declared sub-paragraph (c) open to
discussion. E/PC/T/B/SR/ 9
page 8
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) said his delegation had adopted in
its proposed amendment the London text but saw no inconvenience
in following the New York text in the first part of sub-
paragraph (c). If the amendments in sub-paragraphs 47(c)
Fnd 53(b) were taken into account, the last part of the
Chilean amendment, "or when current prices, etc." lost its
importance, and the delegation would be prepared to withdraw
that pert.
He felt, however, that if the amendments to sub-para-
graphs 47(c) and 53(b) were definitely incorporated in the
Charter and they could withdrew the last part, the Drafting
Sub-Committee should give consideration to the first part:
"provided also that said consuming or importing countries
.... representative period".
M. PETER (France) said the object of his delegation's
amendment was to shift the task of weighting and allocating
votes from the Organization on to each Conference. Such a
provision was made necessary by the peculiar circumstances
relative to certain products and countries. He would take
wheat as an example. Before the war France consumed and
produced wheat in approximately equal quantities, and had
therefore practically no exports or imports. Nevertheless
France played a very important part insofar as the production
and consumption of the commodity were concerned. It seemed
therefore that in that particular case there was a peculiar
situation which was not taken care of by the Article as it
stood. Consideration must also be taken of the intermediate
stage between production and consumption: an example in
the case of tin was that of the smelter. He felt that such
aspects should be taken into account and that it should be
left to each country to determine the question of weight and
allocation of votes instead of putting the matter on to the E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 9
Conference and limiting themselves by rigid rules in-
corporated in the Charter.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt they should bear in
mind that the point was not merely academic and that a
lot of experience was available. In connection with the
proposed wheat agreement, it had been realised then
that although objections were raised to particular form-
ulas the New York draft was the most acceptable general
statement on the question of voting which could be arrived
at. Disagreement in the Wheat Conference on the question
of voting had been essentially on two points. The first
point was whether the agreement was essentially one cover-
ing the international trade aspect - the question of
weighting to the extent to which a commodity entered
into world trade. The second point was whether such
correct weight would be given by the phrase used in the
New York draft: "shall ..... have an appropriate voice
within one or the other category without altering the
equality between the two."
The French formula was a good idea in principle,
but had proved unacceptable at the Wheat Conference.
The principles laid down in the New York draft were
as far as one could go in a general Charter of that
kind, and he urged the wisdom of leaving the text as
it stood at present. The United Kingdom delegation
for its part had withdrawn its objection.
It was a delicate balance and anything they might
do now might have a disturbing effect. They would
only be able to produce alternative texts, which he
believed would fe unfortunate and unfruitful. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 10
Mr. MELANDER (Norway) was also of the opinion
that the text should stand as it had been drafted in
New York. He associated himself with the remarks of
the United Kingdom delegate.
Mr. DOIG. (Australia) said although his delegation
supported in principle the idea of equality of voting
powers between importing and exporting countries, in
actual practice and in different agreements it might
be found desirable to change, in special circumstances,
the distribution of voting power. He wandared whether
the Drafting Sub-Committee might consider an additional
provision to the effect that if the participating
countries should decide, agree, or recommend to the
Organization a different system of voting, it would be
accepted or considered by the Organization.
Dr. B.N. GANGULI (India) supported the retention
of the New York text for the reasons advanced by the
delegate of the United Kingdom. The formula as it
stood represented a very nice balance and he felt it
was workable and should be accepted bny the Preparatory
Committee, If the whole question were reopened and
if they sought academic perfection with regard to the
distribution of votes they might not be able to reach
any workable formula at all. India was not largely
dependent for consumption on imports, but it did
import increasing quantities of foodstuffs, particularly
basic foods.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) felt
that there were two points on which there did not seem to be
any great disagreement. Firstly, there was the basic principle of E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 11
equality between What might be described as the celling and buying
interests. Secondly it was appreciated that cases vary greatly
as between different commodity situations and that there must be
a good deal of latitude allowed to the Commodity Conference in the
allocation of voting powers.
The United States amendment was an effort to state the
general principle without removing that latitude. His delegation
did not hold to it very strongly in its present form and would be
glad to have it referred to the Drafting Sub-Committee with the
understanding that those problems had to be met.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the proposals, particularly the
points of substance in the French and Chilean texts could now
be referred to the Drafting Sub-Committee. This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the proposals of the
Netherlands and French delegations with regard to sub-paragraph
(d).
Mr. J. van AARTSEN (Netherlands) said the new text
proposed by his delegation entailed no change of substance but he
felt it was clearer and more concise than the present text.
M. PETER (France) said the purpose of the amendment
proposed by the French delegation was to protect the interests
of new or insufficiently developed countries. Such countries
formed a substantial part of the French Union. The present
formula offered some advantage to countries already developed
as compared with new or insufficiently developed countries. If
taken literally it might hamper the working possibilities of new
countries and make it impossible for them to ensure full
employment, because in order to do so they would have to develop
certain lines of production in which they were behind older and
more developed countries. The proposed amendment was an attempt
to correct the present formula, which appeared to be too rigid. E/PC/ T/B/ SR/9
page 12
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt that there appoared to
be such a wide measure of agreement on the essential points that
it should not be difficult to obtain a compromise. His
delegation had prepared a text and wished to reserve the right
to submit it to the Drafting Sub-Committee, in due course.
It was agreed that the amendments proposed to sub-
paragraph (d) by the delegations of the Netherlands and France
be referred to the Drafting Sub-Committee.
SUBPARAGRAPH (e)
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Annotated Agenda
contained the following note , on sub-paragraph (e):
"The Drafting Committee felt that the phrase 'substantial
progress towards solution of the problem' covered cases where
the agreement impeded a deterioration of the situation.
(D.C. Report, page 42). The United States Delegation
proposes that this note be incorporated as a footnote to the
draft prepared by the Preparatory Committee."
The United States Delegation had also proposed some drafting
changes.
The delegation of india had proposed the substitution of
the words "within a reasonable period" for the words "within the
time limits of the agreement".
Mr. GANGULI.(India) said his delegation' s amendment was
self explanatory. He was doubtful whether a period of five years
would be adequate for the necessary economic adjustments in the
case of basic foods.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) recalled that in New York the same
question had been raised and a satisfactory solution had been
found by the use of the expression substantial progress towards
solution". That wording avoided saying that a solution must be
found within a stated time.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) associated himself
with the remarks of the delegate of New Zealand. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 13
Mr. CHANG (China) wondered whether the point of the
delegate of India might be met by changing the order of the words
so that the sub-paragraph would read: ".....to ensures substantial
progress within the time limits of the agreement toward
solution of the problem".
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the comments on the point be
taken into account by the Drafting Sub-Committee, who might
consult the Indian delegation with a view to ascertaining whether
the sub-paragraph would be satisfactory in its present form
with a slight change.
He draw attention to the proposal of the Brazilian
delegation (Document E/PC/T/W/177. Rev.1) for the insertion
of a new sub-paragraph, which would read:
"such agreements shall not interfere with the production
of essential primary commodities necessary to satisfy the
increasing demand in the home market of countries which
have favourable natural conditions to produce such
commodities".
Mr. L.D. MARTINS (Brazil) said the amendment proposed
by his delegation to Article 53 replaced the reservation Brazil
had previously made on the whole of Chapter VII. Its object
was to avoid a country being precluded from the production of
a certain commodity classified by the Charter among primary
products and playing an important part in the consumption of
that country, in circumstances when the natural conditions
of the country would favour production of that commodity.
All countries should have freedom to produce from their own
soil the materials necessary for their own consumption.
Limitations on production which might prove necessary to
maintain equilibrium in international markets should stop
short at production for national consumption. If that
principle were accepted it remained to be seen whether or not E/PC /T/ B/SR/ 9
page 14
the provisions of Chapter VII would raise obstacles to
its application and whether or not they would restrict
the full exercise of that right.
The position might be better understood through
a brief analysis of various situations before and after
the coming into force of the Charter of the, International
Trade Organization. Before the existence of the ITO
a country could remain outside a restrictive agreement;
and it could produce, if it so wished, within the limits
of its productive capacity and of its ability to enter
into competition in the market; furthermore, if it
desired to do so, it could join the agreement and take
its place in world production. It would be an "outsider"
up to the moment of its adhesion. But when it became a
member of the ITO, and if the production of a certain
commodity Classified among primary products entered into
its programme of economic development, it might happen
that a certain other producing country would consider
itself injured by the reduction of demand in the inter-
national market. In such a case the second country
could enlist he machinery of the ITO and by following
the procedure envisaged in Articles 48 and 49 could set
in motion measures having perhaps the effect of stabilising
the situation and precluding the other country from
emerging from its position as a purchaser of products
which it could itself produce. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 15
The basis of a restriction of that kind which would be
imposed on the latter country was clearly indicated in the
text of Article 47, paragraph (a): "to prevent or alleviate
the serious economic problems which may arise when production
adjustments cannot be effected by the free play of market
forces as rapidly as the circumstances require." The practical
result should be that the country in question would have to
relinquish or at least reduce its production.
He felt that the existence of the ITO should not lead
to the stabilisation of world production of primary products
but on the contrary to an increase in their world-wide prod-
uction and consumption. The distribution of such production
throughout the world would be of benefit and new sources of
supply should not be blocked. What was necessary was to
permit the utilisation, for the advantage of all, of the products
of the earth. Difficulties arising from disequilibrium between
production and consumption should be solved in such a way that
the solutions would harmonise with the exploitation of new
sources and the satisfying of consumers' needs. It was for
that reason that his delegation felt it would be necessary to
preclude an interpretation of Chapter VII Which might retard
the economic progress of the less developed countries; and his
delegation felt it necessary that the proposed new sub-paragraph
be inserted in Article 53.
The amendment was not out of line with the principles of
the Chapter but was on the contrary a necessary complement.
Furthermore it was not included in any other Article, and a
recognition of the principle it contained was desirable in order
to obviate an unwholesome interpretation. That might arouse
fears on the part of countries not at present producers, but E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 16
which might become producers, of seeing formed, under the pro-
tection of the Charter, international cartels of primary products
which would be harmful to those countries. He trusted that his
delegation's amendment would be found acceptable by the Preparatory
Committee, in which case Brazil's reservation would be withdrawn.
Mr. T.T. CHANG (China) supported the remarks of the
delegate of Brazil and said he would be glad to see the principle
mentioned somewhere in the Chapter.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand), while Expressing a certain amount
of sympathy with the consider tions put forward by the delegate
of Brazil, had been under the impression that such points were
to a large extent covered by sub-paragraphs 53(a) and 53(d), and
he felt that if the amendment were to be accepted in its present
form there would be a certain amount of duplication. He
suggested that the Drafting Sub-Committee consider it in connec-
tion with sub-paragraph 53(c).
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) wished also to
express sympathy with the substance of the Brazilian proposal.
It certainly envisaged an increase of consumption of the "problem"
commodities, which was the eventual objective through which they
hoped to solve the special commodity difficulties. That was an
objective not easy to reach. He felt that any country which could
succeed in achieving that objective on whatever scale, and which
had favourable natural conditions for producing a commodity, should
surely be in a position to take full advantage of the increase.
For that reason he did not quite see the difficulty which made it
desirable to put that rather specific case into the general
language of the Chapter. If the matter were being dealt with
in a commodity agreement, he felt that nothing would be more
sure to obtain uniform agreement from the other members of the E/PC/T/B/SR /9
page 17
Commodity Council Boure than an undertaking by a country to
increase its production and consumption at the same rate so that
its net demand and supply on the world's market would remain un-
changed. In the actual agreement he was sure they would all agree
that that would be an extraordinarily favourable position for a
country to take.
He wished to point out further that the agreements were
entirely voluntary. All the procedures in Chapter VII were
voluntary procedures; no member would be forced to enter any
agreement except as its interest might lead it to do so. He
had no objection to full consideration of the problem - if it
was indeed a problem - but it seemed to him that they could be
grateful that someone was looking to an increase of production
to deal with the problem; and they could hardly expect less than
to be allowed, as producers, to take advantage of the increase.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) sympathized with the difficulties
experienced by the Brazilian delegation, but opposed the addition
of the proposed amendment as at present drafted, as it might
prevent the application of a desirable principle which had already
been incorporated in certain commodity agreements and which
countries might wish to incorporate in the future.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) referring to the remarks of the
representative of New Zealand to the effect that the matter
referred to in his amendment might be covered by sub-paragraph
(d) of Article 53, pointed out that the amendment was on differ-
ent lines from those of that sub-paragraph. His proposal
referred to the question of production for internal consumption,
while sub-paragraph (d) referred to production for external
consumption. Referring to the remarks made by the representative
of the United States of America, he said that his amendment did E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 18
not refer to the freedom of a country to become a party or not
to an Agreement, but simply dealt with the construction and
application of the provisions of Chapter 7. His amendment
would be submitted to the Drafting Committee and he hoped that
Committee would arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) thought it was clear that all
representatives were in sympathy with the Brazilian proposal but
he was not altogether satisfied with the explanation which had
been given by the representative of Brazil. It was necessary to
decide whether there was anything in Chapter 7 which would prevent
any member of the Organization from becoming a party to an Agree-
ment. He personally felt there was not. He hoped that when the
matter was discussed in the Drafting Committee the representative
of Brazil would give a more precise explanation of the situation
which he felt made it imperative for Brazil to have a safeguard
on the lines of the amendment proposed.
The CHAIRMAN said it was evident from the discussion that
the Brazilian proposal needed more thorough investigation than
could be given it in Committee B. He felt that the represent-
ative of Brazil would agree to his amendment being referred to
the Drafting Committee.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) said he would be happy to give the
Drafting Committee all the explanations it needed.
It was agreed that the amendment proposed by the Brazilian
delegation to Article 53 of Chapter VII or the Draft Charter was
referred to the Drafting Committee.
ARTICLE 54 - ADMINISTRATION OF REGULATORY AGREEMENTS
The CHAIRMAN said there no amendments regarding E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 19
paragraph 1, but the United States delegation had suggested an
amendment to paragraph 2; the delegation of the United Kingdom
had suggested rewording paragraph 3. There were no proposals
regarding paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. The delegations of Australia
and India had proposed amendments to paragraph 7.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said the reason for the
proposal made by his delegation that the word "may" should re-
place the word "shall" in paragraph 3 was because the latter
word had binding force, and he was not at all sure that the
Organization would want to appoint a non-voting representative
to each Commodity Council.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said that the
substitution of the word "Organization" by the words "Commodity
Council" in the second line of the proposal by the United Kingdom
delegation should be considered very carefully in connection with
the specialized and other organizations.
It was agreed that the amendment suggested by the United
States delegation to paragraph 2 and the amendment to paragraph
3 of Article 54 proposed by the United Kingdom delegation were
referred to the Drafting Committee for consideration.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) .aid the amendment proposed by his
delegation to paragraph 7 of article 54 had been suggested because
it was thought desirable to specify in the Charter the particular
type of consultation which would promote closer relations between
the organizations concerned.
Mr. GANGULI (India) said the remarks of the representative
of Australia also covered the amendment submitted by the dele-
gation of India. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 20
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) referring to Article 51 (g),
said it covered the general principle of inter-governmental
commodity arrangements. Under the proposed amendment to
paragraph (7) of Article 54 the Organization had also to make
reports on regulatory agreements. In Article 54 (7) it was
laid down that in the case of special Regulatory agreements each
Commodity Council should make a report to the Organization. That
was a very different thing from saying that in the case of
regulatory agreements they were to make resorts not only to the
special organizations but also to inter-governmental organizations.
He therefore could not agree with the amendment suggested by the
representative of Australia. He asked the representatives of
Australia and of India to consider their amendments again, and
perhaps the matter could then be submitted to the Drafting
Committee.
Mr. YATES (FAO) reminded the representative of the United
Kingdom and other representatives that the amendment suggested
by the representative of Australia was made in order to bring
that part of the Charter into line with the report of the FAO
Preparatory Commission. In that report it had been suggested
that Commodity Councils should make special reports on their
operations to the annual meeting of the FAO in connection with
the annual programme review of policies in agriculture.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said that the
fact that he had pointed out Article 51, sub-paragraph (g), to
the representative of the United Kingdom, did not mean that he
subscribed to his interpretation of that sub-paragraph. Referr-
ing to the points raised by Mr. Yates, he felt that there was a
confusion in the drafting of the words before the Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 21.
Paragraph (7) provided for a report in the sense of an account
rendered by one body to its reviewing body. He reminded the
Committee that the FAO, in the light of everything that had
been said regarding inter-governmental organizations, would
surely be represented both on the Commodity Council rendering this
report and on the Commodity Committee which was a part of the
Organization which would eventually receive and review the
report.
At the suggestion of the CHAIRMAN, the matter was referred
to the Drafting Committee.
ARTICLE 55 - PROVISION OF INITIAL TERMS, REVIEW AND RENEWAL OF
REGULATORY AGREEMENTS.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) referring to the amendment proposed
by his delegation to Article 55, said that the first change
suggested was primarily one of drafting. The others were more
substantial and his delegation would be happy to have them
referred to the Drafting Committee.
It was agreed that this should be done.
ARTICLE 56 - SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said there was a very long
explanation for the amendment proposed by his delegation to
Article 56. That explanation would be found on page 6 of
document E/PC/T/W/137.
It was agreed that the amendment proposed by the United
Kingdom delegation to Article 56 was referred to the Drafting
Committee.
ARTICLE 56 A.
The CHAIRMAN said that this was a proposal by the Australian
delegation and followed upon that delegation's proposal that the
Chapter should be rearranged. He felt the matter could E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 22.
therefore be submitted to the Drafting Committee.
The proposal of the Australian delegation that a new
Article 56 A should be inserted in the Charter was referred to
the Drafting Committee.
ARTICLE 57 - OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS REGARDING EXISTING AND
PROPOSED COMMODITY ARRANGEMENTS.
The CHAIRMAN said there were no proposals regarding Article
57.
ARTICLE 58 - GENERAL UNDERTAKING BY MEMBERS
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said the suggestion
of his delegation that Article 58 should be deleted was based
entirely on the fact that paragraph 1 (b) of Article 1 covered
the matter.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt that the fact that a case
was covered somewhere else in the Charter was not sufficient
reason for not including it in Articel 58. He would be
reluctant to see the American suggestion adopted without some
comment on the value of having this Article in Chapter VII. The
matter should be considered by the Drafting Committee and it
should be remembered that Article 58 had been approved by the
Drafting Committee in New York and had been left in the draft
Charter.
Mr. de SWARDT (Union of South Africa) agreed with the
representative of the United States that Article 58 should be
deleted as it only required a Member Government to give most
favourable consideration to a recommendation.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) considered that Article 58 should
be deleted.
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada) agreed with the remarks of the
representative of the United Kingdom and considered that Article
58 should be retained. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 23.
M. PETER (France) shared the opinion of the representative
of the United States and felt that as Article 58 was superfluous
it should be deleted-
The CHA IRMAN said that one of the difficulties connected with
Chapter VII was that everything had been referred to the Drafting
Committee.He felt that Article 58 should be submitted to the
vote
Mr DOIG (Australia) considered that Article 58 should be
retained. It should be specified in relation to Chapter VII
that Commodity Councils having a specialized knowledge of problems.
should have the right to make recomandations to Govermentes not
only to those participating in particular agreements but also to
those not participating.
Mr.SCHWENGER (United States of America) called attention to
the fact that there was a principle stated under Article which
was closely related and quoted sub-paragraph (f) of that Article.
Mr. van AARTSEN (Netherlands) shared the view of the
representative of Australia and wished to see Article 58 retained
The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the suggestio made by the
United States representative that Article 58 should be deleted
The proposal that Article 58 should be deleted was defeated
by 8 votes to 5.
ARTICLE 59 - EXCEPTIONS TO PROVISIONS RELATING TO INTER-
GOVERNMENTAL COMMODITY ARRANGEMENTS
The CHAIRMAN said that the representative of Czechoslovakia
had suggested the deletion of the first four lines of sub-paragraph
(a). As that matter was clossly related to the discussions on
Article 52 perhaps it could be referred to the Drafting Committee
Mr. MINOVSKY(Czechoslovakia) said that, as the amdnement
suggested by his delegation to Article 59, was connected with E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 24.
the amendment suggested to Article 52, he had no objection to
the matter being submitted to the Drafting Committee.
The CHAIRMAN called the attention of the Committee to the
comments of the Drafting Committee given on page 43 of that
Committee's report, and proposed that the Drafting Committee of
Committee B should take those comments into consideration.
Referring to sub-paragraph (b) of Article 59, the Chairman
said that the United States delegation had proposed the addition
of a sentence.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile), referring to the phrase in sub-paragraph
(b) of Article 59 "or to agreements relating to the purchase or
sale of a commodity falling under Section E of Chapter V", said
that sentence was added by the Drafting Committee in New York and
his delegation did not know what it meant. Did it mean that
provisions of Chapter VII should not apply to an enterprise coming
under Article 41? His delegation felt that any Member, even if
it maintained State enterprises coming under Article 41, should be
entitled to participate in the Conference, as had been set out in
Article 49.
Mr.WHITE (New Zenland) understood that the proviso referred
to by the representative of Chile appeared in the London text.
His delegation was opposed to the addition of the words
suggested by the United States delegation as it felt exception
should be made for State trading Agreements in the provisions
of Chapter VII and that it would be inaappropriate to add another
cross-reference to bring those agreements back within the orbit
of Chapter VII.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the exception referred to was
contained in paragraph 3 of Article 60, of the London text. The E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 25.
New York Drafting Committee had thought it more logical to place
it under Article 59.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) felt that there
was ambiguity in the reference to the last point and considered
it was a matter for clarification.
It was agreed that the amendment proposed by the United
States delegation to sub-paragraph (b) of Article 59 should be
referred to the Drafting Committee.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) referring to sub-
paragraph (c), said his delegation had suggested that it should
be deleted as it was an exception to the Charter.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that, as the United States proposals
depended on an amendment which would be considered by another
Committee other than the one dealing with Chapter VII, consider-
ation of the matter should be deferred as it was a drafting point.
It was agreed that consideration of the United States
proposal that sub-paragraph (c) should be deleted should be
deferred.
ARTICLE 60 - DEFINITIONS
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that under paragraph 1 the Norwegian
delegation had reserved its position regarding the inclusion of
fishery products in the definition of primary products. That had
been referred to in the Drafting Committee's report (page 44).
Mr. RINGEN (Norway) said his delegation withdrew its
reservation.
The CHAIRMAN said that the delegations of France and of the
United States had proposed modifications to paragraph 1.
Mr. CHANG (China) supported the amendment suggested by the
United States delegation.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) proposed that the word "may" after the word
"term" in line 7 of the French text should be replaced by the E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 26.
word "shall".
The CHAIRMAN said that the amendment proposed by the
representative of Chile would be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) expressed doubt regarding the word
"necessary" in the last line of the United States draft. That
might possibly be interpreted as excluding the possibility of
some arrangement unless it was absolutely necessary that the whole
matter should be completed in a single arrangement. He preferred
the original text of Article 60 subject to discussion in the
Drafting Committee. He suggested that the words "in preparation
for export" might be deleted as they did not make for any
clarification.
Mr. CHANG (China) suggested that after the words "which are"
in the ninth line of the amendment proposed by the United States
delegation the following words should be added: "important
substitutes for the primary commodity or otherwise."
The CHAIRMAN said the Drafting Committee would take into
account the observations made by the representatives of China
and of New Zealand.
The amendments suggested by the representatives of the
United States and France to paragraph 1 of Article 60 were referred
to the Drafting Committee.
The CHAIRMAN said representatives would remember that when
the Committee examined Article 37 the representative of Cuba and
suggested that consideration of that Article should be deferred
until the rearrangement of the Chapter had been discussed.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt that as there was now an
Article on General Exceptions it would be wise to put the
exceptions mentioned in Chapter VII into the part referring to E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 27.
general exceptions.
Mr. DORA (Cuba) said that it would be useful to know whether
this general exception should be limited to arrangements of a
regulatory character.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) thought it would be difficult
to restrict the force of the exception clause.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) considered that as
the matter was not clear it should be referred to the Drafting
Committee. He felt there was agreement that whatever was
excepted from the provisions of Chapter V should be excepted from
all Chapters.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had agreed that the provisions
of Chapter V should not apply to regulatory agreements, and asked
whether representatives agreed that the matter should be referred
to the Drafting Committee.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said that it was his impression
that the representative of Cuba had no real objection to the
proposal but simply wanted to see how the discussion went on the
Chapter as a whole.
Mr. DORA (Cuba) agreed with the remarks of the representative
of the United Kingdom. The question should be dealt with very
carefully as there might be very different opinions as to the
importance of the exceptions. He would be glad if the Drafting
Committee would deal with the question as to whether general
exception could be made for all agreements or only for arrangements
of a regulatory character.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) felt Commission B should indicate
to Commission A their opinion regarding Article 37.
The CHAIRMAN said that the representative of the United E/PC/T/B/SR/9
Page 28.
Kingdom had suggested that Committee B should advise Committee A
that while in general agreement with the principle of having
exceptions under Article 37. it was examining the draft proposal
by the United Kingdom delegation with a view to possibly limiting
the exception to inter governmental agreements of a regulatory
character.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) considered that the exception in
question would have to be a general one and not limited to
regulatory agreements, ,therwise there might be a very limited
scope for making any non-regulary agreements of any Value.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the proposal of the United
Kingdom delegation simply said "that the Commission was examing
the desirability" and that did not mean that they would decide
otherwise. In view of that, would the New Zealand representative
agree with the proposal?
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) replied in the affirmative.
it was decided that Committee B should advise Committee A
that, while in general agreement with the principle of having
exceptions under Article 37, it was examining the draft proposal
of the United Kingdom delegation with a view to possibly limiting
the exception to inter-governmental agreements of a regulatory
character.
Replying to Mr, CAPLAN (United Kingdom), who thanked him on
behalf of members of Committee B for his able guidance, the
CHAIRMAN said it had been a pleasure to preside over the Committee.
Committee B would resume its next examination of Chapter VII when
it had received the report from the Drafting Committee.
The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | pp850qw8582 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record of the 27th Meeting held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Monday, 11 August 1947, at 2.30 p.m | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 11, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 11/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/27 and E/PC/T/B/SR/19-30 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pp850qw8582 | pp850qw8582_90250171.xml | GATT_152 | 3,311 | 21,482 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/B/SR/27
11 August 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS .CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
of the 27th meeting held at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva, on Monday, 11 August 1947, at 2.30 p.m.
Temporary Chairman: Mr. E. WYNDHAM WHITE
(Executive Secretary)
ELECTION OF THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
Mr. WYNDHAM WHITE (Executive Secretary) said that as the
Chairman of Commission B, Mr. Wilgress, was presiding over the
Tariff Agreements Committee, and the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Royer,
had not yet returned from Paris, he would ask for nominations
from the Commission for a Temporary Chairman to preside in the
absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway), supported by Mr. CAPLAN (United
Kingdom), suggested that Mr. Wyndham, White should preside over
the meeting. This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Commission would consider
the Report of the Legal Drafting Committee on Chapter VII
(document E/PC/T/147), and the notes on Chapter VII sub-
mitted by the delegations of Cuba and of the United States
of America (documents E/PC/T/W/265 and E/PC/T/W/261).
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 2
ARTICLE 46
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said that
members of Commission B would remember that in the Report of
the Sub-Committee on Chapter VII, and in the text as approved
by Commission B, there was a note saying that it was understood
that all forms of intergovernmental arrangements, understandings
or any other form of coordinated action were intended to be
covered by the one term "agreement." The Legal Drafting
Committee had decided that the term "agreement' did provide
coverage from the. legal point of view. He proposed that this
fact should be noted in the Record of the Meeting, and this was
agreed.
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) said his delegation had carefully
examined the French text of Article 46 and ,wished to suggest
certain drafting changes.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the suggested changes in the
French text should be circulated and the Legal Drafting Committee
requested to study them as a matter of urgency. Subject to
there- being no objections to the changes suggested, they would
in due course be incorporated in the French text.
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) said that in addition to the charges
proposed by the Legal Drafting Committee his delegation had
further amendments to suggest in regard to the French text.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that if the changes proposed by
the Belgian and French delegations in the French text were of
a minor characters and could be disposed of by Commission B,
he would prefer that course to be taken as he felt the
Commission should adopt the French text simultaneously with
the English text. E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 3
Decision: Article 46 was adopted subject to treatment
of the French text as proposed by the Chairman.
ARTICLE 47
Decision:
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 47 were
adopted with minor drafting changes in the French
text which did not affect the English text.
Paragraph 3
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) suggested that the word "des" should
replace the word "les" in the first line of paragraph 3; in the
thirteenth line the word '"établira" should replace the word
``stipulera", and in the last line the word "ledit" should replace
the word '`ce".
Decision: Paragraph 3 was adopted with the above drafting
changes in the French text.
ARTICLE 48
Sub-Paragraph (a)
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) suggested that the word "viser"
should replace the word "atteindre"l in the third line.
After a short discussion in which the CHAIRMAN, the
representatives of BELGIUM, CHILE, the UNITED KINGDOM, the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FRANCE, and NORWAY took part, the
representative of BELGIUM withdrew his amendmaent.
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) said his delegation preferred the
former wording of sub-paragraph (a) in which the word
" adaptation" appeared in the singular in the French text.
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada) said he would prefer the word
"difficulties" to be substituted for the word "problems" in the
sentence beginning "to prevent or alleviate the scrious economic
problems...."
Decision: Sub-paragraph (a) was adopted with the
changes suggested by the Belgian and Canadian
delegates. E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 4
Sub-Paragraph (b)
Decision: Sub-Paragraph (b) was adopted subject to amend.
ment of the lest three lines of the French text
as follows: "des industries trop developpées a
des utilisations nouvlles et productives."
Sub-Paragraph (c)
Decision: Sub-Paragraph (c) was adopted without comment.
Sub-Paragraph (d)
Mr. DE QUIDT (Belgium) proposed that the words "les
protéger d'un épuisement" should be replaced by the words "prévenir
leur épuisement...."
Decision: Sub-Paragraph (d) was adopted with the
drafting change suggested.
Sub-Paragraph (e)
Mr. DE QUIDT (Belgium) suggested that in Sub-Paragraph (e)
the phrase "pour les consommateurs et pour les producteurs" should
be replaced by the phrase "des consommateurs et des producteurs."
Decision: Sub-Paragraph (e) was adopted with the
drafting change suggested.
Sub-Paragraph (f)
Decision: Sub-Paragraph (f) was adopted without comment.
ARTICLE 49
Paragraph 1
Decision: Paragraph 1 was adopted without comment.
Paragraph 2
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said that it was at
that point that the note by the United States delegation
(document E/PC/T/W/261) should be considered.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that, unless any representatives
wished to submit objections, Commission B should adopt the
suggestion made by the delegation of the United States of America.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) considered that the suggested
footnote was unnecessary. Paragraphs 2 of Articles 49 and 50
left it to each Member to decide whether it wished to participate
or not in a study group or conference. E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 5
Mr.LUGUERN (France) also thought that the suggested footnote
was unnecessary.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said the question
was not whether the Organization would invite a country to a commodity
conference if that country had rejected an invitation to a study
group, but rather whether a country right be advised by its legal
authorities that unless it accepted the invitation to a study group
there was the danger that the Organization would -be in a position
where it could legally exercise that discretion. His delegation
felt that it should be made clear that no country should feel that
it was necessary to participate in the tentative deliberations of
a study group in order to assure its right touattend a commodity
conference. If that were understood, his delegation would not
insist on the footnote. They would be satisfied if it were
recorded in the Record of the Meeting.
This suggestion was accepted.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the text of paragraph 2 as
amended by the Legal Drafting Committee, and said there might be
danger of ambiguity arising as the consequence of the words "all
members" having been changed to read "each member". It might
be possible that the words "it considers" would be taken to refer
to the Organization.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) suggested that the words "if it considers'
should be. replaced by: "if the Member considers".
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) supported the suggestion Made
by the representative of Chile.
Decision Paragraph 2 was adopted with the amendment
suggested. E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 6
Paragraph 3
The CHAIRMAN referred to the note by the Legal Drafting
Committee drawing attention to what was presumably regarded as
an anomaly, although it did not appear to be a serious one.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said there might be a considerable
number of non-Members of the Organization in a particular study
group, and therefore simultaneous transmission of the report of
the group to participating countries and to the Organization was
desirable.
Decision: Paragraph 3 was adopted.
ARTICLE 50
Decision: Article 50 was adopted without comment,
ARTICLE 51
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1 was adopted without comment.
Paragraph 2
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) pointed out that
paragraph 2 was missing in the English text.
The CHAIRMAN said he took it that members of the English-
speaking delegations were familiar with the text of Paragraph 2
as previously approved by Commission B.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) said he had been
present when the Legal Drafting Committee considered paragraph 2
and the only change he could recollect was the addition of the
word "the" before the word "Members".
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the text of paragraph 2 could be
provisionally adopted with the addition of the word "that' in
front of the word ``Members''.
Decision: Paragraph 2 was provisionally adopted
with the amendment suggested. E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 7
ARTICLE 52
Paragraphs 1-5
Decision: Paragraphs 1 to 5 were adopted
without comment.
Paragraph 6
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that in the sixth line of the
English text a coma should be placed after the word "if''.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) :referring to the deletion
of the word "and" and the substitution of the word "or" in the
eleventh and twelfth lines, said that he was satisfied that
this would not mean that a group of.Members concerned only with
production, or only with consumption, could frame agreements.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States of America) agreed that there
were specific provisions in the Chapter. against -such action.
Decision: Paragraph 6 was adopted.
ARTICLE 53
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1 was adopted without comment..
Paragraph 2
On the proposal of Mr. De Quidt (Belgium) paragraph 2 of
the French text was amended to read:
"Les decisions prévues. au present.article seront prises
dans le cadre de l'Organisation après consultation et
entente entre Etats Membres intéressés de facon-
substantielle au produit de base en question".
Decision:. Paragraph- 2 was adopted, subject.to the
above amendment of the French text.
ARTICLE 54
Sub-paragraph (a)
The CHAIRMAN drew the Commission's attention to the note
by the Cuban Delegation (E/PC/T/W/265) and suggested that E/PC/T/B/SR/27
if there was no objections the note should be added as an
explanatory note to the final text of Article 54(a).
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) explained that his Delegation would be
unable to accept Article 54(a) if the footnote were not inserted,
Decision: It was agreed to insert the note proposed
by the Cuban Delegation.
The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of delegates to the
aecidental omission of the words "the conclusion and operation
of" after the word "governing' in line 3 of the preamble to
Article 54.
Decision: - The preamble and sub-paragraph (a) were
adopted.
Sub-Paragraph (b)
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada) pointed out that in line 7, the word
"voice" in the English text had been replaced by the words
"number of votes", while in line 15 the word ``voice" was re-
tained. He asked whether the interpretation was the same in
each case .
After a discussion in which the delegates of the United
States, the United Kingdom and Australia took part, it was
decided that there was no inconsistency since the second reference
was meant to be less precise than the first.
Decision: Sub-paragraph (b) was adopted,
The CHAIRMAN draw the Commission's attention to the Legal
Drafting Committee 's note on the settlement of differences on
voting arrangements.
On the suggestion of Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom), it was
agreed to discuss the matter after consideration of the Legal
Drafting Committee's note on Article 57.
Sub-paragraph ( c)
M.r, DE, QUIDT (Belgium) proposed that the words "souffre d'une
diminu-tion anormale" be replaced by the words "renacntre des
difficultés anormales". E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 9
Decision: The French text was amended as proposed and
sub-paragraph (c) was adopted.
Sub-paragraph (d)
Decision: Sub-paragraph (d) was adopted without comment.
ARTICLE 55
Paragraph 1
Decision: Paragraph 1 was adopted.
Paragraph 2
Mr. DE QUIDT (Belgium) proposed that the words "aura le
droit d'avoir un répresentant" in line 3 of the French text be
replaced by the words "aura droit à un répresentant"..
Decision: The amendment to the French text was accepted
and paragraph 2 was adopted.
Paragraphs 3 - 9
Decision: Paragraphs 3 - 9 were adopted without comment.
ARTICLE 56
Decision: Article 56 was adopted.
ARTICLE 57
M. ROYER (France) proposed that the Article be examined
after discussion of the Legal Drafting Committee's note.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) suggested that the most
important part of the text proposed in the -note was that part of
sub-paragraph (b) beginning with the words "In so far as
practicable".
Mr. CAPLAI (United Kingdom) agreed with the United
States delegate and wondered whether better wording could not
be found.
M. ROYER (France) said that a question of substance
was raised. For a legal text the proposed wording was vague.
He suggested that the provision be accepted in principle, and E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 10
that the Legal Drafting Committee be asked to review the
position of non-Members in the light of Chapter VIII.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the wording might be altered
to "with adjustments when necessary to admit participation of
non-Members of the Organization".
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) supported this suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the words "In so far as
practicable" be inserted before the word "apply", and that the
words beginning "with appropriate adjustments ..." be deleted.
M. ROYER (France) said that the deletion removed the
ambiguity but raised a question of substance. It was not the
original intention of the Committee that departures from the
procedure set forth in Chapter VIII should be allowed in the case
of Members. Two points must be cleared up; whether departures
from the procedure in Chapter VIII were allowed, and if so,
whether they were allowed in the case of non-Members only.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) suggested that the original
text be adopted, with the deletion of the last phrase beginning
"which shall".
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the original text be prefaced
by the words "Each commodity control agreement shall provide that".
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) felt that the question was left
unsolved. He preferred the Chairman' s original proposal
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the original text be adopted
with the proposed preamble and the last phrase altered to read
as follows:
"which will apply the procedure set forth in Chapter VIII
with appropriate adjustments to cover the case of non-
Members".
This should be referred to the Legal Drafting Committee and their E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 11
attention drains to the desirability of the inclusion in Chapter
VIII of provision governing differences arising under Chapter VII.
Decision: It was agreed to put the suggested amendment
provisionally in square brackets and refer Article 57 to
the Legal Drafting Committee for approval.
LEGAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE'S NOTE TO ARTICLE 54.
In regard to that part of the note to Article 51 whose
deletion the Legal Drafting Committee recommended, the
CHAIRMAN suggested that the note be re-drafted as a recommendation.
that the procedure of Article 57 be adopted in the case of
differences on voting arrangements arising in a commodity
conference.
MR. ROYER (France) said that the Note could only recommend
that non-Members accept the arbitration of the Organization.
It could do no more than state the problem.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Note be re-drafted by the
Secretariat in consultation with the Legal Drafting Committee.
This was agreed.
ARTICLE 58.
M. MOSTIN (Belgium) proposed that the words "se fondant
sur celle-ci" in sub-paragraph (c) be replaced by the words
"partant de celle-ci".
M. ROYER (France). proposed that the words "l'Organisation
do l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation" be amended to read
``l'Organisation pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture".
Decision: There amendments to the French text were agreed,
and Article 58 was adopted
ARTICLE 59.
On the proposal of M. MOSTIN (Belgium) it was agreed to E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 12
replace "seront" in line 4 of paragraph 1 and `'participeront"
in line 7 of paragraph 2 by "seraient" and "participeraient"
respectively.
Decision: Article 59 was adopted, subject to the above
amendments to the French text.
ARTICLE 60
The CHAIRMAN drew the Commission's attention to the Report
of the Committee on Chapters I, II and VIII, in which it was
suggested that article 60 might require alteration to make it
clear that joint representation referred only to bodies set up
under Chapter VII.
It was decided that there was no ambiguity, since the
Article began with the words "For the purposes of this Chapter".
M. ROYER (France) proposed that the words "sur demanded"
in the French text be replaced by the words" à la demande de
l'Etat intéressé". The alteration was adopted.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) suggested that the English
wording "where it is so desired" would also require alteration,
as it was less specific than the amended French version. After
discussion, this suggestion was not accepted.
Decision: Article 60 was adopted subject to the above
amendment to the French text.
ARTICLE 61
Paragraph l (a)
Mr. TAYLOR (United Kingdom) pointed out that the word
"inter-governmental' had been introduced in paragraph 1(a).
He believed it involved a change of substance, since agreements
between a State enterprise in one country ana private enterprise
in another would not be covered. E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 13
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) said that the Chapter dealt
with inter-governmental commodity agreements only, and that
therefore the agreements mentioned by the United Kingdom
delegate did not in any case fall within the scope of Chapter VII.
M. MOSTIN (Belgium) proposed that the word. "at" be inserted
after "produit" and a similar addition made in the English text.
M. ROYER (France) suggested that "'visé par" be replaced
by the words "et rentrant dans le cadre de".
Decision: Paragraph 1(a) was adopted subject to amendment
of the French text as proposed by the delegate of France.
Paragraph l(b)
Decision: Paragraph 1(b) was adopted.
Paragraph 1 ( c)
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) believed that the substitution
of the words "have as their object" for the words "appropriately
relate'' resulted in a change or meaning.
After a discussion in which the delegates of NORWAY, the
NETHERLANDS, INDIA and CHILE took part, it was decided, on the
proposal of the UNITED KINGDOM.delegate, to delete the words
"which have as their object" and insert the words "which are
necessary for''.
Decision: Paragraph 1(c) was adopted as amended, with
a similar amendment to the French text,
Paragraph 1( d)
Decision: Paragraph l(d) was deleted in view of the Note
by the Legal Drafting Committee.
Paragraph 2
Decision: Paragraph 2 was adopted.
Paragraph 3
The CHAIRMAN drew the Commission's attention to the Legal E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 14
Drafting Committee's Note on the term "wild life".
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said that the examples might
be deleted as they contributed nothing to the meaning of the
paragraph.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said that the words gave concrete
content to the paragraph and should be maintained.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) proposed that the words
"such as" be replaced by the word "including". He pointed out
that in a similar reference in Article 37 no examples were given.
M. ROYER (France) suggested that the words "such as
fisheries or wild life" be replaced by the words "including
fisheries conventions".
The CHAIRMAN suggested that no examples should be
included in view of the similar reference in Article 37. He
thought, however, that the Norwegian delegate (who had left the
meeting) should first be consulted.
Decision: Subject to the approval of the Norwegian
delegate, it was agreed to delete the examples mentioned
in paragraph 3, it being understood that fisheries and
wild life were in fact covered by the phrase "conservation
of exhaustible natural resources". If, however, the
Norwegian delegate could not accept this decision., it
was agreed to conclude the paragraph with the words
"including conventions on fisheries". In other respects
paragraph 3 was adopted.
NUMBERING OF ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS.
Attention was drawn to discrepancies in the old and new
numbering of Articles and. Chapters. The Secretariat was asked
to ensure consistency. E/PC/T/B/SR/27
page 15
ARTICLE 46
On the proposal of the CHAIRMAN, it was decided that
the French text of Article 46 should. be re-drafted by the
French-speaking delegations in consultation with the Legal
Drafting Committee.
TRIBUTE TO LEGAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
In conclusion Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) paid a tribute
to the valuable work of the Legal Drafting Committee.. It was
agreed to include a note of the Commission's appreciation in
the Record of the Meeting.
The meeting rose at 19.30. |
GATT Library | nm504hy3101 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record of the 28th meeting held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 15 August, 1947 at 2.30 p.m | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 15, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 15/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/28 and E/PC/T/B/SR/19-30 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nm504hy3101 | nm504hy3101_90250172.xml | GATT_152 | 3,931 | 24,619 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/B/SR/28
15 August, 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT,
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
of the 28th meeting held at the Palais des
Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 15 August, 1947 at 2.30 p.m.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE LEGAL AND DRAFTING
COMMITTEE ON CHAPTER VI.
The CHAIRMAN opened the meeting and said that members would
recall that when Commission B last considered Chapter VI it
approved the reports of the Sub-Committees and established a text
for the Chapter with the exception of Article 45. The report of
the Legal and Drafting Committee was given in document E/PC/T/150
of August 5. As the Commission had already approved a
definitive text, for the Articles in that text, it would not be
possible to accept any amendment which deviated in substance from
the text already approved.
Referring to the memorandum submitted by the delegation of
the United Kingdom (document E/PC/T/W/292), the Chairman said
that that document would be considered when the Commission
discussed Article 45.
Article 39
Paragraph 1
Decision: Approved without comment.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether there were any comments on the
note by the Legal Drafting Committee on Page 2 of document
E/PC/T/150.
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 2
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said that the reservation he had made
in connection with paragraph 1 of Article 39 had not been included
in the Report of the Legal Drafting Committee. His Government
had not had time to take a decision concerning that paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN said that the notes would be incorporated in
the Report. The Legal Drafting Committee considered that it was
not within its terms of reference to draft the notes.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) suggested that the French text of
the passage beginning "to prevent ............ set forth in
Article 1" should be redrafted.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) and Mr. LECUYER (France) supported
the proposal made by the representative of Belgium.
Decision: The proposal made by the Belgian representative
was adopted.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium), referring to the first paragraph
of Article 39, said that it was linked with Article 1 of the
Charter which had been modified at the suggestion of the Belgian
delegation. In the new drafting of paragraph 1 of Article 39 the
words "purposes of the Organization as" had been deleted and the
words "objectives set forth in Article 1" substituted. If the
word "objectives" meant all the objectives of the Charter, he would
accept that drafting. If it did not have that meaning, he felt it
should be qualified by the addition of a word such as "reasonable"
or "justified". k
Mr. VANDER POST (Union of South Africa) said that the
point raised by the representative of Belgium was covered by
Chapter 1 of Article 1. The amendment proposed by the
Legal Drafting Committee brought into line the wording of
Article 1. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 3
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) considered that, in order to
clarify the matter, the words "and the purposes of the Charter"
should be added to the words "interfere with the achievement of
any of the other objectives set forth in Article 1."
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) supported the
remarks of the representative of the Union of South Africa.
Mr. HOLMDS (United Kingdom) agreed with the representative
of the United States, and felt that the text of paragraph 1 should
be left unchanged.
Mr. VANDER POST (Union of South Africa) and Mr.
(Canada) supported that point of view.
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) considered that the words
"dans tous les cas" should be translated to read "whenever" in
the English text.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Legal and Drafting
Committee were satisfied that the two texts agreed and were
supposed to be experts in the two languages.
Decision: Paragraph 1 was approved.
Paragraph 2.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) stated that in sub-paragraph (a) of
paragraph 2: "We note that the word 'between' has been
substituted for 'among'. We would very much like to see the
word 'among' retained in this paragraph as we consider that, in
this particular case, it conveys more clearly what is meant by
this provision. As a matter of fact we feel that the phrase
which appeared in the New York text, which said 'among a number of
countries', is far more better than the present text reading
'between two or more countries' and we suggest that this Commission
approves this latter phrase. We have always maintained
that if an enterprise does not possess the effective control E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 4
of trade in the world markets of the products which it sells,
the provisions of this Article would not apply to such enterprise,
and on this understanding we have given our approval to this
paragraph. We would like you to leave this on record at this
stage and, as stated before, suggest that the phrase remains as
in the original text 'among a number of countries'."
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Legal Drafting Committee
had decided that the use of the words "two or more" made it
impossible to use the word "among" and that was why the wording
was changed. He did not see any substantial difference between
what was stated in the document the Commission was considering
and the New York text.
Mr. VANDER POST (Union of South Africa) considered that
the word "between" was the more correct one to use.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) supported the suggestion
that the New York text should be retained.
Mr. VANDER POST (Union of South Africa) favoured the text
proposed by the Legal Drafting Committee.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) replying to Mr.
(Belgium) said that it was very difficult to argue that "among
a number of countries" implied necessarily more than two countries.
"Among two" was an unusual expression, but not an impossible one.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) suggested that the phrase should read
"among a certain number of countries."
Mr. BARROS (Brazil) supported the text as at present
drafted; it clearly indicated that the case of two countries
was covered.
Decision: Paragraph 2 was approved without
amendment. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 5.
Paragraph 3.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), referring to the second line at
the top of page 5, said that there should either be commas after
the word "copyrights" and after "Member" or none at all.
Mr. TEaRILL (United States of America) said that the Legal
Drafting Committee had deliberated on the comma in question for
more than two hours, and the comma after "copyright" was dropped
in an attempt to clarify the situation.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom proposed that the comma after
the word "Member" should be deleted.
Mr. LECUYER (France) said he ways satisfied with the drafting
of the French text.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) considered that Commission B should not
constitute itself a super drafting committee.
The CHAIRMAN agreed.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) withdrew his suggestion.
Decision: Paragraph 3 was approved.
Paragraph 4
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) said that the Legal Drafting Committee
had modified the draft of paragraph 4 (b); the words "including
control in the practice" had been replaced by "in a practice",
and he wished to know why that had been done.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) felt that certain words should
be added to the end of sub-paragraph (b) to show that when
reference was made to a practice listed in paragraph 3 it con-
cerned the particular practice which was in question at the time
or the particular practice which was the subject of a complaint.
The words "and specified in a complaint" would probably meet the
point. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 6
Mr. VAN DER POST (Union of South Africa) suggested that the
word "any" should be substituted for the word "a" before
"practice".
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) preferred the original French text
and said his observation only referred to the French equivalent
of the English text.
Mr. LECUYER (France) considered that there was a difference
between the French and English texts. He suggested that the
word "possible" should be added to the original French text.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) felt that the words "and
specified in a complaint" should be added after the words "of
this Article". As suggested by the representative of France,
the word "possible" could be inserted before the word "engagement".
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) considered that the suggestion
made by the representative of the United Kingdom would not
help matters very much. He felt that the addition of a phrase
such as "including control of its right to engage" might cover
the point.
Mr. .THILTGES (Belgium) said that having pointed out the
discrepancy between the two texts, he was willing to support
any text which might be adopted by the Commission if the
Commission thought that the discrepancy did not matter.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the words "control of engagement"
should be changed to read "including the control of the possi-
bility of engaging in a practice."
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) supported the
amendment suggested by the representative of the United
Kingdom as it made it clear that control by public authority
related to a particular practice or practices which were E/PC/T/B/SR/ 28
page 7
complained. about and not to other practices listed in
paragraph 3.
Mr. COUILLARD (Canada) supported the remarks of the repre-
sentative of the United States of America. The present English
wording of the paragraph was quite clear. However, so far as
the French text was concerned, he considered the original should
be adopted.
Mr. VAN DER POST (Union of South Africa) did not agree with
the suggestion made by the representative of the United Kingdom.
After a short discussion in which the representatives of
the UNITED KINGDOM, NEW ZEALAND and NORWAY took part, the
CHAIRMAN asked whether it was agreed that the English text
should be left unchanged and that the French text should be
amended to read "y compris un contrôle......." as suggested by
the representative of Norway.
Decision: Paragraph 4 was approved with the amendment
suggested.
Article 40.
Paragraph 1.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) asked that the word "lésé" should
be retained as it corresponded exactly to the English word
"affected."
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) did not agree with the representative
of Belgium: "1ésé" meant that a Member should prove actual
damage, and that was not necessary. "Affected" meant rmore or
less "interested, and if it were translated to read "intéressé"
it would be better than using the term "lésé".
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) and Mr. LECUYER (France)
supported the remarks of the representative of Norway. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 8
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) Understood the objection of the
representative of Norway to the word "lésé", but said that anyone
who read Article 40 would be no doubt that there must be and
injury-present -or about to happen.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) suggested that the words in the French
text should read "qui so considere lésé", and the word "affected"
maintained in the English text.
Mr. BARROS (Brazil) said that the difference between the
words "lésé" and "affected" had been discussed at great length
by the Legal Drafting Committee. He supported the suggestion
made by the representative of Norway.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) stated that his delegation could not
support the proposal made by the representative of Norway.
Mr. BARROS (Brazil) said the question to be solved was
whether a Member State would have to prove to the Organization
before investigation that he had suffered some injury, or whether
he would have to furnish that proof during the investigation.
If the latter idea were adopted, then the words suggested by the
representative of Norway would apply.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) suggested that the words to the
effect that the minimum information should cover the scope of
injury as regards the complaining Member and the probability of
such injury should he added after the first sentence of paragraph 3.
Mr.. FLETCHER (Australia) pointed out that in the first
part of paragraph 1 it was laid down that the "organization
shall arrange, if it considers such action etc.". If paragraph
3 were read in conjunction with paragraph 1 it would clarify
the matter. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 9
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) supported the
remarks of the representative of Australia, and considered
that the English text of paragraph 1 should be retained.
The CHAIRMAN felt that it would be going beyond the
scope of the Commission if words were added to the end of
paragraph 3 as suggested by the representative of Belgium.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) said that he was satisfied
with the English text but was not competent to express an
opinion on the French text.
The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the suggestion made by
the representative of Norway. Nine delegations expressed
themselves in favour of the adoption of the proposal. The
representatives of CZECHOSLOVAKIA, BELGIUM and the NETHERLANDS
reserved their position.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that there could not be
reservations on points of drafting.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) proposed that the word
"affected" in the English text should be deleted and that
after the word "Member" the phrase "whose interests are
concerned" should be inserted.
Mr. FLETCHER (Austral.a) supported the proposal made
by the representative of the United Kingdom.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) asked what the French-speaking
representatives felt about the proposed change in the English
text.
Article 40, para. 1, page 6
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) suggested that the word "affected"
be replaced by the word "concerned".
M. LECUYER (France) did not consider that the drafting of
para. 1 was vital. The idea underlying the word "lésé" in this E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 10
paragraph was purely subjective.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) in the light of the remarks made by
the French Delegate, proposed that the note by the Legal Drafting
Committee on paragraph 1 be suppressed.
Paragraph 1 was approved, subject to this modification.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) proposed, for the sake of clarity,
that a comma be inserted after the word "Iésé" in the third line
of the French text of paragraph 2.
Paragraph 2 was approved subject to this modification.
Paragraph 1 was approved.
Paragraph 4 was approved.
Paragraph 5 was approved.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether there were any comments on the
note by the Legal Drafting Committee on paragraph 6.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) said that the Sub-Committee,
of which he was chairman was assured by the French Delegate that
the word "decide" was, in this context, the best translation of
the word "constater".
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) explained that the use of the word
"determined" had been queried on legal grounds, and the word
"decide" substituted.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) proposed that the difficulty be met
by the use, in the French text, of the phrase "se prononcera
sur la question de savoir" instead of "constatera" in the
fourth line of paragraph 6.
Paragraph 6 was approved subject to this modification.
Paragraph 7 was approved.
Paragraph 8 was amproved.
In reply to a question by the CHAIRMAN on the note by the
Legal Drafting Committee on paragraph 9, Mr. BARROS (Brazil)
recalled that the Sub-Committee had preferred the retention of E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 11
this paragraph, on the grounds that it was somewhat different
to Article 42 which implied an obligation.
Paragraph 9 was approved.
Paragraph 10 was approved.
Subject to the substitution of a comma in the place of the
word "et" in the fifth line of the French text on page 12.,
Paragraph 11 was approved.
Article 41, paragraphs 1and 2 were approved.
The CHAIRMAN road the note of the Legal Drafting Committee
on paragraph 1 of Article 42 and invited comment.
Mr. HOLES (United Kingdom) would be prepared to agree to
the suppression of the last three lines of paragraph 1.
Mr. CHANG (China) proposed the deletion of the words
"by legislation or otherwise" in the second line, and the re-
tention of the remainder of the paragraph.
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) supported this proposal. He
pointed out the "measures" in line 2 were not the same as the
"measures"' in the last line but 2.
Mr. VAN DER POST (South Africa) agreed to the deletion of
the words "by legislation or otherwise" and also to the suppression
of the last three lines, as proposed by the Delegate of the
United Kingdom.
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) could not accept the deletion of
the phrase "the Members' system of law".
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) proposed the phrase
"such assistance to be given in accordance with" instead of
"such measures to be taken ..." This would make it quite clear
that there was no question of the Organization interfering in
a Member's legislation.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) was entirely in agreement with the Delegate
of the United States. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 12
M. LECUYER (France) drew attention to two errors in the
French text: The phrase " traitera en concours" in line 12,
should read "prêtera son contours" and the word "sa" should
read "la".
Article 1, paragraph 1, as amended by the United States
proposal and subject to the drafting modification proposed by
the Delegate of France was approved.
Paragralph 2 was approved.
Paragraph 3 was approved.
The CHAIRMAN invited comments on the note from the Legal
Drafting Committee on paragraph 4.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said that the Commission had already
agreed to the use of the expression "dans le cadre de sa legis-
lation" in Article 42, paragraph 1. It was therefore only
logical to retain it in the present paragraph.
Mr. HOLMS (United Kingdom) suggested that the opening
phrase should more properly read "Each Member shall take full
account of each request, decision and recommendation ..."
Subject to this comma, paragraph 4 was approved.
.a .o .
The CHAIRMAN invited comments on paragraph 5.
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) pointed out that the word "fully"
at the beginning of the paragraph was far wider than the original
text
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) who had been present
when the question was discussed by the Legal Drafting Committee,
said that the word "fully" had been added to indicate that reports
should be detailed and not merely perfunctory. The request re-
ferred to in the paragraph was a reflection of a similar paragraph
in Ar0ticle 4.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) suggested that the insertion of
the word "fully" went beyond the terms of reference of the Legal
Drafting Committee. He proposed its deletion. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 13
On a vote being taken, the proposal by the United Kingdom
delegate was defeated.
Paragraph 5 was approved.
Paragraph 6 was approved.
Article 43, paragraphs 1 and 2 were approved.
Article 44, paragraph 1 was approved.
Article 45, paragraph 1 was approved.
The delegates for France and Norway repeated the reserves
that they had already made on this paragraph.
ArticIe 45, paragraph 2 was approved, subject to the word
"thereby" being substituted for the words "or would be" in the
last line on page 20. The last four lines of the French text on
page 21 should run. "et offriront des possibilites adequates de
consultation a fin de parvenir...."
Paragraph 2 was approved.
Paragraph 3 was approved.
Paragranbl 4 was approved.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the discussion on Article 46,
paragraph 1, read the note by the Drafting Committee, and referred
to the amendment to Article 46 proposed by the United Kingdom
Delegation, E/PC/T/W/292.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) explained that the object of
the United Kingdom amendment was to avoid a certain obscurity
which figured in the London text .
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) suggested the insertion of the word "inter-
governmental" in the amendment, the opening phrase to read "any
inter-governmental bilateral agreement".
He asked why the United Kingdom Delegation desired the retention
of sub-paragraph (b).
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) replied that considerable
confusion would inevitably ensue if it were omitted. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 14
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) regretted that his Delegation
could not accept the amendment, in that an important substance in
the Charter was involved.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) was of opinion that Articles 31 and 32
covered the whole field and rendered the United Kingdom amendment
superfluous.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) wondered whether the amendment meant that
state trading enterprises were exempt from Article 36.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) felt bound to agree
with his Czechoslovakian colleague that the amendment was one of
substance, and in the opinion of the United States Delegation it
had serious aspects, His Delegation was in favour of the article
being retained by the removal of the square brackets.
Mr. LEGUYER (France) felt that if these agreements were
designed to include any form of enterprise, the scope was so wide
that he would require time for further reflection.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) thought that the United Kingdom
proposal was to incorporate in Article 45 the essential substance
of Article 59, to which no objection had been made at the
Conference. The manner in which state trading was to be carried
on was already provided for in articles dealing specifically with
that topic, and means were provided whereby Members could complain
if they were not satisfied with the conduct of such enterprises.
Any provision questioning the conduct of state trading enterprises
in the Charter might lead to conflicting procedures. He
considered therefore that the exclusion provided for in the United
Kingdom proposal was desirable.
Mr. MINOVSKI (Czechoslovakia) desired that the same
discipline should apply to state trading enterprises as to private
enterprises. If state trading enterprises were to be excluded
from Chapter 6, his Delegation must reserve its position. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 15
Mr. FRESQUET (Cuba) thought that the United Kingdom amend-
mont would have the effect of extending the scope of the
exceptions under Article 46, and he opposed the amendment for
that reason.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) pointed out that a perusal of
the original Article 59 showed that the United Kingdom amendment
was designed to introduce a slight narrowing of its scope.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) proposed that
paragraph 1 (b) and 2 should be eliminated altogether.
Mr CHANG (China) was prepared to accept the United States
proposal subject to the addtion of the words "of Section E of
Chapter 5 and... " and after the word "requirements" in sub-
paragraph (a).
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) regretted that he could not
accept the United States amendment. He could not agree to any
further narrowing of paragraph 1 (b).
The CHAIRMAN, in samming up the discussion, said that there
were five proposals before the Commission:
a. that of the Legal Drafting Committee at the bottom
of page 23 of E/PC/T/150:
b. The proposal of the United States Delegation to suppress
paragraph 1(b) and 2 of Article 46:
c. the amendmarnt of Article 46 proposed by the United
Kingdom Delegation E/PC/T/W/292:
d. the Chilean amendment. which consisted in the
insertion of the words "inter-governmental bilateral
agreements" and:
e. the Chinese amendment which consisted in the addition
of the words "Section E of Chapter 5" paragraph 1(a).
The CHAIRMAN first put to the vote the United States
proposal under (b) above. E/PC/T/B/SR/28
page 16
This proposal was defeated by six votes to six.
He next put to the vote the United Kingdom amendment,
under (c) above.
This vote was defeated by seven votes to three.
He next put to the vote the Chilean amendment, under (d)
above.
This proposal was adopted by eight votes to three.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) desired to put it on record
that hsi Delegation might raise the question again at another
time and in another place.
Mr. LAU..: ll.-; (New Zealand) wished to make reservation
on the part of his Delegation.
Finally, the withdrawal of the square brackets around
paragraph 2 of Article 45.
The meeting rose at 8.15 p.m. |
GATT Library | rd440vn6394 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record of the Eighteenth Meeting held on Wednesday, 2 July, 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 2, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 02/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/18 and E/PC/T/B/SR/14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rd440vn6394 | rd440vn6394_90250158.xml | GATT_152 | 6,804 | 43,086 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/B/SR/18
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 2 July, 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
of the Eighteenth Meeting held on Wednesday, 2 July,
1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
The Commission resumed its discussion of Chapter VIII
(Organization).
1. ARTICLE 81 PARAGRAPH (1).
Mr. TANGE (Australia) explained that the delegation of
Australia proposed the deletion of the words "by the Director-
General" because it would be inappropriate for such an agreement
to be negotiated by the Director-General. The delegation of
the United Kingdom had stated that this agreement would be
negotiated by a committee appointed by the Conference. It would
perhaps be better if this task were undertaken by the Executive
Board.
Experience had shown that agreements once made could
not easily be modified at the Conference. The negotiator
designated by the Organization should therefore have full
discretionary powers.
There was no need to specify precisely who this
negotiator should be. By deleting the word in question
they would automatically refer the matter for decision
to the Conference. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 2
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) recalled that the delegation of
France had opposed this amendment at New York because it had felt
that a competent person should be specifically nominated for this
task. Since there now appeared to be the general identity of
view on this question, the delegation of France withdrew its
reservation.
DECISION: It was agreed to delete the words "concluded by the
Director-General and" in Article 81 paragraph (1).
Mr. RENOUF (Secretary), stated that the Secretariat
aimed merely at economy of wording in proposing the deletion of
the passage:- "this relationship shall be effected through
agreement with United Nations under Article 63 of the Charter
of the United Nations". There was no way of bringing specialized
agencies into relationship with United Nations other than by
the procedure laid down in Article 63 of the Charter. It would
be sufficient to stipulate that such agreements should be
approved by the Conference.
DECISION: The deletion proposed by the Secretariat was
approved.
ARTICLE 81 PARAGRAPH (2)
Mr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) referred to the amendment
proposed by the delegation of the Netherlands, whereby a colon
should be placed at the end of the first sentence and the
words "with particular reference to the importance of food and
agriculture in relation to the subjects dealt with in Chapter
VII" should be added.
He pointed out that in August a Preparatory Committee of
FAO was to discuss the formation of a World Food Council at
Paris. It was desirable that the ITO should have a full
representative rather than a mere observer at this meeting. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 3
The amendment proposed by the delegation of the Netherlands was
designed to indicate that the ITO was ready for mutual action in
this field. The delegation of the Netherlands did not, however,
insist on this point and would be content if the matter were
referred to the sub-committee.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) suggested that the sub-committee
should be recommended to examine Article 81 Paragraph (1) at the
same time. It had been found that Article 61 (e) and Article 81
paragraphs (1) and (2) coincided in certain respects.
DECISION: It was agreed that the amendment proposed by the
delegation of the Netherlands should be referred to the
sub-committee, and that the sub-committee should at the same
time consider the relations of Article 81, paragraph 1, with
Article 61 (e) and others.
ARTICLE 81, PARAGRAPH (3).
DECISION: The proposal of the delegation of the United States
that the words " and may invite them to undertake specific tasks",
should be omitted, was approved.
ARTICLE 81, PARAGRAPH (4).
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the delegation of the United
States had proposed that the words "international organization(s)"
wherever used in this paragraph should be changed to "inter-
governmental organization(s)".
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) remarked that there were at
least two specialized agencies which had already absorbed
private international organizations.
Unless the delegation of the United States had a particular
objection to the inclusion of private international organizations
in the ITO it would be better to leave the text in its present
wording. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 4
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) did not feel that any of the
existing private international organisations were suitable for
absorption into the I.T.O. The delegation of the United States
had proposed this amendment in order to dispel any impression
that I.T.O. was to take over such international bodies as the
International Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) withdrew his objection. He
was satisfied that the word "co-operation" in paragraph 3 would
in many cases be equivalent to "absorption".
DECISION: The amendment proposed by the delegation of the
United States was approved.
2. ARTICLE -2
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Secretariat had proposed the
transfer of this article to Section F - Secretariat. Decision
on this matter could be referred to the Legal and Drafting
Committee, which was concerned with the arrangement of the
Charter.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) remarked that by Paragraph 2,
the provisions of Paragraph 1 were to be extended to the members
of Commissions mentioned in Article 72. The members of these
Commissions would not belong to the Secretariat of I.T.O.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer the proposal of the Secretariat
to the Legal and Drafting Committee.
3. ARTICLE Q4, (PARAGRAPH 3).
The CHAIRMAN arew attention to the amendment proposed by
the Secretariat, whereby this paragraph should read as follows:-
"Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be
defined in an agreement to be prepared by the Organization
in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations and concluded between the Members." E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 5
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) felt that the paragraph would
be clarified if the words "and the Organization" were placed
after "Members" at the end of the sentence.
DECISION: The proposal of the Secretariat, as amended by the
delegate of the United States, was approved.
4. ARTICLE 85
The CHAIRMAN recalled the amendments proposed by the
delegation of the United States, and the reservations made in
this regard by the delegation of France.
M. DIETERLIN (France) explained that the delegation of
France had made a reservation to this amendment because of a fear
that the wording proposed would conflict with certain aspects of
the French Constitution. However, after comparing the proposed
draft more closely with the relevant provisions of the French
Constitution, the delegation of France was now willing to accept
the text as it stood.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) suggested that the text proposed by
the delegation of the United States should be submitted to the
Sub-Committee. He had certain reservations to make regarding the
wording proposed.
The object of the amendment proposed by the delegation of the
United States was to state clearly that the Conference might permit
members not accepting amendments to the Charter, to remain in the
Organization. This object might be obtained by the present text.
The Sub-Committee might bear in mind the following points.
In the second sentence of paragraph 2 of the draft it was stated
that the Conference "may determined" that certain action should be E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 6
taken with regard to members not accepting amendments. After
the semi-colon in the same sentence, however, it was laid down
that the Conference "may determine" nevertheless that an
entirely different action should be undertaken. By the
existing text of the Article the Conference would determine by
a simple majority whether a Member not accepting amendments
shall remain in the Organization. The Draft submitted by the
delegation of the United States laid down that the Conference
might determine by a simple majority whether a Member was required
to withdraw from the Organization, and, likewise, whether it might
remain in the Organization. The draft then went on to say,
however, that a two-thirds vote should be taken to determine
whether a Member was to be allowed to remain in the Organization.
These were drafting points which could probably be resolved
satisfactorily by the Sub-Committee.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) said that the delegation of the
United States had proposed a two-thirds vote since by a simple
majority vote the Conference might expel all non-ratifying
members. Having once done this, the Conference might want
to discriminate in favour of certain members and set up
conditions whereby they would remain in the Organization.
This action should be endorsed only by a two-thirds vote.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer the amendment proposed
by the delegate of the United States to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 7
5. ARTICLE 86
Mr. DORN (Cuba) said that the amendment proposed by the
delegation of Cuba to Articles 35 and 85 and the new
Articles 85(a) and 86(a) suggested by it formed a cohesive whole.
They were based on three main ideas; firstly, they were
intended to simplify procedures established in various parts
of the Charter; secondly, they were designed to unify pro-
cedure wherever a particular approach was not demanded by the
special nature of the matter; thirdly, they were intended
to standardise the unified procedures and to define clearly
the jurisdiction of the competent organs. Three stages were
proposed as a simplified procedures in the case of complaints.
These were:
(a) the amicable compromise and its procedure
(b) the administrative decision and its procedure
(c) the judicial decision in matters of a justiciable
character.
The Charter had in various casas provided for consultation by
Members before their disputes were brought before the Organisa-
tion for decision. These consultations between members
involved in a dispute were of a compulsory or voluntary
nature. Provision was also made in the Charter for differing
kinds of administrative decisions. It was not always specified
which organs of the I.T.O. should make these decisions. It
was further provided that an appeal might ultimately be made
in respect of justiciable cases, to the International Court
of Justice. The delegation of Cuba realised that its
amendments were little more than a preliminary approach to
the problem. This preliminary step should be followed up by E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 8
a thorough examination of the different Chapters of the Charter
with a view to implementing the three basic ideas. The
Sub-Committee special Sub-Committee should, therefore, draw
up a scheme for the whole Charter, unifying the procedure for
the majority of cases.
General discussion should, in consequence, be limited to
the following two questions:
(1) Should an effort be made to simplify and unify the form
of procedure throughout the Charter, by establishing the
following three stages:
(a) amicable compromise;
(b) administrative resolution;
(c) judicial decision
and should the competent organs for the first two stages
be at the same time dafined?
(2) Should the Sub-Committee or an ad hoc Sub-Committee examine
the point on the basis of the various proposals already
made in this regard?
The CHAIRMAN said that the meeting should remember that
Article 35 had been considered by Commission A, and referred to
a sub-committee. This sub-committee would not examine Article
35 until the following week.
It would be wise to have a thorough discussion of the
proposals made by the delegations of Cuba and of the United
States and to refor the matter then to the sub-committee.
The delegate of Cuba might be invited to take part in the
sub-committee's discussion. However, it would be best if
those studies were postponed until the sub-committee of
Commission A had reached some conclusions on Article 35. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 9
Mr. TANGE (Australia) remarked that Articles 86 and 35
both dealt with disputes and the machinery for their
settlement. He suggested that the Chairman should approach
the Chairman of Commission A with a suggestion that a joint
sub-committee be set up. If this were not undertaken, there
would be a duplication of discussions in the two existing
sub-committees.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the delegate of Australia for his
suggestion. He could communicate with the Chairman of
Commission A to that effect.
DECISION: It was agreed that the Chairman should
communicate with the Chairman of Commission
A, as suggested.
;
Mr. van TUYLL (Netheralnds) declared that Articles 35,
85 and 86 were of supreme importance. The drafting, however
careful, of the erst of the Charter would be nullified if
fair treatment of cmpla;ints were nteeOsrr:ed. Teeo autoss
of the Charter might seek to enunciate equitable and appropriate
principles but they would better guarantee the efficacy of the
Charter by ensuring the just application of these principles.
In accepting the Charter, Member Governments would pledge
themselves to abide by the agreement jointly reached by the
Organization; they would be putting their faith in the fair
and competent direction of the Organization. Member States
would be represented at the Conference of the Organization
by economic experts who would in many cases are possible
position in the economic aff airsthe ir coun T.:t taskeire
would be to work out the policies aroceducirooes Tf.IoO
Thws io ldwae om irsenme task awd vdulw certainly ilve'vanya
points upon which opinions would differ. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 10
The Conference itself would not be the best organ
for the ultimate settlement of such differences. These
disputes should be referred for final regulation to an
independent body unaffected by the atmosphere of the Conference
itself. This viewpoint was contained in the proposal made
jointly by the delegations of the Netherlands, Belgium,
Luxembourg and France at the meeting in London.
AllMembers should retain the right to bring grievances,
in the last event, before the International Court of Justice.
The International Court of Justice should be entrusted with
tasks for which it had been constituted.
It had been said that judicial difficulties would arise
in regard to matters of an advanced economic character.
Accordingly, it had been suggested at the London meeting that
an Economic Chamber should be added to the International Court
of Justice. The delegation of Belgium had suggested that some
body similar to the Belgian Conseil de Contentieux, should be
appointed. In such a way a tribunal of independent economic
experts might be set up; this tribunal would act as an
advisory board to the Conference and would closely follow the
course of disputes where a specific appeal for its judgment
had not been made.
The procedure would be as follows. Firstly, the parties
would negotiate between themselves. Where no agreement was
reached the Executive Board would be asked for a ruling; the
Executive Board might here ask for the advice of the tribunal
if it were so inclined.. Finally, where the ruling of the
Executive Board were found to be unsatisfactory, recourse would
be had to the decision of the Conference itself. Here it might E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 11
be laid down that the Conference must take the opinion of
the tribunal, should a party to the dispute insist. It
might be well if all cases laid before the Conference were
to be passed through the tribunal beforehand. The Conference
should be permitted to take the opinion of the International
Court of Justice. Any party to the dispute would lastly
have the right to appeal to the International Court of Justice.
It was clear that there would be a need for a body of
independent economic experts qualified to give decisions
on disputes.
It had been objected that the International Court of
Justice would be overwhelmed with requests for judgments
on minor matters. However, the International Court of
Justice was not overburdened and might well be glad to
undertake work of this nature. This right of ultimate
appeal to the International Court of Justice would encourage
impartiality in decisions arrived at by the ITO; this in its
turn would reduce the frequency of appeals.
The delegations of the United Kingdom and Cuba had
proposed amendments in which preliminary consultations
between litigants was advocated. It was clear, therefore,
that Article 35 was closely related to Article 86. The
distinction between justiciary and non-justiciary cases
should. be made clear.
The delegation of the Netherlands had not formulated a
redraft of Articles 35 and 86 but would do so if it was felt
desirable. It had however circulated a paper containing
its views which might be submitted to the Sub-Committee or
the Special Sub-Committee suggested by the delegate of Cuba. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 12
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) agreed entirely with the views
expressed by the Delegate of the Netherlands. The confidence
of its members would be undoubtedly the most important asset
of the Organization. The separation of powers had for long
been recognized in the constitutions of individual states and
had ensured citizens of their most essential possession; their
freedom. Members of ITO should enjoy similar safeguards. If
they were not so protected it was not certain that they would
adhere to the Organization.
The Charter would at best be a compromise; differences
would be bound to arise in its application. All Members should
be entitled to bring such differences before an independent
international body which would have full authority to take
decisions. The minority parties to a dispute should also
have a full right of appeal, otherwise the Executive Board
would acquire an autocratic character.
The settlement of highly technical cases had long been
a problem in individual countries. To meet this difficulty
such bodies as the French Tribunal de Commerce and the Belgian
Conseil de Contentieux, had been formed. These could serve
as models for the judicial, body to be established by the
Organization. The plan was in principle for an arbitrative
body within the framework of the Organization, with a right of
final appeal to the International Court of Justice.
The delegation of France was in full agreement with the
detailed proposals made by the delegate of the Netherlands, and
requested that the paper containing these proposals be referred
to the Sub-Committee.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) was in favour of the proposal
submitted by France and the Netherlands. He considered that the
Sub-Committee should be instructed to take this suggestion into
full consideration. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 13
Mr. MARTIN (Brazil) also supported the proposal. It
was essential that there should be an appropriate organ for
arbitration in cases where conciliation between members had
failed. Only legal disputes should be referred to the Inter-
national Court of Justice.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) restated his delegation's
view that the Organization should be master in its own house.
He explained the ideas behind their amendments to Article 86
and their reasons for opposing the French and Netherlands
proposal.
The Organization had already a judicial function - when
there was a dispute or danger of a dispute, it had to arrange
for consultation between members and to mediate. It had also
to act like a Court, to make enquiries, establish facts, hear
cases and make an order. Articles 35 and 86 established the
procedure for action in disputes where this was not covered by
other Articles. At the Sub-Committee discussion he would say
why his delegation considered it essential to unify the pro-
cedure for dealing with disputes for which no procedure was
laid down elsewhere. He wished, however, to define immediately
the United Kingdom's attitude towards the International Court
of Justice. It was their earnest desire to see the International
Court of Justice established as a force for the creation of law
and order. Nothing would be more likely to discredit the Court
then for it to be given work outside its sphere too soon after
its creation. It was of course true that the Court might set
up an Economics Chamber. There was, however, no provision for
this in the Statute which provided for special Chambers on
Transport, Labour and Communication. E/PC /T/B/SR/18
page 14
These matters were more specific then economics and the Court
might hesitate to set up a Chamber to cover the vast field of
the I.T.O. Charter .
While he considered that reference to the Court of
disputes under the Charter should not be free and open to all,
the United Kingdom delegation wished the Court to play an
important part in the I.T.O., and had therefore suggested that
the advisory opinion of the Court should be taken when one-third
of the Members considered this course desirable. This measure
was a compromise between the total exclusion of the Court and
automatic reference. He emphasized that the advisory opinion
of the International Court of Justice would be binding on the
Conference. In connection with the proposal to refer all
disputes to the Court, he stressed the danger of allowing
Members to appeal to the Court because they were dissatisfied
with the Organization's ruling. He recalled that the Permanent
Court had reached decisions by narrow majorities, conflicts
would arise inevitably, discrediting both the International.
Court of Justice and the Organization, and under-mining the
confidence of Members in either body. He agreed that there
should be one final arbiter, but this should be the Organization,
taking the advice of the Court in all matters falling within
the latter's competence.
He was interested in the proposal to set up within the
Organization a council to advise and, if Members agreed, to
arbitrate in disputes. He agreed that the idea should be
developed further, but hesitated to advecate the establishment
of such a body as a permanent institution. Expert advice on
all matters under the Charter would be available in the E/PC /T/B/SR/18
page 15
Commissions. If Iegal advice was required, jurists from the
panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration could be asked
to sit on ad hoc tribunals. He favoured the establishment
of a temporary advisory body consisting of jurists and Members
of the Commissions.
In conclusion, he summarized his three main points:
firstly, there should be a unified, clear procedure for deal-
ing with disputes under Articles 35 and 86 and other articles
where action had not already been defined; secondly, the
influence of the International Court of Justice on the
Organization should be assured through the advisory opinion
process advocated in the United Kingdom amendment; and thirdly,
he favoured the ides of a council as a temporary body to deal
with disputes and difficulties of interpretation of the Charter.
He pointed out that the United Kingdom redraft of Article
86 had been submitted for the purpose of promoting discussion
and did not necessarily represent the final view of his
delegation.
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) was amrzed at the United
Kingdom delegate's suggestion that justice should be denied to
a Member unless one-third of the Members petitioned that justice
should be done. He considered it particularly surprising that
this view should come from the United Kingdom, the country of
Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, there all subjects had the
right to appeal to the King. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 16
The question was not whether the I.T.O. was master in its
own house, but rather whether it was master in a house which
was not its own.
The United Kingdom delegate based his objection on the fact
that Members dissatisfied with the rulings of the Organization
might appeal to the International Court of Justice. "Disputes
as to the interpretation of the Charter" were not concerned with
a Member's Approval or disapproval of a ruling, but raised the
question as to whether the Organization had been legally
competent to make the ruling. If not, then the Organization was
the last body to say whether it had been legally competent in
the matter. It was essential to provide for appeal to an outside
body to which any Member however small, however big, might refer on
its own initiative.
The wisdom of the Organization in the matters within its
scope was not being questioned, but where a dispute arose on
the question of the Organization's right to make any given
decision, the case should be head by an experienced court
accustomed to hearing and weighing evidence.
Provision should be made for an outside body to which
an aggrieved party could appeal if the I.T.O. exceeded its
powers, since clearly the I.T.O. itself was unable to settle
such a dispute. There were then two different questions:
disputes within the Organization's competence and disputes
as to the extent of the Organization's power. The Inter-
national Court of Justice could safely be relied upon to
reject any appeal from a Member which fell within the competence
of the I.T O. On the other hand no Member could be expected
to renounce the elementary right of appeal in cases where the
I.T.O's power to make any decision was called in question. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 17
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium-Luxembourg) made a statement on the
Conseils de Contentieux Economiques (The Advisory Boards on
Conflict) set up in his country for hearing disputes on
economic matters.
The problem had been to ensure the impartial settlement
of disputes outside the competence of the normal courts of law
without infringing the right of appeal to such courts on legal
matters. The possibility of a court of experts had been ruled
out since experience showed that experts were seldom impartial.
The normal law court lacked the necessary technical knowledge.
Members of the Civil Service who had the necessary qualities
of impartiality and technical knowledge were debarred by
reason of their essential functions as advisers to the Minister.
A compromise had therefore been reached in the existing
Advisory Boards on Conflicts. These were joint bodies composed
of a President with legal advisers responsible for supervising
the form and procedure, and for ensuring impartiality, and of
technical experts to deal with the practical and technical
aspects of the cases submitted. To ensure complete im-
partiality, all parties to the dispute appeared directly
before the Board and stated their case fully. The Boards
did not pass judgment but advised the Minister. While this
advice was not binding, the prestige resulting from the Board's
long record of impartiality and competence was such, that in
practice their advice was never rejected.
A similar institution might be desirable within the I.T.O.
Many disputes on matters of economics which were not
essentially legal questions would inevitably arise and a
body of the kind he had described would render valuable service. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 18
It should be neither purely legal, nor purely technical in
composition. In his view a permanent Board would have a double
advantage: it would permit of a better selection of members,
and secondly, the experience gained would lead to the establish-
ment of a form of economic jurisprudence which would be exceed-
ingly valuable. For this, continuity was obviously desirable.
He noted that the United Kingdom amendment omitted
paragraph (1) of Article 86. This he considered excessive. On
the other hand the New York text was open to criticism. If all
five official languages of the United Nations were equally
authoritative, the possibilities of disputes would be multiplied.
Moreover it would be necessary for the members of Boards for the
settlement of such disputes of this kind to have a good knowledge
of these five widely differing languages. He suggested that
the paragraph should read: "This Charter shall be drafted in the
official languages of the United Nations. The English and French
texts shall be equally authoritative."
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) pointed out that there seemed
to be four dangers to be avoided. Firstly, there was the
danger of creating in the Charter (which could not easily be
modified) a structure which was too top-heavy. There was
already provision for a Conference, some four or five Commissions,
a Tariffs Committee, an Executive Board, and now a Permanent
Council or Board was suggested. This might mean a large inter-
national civil service with considerable duplication of functions.
The relationship between this Board and the Commissions required
clarification. Both were composed of impartial economic experts.
It would be regrettable if decisions on disputes by a Commission
were subsequently referred to and over-ruled by the Permanent
Board since this would undermine confidence. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 19
The second danger was delay. He cited the hypothetical
case of a United States decision to boil Dutch tulip bulbs
imported into the States as a preventive measure against
disease. He traced the progress of the Dutch complaint from
its first submission to the Organization, through the Executive
Board to the Commodity Commission, back with their report to
the Executive Board, later to the Conference, then to the
Advisory Council, again to the Conference and finally to the
Court, with the additional delays which inevitably would occur
when the appropriate bodies were not in session at the time.
By the time a final decision had been reached the Dutch bulb
trade in the States would have been ruined. Such a procedure
was clearly undesirable.
There was also the danger that questions with which it
was not qualified to deal would be referred to the International
Court of Justice. For example, a court of law could not be
expected to define on legal grounds matters which, under
Article 26 of the New York Draft Charter "unnecessarily" damage
a Member's commercial interests. He agreed with the delegate of
Brazil that the Court should pronounce on legal matters only and
not on questions of interpretation of the Charter.
The fourth danger was that if appeals were allowed without
restraint to the Court it would then have to decide on remedies,
a function beyond its competence.
He made three suggestions. If the reference of disputes
to a body outside the Organization were agreed such disputes
should be screened inside the Organization in order to ensure
that economic questions were considered by an economic tribunal
and legal matters by a legal tribunal. Secondly he hoped E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 20
that some flexibility would be left. Finally, while approving
the suggested merger of Articles 35 and 86, he pointed out that
this proposal referred only to paragraph (2) of Article 35,
not to paragraph (1).
Mr. FAWCETT (Unitcd Kingdom) in reply to the criticism
of the delegate of South Africa, on the separation of powers
and appeals to an outside court cited the cast of the Supreme
Court which is appointed by the President with the agreement
of the Senate.
He felt that the United Kingdom amendment had been mis-
understood. The rights of Members to appeal to the International
Court of Justice had not been removed lightly. In his view
such appeals were not possible. The organization could not be
a party to the Court since only states could appear before it.
As it was impossible for the Organization to appear, it was
clearly impossible for the Court to pronounce on any decision
from the Organization and therefore no Member could take the
Organization to Court. He pointed out that the International
Court of Justice was not a court of appeal in the normal sense
since it was not bound to accept the findings of the Court
below. It could inquire into all the facts but the findings
of the Organization would be, irrelevant.
The acceptance of the Charter involved giving up some
economic sovereignty, in fact if the Organization were
efficient it would be precisely because economic sovereignty
had been abandoned to it. It was illogical to set up an
organization for this purpose and then to seek to avoid its
decisions by referring them to an outside body which might
not even be competent in the matter.
In his view the United Kingdom amendment answered the
purpose completely since it allowed for the advisory opinion E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 21
of the International Court of Justice to be sought at the
final stage in a dispute and it provided that its opinion should
be binding. He thought that this measure met the South African
delegate's difficulties.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) referred to the Cuban proposal put
forward earlier in the meeting to reconcile Articles 35, and
86 and all other Articles relating to disputes; the possibil-
ity of disputes and the procedure for dealing with them. He
agreed that it was desirable to avoid confused procedures but
doubted whether complete uniformity could be achieved in
Articles other than Articles 35 and 86. The role of the Organi-
zation was stated in the terms of the Organization and it should
be left to the Conference to decide the appropriate functions.
In this matter it would be guided by the procedure laid down in
Article 86.
With regard to Article 86 itself he agreed with the
United Kingdom delegate that it was for the Conference to make
the final decision on issues between members. He recognised
the desirability of providing procedure for arbitration, subject
of course to the consent of both parties to the dispute, and
the desirability for the organization to obtain the advisory
-opinion of the Court. He was opposed to disputes on economics
being assessed by the International Court of Justice. It would
be impossible in practice for the Court to pass judgment on many
disputes emenating from the I.T.O. without recourse to expert
opinion and the delay involved might be considerable.
At the same time he considered that consideration should be
given to providing machinery for the judicial approach to
disputes and was interested in the Belgian delegate's
statement. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 22
He pointed out that the Australian delegation had submitted
amendments to Article 35 which had some bearing on the United
Kingdom amendment to Article 86. It would be for the sub-
committee to reconcile the two proposals.
As he understood it, the effect of paragraph 4(ii) of the
United Kingdom amendment was to allow one-third of the members
to obtain a judgement from the Court on any matter since the
advisory opinion had to be adopted by the Conference and was
binding on it.
Referring to "disputess as to the interpretation of the
Charter" he pointed out that most disputes between members
would fall under this heading. It would in fact be very
difficult to state exactly what were justiciable and what non-
justiciable issues.
He considered that the Belgian proposal deserved close
consideration. If the Council were temporary, it would be
necessary for the Conference to delegate to the Executive Board
the right to call it into existence, to avoid the delay which
would arise between sessions of the Conference. He referred to
the Belgian suggestion for a standing committee but thought the
problem primarily one of allocation of functions between the
Council or Board and the Commissions.
Mr. FORTHOMME (Belgium - Luxembourg) did not consider that
the illustration furnshed by the United States delegate in his
story of the Dutch tulip bulbs was a valid criticism of the
proposaIs submitted by the Netherlands delegation. Any procedure
for conciliation or settlement of disputes would be subjected to
delay or even failure in face of the protracted illwill of one of
the parties or of even its insistence on what it considered to E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 23
be its vital interests, where these came into dispute.
Clearly the ease with which a dispute would be settled
depended on the importance attached to it by the parties
involved. The main difficulty in the proposed machinery, as
pointed out by the Australian delegate, was the division of
functions between the Commissions of the Organisation and
the Advisory Board for Conflicts. He understood that the
Commissions would not be primarily concerned with disputes,
but with the planning of constructive measures and the im-
plementation of the Charter of the organisation by Members.
Disputes would of course occur in these Commissions as they
occur in the functioning of the Civil Administration. There
was the possibility that they would be settled on the spot,
either between the Members themselves or by the friendly
intervention of the Organisation. Only if this failed,
would they be referred to the Executive Board, which, in
exceptional cases, might wish to refer the matter directly
to the Conference. It was at this stage that the Advisory
Board would be called upon to examine the dispute and
give advice to the Executive Board, or to the. Conference
should this latter have been asked by the Executive Board
for its decision,
Dr. HOLLOWAY (South Africa) thought that the crucial
difference of opinion in the Commission lay in what con-
stituted a dispute as to the interpretation of the Charter.
Article 35, paragraph 2, contained the words "The Organisation,
if it considers the case serious enough to justify such action,
So clearly it must be for the Organisation, and not
for the International Court of Justice to deide on the class
into which any dispute fell. He was in agreement with the
United Kingdom delegate that the Charter set up the Organisation E/PC/T/B/SR/18
page 2-1
as a sovereign body. But though the cases where the Organisation
could be taken before the Court on International Justice were
very limited in number, he could not agree that such could
never be the case. Any analogy with the British Constitution,
in which the . Crown cannot be sued by a private individual,
was inapplicable to international law.
M. DORN (Cuba) stated that the proposal to bring Articles
35 and 86 into harmony did not mean that-a single procedure
would be established for the settlement of all disputes, but
only those classes of disputes for which different procedures
were unnecessary. He asked the United Kingdom delegate the
reason for the omission of paragraph (i) of Article 86 in its
proposed text.
Mr.. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) replied that paragraph (i)
of the Draft Charter would not be omitted but would be placed
at the very end of the Charter, to conform with normal treaty
practice.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) considered his tulip-bulb
illustration was still valid, for no democratic country ever
thought that it was acting in bad faith, He and the Belgian
delegate, however, seemed to be in agreement on the need for
flexibility in the procedure to be established.
Mr. van TRYL (Netherlands) referring to the United Kingdom
delegates, objection that the Orgenisation could not be brought
before the International Court of Justice, agreed that this
was the case by provision of Article 34 of the Statute of the
Court, but did not admit that it invalidated his proposals.
Only cases involving two or more Members of the Organisation
would be submitted to the Court, and then only if the dis-
satisfied party could muster the support of a third of the Members
of the Conference. He agreed that a solution must be found to the
problem of defining what cases could be referred to the Court as
involving legal or judicial aspects, and what cases lay outside E/PC/T/B/SR/18
Page 25
its competence because of their purely economic character. He
drew attention to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. of the
International Court of Justice, which reads: "The States parties
to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize
as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in re-
lation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the
jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:
(a) the interpretation of a treaty:
(b) any question of international law:
(c) the existence of any fact, which, if established,
would constitute a breach of an international obligation:
(d) the nature and extent of the reparation to be made for
the breach of an international obligation.
This declaration, he continued, had been made by twenty-five
members of the Commission, and among them four of the Great Powers,
and must not be invalidated or prejudiced by any decisions the
Commission might reach.
Ref erring to the Australian delegate's comments on the pro-
posed Advisory Board, he thought a permanent body definitely pre-
ferable. Experience and the high authority such a Board would
need to command could only thus be gained.
Mr. FORTHOME (Belgium-Luxembourg) also stressed the need for
careful definition of the functions of the Commissions and the
Advisory Board.- He suggested that certain of the Commission
members might participate in the work of the Acvisory Board.
This arrangement would require incorporation in the Charter of
detailed guarantees regulating membership of the Commissions and
the Board. From the numerous references to the Court of Inter-
national Justice in the Charter, he thought there was little danger
of the Court not taking a proper place in the work of the
Organisation. E/PC/T/B/SR/18
Page 26
The CHAIRMAN stated that In accordance with the sugges-
tion of the Australian delegate referred to above, he had a
letter drafted to the Chairman of Commission A, asking him
to bring to the notice of the Sub-Committee on Chapter V the
resolution passed by Commission B, proposing a joint meeting
of the Sub-Committees on Chapter V and VIII to bring into
relationship Articles 35 (2) and 60.
Mr. KELLOG asked if at this joint meeting it was pro-
posed to discuss Article. 86 as well as Article 35 (2).
The CHAIRMAN said that the best procedure would be for
each Sub-Committee to discuss separately their respective
articles, and then for a joint meeting to be held to consider
relationship between them.
Decision: The letter was approved. |
GATT Library | ms816dc2458 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting held on Thursday, 26 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 26, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 26/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/15 and E/PC/T/B/SR/14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ms816dc2458 | ms816dc2458_90250155.xml | GATT_152 | 3,828 | 24,470 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/15
AND ECONOMIQUE 26 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL Original: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting held on
Thursday, 26 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at
the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. ARTICLE 72 -- ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSIONS
The Commission continued its consideration of Document
E/PC/T/W/210 Rev.1 opening with a discussion of the amendments which
had been presented by various delegations to Article 72 -- Establish-
ment of Commissions.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said that he had no objection in principle
to the establishment of a fourth commission of the type contemplated
in the various amendments and he appreciated the desire for a
commission of this kind. However, he pointed out that it would be
very difficult for the Organization to find persons with the
requisite technical knowledge to staff four commissions. He
suggested that the purpose of the amendment might be achieved by the
Executive Board being able to invite persons with special
technical knowledge to enter into the work of the three commissions
which are already provided for in the Charter. If this were done it
would be necessary to include in Article 72 or elsewhere in the
Charter some provision saying that although the commission would
have specific tasks to carry out they would also have authority to
deal as necessary with all the complex problems which might arise in
the fields of the Charter other than those dealt with by such
specific tasks.
NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 2
Dr. COOMBS (Australia) in introducing the amendment of his
delegation said that in the opinion of his delegation it was
necessary to provide in that part of the Charter dealing with
administrative and executive arrangements for the taking of action
arising out of the provisions of Chapter III. In the opinion
of his delegation the successful operation of the Charter depended
upon the effective working of this Chapter of the Charter,
particularly as there was no part of the Charter from which
employment considerations could be excluded.
The Australian Delegation had suggested the establishment of
a separate commission to embrace the subjects of Chapter III as
the commissions which were already provided for in the Charter
were rigidly divided as regards functions and they were not
empowered by the Charter to deal with matters outside of these
functions.
The Australian Delegation was doubtful whether the commission
form was suitable for the performance of the work which the
International Trade Organization would have to do. It was very
doubtful whether commissions were the most convenient type of body
to carry out executive functions, they being rather bodies suitable
for the carrying out of such duties as the making of investigations,
etc. There were also a number of problems raised by the question
of how the commissions would work, which question had not yet been
settled. If the members of the commissions were to be employed
only part time, it would be essential for a large amount of
preparatory work to be done for them by other persons as competent
as themselves. This being the case, the personnel problem raised
by the delegate of Norway would become doubly difficult. On the
other hand, if the members of the commissions were employed full
time, it was difficult to see what advantage lay in not making
them employees of the Organization. page 3
Also it was possible that if commissions were established in
the manner contemplated et present they might come between the
Conference and the Executive board on the one hand and the
members of the Secretariat on the other. If this were to happen
it would be difficult to enroll the necessary competence in the
Secretariat .
In the light of these observations the Australian Delegation
would like to see the sub-committee requested to examine very
carefully in the light of tne functions of the Organization the
question whether commissions were the most appropriate form to be
employed. In carrying out this task the sub-committee should
consult with other inter-governmental organizations which had had
experience in this field.
Should it be decided to use the commission form, he
suggested that the functions of the commissions should not be
rigidly laid down. The Conference might be merely authorized to
set up such commissions as it thought necessary and to lay down
their functions which might be modified from time to time. Also
if it were decided to set up commissions the question of co-
ordination of their work would arise. There were two provisions
already in the Charter for doing this namely, the responsibility of
commissions to the Executive Board and the presence of the Director-
General at commission meetings. The Australian Delegation thought
that these provisions were not enough to insure co-ordination and
that an additional provision might be inserted in the Charter
providing that the Director-General should participate in the work
of the commissions as a full member.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) warmly supported the Australian
Delegation's proposal and pointed to the necessity for establishing
a commission on Economic Development with the same scope in respect
of Chapters III and IV of the Charter as the commissions already
provided for had as regards other Chapters. These functions under
Chapters III end IV would have to be carried out continuously and
be done by experts. In the Charter a balance had been E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 4
established between the interests of industrially underdeveloped
countries and other countries and should a commission of this type
not be astablished this balance would be destroyed.
Regarding the argument of the delegate for Norway that it would
be difficult to secure the necessary experts, he did not see why
it would be more difficult to find technicians for this commission
than for the other commissions. This was all the more true when
it was considered that a different class of technician would be
required . He expressed full support for the principle of estab-
lishing a commission on economic development which was the basis of
the proposals submitted by four separate delagations.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) stated that like the Australian delegate he
doubted whether the commission form was the most appropriate.
It was for this reason that the French Delegations proposal had been
phrased conditionally. The reason for that proposal was that the
main purpose of the Organization was to develop world trade. From
the point or view of his own country this was essential. To achieve
this purpose new markets must be opened up and therefore the in-
dustrial development of underdeveloped countries must be increased.
It would be the purpose of the new commission to carry out the
functions of the Organization in this field. The French Delegation
had entitled the new commission "Commission on Economic Development
and Co-ordination" because its purpose would be to achieve harmony
through an increase in commercial exchanges.
He doubted whether the Australian proposal to create, a commis-
sion to carry out the purposes of Chapter III was necessary for it
was inevitable that the commission which the French Delegation and
other delegations had suggested be estabiished would be concerned
with employment considerations.
He concluded by saying that he thought that the personnel
difficulty foreseen by the Delegate of Norway was not very serious
and was only temporary. E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 5.
Mr. DAO (China) said that the previous speakers in dis-
cussing the reasons for the establishment of a fourth commission
of the type envisaged in the proposals before the Commission had
covered most of the points in support of the Chinese proposal.
However, there was also the technical aspect to be considered.
In setting up three commissions to deal with the work of the
Organization under Chapters V, VI and VII, the negative side of
the picture, i.e. the elimination of trade barriers, etc., would
be taken care of. On the positive side of the picture, i.e. the
encouragement of industrial and general economic development, the
work of advising Members concerning their plans for economic dev-
elopment, of examining such plans when submitted, of providing or
arranging for the provision of technical assistance, and so on,
would seem to require the services of a body specially created and
staffed. &
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) asked the Australian delegate
if the Australian amendment meant the setting up of a fifth comm-
ission assuming that a comeission on economic duvelopment were
established.
Dr. COOMBS (Aus ralia) said that the- Australian Delegation
was not definetively suggesting tha establishment of a fifth
commission to deal with employment but wished to have the sub-
committee consider the necessity for insuring that the functions
of the Organizati n under Chapter III 'were covered adequately
administratively and executively. This he thought might, in the
absence of establishment of a commiseion, possibly be don' by
the staff of the Director-General.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) said that should it be decided
to retain the commission fhem in Chapter VIII tri United States E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 6.
Delegation considered it necessary to provide for a commission on
economic development and investment. It would be noticed that in
its present form Chapter III relied for its implementation on the
Economic and Social Council. It was for this reason that he had
asked the Australian delegate whether he wished to create a comm-
ission on employment which might duplicate the work of the Council
and of its Commission on Employment and Economic Activity:
Mr. GUTIEREZ (Cuba) strongly supported the Australian pro-
posal. He pointed out that the original United States Draft Charter
had only one chapter dealing with the subjects of the present Chap-
ters III and IV and this chapter had been entitled "Employment Pro-
visions". At the First Session this chapter had been expanded into
two chapters, one dealing with employment and the other with economic
development. However, it was now proposed to set up merely one
commission to deal only with economic development, thus neglecting
the employment aspect. He did not visualize the establishment of a
fifth commission. He thought that international investment might
well be omitted from the scope of the commission on economic devel-
opment and employment substituted therefore. The title of this comm-
ission would then become "Commission on Employment and Economic
Development".
Dr. NAUDE (South Africa) said that from the First Session the
South African Delegation had had doubts about Section 8 of the
Charter and had wondered whether or not the Conference should not
merely be authorized to establish such commissions as it considered
necessary. His delegation had also wondered whether commissions
would be the most a propriate instruments for carrying out the
functions in question. He was conscious of the signif-
icance of the commissions which it had been E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 7
suggested should be created and of the balance between Chapters
III and IV of the Charter. Also he appreciated the personnel
difficulty which had been raised by the delegate of Norway.
All of these considerations made him feel that the whole matter
should be further studied.
As regards the proposals which had been submitted he
sympathized with the proposal of the delegate of France for the
creation of a commission on economic development and coordination
and he appreciated the force of the proposal of the delegate of
the United States to authorize this commission to deal also
with international investment.
Dr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) referred to the remarks re-
garding the history of Article 72 which had been made by the
delegate of Cuba. He pointed out that originally there had
been provision for only three commissions and that the United
States Draft Charter had contained few provisions regarding
economic development. Economic development, however, remained
a. very important function of the Organization and he therefore
saw no reason why a commission should not be set up to deal
with it.
Regarding the title of the commission, as he now realised
that the word "co-ordination in the title suggested by the
delegate of France meant the co-ordination of economic policies
of countries he was in favour of including this word in the
title. He was also in favour of including the words "inter-
national investment" as suggested by the delegate of the United -
States. However, with regard to this he wished to point out
that the sub-committee on Chapter IV was still studying this
matter and that the sub-committee on Chapter VIII would need
to consult with the former sub-committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 8
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) suggested that to avoid
the possibility of overlapping with the work of other commissions
outside the Organization which dealt with the same questions,
he felt that the description of the functions of the commissions
should not be too precisely defined in the Charter itself and
that if a commission were set up on employment, Articles 3
and 8(b) of Chapter III should be particularly stressed as
these dealt with the co-operation of the Organization with
outside organizations. The principal function of the com-
mission would thus be liaison between the Organization and
other bodies dealing with the very general problem of employ-
ment. He agreed with the suggestion of the delegate of
Australia that the functions of this commission should be
performed by permanent technical personnel within the Organiza-
tion who would have a full knowledge of the Organization's work
rather than by outside experts called in temporarily to form
a commission.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) suggested that the title of the new
commission should merely be "Commission on Economic Development"
and he foresaw difficulties arising from the French delegate's
proposal to add the word "Co-ordination" to the title.
With regard to the Australian proposal he pointed out
that the Organization was given power in the Charter to set up
other commissions at a later stage and he concurred with the
remarks of the delegate of the United Kingdom regarding the
danger of duplication if the Australian proposal were adopted.
He did not foresee any difficulty regarding personnel for the
commission as a different type of personnel from those engaged
in the commercial policy field would be required. E/PC/T/B/SR/15
Page 9
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) felt that the title of the Commission
was of secondary importance, for even if it were described as
a Commission for Economic Development it world still of neces-
sity consider problems of employment. Of primary importance
were the functions of the Commission and on this point he
concurred with the remarks of the delegates of Australia and
the United Kingdom who had expressed some doubt that the
Commission form was the best one. To clarify this point
further he thought it might be necessary to make it clear
whether commissions in the proper sense of the word were
envisaged or bodies of the Organization consisting mainly of
technicians, and in the latter case there would be also the
question of whether these technicians would be officials of the
Organization. In view of the more or less permanent nature
of the work to be performed, he felt that the creation of
standing technical commissions would be more appropriate than
the introduction of temporary or ad hos special commissions.
Decision: The question was referred to the sub-committee.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the drafting change sug-
gested by the Secretariat in item 5 on page 18 of Document
E/PC/T/W/210. Rev. 1.
Decision: The Committee agreed that the suggestion should
be referred to the sub-committee.
2. ARTICLE 73 - COMPOSITION AND PROCEDURE OF COMMISSIONS
Mr. FANCETT (United Kingdom) and Dr. ven TUYLL (Nether-
lands) agreed with the proposal of the United States Delegation
to lmit the composition of the Commission to not more than
seven members. -
Dr. NAUDE (South Afriaa) elso agreed with this amendment
bit suggested that the sub-committee might consider the need of
making clear that this should refer to the more permanent
commissions. E/PC/T/B/SR/15
Page 10
Mr. TANGE (Australia) expressed doubts about the wisdom
of limiting the number of members of commissions or putting
any other specific restrictions upon the composition of com-
missions for the reason that it would seem unwise to lay down
in the constitution of the Organization a specific rule such
as the one suggested which could not be altered except by an
amendment to the constitution.
After Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) had expressed his support of the
point of view expressed by the Australian Delegation the CHAIR-
MAN suggested that this question be referred to the sub-committee
Decision: The proposal was referred to the sub-committee.
Paragraph 4
Decision: The suggestion of the Secretariat that "The
Chairman of a Commission shell be entitled to participate,
without the right to vote, in such of the deliberations of the
Executive Board and of the Conference as are of concern to the
Commission" was referred to the sub-committee.
Paragraph 5
Decision: The question of whether this paragraph was
redundant in view of the provisions of Article 81 was referred
to the sub-committee.
3. ARTICLE 74 - GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSIONS
Decision: The question raised by the United Kingdom
Delegation as to whether it was intended that commissions could
initiate studies, make recommendations, etc. or could act only
on the instructions and within the terms of reference assigned.
to them by the Conference or the Executive Board was referred
to the sub-committee, together with the points raised by the
Secreteriat. E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 11
4. ARTICLE 75 - FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON COMMERCIAL POLICY.
Mr. LAWRENCE (New Zealand) pointed out that in Article 75
paragraph (a) as at present drafted there was some over-
lapping of functions as between the proposed Commission on
Commercial Policy and the Tariff Committee.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) pointed out another instance of
over-lapping, this time between Articles 75 and 77 (b) and
argued that it would seem preferable simply to state in Article
74 that "The commissions shall perform such functions as the
Conference or the Excecutive Board may assign to them" thus
providing flexibility. In this case Articles 75, 76 and 77
could be deleted.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) said that he was prepared to agree
with the delegates of Australia and New Zealand provided that
it was decided to delete Articles 75 76 and 77. If, on the
other hand, it was decided to retain these Articles he would
propose an amendment to the wording of article 77A sub-paragraph
(a).
Dr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) suggested as an alternative
solution to that suggested by the Australian Delegate the
inclusion in Article 66 of a provision to enable the Conference
to prevent over-lapping with regard to articles 75, 76 and 77.
Decision: Articles 75 to 77 and the proposals related thereto
were referred to the sub-committee.
5. ARTICIE 79 - THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) said that he felt that the
question raised in the United States amendment regarding
the budget was very important and that the present draft was
unsatisfactory because it did not make clear the roles of the
Board and the Director-General in the preparation of the
budget. It also left uncertain the question of E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 12
whether the Executive Board was to approve the budget and
send it forward to the Conference. As the proposed amendment
also seemed to leave open this latter question, he asked the
delegate of the United States whether his delegation's
proposal envisaged that the Director-General would in fact
present the budget to the Executive Board and, if so, how
would the Executive Board express its opinion?
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) said that the United States
Delegation had two purposes in proposing its amendment. The
first was to make it perfectly clear that the Director-General
had the sole responsibility for preparing the budget and the
second was to leave the question of broad supervision over the
matter more flexible. Under paragraph 1 of the article the
Director-General was subject to the supervision of the Board
and his duties were to be determined in accordance with
regulations approved by the Conference. With these provisions
it would seem that the Conference and the Board could, in the
light of experience, provide an effective method of dealing
with the budget.
Dr. NAUDE (South Africa) said that it should be made
clear where the responsibility lay and suggested some such
draft as "the Director-General shall prepare the budget of the
Organization and, upon approval of the Executive Board, submit
it to the Conference."
Mr. TANGE (Australia) while satisfied by the explanation
given by the Delegate of the United States and agreeing with
his purpose, felt that the final words of the draft seemed to
suggest that the budget of the Director-General must go to the
Conference. However, it was possible that the budget might be
sent forward by the Board. He pointed out that other articles E/PC/ T/B/SR/15
page 13
clearly provided that it was the Conference which must pass the
budget and suggested that by amending the present paragraph to
read simply "The Director-General shall prepare the budget of
the Organization" the question as to the status in which it
passed could be left open for determination by regulations.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) felt that the responsibility of
preparing the budget should be explicitly delegated but he did
not see how the Director-General could prepare the budget without
consulting the Executive Board. As regards the Australian
amendment he did not understand how the budget could not be
submitted to the Conference since the Conference must take a
decision upon it.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) replied that his suggestion was made
in the light of Article 66(7). As this article explicitly said
that the Conference should approve the budget there seemed no
harm in deleting the relevant phrase in Article 79 and this would
clarify the United States text which as presently drafted might
imply that the budget estimate, having been prepared by the
Director-General, must be submitted to the Conference in the
form in which it was prepared.
Decision: The United States proposal on Article 79 was
referred to the sub-committee.
Paragraph 2.
Dr. NAUDE (South Africa) moved that the sentence "The
Director-General may initiate proposals for the consideration
of any organ of the Organization" be deleted. He pointed out
that in the constitutions of various other specialized agencies
the power of the Director-General to initiate proposals was
limited to matters already before the executive body or of
direct concern to it. E/PC/T/B/SR/15
page 14 !
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) seconded the proposal of the South
African Delegate.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) ielt that the difficulties
envisaged by the deleg-ae of South Africa were unlikely to
prove serious and therefore opposed the suggested deletion.
Decision: The suggestion of the South African Delegation
was referred to the sub-committee.
The CHAIRMAN then nominated as members of the sub-committee
the representatives of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France,
Union of South Africa, United Kingdom and United States. The
sub-committee would deal with Chapter VIE and later with
Chapters I and II, but it would not necessarily consider the
question of voting and membership of the Executive Board. |
GATT Library | xy861sr0428 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record of the Fourteenth Meeting held on Wednesday 25 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 25, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 25/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/14 and E/PC/T/B/SR/9/CORR.1-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/xy861sr0428 | xy861sr0428_90250153.xml | GATT_152 | 6,219 | 39,311 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQU E E/PC/T/B/SR/14.
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 25 June 1947
Original: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
of the Fourteenth Meeting held on Wednesday
25 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des
Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. CHAPTER VIII OF THE DRAFT CHARTERS. ARTICLE 66 -
POWERS AND DUTIES.
Paragraphs 1and 2
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the meeting, said that as there
were no proposals regarding Article 65, the Commission would
pass to the consideration of Article 66. There were no proposals
regarding paragraph 1 of that Article, but the Secretariat had
suggested that paragraph 2 should be amended (page 10, document
E/PC/T/W/210 Rev.1), and he called the attention of members of
the Commission to the note under "General Comments" on page 9
of the same document. In the discussion on the amendment
suggested by the Secretariat, the two reservations submitted by
the Australian and French delegations at the New York meeting
should be taken into account.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) agreed with the Secretariat
that the present drafting of paragraph 2 was faulty, and wished
to discuss the question of drafting in the Sub-Committee at
the appropriate time. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 2.
Mr. DAO (China) considered that the London draft was
inconsistent, and suggested that the amendment proposed by
the Secretariat should be examined after all chapters
preceding Chapter VIII had been studied.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) had no objection to the question
being referred to the Sub-Committee, but the Sub-Committee
should not consider the New York text as finally ruled out.
He felt that that text was not very faulty.
Decision: It was agreed to refer paragraph 2,
with the amendment submitted by the
Secretariat, to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 3
The CHAIRMAN, referring to paragraph 3 of Article 66,
said that two proposals had been submitted, one by the
Australian delegation and the other by the United States
Delegation. The Australian proposal had been discussed at
the previous meeting in connection with the Australian
suggestion that a new sub-paragraph should be added to
Article 61. Several representatives had asked on the
previous day for more time to consider the implications of
the Australian proposal and he suggested that discussion
should now be resumed.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) asked whether, before the
Commission passed to the consideration of paragraph 3,
either or both of the representatives who had made reservations E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 3.
in respect of paragraph 2, wished to make any comments.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) felt it would serve a more
useful purpose if discussion on paragraph 3 of Article 66
were postponed pending discussion of the question of voting
referred to in article 64 and other Articles.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that at the previous meeting
there had been full discussion of the suggestion made by
the United States representative that discussion should be
postponed of the Articles which related to weighted voting
and to the composition of the Executive Board. The decision
had been reached th t consideration of Articles 64, 66(5),
67 (3), 68 and 69 should be deferred until July 15th. The
question raised by the Brazilian representative was related,
but was a somewhat different question, as reference was made
in various Articles as to whether a decision should be taken
by a simple majority, or a-two-thirds vote. No suggestion
was made in the proposal of the United States representative
that consideration of those Articles should be deferred, and
therefore the proposal made by the representative of Brazil
went further than the United States proposal.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) supported the proposal of the
representative of Brazil. Referring to the remarks of the
representative of New Zealand, he said he could only answer
in the negative. As long as the composition of the Executive
Board had not been settled, it was impossible to make any
proposal as to what questions should be excluded from the
jurisdiction of that Board. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 4.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) also supported the proposal of the
representative of Brazil as he considered that paragraph 3
referred to voting procedure. At the previous meeting
discussion of paragraph 4 of Article 67, dealing with a
similar question, and paragraph 2 of Article 69, had been
postponed, and it was therefore logical to adopt the same
procedure in connection with paragraph 3 of Article 66.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) failed to see the connection
between the question dealt with at the previous meeting and
paragraph 3 of Article 66. Paragraph 3 referred merely to
the setting up of voting procedures and the Commission had
to decide whether the Conference should or should not have
the power to determine criteria and set up procedures,
including voting procedures, for waiving, in exceptional
circumstances, obligations of Members undertaken pursuant to
the Charter.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile), referring to the remarks of the
Norwegian representative, said it was not only a question
of delegating or not delegating to the Conference certain
powers to settle certain questions - it was a question as
to whether the decision of the Conference should be taken
by a majority vote of two-thirds or by a simple majority
vote.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) said that the remarks of the
representative of Norway would apply to the case if the
Commission were discussing paragraph 3 of Article 66 only,
but if that paragraph were discussed the amendment, which
entirely altered the meaning of the article, suggested by E/PC/T/B/SR. 14
page 5.
the representative of Belgium and supported by the Brazilian
delegation, would also have to be considered. That was the
reason why he had suggested the postponement of the discussion.
The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the proposal of the
representative of Brazil that the discussion of paragraph 3
of Article 66 should be deferred until Articles 64, 66 (5),
67 (3), 68 and 69 were discussed.
Decision: The proposal of the representative of
Brazil was defeated by 8 votes to 7.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) said that as the members of the
Commission numbered seventeen and only fifteen had voted, he
wished to know whether the two who had not voted were against
his proposal.
Dr. DAO (China) pointed out that he had abstained from
voting because he was not sure whether the other Commissions or
Committees had discussed or were now discussing the two-thirds
majority vote as it affected other provisions of the Charter.
The CHAIRMAN said that any member of the Commission
had the right to abstain from voting. The Second member of the
Commission who had not voted was the representative of the
Lebanon who was not present at the meeting.
Mr. TANGE (Australia), rep lying to the remarks of the
representative of New Zealand regardi g para 2pra-h 2, said that
his delegationdhat suggested at the Drafting Committee that
the Secretariat might prepare a list for possible inclusion in
Article 66 those powers which might not be delegated by the
Conference to the Executive roacP. Depha.s this list might
evenbe prepared for consideration by the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 6
Mr. KELLOGG (United States of America) pointed out that
there were approximately twenty functions which could not be
delegated to the Executive Board. Mr. TANGE then withdrew his
suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN said the discussion was open on the proposals
made by the delegations of Australia, Belgium, and the United
States regarding paragraph 3.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) considered that the decision referred
to in paragraph 3 was sufficiently important to render it
reasonable to ask for a two-thirds majority vote of the members
of the Organization.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) supported the proposal of the
Australian delegation. He said that it was difficult for him
to discuss the United States proposal as he did not know whether
the majority of two-thirds applied to a simple or to a
weighted vote.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) asked whether the United States
proposal meant that each Member had only one vote.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) said that the United States
proposal was based on the original draft which provided for
one vote for each Member. If the Conference decided to change
that theory to a weighted voting theory consequential amend-
ments would have to be made throughout the draft.
He agreed with the representative of Norway, and felt
that whether weighted voting or simple voting were adopted, there
should be a requirement of a two-thirds majority of the members
on releases for the reason that it was a matter tantamount to
amendment of the Charter. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 7
Mr. DAO (China) had some misgiving regarding the require-
ment of an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the
organization as some Members might abstain and others might be
absent, and there might thus be difficulty in setting up
prpcedures. His delegation did not wish to commit itself as
to whether there should be a simple majority or a two-thirds
majority vote.
Mr. TINGE (Australia) said that his delegation would prefer
to have a majority vote, whatever the majority might be, of
the Members present and voting, as that method retained the
right of a Member to abstain. Under the present drafting of
paragraph 3, Members did not have the option of adopting a
neutral attitude, and he felt that this should not be so. He
pointed out that the analogy made by the United States Delegate
between this paragraph and amendments was not a good one as
whereas amendments to the Charter were rare and had far-
reaching effects, releases applied only to one Member and the
Conference would be able to limit their scope and effects.
He wished to know whether the representative of the
United States considered it essential to retain in paragraph 3
of Article 66 the provision for the determination of criteria
and establishment of procedure. That had been omitted from
the draft of the representative of Belgium, with which he
believed the representative of the United States was in general
agreement.
Mr. MARTlNS (Brazil) said that paragraph 3 of Article 66
did not indicate whether the Conference would have to solve the
question in a general way through regulations established for E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 8
exceptional cases, or whether the Conference would have to
pronounce upon every case as it arose. The position would
be different if the Conference had to establish regulations
for exceptional cases that might arise in the future, or
if a Member desired to be relieved of his obligations.
He considered that the powers of the Conference should
not be limited, and supported the Belgian proposal as it
provided for an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members of the Organization.
Mr. de GAIFFIER (Belgium/Luxembourg) said his delega-
tion had two objectives in presenting the amendment they
had suggested to paragraph 3:- (1) to clarify the situation
arising from the application of paragraph 3, and (2) a
desire to reach a compromise with the text of the Australian
delegation. Paragraph 3 dealt with exceptional cases in
which the Conference might release certain Members from
certain of their obligations undertaken pursuant to the
Charter. He felt that, in such cases, the Conference should
have the power to release Members concerned, and, since
highly important and exceptional cases were being dealt with,
there should be a majority vote of two-thirds of the Members
of the Organization.
He considered that the main concern of the Australian
delegation was to bring into harmony paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Article 66. Paragraph 2 laid down that the Conference might
delegate to the Executive Board certain powers, with the
exception of certain specific powers and duties which were
expressly conferred or imposed by the Charter. With E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 9
paragraph 3 following on paragraph 2 it might be argued that
the power of releasing certain Members from their obligations
under the Charter was a specific power conferred on the
Conference which it should not delegate. However, he felt
that paragraph 3 in its present drafting did not give rise to
the possibility of such a construction. Referring to the
question raised by the representative of Australia regarding
the maintenance of the provision regarding procedures, he
considered that it was not essential to maintain that provision
in Article 66.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) felt that it was a mistake to think
that the Commission was dealing with one matter only and that
it was possible to adopt a single procedure to relieve Members
from their obligations. Those obligations were many and
varied, some were of paramount importance and others not so
important. A number of the commissions were engaged in setting
up procedures which would yield different results in different
cases. He felt that if a general provision were adopted it
would be necessary to reconsider paragraph 3 and modify its
wording when the results were known of the studies being under-
taken by the various other commissions and sub-committees. The
very multiplicity of the questions involved was likely to
prevent the drawing up of a precise rule, and therefore Commission
B could not decide that the Conference should take its
decisions by a two-thirds majority vote of the Members in all
cases. He considered that paragraph 3 should be adopted as it
appeared in the draft Charter as it was flexible enough to allow
the Conference, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members of the Organization, to determine criteria and set up procedures
which would not always be the same in all cases. If,on the other hand, E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 10.
Commission B decided that a two-thirds majority vote should be
required in all cases, that would show a lack of the sense of
proportion.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) favoured the maintenance of the New York
draft of paragraph 3. In that draft it was not said that a general
ruling was necessary, but he took it that the draftsmen of the
paragraph had in view the fact that it would be undesirable if,
in one case a certain procedure was applied and in another case,
more or less of the same nature, another procedure was applied.
It would create a better feeling of security if in all such cases
there was a general ruling as to how the matter should be dealt
with. It was in order to enable the Conference to establish
such a general ruling, in spite of the separate paragraphs in the
Charter, that paragraph 3 had been included. He felt that there
was no possibility that the rights of the Conference would be
delegated to the Executive Board, as it was necessary to have a
majority vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Organization.
Referring to the statement of the representative of Australia
that to ask for an affirmative vote of two-thirds would make it
impossible for Members to adopt a neutral attitude, he considered
that nothing prevented a Member of the Organization from abstaining
from voting if he so wished.
The CHAIRMAN considered that, in view of the time at the
disposal of Commission B, there had been adequate discussion of the
proposals made regarding Article 64 (3) and the consequential
amendment to Article 61. As there was a distinct divergence of
opinion among members of the Commission, he proposed that the
amendments to paragraph 3 suggested by the representatives of
Australia, Belgium, and the United States of America should be
referred to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/14.
page 11.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) said his delegation supported the
Chairman's proposal, and considered that if either the amendment
proposed by the Australian delegation or that proposed by the
United States delegation was adopted, his observation regarding
distinguishing between the general and particular cases should be
taken into account. He suggested that the word "general" should
be placed between the words "determine" and "criteria" in
the second line of the draft paragraph 3 proposed by the United
States delegation.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) recalled that the report of the Sub-
Committee on Chapter III had referred to Article 66, paragraph 3.
The Sub-Committee should note this report and ensure that the
text of the Article conformed with it.
The CHAIRMAN said that the attention of the Sub-Committee
would be drawn to the statements made by the delegates of Brazil
and France.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) thought that the Sub-Committee should be
recommended not to make any decisions on the text of this
paragraph until they had taken into account conclusions reached
by committees working on matters relating to this paragraph.
Mr. VAN TUYLL (Netherlands) pointed out that by this
Article the Conference was empowered either to determine criteria
and set up procedures, or to deal with questions direct, without
recourse to these criteria and procedures. This might be
made clear in the final draft produced by the Sub-Committee.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) remarked that he interpreted
the text differently from the delegate of the Netherlands
in that he thought that the Conference did not have the power E/PC/T/B/SR/14.
page 12.
to decide not to establish procedures, etc. Were he incorrect
in this interpretation some degree of his objection to the
text would be removed.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) had always thought that
by the present text the Conference would have the power
in any particular case to waive a Member's obligations. ;
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) had interpreted paragraph 3 as
laying down criteria and procedures for exceptional cases
in general, which had been foreseen in other parts of the
Charter. He had also understood that this paragraph made
provfsion -or exceptional cases which wereonoteearesaan
elsewhere. The fact that two types-of exceptional cases
were envisaged in the text of this paragraph should be borne
in mind.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer Article 66, paragraph 3
to the Drafting Committee.
Paragraph 4.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) reminded the meeting that
amendments proposed by the delegation of the United States
to Articles 30 and 52 already covered the substance of this
paragraph. Articles 30 and 52 dealt with the question of
burdensome surpluses. The delegation of the United States
had suggested elsewhere that the decision as to whether such
surpluses existed should be made by the countries concerned.
This viewpoint was expressed in the amendments proposed
for Articles 30 and 52. If these amendments were adopted,
then paragraph (4) would become superfluous. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 13.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) considered that the first part of
paragraph 4 should be retained. It had been agreed elsewhere,
particularly in discussions relating to Chapter VII, that the
second part only should be incorporated in Article 52, and
perhaps also Article 30. The text of this Article up to the
words "Article 52" should therefore be maintained.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) suggested that a better procedure
would be for the Sub-Committee to defer discussion on this
proposal until the Sub-Committees on Articles 30 and 52 had agreed
upon a definite draft.
The CHAIRMAN considered that rather than defer discussion
it would be advisable to refer the proposal to the Sub-
Committee, which would be instructed to take into account
the conclusions soon to be reached by the Sub-Committees on
Articles 30 and 52.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer the amendment
proposed by the delegation of the United
States to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraphs 5 and 6.
The CHAIRMAN recalled that discussion of Article 66,
paragraph 5 was deferred until 16th July. The redraft of
the second sentence in Article 66, paragraph 6 involved
purely drafting alterations. This might be referred to the
Sub-Committee.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) pointed out that a two-thirds
majority of the Members present and voting was required for
agreements sponsored by the Conference "with respect to any
matter within the competence of the Organization". He
wondered why such a majority was necessary. E/PC/T/B/SR/14.
page 14.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) said that a two-thirds majority
vote had been decided on in order to lend the maximum weight
to agreements concluded by the Organization. Other international
bodies had prepared treaties which had subsequently been ignored
by their Members. In the case of the Trade Organization general
support for any agreement would be guaranteed by the fact that
two-thirds of the Members had approved it at the Conference.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) supported the statement made by the
delegate of the United States of America.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) said that he had not spoken against
the two-thirds majority rule. He had simply declared that he
thought no majority rule should be applied to paragraph 6 unless
it were also applied, to paragraph 3.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer Article 66, paragraph
6, to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 7.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) remarked that the reasons for
the amendment proposed by the United States delegation were
self-evident.
Mr. DAO (China) fully sympathised with the point of
view expressed by the delegate of the United States.
However, no reference to the scale of Members'
contributions had been made in the Charter. No specific amounts
had been considered. A matter such as this should not be
included in the provisions of the Charter. This
could be dealt with under the Rules of Procedure. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 15.
It was doubtful whether the additional phrase "without
its consent" had any force. Clearly, no scale of payment
would be introduced without the consent of the countries
concerned.
Mr. NAUDE (Union of South Africa) said that the South
African delegation would not have considered a one-third
contribution too high, but it was willing to agree to a
maximum of one-quarter.
It was to be hoped that a minimum scale would be fixed
by the Sub-Committee in order to avoid the disputes over
contributions which invariably arose in international
organizations. However small their resources, Members would
feel they had a more responsible share in the Organization's
work and would have more self-respect if they were making
an appreciable financial contribution to the Organization.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) felt that the amendment proposed
by the delegate of the United States was more for appearances
than for fear of any real inconvenience. It was unlikely
that any member, particularly the United States of America,
would be asked to pay more than one-third of the budget
without its consent. Even if this were possible in
principle he thought that a limitation should not be embodied
in the Charter, but left to the Conference to decide.
The basis upon which this scale should be assessed
should be that of relative capacity to pay. An Export
Commission or the United Nations had recently recommended
that the United States' contribution should be 49.89% of
total United Nations expenditure; this had later been
reduced to 39.89% and had been accepted by the United States
of America. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 16.
If the amendment proposed by the delegate of the United
States were accepted, the issue regarding contributions would
be pre-judged. The scale should be worked out after the
establishment of the organization, and in the light of
circumstances then existing and the relative capacity to pay
of Members.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) supported the amendment proposed
by the delegation of the United States. A minimum should also
be laid down for Members' contributions.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer Article 66,
paragraph 7, to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 9.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) referring to an additional
paragraph 9 proposed by the delegation of Australia, said
that this was a consequential change arising out of amendments
which the delegation of Australia had proposed to Chapter IV.
These amendments had referred largely to Article 13. A
Sub-Committee was still discussing questions relating to
Chapter IV. It was concerned with matters of substance
as well as procedure in regard to Article 13. It would be
better to wait until the matters of substance under
examination by the Sub-Committee had been finally decided
before discussing the amendment proposed by the delegation
of Australia.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) supported this suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the delegations of
Australia and Brazil would agree to refer the question to
the Sub-Committee, which would then bear in mind any
decisions reached by the Sub-Committee on Chapter IV.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) would agree to this provided
that the Sub-Committee recognised these questions as E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 17.
belonging particularly to the scope of Chapter IV and awaited
the decisions of the Sub-Committee on that Chapter before
coming to any conclusion itself.
Mr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) asked why the Director-
General had been authorised to modify procedures. The
Director-General did not have any authority as regards making
policy.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) explained that the object of the
proposal made by the delegation of Australia had been to save
time. It sought the quickest possible application of rights
and requirements laid down by Article 13. There would be
delay with individual issues if a rigid procedure were laid
down which could be modified only by the Conference. Should
the Executive Board be in continuous or almost continuous
session this proposal could be dispensed with.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) supported the opinion earlier
expressed by the delegate of Australia that the Sub-Committee
should take into account decisions reached by the Sub-
Committee on Chapter IV.
DECISION: It was agreed that the proposed new
paragraph should be referred to the Sub-
Committee and that the Sub-Committee
should bear in mind the outcome of discussions
in the Sub-Committee on Chapter IV.
2. ARTICLE 67.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer paragraph 2 to
the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 3 and 4.
The CHAIRMAN recalled that discussions on paragraph 3
had been postponed until 15 July. Discussion on paragraph 4
had been similarly postponed, but since amendments to these
paragraphs proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom
and the Secretariat involved purely drafting points, it might E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 18.
be advisable for the Sub-Committee to examine the text before
the paragraphs were examined in substance by the Meeting.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) thought the Sub-Committee would
probably find that the amendments proposed involved matters
of substance.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that if this transpired then the
Sub-Committee would have to postpone its examination until
15 July. However it was more likely that these amendments
called for drafting changes only.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) had gathered previously that
discussion on paragraph 4 was to be postponed until 15 July.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that this was so. The amendments
to this paragraph would therefore not be referred to the
Sub-Committee.
DECISION: Discussion on Article 67, paragraph 4,
was deferred until 15 July.
DECISION: Discussion on Articles 68 and 69 was
deferred until 15 July.
3. ARTICLE 70.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) stated that this Article
was closely related to the comment made by the delegation
of the United Kingdom to Article 71. The constitution of
the Executive Board had left open the question of the exercise
of its functions between sessions. It was undesirable
that questions of major importance should be resolved by a
small body drawn from the members of the Executive Board.
A Special Session could be convoked as provided under
Article 70 for examination of matters of major importance.
However, the Rules of Procedure of the Board might provide
a method of dealing with unimportant issues between sessions. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 19.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) supported the view expressed
by the delegate of the United States in regard to matters of
major importance. Their main concern in providing for the
exercise of the functions of the Executive Board between
sessions was simply to give it the power to take decisions.
It should be able to delegate its authority to a sub-committee
of its own choosing which would take decisions on its behalf
in the period between sessions. This action would be applied
only in the case of matters of minor importance.
In all its provisions the Charter had referred to the
"Executive Board". It was therefore essential that the
Executive Board should create a small body to continue its
functions whilst it was not in session. He quoted experience
with the constitution of U.N.E.S.C.O. in support of this view.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) doubted whether the suggestion made
by the delegate of the United Kingdom was appropriately
worded. It should be explicitly stated that such action was
envisaged only for matters of minor importance.
The provision for a "limited number of Members including
the Chairman" might lead to an unsuitable expansion of the
membership of the Executive Board and to friction between
the subordinate body and the Board itself.
It would seem sufficient if the Executive Board
established Rules of Procedure authorising the Chairman to
act on its behalf between sessions. These Rules of
Procedure would be so framed as to confine the Chairman's
action to points of minor importance.
Mr. DORE (Canada) recalled that in the case of
U.N.E.S.C.O. the Executive Board consisted of members from
all parts of the world. It could therefore meet only three
times a year. Accordingly it had established a sub-committee E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 20.
of eight members which supervised the work of the Secretariat,
reported to the Board, and took decisions on minor questions.
In matters of major importance the sub-committee consulted
all members of the Board by letter; there was no danger here
of its supplanting the Board itself. The sub-committee
met approximately once a month. The proposal submitted by
the delegation of the United Kingdom was excellent in
principle, though its wording might be revised.
Mr. DAO (China) asked the delegate of the United
Kingdom to state what was meant by the term "minor
importance". By the provisions of Article 66, paragraph 2,
the Conf erence might delegate its power to an Executive Board.
Now the delegate of the United Kingdom proposed that there
should be a further delegation of powers by the Board.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) said that the Executive
Board remained responsible for decisions taken by the smaller
body. It would therefore lay down itself, in its Rules of
Procedure, the conditions governing the delegation of its
powers. The matters on which the power of decision would be
delegated could not be foreseen at this stage.
Mr. DAO (China) asked whether the delegate of the
United Kingdom would consider the preliminary examination
of complaints as a matter of minor importance.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) remarked that the question
could only properly be answered by the Executive Board itself.
The delegation of the United Kingdom had advanced the
principle that the Executive Board should be empowered to
delegate its authority to a smaller body. This delegation
of powers would be authorised in the Rules of Procedure,
but the Executive Board would remain responsible for -
decisions taken by the smaller body. Only the Executive E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 21.
Board itself could decide which matters were to be referred
to the smaller body.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) asked whether the Sub-Committee
would be a permanent body or whether its membership would
be constantly changed.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) thought that these matters
should be referred to the Sub-Committee. The meeting should
confine itself to an examination of the principle proposed.
Elaboration of the subject was a matter for the Sub-Committee.
Mr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) suggested that the problem
could be solved by empowering the Executive Board to set up
committees and sub-committees which between sessions would
study and prepare problems for consideration by the Executive
Board.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) stated that the comparison drawn
by the delegate of Canada between U.N.E.S.C.O. and the Trade
Organization was not a very good one.
The procedure followed by the Council of the League of
Nations might be a better model to follow . Between the
sessions of the Council of the League the President was
informed by the Secretary-General of any problems which arose.
It was then for the President to decide on his own responbi-
bility what action should be taken. If he was uncertain
he telegraphed his proposed decision to all Members of the
Council for approval. Where the Council was particularly
interested in the outcome of discussions during sessions it
appointed not more than two of its Members to collaborate
with the President in decisions made after adjournment.
In the same way the Executive Board might authorise
its Chairman to act on its behalf during the interval between E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 22.
sessions. The Director-General would be the channel through
which problems would be referred to the Chairman and through
which proposed decisions would be communicated to members of
the Board.
Mr. DO RE (Canada) agreed that there was no exact
parallel between UNESCO and the Trade Organization. A
description of procedure applying in UNESCO might however be
of service. Under the UNESCO Charter, the Finance and
Nomination Committees were required to make frequent reference
to the Execut ive Board. These Committees were subordinate
in various ways to teu Executive Board, but could usefully
exercise its functions between sessions. It had been easy
for the Sub-Committee to meet frequently since all of its
Members lived near Paris.
It was clear that a Sub-Committee empowered to
supervise the work of the Secretariat would be a useful
subordinate body.
Mr. KARMARKAR (India) considered that the membership
and functions of the proposed subordinate body should be
more exactly specified. Normally action taken between
sessions was left to a responsible officer of a body. Little
would be gained by creating a smaller body of indefinite
powers within the Executive Board. It would be better to
entrust the Chairman of the Executive Board with decisions
on problems which might arise between sessions.
Mr. DAO (China) thought that the establishment of a
smaller body functioning on its own responsibility between
sessions might be a dangerous step. The suggestion made by
the delegate of Norway was a useful one. It was, however, usual
to assign certain powers to the Chairman in the Rules of
Procedure. It might therefore be better to fall in with the E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 23.
suggestion first made by the delegate of the United States
and leave this matter to be dealt with under the Rules of
Procedure.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) doubted the wisdom of stating in
the Charter that the Executive Board might delegate its powers.
It would in any case be difficult to assign a limit to its
delegation of powers.
The Executive Board could always create committees
which would analyse problems and prepare them for considera-
tion by the main body. These problems might then be reserved
for consideration by the Executive Board at its next session.
On the other hand the Chairman could take a poll of members'
views by telegram.
The CHAIRMAN felt that sufficient variety of views had
now been expressed in this regard. The concrete suggestions
made by the delegation of the United Kingdom would be
useful, The matter should now be referred to the Sub-
Committee which should bear in mind the suggestions made by
the delegate of the United Kingdom, the views expressed at
the meeting and the comment of the Drafting Committee to the
effect that "the possible desirability of providing for the
maker in which the functions of the Executive Board will be
exercised while it is in session" should be considered.
DECISION: It was agreed that Article 70, paragraph 1,
should be referred to the Drafting Sub-
Committee.
DECISION: It was agreed to refer to the Sub-Committee
the re-draft of Article 70, paragraphs 2 and
4, suggested by the Secretariat.
4. ARTICLE 71.
Paragraphs 1 and 2.
Mr. NAUDE (Union of South Africa) proposed that in
Article 71, paragraph 1, the passage in the first sentence E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 24.
"and shall exercise the powers delegated to it and perform the
duties assigned to it by the Conference" should be deleted.
It was obvious that the Executive Board should have such a
function.
DECISION: It was agreed that Article 71, paragraph 1,
should be referred to the Sub-Committee,
which should take into account the results of
discussion on later Articles, and the amend-
ment proposed by the delegate of the Union
of South Africa.
DECISION: Article 71, paragraph 2, was referred to
the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 3.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) declared that the amendment
proposed by the Secretariat involved a change of substance.
Applications for membership should not be filtered through
the Executive Board. Experience in the Security Council had
shown this would be undesirable. Applications for admission
should be made directly to the Conference.
Mr. NAUDE (Union of South Africa) supported the view
expressed by the delegate of the United Kingdom.
Mr.TANGE (Australia) agreed with the delegate of the
United Kingdom that it would be undesirable for the Executive
Board to consider applications for the admission of new
Members. Sparing use should be made of the powers assigned
to the Executive Board under this Article.
The SECRETARY said that this amendment had been
proposed because the present text of paragraph 3 was somewhat
misleading. Discussion of the amendment had brought out a
clear statement of what was the intention of delegates.
If the Executive Board were not to screen applications
for admission it might be necessary to provide that the
Conference should do so in Article 66. E/PC/T/B/SR/14
page 25.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) thought that this point was
covered by Article 2. The meeting should remember that it had
been decided in London not to enumerate all the powers of the
Organization in Article 61, but to include in it only those
powers which were not mentioned elsewhere.
LECISION: It was agreed to refer the matter to the
Sub-Committee, which should decide whether
further textual changes were required.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | kc600fd6274 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record. of the Nineteenth Meeting held on Thursday, 3 July 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 3, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 03/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/19 and E/PC/T/B/SR/14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kc600fd6274 | kc600fd6274_90250161.xml | GATT_152 | 3,846 | 23,975 | ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/B/SR/19
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
of the Nineteenth Meeting held on Thursday, 3 July
1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. CHAPTER VIII OF THE DRAFT CHARTER.
Article 88 - Entry into Force.
Paragraphs 1 and 2
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the proposal of the United
Kingdom delegation to transfer paragraph 1 to the end of the
Charter.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States), referring to the question of
signature, asked whether it would not be better to keep to the
original plan, which was the plan adopted at Bretton Woods. In
that case signatures were affixed to the document after acceptance
had been accomplished. He spoke for U.S. Constitutional
reasons and also because he believed that signature did not
bind a country.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) understood that acceptance
of the charter was equivalent to the former signature and
ratification. It was the instrument of acceptance which made
a Member party to the Charter. He wondered whether it would
be possible to meet the feeling of the representative of the
United States by merely initialling the text of the Charter.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) said that the suggestion made
by the representative of the United Kingdom would be acceptable
to his delegation.
NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 2.
Mr. DAO (China) pointed out that in the United Kingdom
amendment mention had been made only of the English and
French languages. He wished to know why the three other
official languages of the United Nations had not been
mentioned.
Mr. DE GAIFFIER (Belgium/Luxembourg) supported the
United Kingdom amendment. Referring to the remarks of the
representative of China, he said that although there were
five official languages of the United Nations, English and
French were the only two working languages. Should any
dispute arise it would be very difficult to interpret the
Charter in five official languages.
Mr. DORN (Cuba) pointed out that according to the
London draft, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish
were equally authentic and binding. The wording of Article
86 had been changed in New York to read that all official
languages should be equally authoritative. He understood
that the reason for using only two of the official languages
was a practical one, but pointed out that the Commission was
meeting in a country which had four official languages and
those languages were used daily. He felt the problem was
not insuperable and that it should be referred to the sub-
Committee. He reserved his position regarding the Spanish
language.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) said that, in submitting
its amendment, his delegation had in mind the fact that the
Charter was a highly technical document, and to increase the
number of authentic texts would merely impose a greater burden
on those who had to interpret it. So far as he knew, no other
specialized agency of the United Nations had authentic texts in E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 3.
five languages and, as the International Trade Organization
would, in some ways, be the most technical body of all, it
should be the last to adopt this procedure.
Regarding the question of interpretation he said the
International Court had adopted the English and French lan-
guages for its proceedings although another language could
be used if a party before the Court so required. It was
fairly well established that English and French had become the
standard languages for purposes of interpretation. Article
86, paragraph 1, referred to "the official languages of the
United Nations". That was a slightly defective formula as
those languages might well be changed.
Mr. DAO (China) pointed out that the constitution of the
World Health Organization had stated its texts in the five
languages equally authentic. Referring to the question of
interpretation, he said that the Charter of the United Nations
was drawn up in the five official languages and so far no
difficulty had arisen regarding its interpretation.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) said that the Charter of the
ITO would be the most technical document that the United
Nations had attempted to draw up, and difficulties regarding
translation had already arisen at the meetings in New York.
He failed to see how judges sitting at the Hague, who had no
knowledge of Chinese or Russian, could possibly penetrate the
real meaning of a document drawn up in those languages. The
matter should be approached from a technical point of view to
see how a text could best be achieved on which there would be
no difficulty of interpretation. E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 4
Mr. DORN (Cuba) pointed out that the International
Court had the power to interpret the Charter of the United
Nations whose text in five languages is equally authentic.
It was true that Article 39 of the Charter referred to the
two working languages of the Court, English and French, but
the Court could authorise the use of any other language
should a party to a dispute so wish, He felt there should
be the same procedure in the case of the ITO.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) said he had drawn
attention to the fact that under paragraph 3 of Article 30
of the Charter of the United Nations a party might ask the
International Court of Justice for permission to speak and
to use documents in a language other than English and French,
but it was to be noted that the Court had adopted English and
French as its working languages and would therefore interpret
the Charter in those languages unless a party to a dispute
asked it to use another language. The fact that the United
Nations Charter had not yet given rise to any dispute did not
mean that no dispute would arise in the future..
The majority of the countries were familiar with English
and French and representatives could be fairly sure that
the English and French texts of the Charter were correct and
could therefore sign them. His delegation would hesitate
before puttinga i.- giving it
the same authenticity as a text in a language which was fairly
well understood,
Mr. DAO (China) pointed out that a representative of
the United Kingdom Government had not hesitated to sign he t the point of view of the peace and security of the world.
There was now an efficient Chinese translation service at
Lake Success which did not exist at the time of the signing
of the Charter of the United Nations.
Mr. NAUDE (Union of South Africa) asked whether it
would be possible to have two languages of equal
authenticity and three official languages.
Mr. DAO (China) said he could not accept the proposal
of the representative of the Union of South Africa.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) suggested that the text in the
five languages should be authentic as far as the Organization
was concerned but if any other organization had to pronounce
on the text of the ITO Charter then the English and French
texts alone should be the authentic ones. He felt it would
be practically impossible for the International Court to
pronounce upon the Chinese or Russian versions of the Charter.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) suggested that the text of the
ITO Charter should be drawn up in the five official languages
of the United Nations but, in case of any doubt regarding
interpretation, the English and French texts should be
regarded as the authentic ones.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) supported the suggestion
made by the representative of Brazil and said that it showed
that the Commission felt that the five official languages
were of equal importance, but that should a dispute arise
it thought only two texts should be used for the purpose of
interpreting the Charter. E/PC/T/B/SR/19 Page 6
Mr. ANGUS (Canada) supported the Brazilian proposal and
pointed out that the working languages of the Preparatory Committee
were English and French. A text in another language would be a
translation which should not be relied upon for purposes of
interpretation.
e1\Mrs/DAO (China) said there were two proposals before the
Commission, one made by the representative of Brazil and the
other by the representative of France, and his delegation
, - . r S t ,c t IrJ ;.i; ? .
favoured the French proposal.
Decision: It was decided that the question should be
referred to the Sub-Committee which should pay
particular attention to the proposals of the
representatives of Brazil and of France.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out, in order to assist the Sub-
Committee, that at the meeting of the World Health Organization
held on July 22nd, 1946, the Final Act was signed by all the
representatives of the Governments present, but in the case
of the signature of the Constitution words were appended to
each signature such as"ad referendum", "subject to ratifica-
tion", "subject to approval and acceptance", etc. That might
be a possible way to overcome the difficulties of the United
Decision: It was agreed that the United Kingdom
proposal should be submitted to the Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN said that the United Kingdom delegation had
sugke the place ow a agg a 1o tav~e.* aE~repo~b0t1oac Qf p4ercaph.loQf
aArt2csle , had ahadpro2psed t4b p;rzahC hould be -
redrafted. E/PC/T/B/SR/9
page 7.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) withdrew the amendment to
paragraph 1 pending discussion in the Sub-Committee of the
question of initialling the Charter instead of formal signature.
Referring to paragraph 2, he wished to drew attention to
the connection between accepting the Charter and becoming a
Number of the Organization.
Decision: It was agreed to submit the proposals of
the United Kingdom delegation to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 3
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) said that the comment made
in the Drafting Committee' s report by the United Kingdom
delegation was withdrawn.
In the redrafting of paragraph 3 his delegation
wished to make it clear that it was the instrument of
acceptance which was decisive and it preferred the expression
"brought into force" to "make effective".
Decision: It was agreed that the proposal of
the representative of the United Kingdom
should be submitted to the Sub-Committee.
Paragraph 4
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the French delegation
had proposed a rewording of paragraph 3. the New
Zealand delegation had suggested an amendment to the
second sentence; and the United Kingdom delegation had
proposed two paragraphs to replace paragraph 4.
M. DIETERLIN (France) said that the French
amendment was purely a drefting one, and that it should.
be submitted to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 8
Mr. LAWRENCE ( New Zealand ) said that his delegation had
suggested the recasting of the second sentence of paragraph 4 to
make it clear that advice of acceptance by a member on behalf of
a territory that was self-governing in matters with which the
Charter was concerned, but which did not have complete inter-
national independence, followed upon the determination of that
territory in respect of matters covered by the Charter. He felt
that the second paragraph of the United Kingdom amendment was
designed to cover the same point. The essential point was that
the act on the part of a Member was in accordance with the desire
of the separate customs territory. In view of the amendments
submitted it was obvious that the text would have to be sent
to the Sub-Committee, and he was quite agreeable that that should
be done.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) suggested that the Sub-Committee
should be kept informed as to the discussions taking place on the
position of inviting the territories in question for the World
Trade Conference.
The CHAIRMAN said it was expected that a decision would
be reached on the question in the near future and the Sub-
Committee would be instructed to take into account whatever
decision was reached.
Decision It was arreed that the three proposals
regarding paragraph 4 should be submitted
to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/P/SR/19 page 9
2. Article 89 - Withdrawal and Termination.
. Paragraph 1
TheAN pCHAIRM pinted out that the United Kingdom
delegation proposed to add the phrase "or paragraph 2 of Article
85" after the words "Article 35".
Decision: The proposal of the United Kingdom delegation
was accepted.
TheANHAIRMIT said that consequential upon the proposal to
redraft paragraph 4 of Article 88, the United Kingdom delegation
had suggested an amendment to paragraph 1 of Article 89.
Decision: The proposal submitted by the United Kingdom
delegation was referred to the mmiSubCoittee.
Paragraph 3
IThe HkRMAN,stated that the United States delegation had
suggested that paragraph 3 should be replaced by a new paragraph.
Mr. FDE GAIFIER (Belgium - Luxembourg) said that he would
prefer to reduce to a minimum any provisions likely to make it
possible for countries to withdraw.
.. DINITERLT (France) said he failed to see the practical
value of the amendment. The same point had been raised in New
York and after a short discussion everyone had agreed that it would
be preferablve to aoid inserting an artfficle o that kind in the
Charter.
MNr. DOR Cuba).pointed out that there were important
provisions in the Charter in accordance with which advantages
under the Charter might be withdrawn if a Member violated a
specifigac oblition, and giving to that Member the possibility of
Withdrawin g fromthe OrganizatHon. e suggested that the Commission
miht examine the relationship between those provisions and parag-
raph 3 of Article 89 in order to find a formula which would
co-ordinate all provisions. E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 10
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) stated that he recognised
the validity of the points made by the French and Belgian
representatives. It was true that Articles 24 and 25 had given
the Organization certain powers and that the new suggestion did
not greatly change the substance of the Charter. The
proposal of the United States delegation was based on the fact
that while the United Nations Charter contained provisions
by. which it was empowered to ask ITO to expel one of its
members; no such sanction existed in the instrument of ITO
itself. He considered that the suggestion of the delegate
of Cuba was already covered by the cross reference in the
first paragraph in the amendment of the United Kingdom regarding
those provisions.
Mr. DORN (Cuba) pointed out that he had not referred
to other possibilities of withdrawal, except those already
contained in the Charter regarding sanctions against a
violating member. In his opinion the existing provisions were
more efficacious than those covered by the United States
amendment. He referred particularly to Article 26. What
he wanted was to make the special sanctions consistent with
the amendment now before them.
Mr. VANTUYLE (Netherlands) appreciated the reasons
for the United States amendment, and said that the organization
must not keep in its ranks a member who had violated the
provisions of the Charter. He was included to agree with
those who thought that it should not be made too easy for
the Organization to expel a member, Once this had happened E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 11
there was no provision for their return. He suggested that
a slight modification of the wording by inserting "and
repeatedly" after the word "persistently" would make it more
difficult for the Organization to require a member to withdraw.
Mr. DAO (China) said that although he understood the
motives for the United States amendment, it would not be
wise to insert such a provision in the Charter, since all
possible cases would be covered by articles 24, 25 and even
possibly 26. He pointed out that in the case of an inter-
national organization, composed of sovereign States,
expulsion would be a serious matter. He felt that if the
Conference passed judgment on one of its members, it might
give rise to all sorts of disputes as to whether a member
had consistently violated the provisions of the Charter. He
would prefer the provisions of Articles 24 and 25, which
provided an opportunity for the member to withdraw voluntarily
from the Organization.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) said that he wished to support
the Netherlands delegate in regard to the importance and
gravity of such a severe sanction as expulsion. Expulsion
was severe in comparison with violation of an obligation, and
he thought it necessary to examine the suggested paragraph 3
in conjunction with paragraph 3 of Article 66. Tt would then
be seen whether it was necessary to insert a stricter
procedure in order to prevent the Conference from taking
such a step without having voted upon it by a sufficiently
great majority. E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page. 12
Mr. TANGE (Australia) stated that his delegation had
no objection to the proposed new paragraph, but would like
to make certain observations. Attention had been drawn to
the fact that provisions existed elsewhere in the Charter
for releasing members from their obligations towards a
particular member who had acted contrary to the rules of the
Charter. The American amendment had a different effect.
The other articles authorised ITO to take action against a
member, but left that option open, while the proposed amend-
ment implied compulsory action. He thought it well to draw
attention to the fact that the proposed sub-paragraph would
tend to operate more against smaller Members than larger
ones. Perhaps consideration could be given as to whether
or not the paragraph should provide for a qualified majority
vote. Article 85, paragraph 2 of the Charter provided for
amendments to the Charter, and if expulsion of a Member were
considered as an additional obligation, it would require a
two-thirds vote. He had specially la mind the clause relating
to relations with nonmembers. It was reasonable to suppose
that that clause, although not yet drafted, would contain
discriminatory action, and therefore expulsion should be
regarded in that light. He considered that, in expelling
a Member, ITO was taking action which would increase the
obligations of that country and the same analogy existed in
the Charter, where a two-thirds vote was required.
Mr. NAUDE (South Affrica) stated that he had not yet
made up his mind on this particular proposal. One diffi-
culty which might be foreseen was that ITO might be called
upon to assist the Security Council should the United Nations,
under Article 48(a) of the United Nations Charter, decide E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 13
to expel a member, and ask ITO to act likewise. The member
so expelled might not have violated the terms of the ITO Charter.
As regards the question of a majority vote, the South African
delegation was still undecided. The question should be
submitted to a sub-committee.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) stated that his del egation
had not yet made up their minds about the proposed amendment,
although they were satisfied that it did add something to the
Charter. He considered that it gave the Organization an
additional sanction over a Member who might not have speci-
fically come into conflict with another Member or with the
Organization in breaking the rules of the Charter, but whose
conduct was contrary to. the general spirit of the Organization.
The United Kingdom delegation felt that it met a situation
which might arise and which had not so far been covered.
The power of the Organization at present was not very great,
and the introduction of such a provision would in no way be
contrary to the existing provisions laid down in its Charter.
He mentioned the strong precedent which existed in the Charter
of the United Nations. He agreed with the representative of
Australia that the point was linked up with Article 85 and
perhaps Article 86. He considered that it would be necessary
to ascertain whether a qualified vote was required and how
large a vote must be cast for the sanctions to be applied.
The United Kingdom delegation would be inclined to support
the amendment, and asked that further discussion take place
along the lines already indicated.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) said that it might happen
that a Member violate the provisions of the Charter under
pressure of some economic or political situation. He therefore E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 14
thought that the Sub-Committee should consider the amendment
with the greatest care. Should the amendment be adopted it
would be necessary to stress not only that the Member had
violated the provisions of the Charter but also that it had
acted in bad faith. There must be findings on the part of
the Conference as regards the facts themselves and also as
regards the bad faith shown by the violating Member.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States), replying to the delegate
of Czechoslovakia, said that his delegation had had that diffi-
culty in mind when drafting the amendment, and for that reason
had inserted the sentence "subject to such conditions as it
may deem appropriate".
Mr. KOJEVE (France) observed that the motives behind
the amendment of the United States were clear to everybody.
He believed that this amendment should be read in the light of
the other provisions of the Charter. He would prefer not to
say that the Conference could require a Member to withdraw
from the Organisation, but that the Conference having found
that a Member has persistently violated the provisions of the
Charter is no longer a Member of the Organization.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the discussion had clarified
the motives behind the proposal of the United States and
provided a basis for reaching an agreement which would satisfy
all the Members of the Commission. He proposed that the
amendment should be referred to the Sub-Committee, asking for
account to be taken of the views expressed in the Commission.
Decision: The amendment was referred to the Sub-
Committee.
The CHAIRMAN then passed to the last item on the Agenda,
namely, the proposal by the Secretariat to add a new Article E/PC/T/B/SR/19
page 15
90 to the Charter on registration, the purpose of which was
to relieve governments of this task.
Mr. FAWCETT (United Kingdom) said that his delegation
thought this a most useful Article and would accept it.
Mr. De GAIFFIER (Belgium - Luxembourg) suggested a slight
modification in the text as follows: "The Secretariat of the
United Nations is authorised to effect registration ........."
Mr. RENOUF (Secretary) mentioned that he had merely
incorporated in the new Article the phrase used in the Regu-
lations regarding the Registration of Treaties.
The CHAIRMAN asked the Belgian representative whether he
was satisfied with the explanations of the Secretariat, which
Mr. De Gaiffier replied he was.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) assumed that the instrument itself
would be registered,and the United Nations would also have a
record of the parties to the instrument since the list would
from time to time have to be completed by adherences. He
interpreted this Article to mean that there would not only be
an instrument but also a list of the parties to it as and when
they occurred.
Mr. RENOUF (Secretary) replied that in the Legal Depart-
ment of the United Nations, a complete register was kept which
comprised not only the treaties themselves but also a register
of the parties to them which was kept up-to-date with any
adherences or withdrawals.
Decision: The proposal of the Secretariat was
accepted. |
GATT Library | cv277zt4746 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record of the Seventeenth Meeting held on Monday 30 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 30, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 30/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/17 and E/PC/T/B/SR/14-19 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cv277zt4746 | cv277zt4746_90250157.xml | GATT_152 | 5,643 | 35,608 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/17
AND ECONOMIQUE Original:English
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
of the Seventeenth Meeting held on Monday
30 June 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais
des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: M. ROYER (France) - Vice-Chairman,
in the absence of the Hen. L.D. WILGRESS
(Canada), Chairman
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF SUB--COMMITTEE
ON CHAPTER VII OF THE DRAFT CHARTER.
The CHAIRMAN:- asked Mr. Caplan, Chairman of the Sub-Committee,
to comment on the Report of the Sub-Committee on Chapter VII
(document E/PC/T/W/228).
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Sub-Committee
on Chapter VII, said that the Report was a unanimous one, taking
into account the very large number of amendments which came before
the Commission and the additional points which came up in the
debate in Commission B, that was a considerable achievement.
The Sub-Committee had held seventeen meetings and had worked
long hours, all delegations represented had shown a unanimous
desire to co-operate in every effort to narrow differences of
approach. All delegations which had submitted amendments to
Chapter VII but which were not represented on the Sub-Committee,
were invited to attend meetings in which those amendments were E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 2
discussed and to participate in the general discussion and
the work of drafting. The representative of the FAO, Mr.
Yates, who had now left Geneva, had withdrawn unreservedly
the one formal amendment which he had put forward as
Observer for FAO.
The CHAIRMAN said that those delegations which were
not members of the Sub-Committee had been kept informed of the
work of the Sub-Committee and he therefore hoped the discussion
would be short. He suggested that the Report and draft
text should be taken up Article by Article for adoption.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) agreed With the Chairman's proposal.
He considered that the Sub-Committee had done excellent work,
and he had no objection to any of the Articles of the Report.
He suggested that the Commission should discuss the various
Articles but should not adopt the text of the Sub-Committee's
Report.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that it was not his intention
to ask the Commission to adopt the text of the Sub-Committee' s
Report as forming an integral part of the Report of the
Preparatory Commission, but simply to give it its general
approval.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) said that before
the Commission made a detailed examination of the Articles
and paragraphs he wished to make a brief general statement.
The present draft of Chapter VII represented a considerable
improvement and was a general statement of international
policy with respect to commodity agreements. It was a
successful solution of a number of extremely difficult E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 3
problems to which the Sub-Committee meeting in Geneva had made
a very great contribution. His delegation was prepared to
accept all of the substantive issues involved in the text
submitted by the Sub-Committee, but might wish to make a few
changes in the drafting.
Mr. JANTON (France) said his delegation would have to
raise a number of drafting points in the French text of the
Report and would, if there was no objection, communicate direct
with the Secretariat after having contacted the French-speaking
delegations.
The CHAIRMAN said that, if there was no objection on the
part of the Commission, the drafting points might be submitted
direct to the Secretariat. In any case, the Legal and Drafting
Committee would have to re-examine both texts.
Mr. CHANG (China) thought that the text of Chapter VII,
as at present drafted was clearer and an improvement over the
former arrangement. However, he wished to make one or two
observations regarding the division of the text into Sections.
Article 48 "Objectives of Inter-Governmental Commodity
Agreements" had been placed under Section A - "General
Considerations." Article 52 "General Principles of Inter-
Governmental Commodity Agreements" had been placed under Section
B. It was not clear to him why "objectives" and "principles"
should be placed in two separate Sections. He felt that both
Sections should be placed together under the heading "General
Provisions".
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Sub-Committee
said that the Sub-Committee had felt that it was important
to look at the arrangement of Chapter VII not only from the
point of view of experts but also from that of the very large
number of people. who would be interested in the Chapter. They E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 4
felt that it was necessary to have a short general Section at
the beginning of the Chapter including a statement of the object-
ives of commodity agreements. The Sub-Committee also considered
that there was good reason for having a separate Section C
on "'Commodity Control Agreements". They considered that
principles which were applicable to all commodity agreements
should be placed in Section B. He suggested that the Commission
should return to the question of rearrangement when they had
considered the individual Articles.
The CHAIRMAN supported this suggestion, and it was agreed
to consider the text Article by Article.
ARTICLE 46 (46)*
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) felt that the New York text of
Article 46 we much less affirmative than the present one.
He wished the original text retained in regard to manufactured
goods.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Sub-Committee,
referred to the explanation on page 2 of the Report of the
Sub-Committee, and said that Article 46 was linked with the
question of the new Article 47 and the treatment accorded
under Chapter VII to primary and related commodities.
A discussion had taken place on what had been called non-
primary commodities, and there had been a feeling that the
door should not be opened too wide in dealing with highly
manufactured articles. The Sub-Committee felt that it was
perfectly correct, in the light of Article 47, to delete
the qualifying words appearing in the New York text.
* Numbers in brackets refer to New York text. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 5
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) understood that it was not
intended that the field of application to inter-governmental
agreements should be expanded, but that the possible
difficulties that might arise in connection with manufectured
articles should be indicated clearly. He felt it was going
too far to suggest that such difficulties would not arise in
the case of manufactured articles.
The CHAIRMAN asked if there was any formal objection
Against the reintroduction of the previous text of Article 46.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Sub-Committee,
folt he should not speak for the Sub-Committee as a whole, but.
pointed out that during the discussions in that Sub-Committee
it was considered that it would be logical to delete the
qualifying words. However, he ser-: no strong objection to
their re-introduction.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) said the Introduction of the
qualifying words had been discussed in London. Chapter VII
dealt with primary-products and the object ,of the first
paragraph was to explain why a different mechanism and
different procedure were used in the case of primary products
when difficulties arose than were used in the case of
manufactured products. \There might be certain cademic
objections to the phrase , but the general view of the
Committee had been that it made for clarity.
Mr. van der POST (Union of South Africa); considered it
slightly invidious to make a comparison between agriculture
and industry, and suggested that the difficulty encountered
by the Belgian delegation. might be solved by rewording the Page 6
phrase in question. He suggested that the words "by
special difficulties which do not characterize the trade
in manufatured goods" should be deleted and the following
words inserted in their place: "affected adversely by
conditions peculier to agriculture. "
Mr. MOSTIN (Belgium) said that the suggestion made
by the representative. of the Union of South Africa would
meet the point but was likely to restrict the scope of
the Chapter, as, in addition to agricultural products,
there were also mining, forestry and fisnery products.
The CHAIRMAN asked members of the Commission
whether they would agree to the following wording:
"which do not characterize to the same degree", or, "to
the same extent."
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) objected to
the phrase.
The CHAIRMAN, referring to a suggestion by
Mr. van der POST (Union of South Africa) that the words
"primary industry" should be used instead of "agriculture",
asked whether the members of the Commission agread with the
phrase "trade in these commodities may be adversely
affected by conditions peculiar to primary industry".
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) suggested that the words
"such as" should be inserted after the words "may be
affected by special difficulties" and the rest of the
sentence, as well as the first six words of the following
sentence, be deleted. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
Page 7
Mr. MARTINS (Brezil) did not agree with the wording
suggested by the representative of the Union of South
Africa as the words "primary industry" had not the same
meaning as "production of primary commodities". He
supported the suggestion made by the representative of the
United Kingdom.
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada) supported the wording suggested
by the United Kingdom representative.
Mr. McCARTEY (Australia) did not agree with the wording
suggested by the representative off the United Kingdom, but
did not wish to press the point.
Mr. HELMORE'S proposal was adopted.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) suggested that
the words "as shown in" in the second sentence should be
deleted, that the word "and" be substituted for "or", and
that the word "They", at the beginning of the third sentence
of Article 46, should be deleted and the sentence should begin
"'The special difficulties".
This was agreed.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) said that, in order
to maKe the footnote at the bottom of page 9 clear he proposed
that the following words should be substituted for the words
"agreement, accord, etc.":- "arrangement, understanding, or
other form of co-ordinated action."
The CHAIRMAN said that as there were no objections, the
footnote on page 9 would be altered accordingly.
Decision: Article 46, as amended, was approved,
ARTICLE 47. (60 (1)
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that Article 47 included part
of Article 60 of the New York text. It gave a clearer and
better definition of primary and related commodities. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 8
Mr. MUNCZ (Chile) considered that the Article had been
improved by the Sub-Committee. There could now be no
question in anyone's mind that Chilean nitrate of soda, being
a mineral and subject to processing to propara it for market-
ing, was a primary commodity. Synthetic nitrate of soda
and other closely ralated products were also covered by the
term '"primary product" and could be covered in a single
inter-governmental commodity agreement. On that understand-
ing his delegation suported the new text of Article 47.
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czochoslovakia) asked whether it could be
assumed that all pre -war international agreements covering
primary commodities were now covered by the provisions of
Article 47.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) said the representative of
Cube had raised the question in the Sub-Committee regarding
products which Word the subject of inter-governmental
commodity agreements before the war, and the Sub-Committee
had no doubt that all of them were certainly brought within
the scope of Chapter VII.
Decision: Article 47 was approved.
ARTICLE 48 (47)
Decision: Article 48 was approved.
ARTICLE 19 (58)
Mr. WILCOX (United States) stated that this Article
should be deleted as it had no operative effect whatsoever.
He point out that in Article 48, paragraph (b), reference
was made to the "expansion of consumption", in paragraph (e) E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 9
there was a reference to "expansion of the production of a
primary commodity... .with advantage to consumers and pro-
ducers". In Article 52, paragraph (a) reference was made
to measures to expand world consumption, and in Article 55 (b)
there was reference to "availability of supplies adequate
at all times for world demand". In Article 49 there was a
fifth reference to expansion of consumption.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Commission had already voted
against the proposal of the United States representative
that Article 49 should be deleted. The question could be
put to the vota once more, but he first wished to ask those
representatives who had voted in favour of the Article being
retained whether they were still of the same opinion after
having considered Chapter VII as a whole in its new form.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) pointed out that the footnote
on page 11 stated that Article 49 was not referred to the
Sub-Committee by Commission B. He considered there was
much strength in the view expressed by the United States
representative.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) wished to see Article 49
retained, although he agreed with the representative of the
United States that there were a number of reforences to the
expansion of consumption in ths Chapter as it now stood.
The important difference in Article 49 was that it was an
undertaking by Members who were not parties to a commodity
agreement. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 10
Mr. McCARTRY (Australia) said his delegation supported
Article 49. It arose out of the difficulty of reconciling
the different views expressed on the old Article 52.
There had been a great deal of discussion in London regard-
ing the wording of Article 52(a) in which the burdensome
surplus idea was stressed, and those members who thought
there should be some reference to shortages or scarcities
ultimately compromised on a reference being made in the
report that it could be assumed that the words "is expected
to develop" would enable action to be taken when burdensome
surpluses were in prospect, or where the history of a
.product showed that sooner or later such a surplus might
arise.
Mr. RICHARDS (Canada) said his delegation supported the
retention of Article 49, but wondered whether it might be
included under Article 60.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that Article 60 dealt with
agreements which were already in operation or were being
contemplated at the time when the Charter came into force,
while Article 49 dealt with a generad rather than a temporary
commitment.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Sub-
Committee, said that personally he had new strong views
about the position of Article 49. There was a slight
difference between it and the general character of the new
Article 60, and he considered that it would ba better not
to attach it to article 60. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 11
Mr. WILCOX (United States) said that if it was the
desire of the majority of the Commission that article 49
should be retained he would not enter any reservation.
However, he had only heard three representatives state that
they wished the Article retained, and he did not regard that
number as a majority.
Mr. CHANG (China) considered the last phrase of Article
49 redundant and asked whether the representative of the
United States would be satisfied if that phrase ware deleted.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the representative of the United
States of America did not agree with the suggestion made by
the representative of China. He then put to the vote the
proposal that Article 49 should be deleted. The proposal
was approved by seven votes to six.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) explained that at a previous meeting
he had voted against the United States proposal while at the
present meeting he had voted in favour of it. His delegation
now felt that the Article was so vague that it could well be
used against the national interest of a country, and it was
quite possible to contemplate a wrong application of the
Article in a country where inflation prevailed and it was
necessary to reduce consumption. He felt that the recom-
mendation to increase consumption was so natural that it
did not need special mention, and that was why he had now
voted for the United States proposal. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
Page 12
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) regretted the disappearance
of the paragraph and said that until he had been able to consult
his Government he must reserve his position.
The CHAIRMAN said the United Kingdom delegation was entitled
to reserve its position and raise the matter again, for instance
at the World Conference.
Mr. FAWCETT (New Zealand) also reserved his delegation' s
position on the vote. He noted that only thirteen countries had
voted out of seventeen, and thought it was a pity to delete a
paragraph which had a general philosophy of expanding consumption.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) regretted that he had
been successful by so narrow a margin. His sole objection to
the Paragraph was that it was silly, but if some delegates felt
strongly attached to it, and If it was going to mean reservations
on the part of important delegations, he would prefer to let it
stand.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) suggested that the matter be
left over in the meantime, with a general understanding that
delegates could consider it and perhaps return to it again,
particularly as the vote had been so narrow. He proposed that
it should be recorded as a decision with some degree of non-
permanence in it, or as a provisional decision.
The CHAIRMAN considered the United Kingdom delegate's
suggestion a wise one in view of the narrow margin of the vote
and the largee number of abstentions. The vote could be regarded
as provisional, and discussion could be resumed at the request
of one or several delegates.
ARTICLE 50 (48): SPECIAL COMMODITY STUDIES.
ARTICLE 51 (49): COMMODITY CONFERENCES.
Decision: Each of these Articles was approved without comment. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
Page 13
ARTICLE 52 (51): GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTER-GOVERNMENTAL
COMMODITY AGREEMENTS.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) drew attention to sub-
paragraph (e), which read:
"such agreements shall provide, where practicable and
appropriate, for measures designed to expand world con-
sumption of the commodity;"
He suggested that the sub-paragraph be placed in Article 55,
at the end of sub-paragraph (b), which would then read:
"such agreements shall be designed to assure the avail-
ability of supplies adequate at all times for world demand
at reasonable prices, and where practicable, shall provide
for measures designed to expand world consumption of the
commodity".
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) said that the words
"and appropriate" had been introduced in order to exclude con-
servation agreements.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) considered that the
addition of the words "and appropriatc" weakened the clause. He
preferred simply the words "where practicable" and urged that the
sub-paragraph be removed to Article 55, where it would have
more significance.
Mr. Van der POST (South Africa) felt that. sub-paragraph (e)
was at present out of place and agreed with the delegate of the
United States of America.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) felt they had to consider the
reasons which the delegate of the United States of America had
in mind in making the proposal. It was desired that the para-
graph should be applied to any appropriate agreement whether
that agreement was a commodity control agreement or not. In
Article 55 it would be applicable to commodity control agreements
only. In the definitions of agreements it was provided that the
Organization should stipulate to which, if any, of the provisions E/PC/T/B/SR/17
Page 14.
of Section C an agreement should conform. It did seem that in a
special case the Organization could decide that the sub-paragraph
in question might be applied, even though it was under Article 55.
He would, therefore, agree to the proposal for the removal of the
sub-paragraph from Article 52 to Article 55.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) agreed with the analysis of the
problem made by the delegate of Australia, and with his conclusion.
The CHAIRMAN felt that it was the opinion of the Commission
that the sub-paragraph should be removed as suggested by the
delegate of the United States of America.
Decision: It was agreed that the substance of sub-paragraph
(e) of Article 52 be transferred to Article 55 (b).
Decision: Article 52, as amended, was approved.
ARTICLE 53 (60 (3)): TYPES OF AGREEMENTS.
In reply to a point raised by Mr. WILCOX (United States of
America) with regard to the relationship between paragraph 2 and 4
(b). Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) drew attention to sub-
paragraph (h) on page 5 of the Sub-Committee's reDort (E/PC/T/W/228).
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) felt that paragraph 4
(b) would be more explicit if the following words were inserted
after the word "agreement" in the seventh line of the paragraph:
"because it does not have the purpose or the effect of
reducing, or preventing an increase in, the production of,
or trade in, that commodity,"
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) felt that the delegate of
the United States was Justified in suggesting the insertion of
those words; he believed that they had been in one of the-
earlier drafts and that their inclusion would increase the
security of the paragraph.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) explained that the object of the
paragraph was to have a second category of agreements, having a
modified form of quantitative control; and it was for the E/PC/T/B/SR/17
Page 15
Organization to decide the degree of regulation which warranted
the decision as to which category an agreement should be in.
The CHAIRMAN proposed the wording, "but is not a commodity
control agreement in the sense of paragraph 2".
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) suggested the wording
"within the terms of paragraph 2".
Decision: It was agreed that the second sentence of para-
graph 4 (b) should be amended to read:
"If, however, the Organization finds that an agreement which
involves the regulation of production or the quantitative
control of exports or imports is not a commodity control
agreement within the terms of paragraph 2 of this Article,
the Organization shall stipulate to which, if any, of the
provisions of Section C that agreement shall conform."
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) asked whether the Chairman of the Sub-
Committee felt that paragraph 4 as amended would be agreeable to
the representative of the Food and Agricultural Organization.
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) said the observer of the
Food and Agricultural Organization had been specifically asked by
the Sub-Committee whether, in the light of the observations he had
made, the whole of Article 53, including paragraph 4, was accept-
able to him and he had given the categorical answer that he was
fully satisfied.
The CHAIRMAN added that it was after the decision had been
taken on paragraph 4 (b) that the Food and Agricultural Organ-
ization observer had withdrawn his amendment.
ARTICLE 54 (52): CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE USE OF
COMMODITY CONTROL AGREEMENTS.
Decision: This Article was approved without comment.
ARTICLE 55 (53): ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COMMODITY
CONTROL AGREEMENTS.
Mr. DORN (Cuba) pointed out that the brief formulation of
paragraph 2 (b) had been accepted on the understanding that
prices would be fair to consumers and remunerative to efficient
producers, as stated in Article 48 (c). E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 16
The CHAIRMAN explained that the note on page 6
(E/PC/T/W/228) stated: "It is recognized that the term
'reasonable' as applied to prices in sub-paragraph (b) is to
be interpreted as in Article 48(c)".
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) said paragraph (a)
dealt with a matter that had been the subject of considerable
controversy. His preferences were in the following order:
firstly, to drop the Second sentence entirely; secondly, if
it were not agreed to drop the second sentence he would like to
drop the whole Article; thirdly, since he was sure that neither
proposition would be agreed to he would move; that the seCond
sentence of paragraph (a) be amended to read:
"If, in an exceptional case, there has been unreasonable
delay in the proceedings of the Study Group or of the
Commodity Conference, Members substantially intrested
in the production and consumption of, or trade in, a
particular prim-ry commodity, may proceed by direct
negotiation to the conclusion of an .greement, provided
that it conforms to thE; other provisions of this Ch apter. "
The CHAIRMAN was glad to note that the reservation of the
delegation of the United States of America on article 55(a) was
no longer maintained und felt there would be no difficulty in
securing agreement with the proposal now made, which had already
been put into effect in the French text.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) said that in the light of the Sub-
Committte's report, and in view of the note applicable to the
-word "reasonable" in paragraph 55(b) his delegation was now
able to withdraw the whole of its proposed amendment.
Mr. RAHIMTOOLA (India.) requested clarification of the
reference to "appropriate voice" in paragraph (c). He pointed
out that the Sub-Committee's note on the Article stated that with
regard to sub-paragraph (c) of the New York text, it was agreed
to revert to the London text of Article 51 (4) subject to minor
drafting changes. He understood that According to the London
text there were to be three groups. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 17
The CHAIRMAN said the interpretation given by the
delegate of India was not the interpretation that had been
given in the Sub-committee, where it had been a question of
two groups, not three.
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-committee Chairman) felt that the main As
point of the Indian delegation was the way in which the
determination of "appropriate voice" was arrivedat. The Sub-
committee had felt that the negotiation of an international
moditybagreement represented a wir _llingness, on the paot cf
countries, to "see the other man's point of view", and that an
attempt to define more closely the general principles involved
would lead to a great deal of difficulty. He thought the
delegate of India would admit that the best way to decide the
matter was in the course of the free negotiation of each
particular commodity agreement. The weighting adopted for
onemco=modity might be quite unreasonable for another commodity.
MRAHIM41HTAOLa (India), replying to thHAIRMAN,0,1 said he
was satisfied with the explanation given by the Chairman of the
Sub-Committee.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) said it was clear
from the question by the delgate of India that the text as it
stood was not fully explicit on the point. He proposed,
therefore, the addition, at the end of the paragraph, of the
words, "within such classes".
ThHAC.iIRMAN considered that adoption of the suggestion
wouldacl.rify the text and remove the ambiguity that had
always existed in the London text.
Decision: It was agreed that the Words "within such
classes"' be placed at the and of paragraph (c).
The CRHAIMAN recalled that the delegate of the United
States of America had proposed that the text of paragraph (e)
Af ,rticle 52 be added to paragraph (b.) of Article 55. e Hc
felt that the dgleeatas weae -greed on the principle. Was E/PC/T/B/ SR/17
page 18
there any objtection to deleting the words "and appropriate"?
If not, the text as amended would read:
"Such agreements shall be designed to assure the availability
of supplies adequate at all times for world demand at
reasonable prices, and, where prscticable, shsll probide for
measures designee to expand world consumption of the
commodity."
Decision: The proposed new text fer paragraph (b), as
read by the Ch airman, was approved.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) called attention to the footnote to
sub-paragraph (c) (E/PC/T/W/228, page 15). He could not see
why the material l had been put in a footnote instead of being
maintained in the text.
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) stated it was at the
request of the French delegation that the footnote had been
included. The substance was still in the text.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) declared himself satisfied with the
explanation.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the footnote would not appear
in the final text cf the Charter, but would probably be
inserted somewhere else.
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) said it had always
seemed to him that paragraph (a) differed in character from
the other paragraphs of Article 55. He proposed that
paragraph (a) be moved to the new Article 53 (Types of
Agreements) then Article 55 would relate solely to the
principles governing commodity control agreements.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether members of the Commission
were in agreement with the proposal, subject to a possible
alteration in the title of the article
Decision; it was agreed that paragraph (a) of article 55
be transferred to the end of Article 53.
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) thought it would be
quite appropriate to maintain the present title. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 19
Decision: Article 55, was amended, was approved.
ARTICLE 56 (54): ADMINISTRATION OF COMMODITY CONTROL AGREEMENTS.
Decision: This Article was approved without comment.
ARTICLE 57 (55): PROVISION FOR INITIAL TERMS, REVIEW AND
RENEWAL OF COMMODITY CONTROL AGREEMENTS.
Mr. Van der POST (South Africa) moved the deletion of
the words "for net more than f ive years" from paragraph 1
and their substitution by "for a period to be determined in
each agreement".
The CHAIRMAN asked whether anyone wished to support
the proposal, but as no support was forthcoming he proposed
that the existing text be retained.
ARTICLES 58 (56) , 59 (50), 60 (57) , 61 ( 60).
Decision: Each of these Articles was approved without
comment..
ARTICLE 62 (59)
EXCEPTIONS TO PROVISIONS RELATING TO INTER-GOERNMENTALL
OMMODITY AGREEMENTS
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) asked whether paragraph 1 (a) would
preclude a state trading enterprise from participation in a
commodity agreement.
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committe Chairman) declared that the
paragraph would in no way preclude a state trading enterprises
from being a party along with any. other member of the
Organization in any commodity agreement.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the footnote to
paragraph (d):
"A proposal has been made for the deletion of this
sub-paragraph in the light of un amendment to be
considered by Commission A regarding the exclusion
of such agreements from the whole Charter."
He felt that Commission B could not yet make a decision on
the point and suggested that the Secretariat draw the attention
of Commission 1, to the wording proposed by the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/ 17
page 20
ARTICLE 61: TERRITORIAL APPLICATION.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) wished to raise a point in
connection with the word "representation" in article 61,
It seemed necessary to say what the representation should be.
Dia it mean joint represantation on the Commodity Council?
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) said the Sub-
Committee had not discussed the point in detail, as there
were no amendments. IN the light of the discussion in London
it was clear that representation might be envisaged at all
stages, Study Group, Conference and Council.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) felt it might be advisable
for a representative from Commission B concerned with
Chapter VII to observe the proceedings on Chapter VIII.
Mr. CAPLAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) considered that the
necessary arrangements could be left to the Secretariat.
The CHAIRMAN said the delegations would now be acquainted
with the problem; and In any case the Secretariat would point
out to the members of the Sub-Committee dealing with Chapter
VIII the various items in Chapter VII with regard to which some
form of liaison would be useful.
He then drew attention to the consequential changes
in articles 37, 25 and 45 recommended by the Sub-Committee in
the light of the new text of Chapter VII (E/PC/T/W/228, page 8).
After discussion, it was agreed to approve these. recommendations
and pass them on to those responsible for these Articles.
The CHAIRMAN then asked whether the delegate of China
wished to maintain his earlier proposal for amalgamating
sections A and B.
Mr. CHANG (China) said that although he was not quite
convinced on the point, in view of the lateness of the hour
he would not insist on his proposal. E/PC/T/B/SR/17
page 21
The CHAIRMAN observed that the examination of Chapter
VII had been concluded, except for Article 49. It was
essential that the Legal Draftine Committee should be able
to work on the text without delay, and he asked delegations
interested in Article 49 to raise the matter as soon as
possible, preferably during. the coming week.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) agreed. He had understood from
the remarks oi the delegate to the United States that although
he considered that Article superfluous, he did not feel very
strongly on the point, He proposed that Article 49 be
placed in square brackets; and that when the matter came
before the Executive Committee it could then be decided
whether the square brackets should be removed.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) did not much like square
brackets and hesitated formally to agree. He thought an
effort might be made to reach a compromise, which eight be
arrived at by a statement of the principle in a less
conspicuous position. Perhaps that point might be discussed
by those who felt strongly on the question. If that method
of approach should fail he would agree to the Article being
placed in square brackets and dealt with as suggested by
the delegate of Norway.
The CHAIRMAN enquired whether the Allegations concerned
were prepared to suggest any solution..
Mr. WILCOX (United States of America) said he had
gathered from the remarks of the delegate of Australia that
he did not wish decision to be reached that evening.
The CHAIRMAN stated that. it would be mentioned in the
record that the delegations concerned would raise the matter
as soon as possible. E/PC/T/B/ SR/17
page 22
He thanked the Chairman and members of the Sub-Committee
for their work, which had made possible agreement on the text
in so short a time.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) spoke highly of the members of the
Secretariat, who had worked indefatigably.
Mr. CALAN (Sub-Committee Chairman) endorsed the
expression of appreciation, and pointed out that in its
report the Sub-Committee had recorded its warm appreciation
of the services of the .Secretariat.
The CHAIRMAN said all the members of the Committee
would associate themselves with the tribute.
Mr. HELMORE (United Kingdom) congratulated the
Chairman on his expeditious conduct of the business.
The CHAIRMAN replied in suitable terms.
The meeting rose at 6.08 p.m. |
GATT Library | hf255bv2213 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting held on Tuesday, 24 June 1947, at 2.45 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 24, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 24/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/13 and E/PC/T/B/SR/9/CORR.1-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hf255bv2213 | hf255bv2213_90250150.xml | GATT_152 | 6,381 | 39,935 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/13
AND ECONOMIQUE 24 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL : ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMTTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting
held on Tuesday, 24 June 1947, at 2.45 p.m.:
in the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Discussion of Chapter VIII Organization.
The CHAIRMNAN, in opening the Meeting, said that the
Steering Committee had divided the work of Commission B into
two parts. Articles 61-80 were to be considered on three days
of the current week, and Articles 81-89 the following week.
In discussing Articles' 61-80 the usual procedure would
be followed. There would first be a general discussion on
amendments submitted by delegations to the New York draft and
then a sub-committee would be set up. The working paper
before the Commission was document E/PC/T/W/210-Rev.1, which
set forth an annotated agenda to be read in conjunction with
the report of the Drafting Committee. proposals had been
made with regard to Chapter VIII by the Chinese, Cuban, French,
New Zealand, United States and United Kingdom delegations.
A paper had also been submitted by the Netherlands delegation.
This would be taken up when Article 81 was discussed.
He drew attention to the note on page 1 of the document
NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 2
stating the intention of the United States Delegation to
submit suggestions with regard to an appropriate arrangement
of the Articles of Chapter VIII and to other connected questions.
This matter would be taken up after Articles 61-89 had been
considered by Commission B.
Article 61. Functions.
The CHAIRMAN went on to say that there were no proposals
with regard to the Preamble or sub-paragraph (a).
Sub-Paragraph (b)
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the suggestion made by
the Secretariat to make this function more positive by
amending "to facilitate" to read "to develop and facilitate".
Mr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) suggested the substitution
of the word "promote" for the word "develop".
The CHAIRMAN said that this point would be referred
to the Drafting Sub-Committee.
Decision: The Chairman's proposal was adopted.
Sub-Paragraph (c)
Mr. KELLOG (United States) said that certain amendments
to Chapter IV had been put forward by his delegation which
rendered unnecessary some of the content of Sub-Paragraph (c).,
His delegation wished, however, to reserve its position with
regard to the reinsertion of this matter if the amendments to
Chapter IV were not adopted.
Mr. DE GAIFFIER (Belgium/Luxembourg) said that he was in a
similar position to that of the United States. The Belgian
delegation had proposed an amendment with regard to the
objectives of the Charter. It was difficult to express an opinion
on the United States amendment for the same reasons as those
stated by the United States delegate. E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 3
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) thought that the question of
double taxation would have to be dealt with by the Fiscal
Commission of the Economic and Social Council. He referred
to the danger of duplicating tasks.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) considered that the United
States amendment introduced a peculiar sequence of importance
in the matters dealt with in Sub-Paragraph (c). His delegation
felt strongly that "measures to assure just and equitable
treatment for foreign nationals and enterprises" should be in
the forefront, rather than measures to facilitate commercial
arbitration and the avoidance of double taxation".
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the United States amendment
should be referred to the Sub-Committee, which would take
into consideration the amendments proposed to Chapter IV,
now under consideration by Commission A.
Decision: The Chairman's proposal was adopted.
Sub-Paragraph (d)
Mr. KELLOG (United States) considered that the amendment
proposed by his delegation was purely a drafting matter and
as such might be referred to the Sub-Committee without comment.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) thought that in some cases
it was useful to discuss reasons, even for drafting changes,
in the full Commission. . The question he wished to put in
this connection was why it wasproposed to drop reference to
the purposes of the Charter.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that as the Sub-Committee would
be constituted from only a small number of the members,
discussion in the full Commission was useful for their guidance. E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 4
Mr. KELLOG (United States) in reply to the United
Kingdom delegate said that it had appeared to his delegation
that the wording was a little clumsy and that the word
"provisions" seemed sufficiently to cover the aims of the
Charter.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) said that there seemed to be some
advantage in leaving the word "purposes" in this sub-paragraph.
There was a distinction between "purposes" and "provisions"
which had been drawn elsewhere in the Charter, "purposes"
applying to the general objectives and "provisions" to the
operative regulations. He considered it preferable to leave
the wider term.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) thought it would be better to
refer the question to the Sub-Committee, otherwise a long
discussion might arise, as it had in New York, on whether this
referred to the purposes of the Charter or the purposes of the
Organization.
Decision: This item was referred to the Sub-Committee,
Sub-Paragraph (e)
Mr. TANGE (Australia) in presenting the amendment of
his delegation, said that it was contingent upon an amendment to
Article 66, paragraph 3. He asked whether it would be in order
to discuss Article 66 at this point.
The CHAIRMAN replied in the affirmative.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) then went on to say that
Article 66 paragraph 3 provided for the establishment of
criteria and procedures for the release of members from
obligations entered into under the Charter, and also for
determination of which organ of the Organization would
be competent to grant such release. He considered the E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 5
present draft too restrictive. It not only made determination
of procedures and criteria a pre-requisite for a decision on
the substantial question of release from obligations, it required
the Conference to determine criteria and set up procedures by
a special voting method. He thought this might be dispensed
with, and that the Conference or the Executive Board might,
in ordinary cases, apply their normal Rules of Procedure.
His delegation thought that the better course would be
to distinguish between the general power of releasing a Member
from its obligations, and the various procedures which had to
be gone through to put that power into effect. The power to
grant release should be included in a general article under the
Functions and Structure of the Organization, and under Article
66 should be grouped a number of questions consequent upon that
power, such as the voting procedure, the organ of the
Organization competent to grant release, etc.
The stiff voting requirement for a two-thirds majority
called for under the present Article 66 on the preliminary
question of criteria and procedures might, in the view of
his delegation, load to a deadlock on these issues which would
completely block the possibility of laying down the criteria
and procedures which it vwas intended that the Charter should
provide.
Mr. de GAIFFIER (Belgium-Luxembourg) considered that an
important question of substance was raised by the Australian
amendment. It transferred to the Organization the powers
conferred upon the Conference with regard to the procedure of
granting release, The Charter at present provided in exceptional E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 6
cases for the Conference to have the power of granting release,
by a two-thirds majority vote, in certain circumstances. If
these exceptional powers were transferred to Article 61, they
would then become a normal function of the Organization.
He proposed the following drafting modification, which
constituted a compromise between the present text and the
Australian amendment:
"In exceptional circumstances, the Conference may, by
the affirmative votes of two-thirds of the Members of the
Organization, waive the obligations of Members undertaken
pursuant to this Charter",
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) had had the intention of
raising practically the same point as the delegate for
Belgium. He felt that the drafting Could be amended in a
spirit of compromise. The basis of the Australian amendment
was simple, but he considered that the obligations of members
should be so strongly laid down by the Organization that the
members should be released from their obligations only in
exceptional cases and by an exceptional vote with a two-thirds
majority. Fajling this there was no certainty about these
obligations. If the vote was only a majority vote, it might
happen in certain cases that some members might be released from
their obligations while in a similar case where a majority vote
was applied, other members might not be so released.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) recalled that during a previous
debate the United Kingdom delegate had stated that the
Charter should be given a flexible and dynamic character.
The Australian amendment brought flexibility to the text, E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 7
and he supported it, although perhaps subject to certain
guarantees. He would make a statement with regard to
guarantees in connection with another article of Chapter VIII.
Mr. MLNOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) declared that his
delegation viewed the Australian amendment with much
sympathy.
Mr. BURR (Chile) supported the Australian amendment
Mr. VAN TUYLL (Netherlands) while sympathising in
principle with the Australian amendment, thought that the
Commission did not wish to make it too easy for members to
rid themselves of obligations. Many escape clauses already
figured in the Charter. He supported the compromise wording
suggested by the delegate for Belgium .
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) agreed with the Belgian
and Netherlands delegates. Many countries, including his own,
would have to modify their economic structure in order to
comply with the Charter. For this reason release from
obligations should not be made too easy to obtain.
Mr. CHEN (China) supported the Australian amendment.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) agreed with the Belgian delegate
that it seemed difficult to include under Article 61, which
related to the functions of the Organization, a clause which
might suggest that it was a normal function to release a
member from his obligations under the Charter. It was,
however, not an insuperable difficulty, and there was a safe-
guarding phrase, "in exceptional circumstances". The preamble
to Article 61 stated that these functions were in addition to
those provided for elsewhere in the Charter. Another more E/PC/T/B/SR./13
page 8
suitable place might be found for this clause, and it might
even be placed in a special chapter, although he thought that
this might be undesirable as it would appear to give undue
emphasis to the possibility of release.
With regard to the objection to the transfer of power from
the Conference to the Organization, he thought this was not
a substantial objection, since the conference had full control
of policy. The Executive Board could not derive any such power
except from the Conference. The removal of the power of release
from Article 66 did not derogate from the authority of the
Conference.
The Belgian wording seemed to him more restrictive than
the existing text. The present text did not say that the
Conference might by a two-thirds majority vote release....etc.
It said that the Conference might determine voting procedures.
That left various possibilities open, such as a voting
requirement of complete unanimity, a simple majority vote, a
two-thirds majority, and so on. The effect of the Belgian
proposal was to establish that for any kind of release in any
circumstances on any, issue under the Charter, there would only
be one kind of majority. He preferred the flexibility of his
own delegation's proposal.
Mr. DE GAIFFIER (Belgium-Luxembourg) thought that it was
important to avoid misunderstanding on one point. On page 4 of
the document under discussion, first paragraph, it was stated
that "the Australian Delegation proposed that the substantial
power to release Members from obligations in exceptional cir-
cumstances should be stated as a general power of the
Organization (not of the Conference) and placed in Article 61." E/PC/T/B/SR .13
Page 9
He proposed that the discussion should first of all be con-
fined to the question of whether the powers of release should
be given to the Organization or to the Conference.
Mr. LORE (Canada) agreed with the observations of the
Belgian delegate. The power of granting release should be
reserved exclusively to the Conference. These powers should
not be given to the Organization.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) also declared himself opposed
to the transfer of the powers to the Organization. It seemed
to him far-fetched to describe as a function of the Organi-
zation the power to grant releases. The Australian delegate
had said these functions were in addition to those provided
elsewhere in the Charter. He thought it would help the
discussion if the, Austrlian delegate would specify in which
other parts of th, Charter there were provisions for waivers
of obligations.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) quoted Articles 35, 38 paragraph 4,
13 and 13 paragraph 2 (c).
Mr. KARMARKAR (India) on the question of whether the
power of waiver should be vested in the Conference or the
Organization, considered that it was an exceptional provision
which would best find its place in Article 61.
Wtih regard to the Belgian proposal, he did not quite
grasp why it had been described as a compromise, as it made
what was considered undesirable in Article 66 paragraph 3,
still more so. Article 66 left open the criteria to be
dete mined in a particular case. The Belgian proposal
provided a definite two-thirds majority. He thought that
the original draft of Article 66, paragraph 3, made the matter E/PC/T/B/SR. 13
Page 10
a little more flexible and permitted the possibility of :
leaving the quest on of waiver to a simple majority. The
Belpran aaoposvl did not permit this.
He h msesf waaain fevfur o Atheaaustrclian amendment.
The Csimisaaon wes in the process of settiag up aan Orgni-
zztion tohwhicaait wss hoped to attract many adherents.
Their task was to set up a constotuticc whioh would not
enable rsmbodddfeat aeEt the purposeshof raanOaaeniz&tion.
While aot g kinaast eteyaao evrde obligations entered into
utder aae Chcrter, it was necessary to profide aar thtt--ossi.
bility in exceptional circnmstaaaes, znd the conditions should
noaabe mcdr so aag d sreaeerGata apprehension for intending
Members.
Ar. T-NGE (Alstratia) shad teet thc discussion had a
beaoing ee othar parts of the Charter to which he had already
referred. oHe waald hcve to reserve his positiAA on !rticle 66
and consult his delegation before accepting the requirement
ahat eny decision of thf Coneerenco bearing on, say, Article
13(c2) (ou qre aaqred-two-thirds majority of the Members of
tr aageaizetion. The purpose of Auslialia1ien amendment
wes to prov deafoa ccses where different kind of majority
might be decided upon.
Mr. DE GAIFFIER (Belgium/Luxembourg) wished tao rise one
poibt efore the dissisaioa wns closed. His delegation had
alseya been of oiinaonathet, outside of the essts provided
fin tn aheaCh r,er- Artic6e a6 aaraprash s aotiblished a
oOVof re eele s*s andathot it was not necess tyovoovrcaide all
thu riles of peociduie In the Charter. In his oponian,athet
wfos orethagaracaizction ratheranhen for the Cerf e ce.to
establish. E/PC/T/B/SR .13
Page 11
Mr. MARTINIS (Brazil) said that the decision taken by the
Commission with regard to Article 60, paragraph 3, would have
an important bearing on the other provisions of the Charter.
He would have to consult his delegation before making e final
statement on whether the New York text, providing for a two-
thirds majority of the Members should be maintained. He
would like the discussion to be adjourned in order to give
him time to study the question in consultation witn his delega-
tion. He re-affirmed his previous statement in support of
the Belgian proposal.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Commission would return to
the subject when Article 66 came up for discussion and the
Belegian proposal would be taken up at that time. The
Sub-Committee should take into account the discussion which
had just taken place in connection a with the Australian amend-
ment. He reblied in the affirrmative to a question put by
Mr. TANGE (Australia) as to whether the Committee agreed that
the Australian amendment to Article 61 wes consequential
upon Article 66.
The Chairman drew attention to document E/PC/T/W/210.Rev.1,
page 5, item 4, which read:
"The Secretariat doubts whether the present sub-paragraph
(e) is neccessary. Article 61 should deal only with
functions not provided for elsewhere in the Charter and
Article 81, when read with Article 1 would seem to cover
adecuately the function of co-operation with the United
Nations nd other inter-governmental organizations for the
attainment of the purposes stated. In any event, it
would appear that the last phrase of the sub-paragraph
should be amended to read "and the [restoration and]
maintenance of international peace and security" to conform
with the wording of the purposes of the United Nations."
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) considered the amendment E/PC /T/B/SR.13
Page 12
proposed by the Secretariat ill-advised and saw no reason
for omitting sub-paragraph (e). It could be argued that
in certain aspects there was a slight overlap with other
paassges in the Charter, but he doubted whether that alone
warranted getting rid of what might be a very useful provi-
sion. The wording of the paragraph had been very carefully
thought out in London.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) felt they could very well do
without Sub-paragraph (e), as it was an instance of duplica-
tion. He had alreaday endeavoured to get rid of the words
"with an economy of effort," and hoped now that he would
succeed in doing so as a result of the deletion of the whole
paragraph.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States of America) said the words
"the restoration and maintenance of international peace and
security" had arisen from the efforts of the Food and Agri-
culture Organization and the United Nations to reach an
agreement on relationship. In the course of negotiating
this agreement, the United Nations had wished to include an
article dealing with the relationship of the other Organiza-
tion to the Security Council. The Food and agriculture
Organization, however, had pointed cut that it had no
constitutional right to co-operate with the Security Council,
because it was not warlike organization. He thought they
should endeavour to forestall such difficulties, by some
provision in the Charter. He suggested that the words
'restoration" and maintenance" should both be retained:
they had both been used in Articles 39 and 43 of the United
Nations Charter, and elsewhere. E/PC/T/B/SR. 13
page 13
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) replying to the delegate of
South Africa, said that a certain overlapping in the text of
the Charter, provided there was no conflict, was a different
thing from an overlapping of functions, The wording of sub-
paragraph (e) showed that an endeavour was being
made to avoid the overlapping of various bodies and organizations.
There was a considerable shortage of trained man-power, and hence
there was an advantage in using the expression "with an economy
of effort". He maintained his opposition to the deletion of
sub-paragraph (e).
The CHAIRMAN suggested reference of the matter to the Sub-
Committee, which could consider not only whether the sub-
paragraph should be included in the Chapter but should also look
at it from the point of view of drafting.
Decision: It was agreed to refer sub-paragraph (c) of
Article 61 to the Sub-Committee.
ARTICLE 62: STRUCTURE.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to page 5 of the Annotated
Agenda (E/PC/T/W/210 - Rev. 1), which contained the following
note:
"The United Kingdoms Delegation, in view of the fact
that the Tariff Committee has been converted from an
interim to a permanent organ, suggests the following
amendment:-
'The Organization shall have as its principal organs
a Conference, an Executive Board, a Tariff Committee,
Commissions as established. under Article 72 and a
Secretariat."
Decision: The amendment proposed by the United Kingdom
Delegation was adopted.
Mr. de GAIFFIER (Belgium/Luxembourg) said he would like to
reserve the position of his delegation on Article 62 (not smith
regard to United Kingdom amendment). Within a day or two he
might have to introduce an amendmentt consequent upon another E/PC/T/B/SR. 13
page 14
point shortly to be discussed.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) and Mr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) also
intimated reservations on behalf of their delegations, for the
same reason.
The CHAIRMAN noted that the approval of the amendment
proposed by the United Kingdom delegation was without prejudice
to the reservations just stated.
ARTICLE 63: MEMERSHIP OF THE CONFERENCE.
The CHAIRMAN called attention to the note on page 5 of
the Annotated Agenda:
"It is submitted by the Secretariat that this paragraph
might possibly follow the Charter of the United Nations
and be amended as follows:-
'The Conference shall consist of all the [represent-
atives of the] Members of the Organization.
Mr. de GAIFFIER (Belgium/Luxembourg) requested an opinion
from the Legal Adviser on the question whether there was a
difference between "the representatives of the Members of the
Organization" and "the Members of the Organization." In the case
of the Customs Unions he wondered whether the former text would
not be better.
Mr. RENOUF (Legal Adviser) said it was usual in the con-
stitutions of inter-governmental organizations to specify that
the members of the organs of the organization should be either
certain members or all members of the organization, but not that
the representatives of members should be members of the organs.
To do otherwise would seem to give some personality to represent-
atives themselves. It was for this reason and to make this
article conform with articles 67 and 68 that the Secretariat
had proposed the amendment. E/PC/T/B/SR. 13
Page 15
Mr. de GAIFFIER (Belgium) asked whether, if the amendment
were adopted, the three members of the French-Belgian-Luxembourg
Customs Union would be Members of the Organization.
The CHAIRMAN said he was informed that the answer was in
the affirmative.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) asked whether, when members were
joined in a Customs Union, each participant member was still a
Member of the Organization, or was the Customs Union as a whole
a Member of the Organization?
The CHAIRMAN said, subject to correction by the Legal
Adviser, his view was that each member of the Customs Union
would be a Member of the Organization, but for certain purposes
the members of the Customs Union would be treated as one.
Mr. van TUYLL (Netherlands) said the Members of the
Organization would be the governments that had signed the Charter,
and as each of the three members of the Customs Union would have
the right to sign the Charter, they would all be full Members of
the Organization.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) raised the question whether economic
unions would vote as a whole or as individual members.He
thought, however, that he would raise this question again later.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the point mentioned by the
delegate of Cuba could be better taken up under Article 64,
He suggested that the Secretariat' s proposed amendment to
paragraph 1 of Article 63 be referred to the Sub-Commmittee for
further study in the light of the comments that had been made
upon it. E/PC/T/B/SR. 13
page 16
Decision: It was agreed that the amendment proposed by
the Secretariat to paragraph 1 of Article 63 be referred
to the Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN read the following note on page 5 of the
Annotated Agenda with regard to paragraph 2 of Article 63:
"The matter of alternates and advisers being thought
rather one to be covered by rules of procedure and follow-
ing the Charter of the United Nations, the Secretariat
suggests that this paragraph might be amended to read
'Each Member shall [have] be represented in the Conference
by one representative.[and may appoint alternates and
advisers to its representative to the Conference.]"
He asked the Legal Adviser to explain the reasons for the
suggestion.
Mr. RENOUF (Legal Adviser) said the Secretariat had no
strong views on the proposal, which it was putting forward
merely for consideration. It was rather unusual to specify in
a constitution that a member might appoint alternates and advisers
for its representatives as that right had been accorded for a
considerable time in international conferences and organizations.
Even if it were not expressly stated, all members would have the
right to appoint alternates and advisers. However, some members
of the Commission might have special reasons for wishing, to see
this paragraph remain as drafted at present. If this were the
case there could be no objection to leaving the paragraph as
it read at present.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) supported the Secretariat's proposal;
he felt that nothing would be lost by the omission of the brack-
eted words.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States of America) suggested that the
matter be taken up by the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 17.
Decision: The amendment proposed by the secretariat
to paragraph 2 of Article 63 was referred to the Sub-Committee.
ARTICLE 64: VOTING
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the General Comments (page 6,
Annotated Agenda), and suggested that they should deal first with
item 4, which read:
"The United States delegation suggests that considera-
tion of this Article, together with the related
Articles 66 (5), 68 and 69, be postponed until work
on the substantive questions of the Charter has been
substantially completed. At that time it will be
appropriate to consider the report or the Administra-
tive Sub-Committee of the Drafting Committee."
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) felt that there was a case for
the postponement of discussion on Article 66 (5), on the ground
that discussion of the texts of the Articles to which it
referred - 26, 28, 34, 35 - had not been concluded. He did
not consider, however, that there was the same case for post-
poning discussion of the questions dealt with in Articles 64, 68
and 68. If the discussions of those Articles were postponed, it
might be found that there was not sufficient time to deal adequately
with them.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) supported the proposal of the United-
States delegatipn, which he took to mean postponement of con-
sideration until questions of substance in other parts of the
Charter had been decided. The question of voting was of para-
mount importance, and in dealing with it delegates should have
a more precise idea of the substance of other questions.
Mr. .de GAIFFIER (Belgium-Luxembourg) said he appreciated
the reasons of the delegates of the United States of America E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 18.
and Brazil for suggesting postponement, but would like to
stress the danger of delaying too long the discussion of so
important a matter.
Mr. KOJEVE (France), supporting the point made by the
delegate of Belgium, said there were two questions to be
considered: voting and then the question of the majority.
The latter could be taken up at a later stage, but he thought
the question of voting should be sent to a sub-committee
straight away for study.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) said the discussion seemed to
raise important questions of conference procedure, affecting
not only their own work but also that of the other commission
and sub-committees. It could be argued that it would be
more fruitful to postpone discussion on voting until the
substantial work on the remainder of the Charter was com-
pleted. That was unlikely to be agreed without reservation
until members knew what the distribution of votes would be.
It might be found necessary later on to go back to earlier
items and discuss them again in the light of the voting
procedure.
He felt there was a case for postponement discussion of
the articles mentioned by the delegate of the Uriited States
of America till the following week (July 2-5).
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) said his delegation was ready to
discuss the proposal for weighted voting at any time and
would oppose it whenever it came up. He felt however it
would be wise to leave so critical a matter till later and
meantime go ahead with work on other problems. If they E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 19
were now to discuss the democratic system of one nation,
one vote, against the other ingenious new system they
could not foresee when the debate would end.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that a question of procedure
was under discussion and asked delegates not to introduce
points of substance.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) declared it was a misnomer
to say that the "one state, one vote" system was democratic.
There were for instance in some countries huge industrial
areas dependent on export trade: and under the "one state,
one vote" system the populations of such areas would have
merely a fraction of a vote. But a very small territory
with an infiaitesimal interest in international trade
would have one vote. That seemed a negation of the rep-
resentative principle and of democracy.
The CHAIRMAN asked members of the Commission to
confine themselves to questions pf procedure.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) said he would like to support
the proposal of the delegate of Australia and would go a
step further. Certain articles would be acceptable to
the French delegation with a "one vote, one country" system
of voting, but difficult to accept if any other voting
system were adopted. He felt it would not be wise to
postpone the matter indefinitely.
Mr. NAUDE (South Africa) felt it might have been
advantageous if the matter had been remitted to a sub-
committee right away. There was a good deal to be said for
waiting to see how the discussion on other aspects of the
Charter would develop, but he did not think the matter should
be postponed for more than a week. E/PC/T/B/SR/13
page 20.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) felt that a sub-committee
should not discuss the question and come to a decision upon
it without previous discussion in the Commission. He
suggested postponing the discussion until Chapter VIII had
been dealt with and until they had more information on what
had been decided on other parts of the Charter.
Mr. CHEN (China) considered it would be useful to
await the result of the discussion on other provisions of
the Charter having a bearing on the question of voting. At
that stage delegates would have some idea of the obligations
they would be assuming under the Charter; and if any delegate
should make reservations in respect of other provisions on
the ground of uncertainty as tq the form of voting, that
would give some idea of the trend of the discussion in the
other Commissions, and would assist in the discussion on
the voting. He felt that when the question came up there
should be general discussion in the Commission before the
matter was referred to the sub-committee. He favoured the
suggestion of the delegate of the United States that the
matter be postponed.
Mr. VAN TUYLL (Netherlands) was disposed to agree
with those delegates who did not wish a long postponement
of the discussion. It would be an advantage to tackle the
problem in the very near future. If the preliminary dis-
cussion resulted in a deadlock, there was always the
possibility of further postponement.
The CHAIRMAN said he would first put to the vote
the United States proposal. If the vote was favourable
the question of when the enumerated articles could be
considered would then be dealt with. E/PC/T/B/SR/13
Page 21.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) appreciated the objections
to referring the matter to a sub-committee before there had been
any general discussion. But if they decided that there should
first be some general discussion, it would be well to bring in
the question of membership of the Executive Board as wall, as
there was a clear connection between that and voting procedures.
He understood that the proposal now before them was that
the matter be postponed till quite a late stage of the Conference,
and he wished to ask whether it would be wise to make up their
minds to such a rather extreme proposal at the present stage.
If postponed till near the end of the Conference, the matter was
unlikely to be maturely considered, and he felt therefore that
the postponement should not be for more than one or two weeks.
The CHAIRMAN directed the attention of the delegate of the
United Kingdom to the text of the United States proposal, which
was that Articles 64, 66(5) , 68 and 69 be postponed until a later
stage. He assumed also that the proposal might apply to Article
67(3).
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) confirmed that Article 67(3)
should also be included.
The CHAIRMAN said the suggestion from the Chair was that a
vote first be taken on whether or not consideration of those
Articles should be deferred. He pointed out that the agenda for
Commission A provided for discussion of Articles 26 and 28 during
the week beginning 7 July. If the proposal of the delegate of
the United States were interpreted literally, he took it that the
postponement would be until after discussion of those Articles in
Commission A - in other words not before the week beginning
Monday, 14 July. E/PC/T /B/SR/13
Page 22.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States of America) said Articles 26,
28 and 29 were important substantive articles. We would like
discussion postponed until further information was available on
them.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) wished to make it clear that when he had
suggested reference of the matter to the sub-committee, he had
not intended that discussion in the sub-committee should be sub-
stituted for discussion in the Commission, but he had had the
impression that the Commission was not prepared to begin the
discussion at once and that as the matter was a difficult one
there was some interest in gaining time. He had suggested refer-
ence to the sub-committee so that the sub-committee might prepare
the discussion to take place in the Commission when it was
decided to take the matter up. with regard to the United Kingdom
point about the relationship between questions of voting and
membership of the Executive Board, the, proceedings in New York
had shown that if the system of voting was difficult, the question
of membership of the Executive Board was practically insoluble.
He agreed that discussion on the question of voting and on the
membership of the Executive Board should be taken up by the
Commiission, but as opinions on those matters were so, diverse, the
sub-committee might be asked to make a preliminary review of the
whole matter
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) asked whether the United States
proposal meant postponement until there had been discussion in
Commission A of Articles 26 to 29, or until all Sub-Committees
had reported.
Mr. KELLOGG (United States) said his delegation did not
suggest postponement until all the numerous substantive articles E/PC/T/ B/SR/13
Page 23.
had been entirely tidied up, but until the general outline of those
articles was better understood.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) inferred that that meant the
problem could be attacked after Commission A had finished discuss-
ion on Articles 26 to 29.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that the delegate of the United
States had agreed with the interpretation of the Chair that the
proposal suggested that the Articles in question should not be
considered before 14 July.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba), on a point of order, proposed that a
vote be taken in two stages, as the Chairman had suggested.
The CHAIRMAN said with regard to the point of order raised
by the delegate of Cuba, that since his proposal on the taking of
the vote the delegate of France had formulated in more precise
terms his proposal of reference to the sub-committee for
preparatory work prior to a general discussion in the Commission.
Mr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) felt that the proposal of the delegate
of France could not be sustained. He would have to oppose strong-
ly discussion of so important a matter being held first in a sub-
committee.
The CHAIRMAN said the French proposal, being furthest
removed from the original proposal, would have to be voted upon
first. He woud ask for comments upon it.
Mr. KOJEVE (France) said he had made his proposal as a
compromise, but in view of the response he would withdraw it.
The CHAIRMAN put to a vote the question whether or not
discussion should be postponed on Articles 64, 66(5) , 67(3) , 68
and 69.
Decision: The motion for postponement was carred by ten
votes to six. E/PC/T/B/SR/13
Page 24.
Mr. BURR (Chile) proposed that Article 67(4) be included
among those on which the discussion was being postponed.
Decision: It was agreed that Article 67(4) be included
among the Articles the discussion of which
had been postponed.
The CHAIRMAN said he would put to the meeting the proposal
of the delegate of Australia that the matter be postponed until
the following week.
Mr. TANGE (Australia) said he would make his proposal more
precise by specifying the period 2-5 July.
Mr. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) pointed out that the Commission
had three full days for the discussion of Articles 61 to 81. If
the discussion were completed before the end of that period
would it not be wise to start discussion then on the Articles in
question?
The CHAIRMAN said he interpreted the vote just taken to mean
that discussion would be deferred to another week than the
present week.
Mr. BLOM (Norway) supported the proposal of the delegate of
Australia to begin discussion not later than 2 July,
Mr. GARCIA OLDENI (Chile) felt that if they had found reasons
to postpone the discussion, the same reasons should be valid in
considering the date to which the discussion would be postponed.
He felt the matter should not be taken up before 14 July, as the
general outline of the other provisions having a bearing upon it
would not be sufficiently clear until then.
The CHAIRMAN put to the meeting the proposal of the
delegate of Australia that discussion on the Articles in question
be begun on 2 July.
Decision: The proposal was lost by eight votes to nine. E/PC/T/B/SR/13
Page 25.
The CHAIRMAN said he would put to the meeting the original
United States proposal that discussion of the Articles should
not be begun earlier than July 14, but would phrase it in the
positive form that discussion be begun on July 15.
Decision: The proposal that discussion of Articles 64,
66(5), 67(3), 67(4) , 68 and 69 be begun on 15 July
was adopted by eleven votes to two.
The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m. |
GATT Library | qx587bb3477 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting held on Thursday, 19 June 1947 at 2.45 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 19, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 19/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/12 and E/PC/T/B/SR/9/CORR.1-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qx587bb3477 | qx587bb3477_90250148.xml | GATT_152 | 5,994 | 37,454 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/12
AND ECONOMIQUE 19 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B.
Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting held on
Thursday, 19 June 1947 at 2.45 p.m. at
the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
1. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE II ON CHAPTER VI
OF THE CHARTER.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the meeting, said that since
Commission B last met to consider Chapter VI, Sub-Committee 2,
which was set up to consider the amendments and reservations
submitted on the various Articles of that Chapter, had completed
its work, and the Report of the Sub-Committee (document
E/PC/T/102) had been submitted to members of the Preparatory
Committee on June 18th.
Commission B had now received the Reports of Sub-Committees
1 and 2, and the Chairman felt that the most logical way to
consider those Reports would be to call on the Chairman of
Sub-Committee 2 to present his Report. A general discussion
could follow, after which the various Articles of the Chapter
could be taken in consecutive order. After Article 44 had been
considered, there might be a general discussion on the Report of
Sub-Committee 1. The text of Article 44A could then be
approved and Article 45 discussed.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 2
Mr. LAWRENCE (Now Zealand) asked whether representatives
were expected to commit their Governments at the present meeting
on the contents of the various paragraphs of the Report.
The CHAIRMAN said it was intended that after consideration
of Chapter VI Commission B would report to the Preparatory
Committee, and Chapter VI, together with the other Chapters,
would then be submitted for consideration. He felt that the
report from Commission B should not go forward with any reserva-
tions so far as it was possible to avoid such reservations.
Commission B should see that Chapter VI was finally approved,
and the consideration of that Report by the Preparatory Committee
in executive session should be more or less formal.
Mr. LAWRENCE (New Zealand) pointed out that there, were
certain provisions in Chapter VI which interested his Government.
As he had received the Resort of Sub-Committee 2 only on the
previous day, he had not had time to receive cabled instructions
from his Government, and therefore did not know whether or not
certain points in the Report would be the subject of comment or
reservation, or whether they would be accepted. He would there-
fore have to register a reservation to the extent that it was
not possible for him to advise the Commission at present as to
the viewpoint of his Government.
The CHAIRMAN considered that all delegations should have
sufficient opportunity to consider the Reports of the Sub-
Committees. However, one of the difficulties was to fit the
reports of the Sub-Committees into the timetable which had been
set up for Commission B. He therefore proposed that on
June 19th and 20th there should be a general debate on the E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 3
Report of Sub-Committee 2, and then the Report of Sub-Committee
1 should be considered. That would enable the Commission to
dispose of Article 44A, and the other Articles of the Chapter
could be taken up on Friday June 27th.
Mr. LAWRENCE (Now Zealand) agreed to the Chairman's
proposal.
The CHAIRMAN said that as there were no other comments on
his proposal he considered that the Commission agreed to the
programme suggested.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), Chairman of Sub-Committee 2
in presenting the report of that Sub-Committee (document
E/PC/T/102) said that the Sub-Committee had met fifteen times,
had devoted 35 to 40 hours to close consideration of the problem,
and had produced a unanimous report. Every question which had
come up on the subject in Commission B, with the exception of
that which had been considered by Sub-Committee 1, had been
referred to Sub-Committee 2. He assured members of the Com-
mission that detailed consideration had been given to all
points raised. The Report, more particularly the vital part
of the Report which was the proposed text of Chapter VI, should
be regarded as a whole. Every attempt had been made to see
that it hung together. The order of the Articles had been
considered vary carefully in the light of the criticisms made
by the representative of New Zealand, and the Sub-Committee
was grateful to him for the thought which he had given to the
Matter. In drawing up its Report, Sub-Committee 2 had gone
outside its Terms of Reference in that, in the final paragraph
of Chapter VI, it had included the text of Article 44A as
proposed by Sub-Committee 1, and he folt that that would be E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 4
of considerable advantage in enabling Commission B to see a
complete text of Chapter VI.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Chairman of Sub-Committee 2 for
the presentation of the Report of that Sub-Committee. Both Sub-
Committee 1 and Sub-Committee 2 had furnished an excellent
example to the whole Preparatory Committee. If there were no
comments on the Report of Sub-Committee 2 the Commission would
pass to the consideration of the Report of Sub-Committee 1.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said he understood that the final
discussion of the Report of Sub-Committee 2 would be post-
poned until June 27th. However, in order to gain time, it
would perhaps be useful to go through the various Articles of
the Report, beginning with Article 44A.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that he had suggested that there
should be a general discussion on the Report of Sub-Committee 2,
but that the Articles should be taken up on June 27th.
Mr. McGREGOR (Canada) asked whether there could be a
general discussion on the Sub-Committee's Report at the Present
meeting and, on the following day, the various Articles could
be considered. He felt that the matter should not be post-
poned until June 27th.
Replying to the CHAIRMAN, who asked whether he agreed to
the proposal made by the representative of Canada, Mr. LAWRENCE
(New Zealand) said his delegation would not be ready to discuss
the Report on the following day, but, if it suited other dele-
gations to do so there would be no objection on the part of
his delegation. However, he wished to have the right to bring
up later any points which his Government might wish to raise
before the Commission, and therefore the date suggested by
the Chairman would suit him. E/PC/T/B/SR/12
Page 5
Mr. CHEN (China) pointed out that his delegation had
proposed an amendmentt to paragraph 2 of Article 39,
(document E/PC/T/W/151), but that amendment had not been
dealt with by Sub-Committee 2. His delegation did not
wish to press its point of view, but felt that the proposed
amendment should be mentioned in paragraph 2 on page 2
of the Report, and hoped that the necessary correction
would be made to the text.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), Chairman of Sub-Committee 2,
assured the representative of Chine that his proposal
regarding paragraph 2 of Article 39 had been taken into
account by Sub-Committee 2, and hoped the the wording of
that passage in the revised draft was sufficient to meet
his point of view.
Mr. COLBAU (Norway) asked what was the real meaning
of the first line of paragraph 2 of Article 39 "Without
limiting the generality of paragraph 1 of this Article..."
He considered those words superfluous and somewhat misleading.
Was anything gained by reporting referances to paragraph 1
which, in his opinion, contained - general statement of
the obligation of all members to adopt a certain policy?
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), Chairman of Sub-Committee 2,
pointed out that the expression to which the representative
of Norway had drawn attention derived from the draft on
which the Preparatory Commission had reached agreement in
London, i.e. paragraph 2 of what was there Article 34.
Although the words used were not vitral, he believed the
expression was of common use in such documents in such
circumstences. E/PC/T/B/SR/12
Page 6
Mr. McGREGOR (Canada) explained that paragraphs 2 end 3
of Article 39, contained a detailed statement of many
practices that might not be all-inclusive and more general
terms were provided in paragraph 1.
Mr. CHENN (Chine) pointed out that his delegation had
also proposed the deletion of the phrase mentioned by the
representative of Norway. That prorosal appeared in
document E/PC/T/W/151.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) drew the attention of the representa-
tive of Canada to paragraph 3 (g) of the Sub-Committee's
Report which, in his opinion, covered the first sentence
of paragraph 2.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America ) said he appreciated
the reason given for the proposed deletion of the phrase
without limiting the generality of paragraph 1 of this Article",
namely that it was superfluous. However, there were reasons
for not -delating th phrase. Raferring to the point raised
by the Norwegian delegation regarding sub-Paragraph (g) to
paragraph 3, he said that paragraphs 2 and 3 were closely related
to each other and set up a very special type of procedure under
which the Organization in very limited circumstances would
investigate a complaint or permit cansultation to take
place. Paragraph 1 was not directly related to th t
investigation procedure - it was rather a general commitment
Without any means of implementation. It was a precept which
everyone should bear in mind, and the purpose of the
introductory clause "Without limiting the generality of
Paragraph 1 of this Article" served the purpose of relating
two matters (1) a general obligation and (2) the special E/PC/T/B/SR/12
Page 7
limited procedure of the Organization.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) thanked the representative of the
United States of America for his explanation which clarified
the position.
Repying to the CHAIRMAN, Mr. CHEN (Chine) said that
in view of the explanation given by the representative of
the United States he would withdraw his objections.
Mr. Van der POST (Union of South Africa) said that it
was not clear why there should be three sub-paragraphs to
paragraph 2. Apparently sub-paragraph (b) was intended to
indirect the nature. of the complaint referred to in sub-
paragraph (c) and sub-paragraph (c) was intended to describe
either the nature of the enterprise or a condition which
the compl int must satisfy. Although hr did not wish to
criticise. the work done by Sub-Committee 2, he suggested
that paragraph 2 should be redrafted.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom), Chairman of Sub-Committee 2,
felt that it was quite clear from paragraph 2 that the
procedure regarding investigations could not be initiated
simply on the presentation of a complaint unless that
complaint related to certain practices as described in
Sub-paragraph (b), and that the commercial enterprises to
which the complaint was related were described in sub-
paragraph (c). It would not be impossible to restore sub-
paragraph (a) to the main part of the paragraph, but the
Sub-Committee had decided that it would be better, in view
of the lengthy preamble, that the arrangement should be
in the form represented
Mr. Van der POST (Union of South Africa) said; he would
not prass his point, but right raise the matter at the next
meeting of Commission B, on June 27 if he still thought E/PC/T/B/SR/12
Page 3
it desirable that paragraph 2 should be redrafted; in this
case he would submit an amendment in writing for that meeting.
Mr. THILTGES (Belgium) said that a number of members of
Sub-Committee 2 had felt that the texts originally proposed
did not throw sufficient light on the fact that an enquiry
should take place every time there was a complaint. As it
appeared that : complaint was the essential element justify-
ing an enquiry, that fact had been brought out in paragraph
2 (a ) of the present draft.
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) referring to paragraph 3 (f)
of Article 39 said that in the meetings of Sub-Committee 2
he had pointed out that the new text did away with his dele-
gation's principal objection to the New York draft, but did
not take care of the minor objections. He now felt that
paragraph 3 (f) was superfluous and should be deleted, because
the practices under paragraph 3 (f) are actually covered under
one or more of the preceding sub-paragraphs, especially under
sub-paragraph (c).
Mr. SOBOL (Czechoslovakia) referred to the clause "or are
about to have" in paragraph 2 of Article 39 and agreed that
members should have the right to complain regarding practices
which they considered should be investigated and that the
Organization. should be free to make an investigation. On the
other hand, however, he felt that the Organization might give
too broad an interpretation to that clause in paragraph 2.
Mr. McGREGOR (Cenada) said that members of Sub-Committee II
had considered that the Organization might interpret the phrase
"are about to have" in paragraph 2 too narrowly and not too
broadly as suggested by the representative of Czechoslovakia. E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 9
He felt one would have to rely on the wisdom of the Executive
Board of the Organization to interpret the phrase as widely as
Commission B would if it were in charge of the administration of
the Article.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) referring to the remarks of the
representative of the Netherlands said that his delegation
supported this suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that Article 39 would be taken up
again on June 27th, but it would be useful to have a discussion on
the points raised regarding that Article, before passing on to the
consideration of Article 40.
Mr. HOLIES (United Kingdom), Chairman of Sub-Committee 2,
hoped that the representative of Czechoslovakia was satisfied on
the point he had raised. He emphasised, as Chairman of Sub-
Committee 2, that the arrangement which the Sub-Committee had made
represented a very carefully considered arrangement. How exactly
the members of an Organization which had not yet been established
would look on their obligations in carrying out the terms of the
Charter was a matter which the Commission could not foresee,
However, he felt that as regards the draft chapter in front of the
Commission, the Organization had been given a carefully balanced
and reasonable lead to carry out its functions in such a manner
as to ensure that the purposes of the Organization were duly met.
He hoped that the members of the Commission would be prepared to
accept the draft before them as it stood on the assurance that the
matter had been most exhaustively considered by Sub-Committee 2.
The CHAIRMAN endorsed the remarks of the Chairman of the
Sub-Committee and hoped that the members who had not been on the
Sub-Committee would be able to accept the text, so that the
Commission might reflect the unanimity of the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/ B/SR/12
page 10.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) said he would like
to support paragraph 3 (f). From a narrow technical standpoint
the delegate of the Netherlands was probably correct. However,
if they were to accept his logic on paragraph 3 (f) they would
also have to eliminate paragraph 3 (e) The Netherlands delegate
had pointed out that the acts contemplated under paragraph 3 (f)
were really included under paragraph 3 (c ). By the same token
acts contemplated under 3 (e) were covered by paragraph 3 (d).
But before eliminating paragraphs 2 (e) and 3 (f) they
should consider the purpose that might be served by their
retention. Chapter VI was a technical agreement between govern-
ments, but it also must serve as a general guide to business
concerning what might be regarded under certain circumstances as
harmful, and it should be made clear in the Charter that the mere
fact that one or several firms possessed patents did not
legitimise all restrictive practices on their part under all
circumstances. Such, however, might be the interpretation if the
Sub-Committee were new to eliminate a provision that was in both
the London and New York texts. Paragraphs 3 (e) and 3 (f) should
therefore be retained.
Mr. KORTEWEG (Netherlands) did not consider the argument
of the delegate of the United States of America convincing; the
only argument he had advanced for the retention of the paragraphs
was that they would be a guide to business. But if business men
found only the first four points of the Article in the Charter
there would be few misuses of patents; such cases would all fall
under paragraphs (a) (b) (c) or (d) and would be thus forbidden.
He agreed, however, that if sub-paragraph (f) were to be deleted
the same reasons would apply to the deletion of sub-paragraph (e), E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 11
and he therefore moved for deletion of. sub-paragraphs (e) and (f).
The CHAIRMAN proposed. that the preliminary examination of
Article 39 be concluded. He understood the point raised by the
delegate of the Netherlands had been thoroughly explored in the
Sub-Committee, and hoped when they returned to Article 39 the
delegate of the Netherlands would be able to agree that he should
not persist in maintaining his point.
Mr. Van der POST (South Africa) requested elucidation of
"trading agencies of governments" in paragraph 4 (a). He was not
clear on the meaning of the term "agencies"; he thought it was
intended that the term should cover statutory or semi-statutory
organizations such as they had in South Africa, and he suggested
consultation with Commission A, which was dealing with Article 31,
in order to find out what definition they had given to "public
commercial enterprises".
The CHAIRMAN did not think any good purpose would be served
by consulting Commission A. Should there be any inconsistency
between the text of Chapter VI and other articles dealing with state
trading, it would no doubt be noticed by the Legal and Drafting
Committee and brought to the attention of the Commissions concerned.
Mr. McGREGOR (Canada) was surprised that the delegate of the
United States of America had even suggested the possibility of
eliminating paragraphs 3 (e) and 3 (f). No such suggestion had been
made in any document considered by the Sub-Committee or by any member
of the Sub-Committee. He had understood that the Netherlands
delegation had proposed an amendment to paragraph (f), and that had
been considered; but it would be calamitous to eliminate paragraphs
(e) and (f) altogether. E/PC/ T/B/SR/ 12
page 12.
The CHAIRMAN felt that the Netherlands delegation would
carefully consider the arguments on this point before the final
review of the report.
Mr. FLETCHER (.Australia) questioned the meaning behind the
words "including control of engagement" in paragraph 4 (b).
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) explained that the paragraph
was part of an attempt to reconcile the views of members on the
application of Chapter VI to a single public commercial enterprise.
It was an attempt to limit the investigation proceeding under
Chapter VI to such public commercial enterprises where there could
be no doubt that the authority of the country concerned was, or
had been, or would be behind the indulgence of the enterprise in
the practices listed in paragraph 3.
ARTICLE 4: PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATIONS AND
CONSULTATIONS.
The CHAIRMAN said that if there were no preliminary
comments he would draw their attention to document E/PC/T/80
containing the text of a letter from the International Cooperative
Alliance, and specifically to the passage on page 6 which read:
"If so, the Alliance submits to the consideration
of the Preparatory Committee, whether it might not be
useful to prescribe the procedure of this consultation in
a more detailed manner, which, it seems, might easily be done
by inserting appropriate provisions in Article 40, paragraph 1,
stating the duty of the Organization, in connection with the
procedure with respect to complaints and conferences, to
request not only Member Countries, but also non-governmental
(and inter-governmental) organizations to furnish information E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 13.
relevant to the investigation of complaints and to the
determination. by the Organization whether the practices in
question have or are about to have the effect described in
paragraph 1 of Article 39.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) considered that the point was covered
by Article 76 - Functions of the Commission on business
practices. He felt it was not advisable to insert detailed
prescriptions in the Charter.
ARTICLE 41: STUDIES RELATING TO RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.
There were no comments with regard to Article 41.
ARTICLE 42: OPLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) said it might be profitable for
the delegates to consider the obligations undertaken by members
under paragraph 1 of Article 42, particularly in relationship
to the general undertaking prescribed in paragraph 1 of
Article 39. Paragraph 1, Article 39 said, "Members shall
take appropriate measures"; in paragraph 1, Article 42, it
was prescribed that they should "take all possible steps by
legislation or otherwise to ensure that private and public
commercial enterprises within its jurisdiction do not engage
in practices which have the effect described in paragraph 1 of
Article 39; (b) take fullest account of the Organization's
determinations, requests and recommendations made under para-
graph 2(a) of Article 40 and determine appropriate action in
accordance with its system of law and economic organization. ...".
It might be said that paragraph 1 of Article 42 was saying the
same thing in a slightly expanded form.
In paragraph 1 of Article 39 it was stated that
appropriate measures were to be taken "individually or through
the Organization or in both ways", but in Article 42 it was
prescribed that members should assist other members in pre-
venting practices which had the effect described in paragraph
1 of Article 39. E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 14.
It seemed possible that if the Chapter became the sub-
ject of application it would be the ground for a considerable
amount of work by eminent counsel because in many cases sub-
stantial interests would be at stake; and if the Commission
could eliminate now possible grounds for legal conflict and
at the same time clarify its meaning a good purpose would be
served.
Paragraph 1 of Article 39 was a general undertaking or
confession of faith with regard to the obligation of members.
On the question of tense in relation to harmful effects, it
was stated in Article 39 that members were to take appropriate
measures whenever such practices had harmful effects. He
envisaged that if substantial interests were at stake and if
there were any ground for establishing that action under that
clause would be conditioned by a general prescription or
confession of faith, it could possibly be argued on the basis
of paragraph 1 of Article 39 that a pre-requisite of action
must be that such practices had harmful effects.
In order to dispose of the points he had made in connection
with the similarity and yet the minor point of dissimilarity
between paragraph 1, Article 39, and paragraph 1, Article 42,
and to make it more clear that paragraph 1, Article 39, was a
general statement and paragraph 1, Article 42, a specific
application, and to get rid of the worry about the application
of tense or time in that general confession of faith, he would
submit for consideration a redraft of Article 39 in line with
the co-operation which there was at present in Article 39 as
between the member as individual and the Organization, and the
co-operation in Article 42 between one member and another.
Accordingly he proposed the following rewording of paragraph 1,
Article 39: E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 15.
"Members shall take appropriate measures, individually or
in co-operation among themselves or through the Organization,
or in any or all of these ways, to prevent business practices
affecting international trade (whether engaged in by private or
public commercial enterprises) which restrain competition,
limit access to markets, or foster monopolistic control, from
having harmful effects on the expansion of production or trade
and from interfering with the achievement of any of the other
purposes of the Organization as set forth in Article 1."
Article 42 might say:
"Without limiting the generality of the obligation under
paragraph 1 Article 39 each member shall, in accordance with its
system of law and economic organization, take all possible steps
by legislation or otherwise to ensure, within its jurisdiction,
that private and public commercial enterprises do not engage
in practices which have the effect described in the said para-
graph 1 of Article 39."
He suggested the Commission might pay attention to the
possible inconvenience which could arise in the future if they
did not now take account of those points.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that one of the members of the
Sub-Committee might reply.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) apprehended that the Commission
might find it not entirely easy to follow precisely the purport
of the proposed re-drafting and he understood that there would
not be a verbatim record of the meeting. The Sub-Committee
would have been happy to give the fullest consideration to the
proposed new text had it been before them, Now, however, it was
for the Chairman to decide what procedure should be followed.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) explained that it had only been
since the emergence of the new text that it was apparent that
the difficulties of which he had spoken remained.
The CHAIRMAN felt it was difficult at the present stage
to take Cognizence of the proposals submitted by the delegate of
New Zealand unless the Commission was of the view that the Sub-
Committee should be reconstituted or a new sub-committee
appointed to go into the matter. He pointed out that the whole
text of the Draft Charter would be thoroughly examined by the E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 16.
Legal and Drafting Committee, which might make drafting
su gestions covering the point.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) felt his proposal had no
greater significance than to clear up untidiness and conflict
between the general and specific obligations. If records of
the proceedings could go to the Legal and Drafting Committee or
if his delegation could make a statement to this Committee, it
would not be necessary to take up more of the time of Commission
B on this point. He was not raising a matter of substance.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) was not convinced that there was any
incompatibility between Articles 39 and 42.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) saw no contradiction between
paragraph 1, Article 39, and paragraph 1, Article 42. With
regard to the suggestion of reference to the Legal and Drafting
Committee, he felt there was the danger that changes in wording
might have implications of substance, and he considered it
preferable to refer the matter either to the reconstituted
Sub-Committee or to an ad hoc Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the former Sub-Committee be
reconstituted for the purpose, with the addition of the
delegate of New Zealand.
Mr. CHEN (China) suggested that the text of the proposed
amendment be distributed in advance. in writing.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the suggested new text be
circulated as a conference document. If the delegate of China
wished to make any observations, he could then ask leave to
appear before the Sub-Committee.
Decision: It was agreed that Sub-Committee II be re-
constituted, with the addition of the delegate of New Zealand,
for the purpose of considering the proposal of the New Zealand E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 17.
delegation, and that the proposal be in the meantime sub-
mitted to the Secretariat in writing.
ARTICLE 43: SUPPLEMENTARY ENFORCEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.
There were no comments with regard to Article 43.
ARTICLE 44: CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OF DOMESETIC MEASURES
AGAINST RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.
There were no comments with regard to this Article.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 1 (Document E/PC/T/W.144)
The CHAIRMAN asked whether any member wished to make
any general observations on the report of Sub-Committee 1.
Mr. COLBAN (Norway) said he could not vote either in
favour of, or against, the proposal in Document E/PC/T/W.144.
He understood that the Inter-governmental. Maritime
Consultative Commission would have a meeting in November
1947 and only when the results of that meeting were known
would it be possible for his government. to say definitely
what would be their attitude to the report of the Sub-
Committee, He emphasized however that this position did not
in any way imply a lack of desire to co-operate..
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the delegate of Norway
wished to submit a reservation on Article 44A in the report
to the Preparatory Committee and Mr. COLRAN (Norway)
reserved for the present the position of his Government.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) queried the necessity of
the word "certain", in the second line of paragraph 1 of
Article 44A. E/PC/T/B/SR/12
page 18.
Mr. Van der POST (South Africa) proposed the wording:
"Members recognise that certain services such as
transportation, telecommunications, insurance and banking,
are substantial elements of international trade." etc.
After further discussion the CHAIRMAN put the amend-
ment proposed by the delegate of South Africa to the
Commission.
Decision: Paragraph 1 with the amendment proposed
by the delegate of South Africa was adopted.
The CHAIRMAN asked for comments on paragraph 2.
Decision: Paragraph 2 was adopted.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) suggested with
regard to paragraph 3 that the words "improve the conditions
of operations of the service in question so far as they
affect be replaced by "remedy the particular situation so
far as it relates to". He felt there had been a drafting
error.
The CHAIRMAN put the proposed amendment to the Meeting.
Decision: The amendment to paragraph 3 suggested by
the delegate of the United States of America was adopted,
Mr, HOLMES (United Kingdom) requested information on
the purport of the words "Such.observations as the
Organization .... may wish to make".
After discussion the CHAIRMAN said he took it that
there was no proposal before the Commission with respect to
those words. E/PC/T/B/SR/12.
page 19
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) felt a drafting improvement
to paragraph 3 would be the insertion of the words "in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph 2" after the words "If no
adjustment can be effected."
Decision - The amendment proposed by the delegate of
New Zealand to paragraph 3 was adopted.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) felt that members of the
Commission should appreciate what the words "appropriate
specialized inter-governmental agency" in paragraph 3 were
intended to mean: he wondered under what circumstances an
organization would come within that definition, for the purpose
of paragraph 3.
Mr. McGREGOR (Canada) suggested that if the point raised
by the delegate of New Zealand found favour the following wording
might be used: "If one exists arid has power to deal adequately
with such matters".
Mr. Van der POST (South Africa) suggested that the words
"if one exists" were unnecessary.
Mr. FLETCHER (Australia) considered that the paragraph did
not need alteration.
-Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) proposed the substitution of the word
'competent" for "appropriate".
After further discussion the Chairman felt that the
Commission had no very decided views and added that if any legal
difficulty was involved it would be attended to by the Legal and
Drafting Committee.
Decision Paragraph 3 as amended was adopted.
Decision Paragraph 4 was adopted.
Decision Article 44A, as amended, was approved as a
whole. E/PC/T/B/SR/12.
page 20.
ARTICLE 45: EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI
The CHAIRMAN asked whether any delegates wished to make
preliminary observations with regard to Article 45.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) said he would again mention
the United Kingdom reservation to Article 45.
ARTICLES 39 and 42.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) raised the question
whether the amendment to articles 39 and 42 proposed by the
delegate of New Zealand would be available before the Commission
decided whether to send the Sub-Committee into session. He had
understood that in his remarks the delegate of New Zealand had
gone considerably beyond the drafting suggestion with which he
had begun.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) said he made no apology for an
attempt further to improve a very difficult and involved chapter.
his delegation would be happy to supply a working paper before the
sitting of the Sub-Committee, and to co-operate in any way
possible in an endeavour to find a solution.
The CHAIRMAN felt there would be no purpose served in having
a meeting of Commission B on the following day. The Commission
would meet again to consider Chapter VI on Friday, June 27.
ARTICLE 44A.
Mr. Van der POST (South Africa) proposed that paragraph 3
of Article 44A should begin : "If, because no adjustment can be
effected, the matter is referred.... "
After discussion the Chairman enquired whether in view of
the fact that the text of that Article had been already estab-
lished the delegate of South Africa would withdraw his proposal.
Mr. Van der POST (South Africa) accepted the ruling of
the Chair. E/PC/T/B/SR/12.
page 21.
ARTICLES 39 AND 42.
The CHAIRMAN said the date of the sitting of the Sub-
Committee appointed to consider the proposal of the delegate
of New Zealand would depend upon when the New Zealand paper
was placed in the hands of the delegation.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) asked whether
the Commission should not have the document in its hands and
discuss it before the Sub-Committee began its work.
The CHAIRMAN said he had understood the delegate of
New Zealand to say that it was a matter of drafting, not
substance, and he did not think any good purpose would be
served by the Commission's going into drafting points.
Mr. TERRILL (United States of America) said he was
entirely satisfied.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) said in view of the hesitation
of the delegate of the United States of America and perhaps
of other delegates regarding re-examination of the matter, he
was prepared to withdraw his previous suggestion on the point,
while maintaining his reservation regarding the competence of
the Legal and Drafting Committee. He pointed out that the
delegate of Belgium would be leaving soon and his presence for
a consideration of the proposal would be essential.
The CHAIRMAN took it that the delegate of France was
suggesting a discussion of the question in the full commission.
Mr. DIETERLIN (France) thought the delegate of the
United States of America had made a suggestion in that sense,
and he was prepared to support the proposal.
The CHIRMAN enquired whether the delegate of New
Zealand could prepare a paper to be placed in the hands of
delegates on the following morning, to enable the Commission
to discuss the matter in the afternoon. E/PC/T/B/SR/12.
page 22.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) said that the paper on which
his proposals were based had been prepared for the last meeting
of the Sub-Committee but apparently had not been brought
forward. The solution agreed to earlier in the present
meeting was perfectly satisfactory to his delegation. He
.did not think there was any point in the proposal which concerned
Belgium. He would prefer the decision already made to stand,
and repeated that the consideration was purely one of drafting.
Mr. DIETERLIN: (France) thought that as there were no
questions of substance involved the delegate of New Zealand
might be able to submit a text on the following morning.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) said as it was a New
Zealand proposal he thought his delegation should be per-
mitted to advance upon it in their own way; and as some
members had seen implications that were not in the proposal
he would prefer to consult with them before the suggested
amendment was published. He would ask that the decision
made earlier should stand.
The CHAIRMAN said in view of the assurance by the
delegate of New Zealand that his proposals related only to
drafting, he thought the appropriate place for the discussion
was in the Sub-Committee.
Decision: It was agreed that the decision taken earlier
by the Commission with regard to the proposal of the New
Zealand delegation should stand.
Mr. KORICAN (Secretary) state that neither the Secretary
nor the Secretariat had received any papers from the New-
Zealand delegate on the subject of his delegation's proposal.
Mr. LAURENCE (New Zealand) remarked that the document
must be still in transit.
The meeting rose at 6.43 p.m. |
GATT Library | qs796yh5114 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record of the twenty-second meeting held on Monday, 14 July 1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 14, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 14/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/22 and E/PC/T/B/SR/19-30 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qs796yh5114 | qs796yh5114_90250166.xml | GATT_152 | 1,494 | 9,506 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/B/SR/22
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 14 July l947
AND ECONOMIQUE Original: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
of the twenty-second meeting held on Monday, 14 July
1947 at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
Request by Sub-Committee on Chapter VIII
The CHAIRMAN reported a request from the Sub-Committee
dealing with Chapter VIII for authority to consider Article 56
(57 in the new text of Chapter VII) in conjunction with Article
86, the main Article in tne Charter dealing with Settlement
of Disputes. It was agreed to grant this authority.
ARTICLE 30
Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) (Chairman of the Sub-Committee on
Article 30) presented the Sub-Committee's Report (E/PC/T/124).
He drew attention to the proposed division of the Article into
five Articles within the one Section. The Sub-Committee had
reached unanimous agreement on all points except that in Article
IV on which there was an amendment by the United States
Delegation. He mentioned the query received from the Sub-
Committee dealing with Article 15 regarding discrimination in
transportation charges (E/PC/T/127).
The CHAIRMAN congratulated Mr. HAKIM on the excellent
report of the Sub-Committee.
Dr. GUTIERREZ (Cuba) reserved the position of his
Delegation in relation to Articles I and II of the new text,
pending the decision of the Sub-Committee dealing with Article 15 E/PC/T/B/SR/22
page 2
on the amendment which the Cuban Delegation had originally
presented on Article 30.
ARTICLE I was approved.
ARTICLE II
Paragraphs 1 and 2 were approved.
Paragraph 3 was approved, including the Sub-Committee's
tentative proposal of a period of two years.
Paragraph 4 was approved.
ARTICLE III
Paragraph 1 was approved, subject to a reservation by the
Australian Delegation regarding the final text of Article 17,
which contains a reference to Article 30.
Paragraph 2 was approved.
Regarding paragraph 3, Mr. SCHWENGER (United States)
asked that this might be discussed at the same time as
Article IV. This was agreed.
ARTICLE III(3) and ARTICLE IV
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) explained his Delegation's
reservation regarding paragraph 3 of Article III and their
amendment to Article IV. He pointed out that both these
paragraphs had originally referred to primary commodities, in
the light of the special difficulties to which the latter were
subject. The new text as it stood permitted domestic
subsidies and stabilisation schemes even if they had the effect
of increasing exports. The characteristic type of subsidy
employed by his country was now more strictly limited under
paragraph 3 of Article III in cases where the provisions. of
Chapter VII had failed, and were barred under the cond tons
set out in Article IV. He proposed a return to the New York
text of paragraph 3 of Article III as this would restore the.
balance which had been upset by the changes made. E/PC/T/B/SR/22
page 3
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) said that he would be willing to
accept the United States amendment to Article IV if paragraph 3
of Article III were also applied to subsidies by importing
countries. He felt, however, that it would be unwise to press
for this extension. Paragraph 3 could be treated on its own
merits. The conditions of exemption contained in the New York
text would tend to favour wealthy countries which could best
afford to subsidise exports. He pointed out that stabilisation
schemes under Paragraph 1 were subject to the same condition as
was now proposed for export subsidies under paragraph 3. The
principle of prior approval by the Organization had been strongly
supported by certain Delegations in regard to other parts of
the Charter, and it had been assumed that the Organization
would act with reasonable despatch in fulfilling its duties.
He supported the Sub-Committee's text of paragraph 3 of
Article III.
Mr. RODRIGUES (Brazil) supported the views expressed by
the Canadian Delegate. His country was well aware of the damage
which subsidies could do, especially to the smaller and less
developed countries.
Mr. ADARKAR (India) supported the United States amendment
to Article IV on the grounds that domestic subsidies might be
just as harmful as export subsidies in enabling a country to
capture a larger share of the world market. He was opposed,
however, to the proposal to delete the new condition contained
in paragraph 3 of Article III.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) associated himself with the
remarks of the Canadian Delegate. He was opposed to the United
States amendment to Article IV as it would upset the balance
of the Section. He was also opposed to the deletion of the
new condition contained in paragraph 3 of Article III. E/PC/T/B/SR/22
page 4
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) emphasized that his
Delegation had not at any time proposed any limitation on the
right of importing countries to use domestic subsidies.
Paragraph 1 of Article III referred to a continuous scheme and
was not comparable to paragraph 3 of the same Article.
Provision for determination under paragraph 3 might involve
serious delay in dealing with a chaotic primary product situation.
He stressed the fact that exemption under paragraph 3 only
applied when other measures had failed.
He proposed that Article IV should be included in Article
III and applied only to primary commodities. This had been
the original intention in the London text.
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia) thought that undue stress had
always been laid on export subsidies. He emphasised the
importance of domestic subsidies by importing countries in
causing gluts. He did not feel, however, that it was practicable
to reopen the whole question of domestic subsidies and export
subsidies. He welcomed the strengthening of paragraph 3 of
Article III, and, if it were accepted, he would be prepared to
support the American amendment to Article IV.
The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the four alternatives
stated on page 5 of the Sub-Committee's report. He took it
that no Delegate would ask for No. 4 to be put to the vote, and
therefore proposed that a vote should be taken on the three
alternatives. This would be in the order 3, 2, 1, according
to which was furthest away from the original proposal.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) asked that alternative No.2
should be modified in accordance with his proposal that Article
IV should apply only to primary commodities. This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the vote would be taken on the E/PC/T/B/SR/22
page 5
principles involved, and the two Articles would then have to
be voted on separately.
On the vote being taken:
(1) the United States amendment to Article IV was
rejected:
(2) the proposal that Article IV should apply to export
subsidies on primary commodities and that the new
condition contained in paragraph 3 of Article III
be deleted, was rejected:
(3) Paragraph 3 of Article III was approved.
(4) Article IV was approved, subject to the addition of
"2" between the words "paragraph 1" and "3".
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) said that his Delegation
must reserve its position on both paragraph 3 of Article III
and on Article IV. He would formulate and submit a note
regarding the reservation.
ARTICLE V was approved.
The CHAIRMAN declared that the whole of Article 30 was
now approved subject to reservations by the Delegations of
Australia, Cuba and the United States.
Request by Sub-Committee on Article 15
Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) (Chairman of the Sub-Committee)
reported that a request had been received from the Sub-Committee
dealing with Article 15 for consideration to be given to a
point raised by the South African Delegate regarding discriminatory
transport charges having the effect of an export subsidy (see
E/PC/T/127). He asked whether the Commission agreed with him
that this type of subsidisation would be subject to the
provisions of Article I if it "operates directly or indirectly
to increase exports of any product .. .". ,and to the
provisions of Article II if it "results in the sale of such E/PC/T/B/SR/22
page 6
product for export at a price lower than the comparable price
charged for the like product to buyers in the domestic
market.....''.
The Commission agreed with Mr. HAKIM's interpretation and
decided to communicate it to the Sub-Committee dealing with
Article 15.
ARTICLE 45.
There was a brief discussion on Article 45.
Mr. HOLMES (United Kingdom) proposed that the square
brackets should be removed subject to a minor amendment of
paragraph 2.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) and Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) drew
attention to a recommendation by the Sub-Committee on Chapter VII
that sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 should be deleted.
The CHAIRMAN expressed the opinion that Delegations had
not had sufficient time to consider the question, and he there-
fore proposed that further consideration of Article 45 should be
deferred until the Commission had dealt with the question of
voting and the composition of the Executive Board. This was
agreed.
The next meeting of Commission B would be at 2.30 p.m. on
July 15.
The meeting rose at 6.45 p.m. |
GATT Library | jg257gc4347 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record Second Meeting held Thursday, 20 May 1947, at 3 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 30, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 30/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/2 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jg257gc4347 | jg257gc4347_90250131.xml | GATT_152 | 2,302 | 14,615 | RESTRICTED
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/B/SR/2
30 May 1947
ECONOMIC CONSEIL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
AND ECONOMIQUE
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE
AND EMPLOYMENT.
COOMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
Second Meeting held Thursday, 20 May 1947 at 3 p.m.
at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILLGRESS (Canada)
1. The Chairman stated that the debate, conducted
during the morning session, had clearly shown that the Com-
mission is divided in its opinion on the subject of services
in a three-fold way. One group favours the inclusion of
services in Chapter VI, one group the exclusion of services
from Chapter VI, and a third group is satisfied with having
services not expressly excluded from this chapter. In view
of this division of opinion, it would be necessary to vote
on the issue unless any compromise proposals acceptable to a
majority of the committee were forthcoming.
The Delegate of CUBA expressed himself against the
proposal of voting on the issue of services at this stage of the
proceedings. He felt it would be preferable to defer a deci-
sion on this issue for the moment and to take up a debate of
Chapter VI in the sequence of Articles 39 to 45. This
procedure would allow to develop in the meantime a text with
regard to services which would be acceptable to all delegates.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES, seconding this motion,
suggested the appointment of a sub-committee which should be
charged with the development of an appropriate text, acceptable E/PC/T/B/SR/2
page 2
to all delegations. In elaborating such a text, the sub-
committee might also take into due consideration the text
of sub-paragraph (c) of article 40 of the original United
States Draft Charter.
The Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM, seconding the
motions of the Delegates of Cuba and the United States,
stated that he originally did not consider the issue of
services as a suitable object for the deliberations of a
sub-committee. However, he was now not inclined to the
opinion that a sub-committee might be able to compromise the
various views expressed on this issue and he therefore
seconded the motion to take up the debate of the Articles
in their regular sequence, starting with the debate of
Article 39. Upon the query of the Delegate of SOUTH AFRICA ,
whether countries not represented on the sub-committee would
be authorised to have access to the sub-committee and to
voice their opinions on the issue, the Chairman clarified
that every interested country would have free access to
the sub-committee in the same manner as has been established
for the sub-committees of Commission A. He asked for the
decision of the Commission with regard to the appointment
of a sub-committee, and registering the approval of the
Commission, suggested the following composition of the sub-
committee: CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, INDIA, the NETHERLANDS,
the UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED STATES. The Commission
approved this composition of the sub-committee and it was
decided that a sub-committee should meet on Friday, 30 May,
at 10.30 a.m., to elaborate a compromise text with regard
to the issue of services.
2. Debate on Article 39, Paragraphs 1 and 2
The Chairman directed the attention of the Commission
to the reservations mentioned in Points 1 and 2 of the E/PC/T/B/SR/2
page 3
general notes of Document EPCT/W/132, and proposed
to discuss these reservations in due course. He then
opened the debate on Article 39, Paragraph 1, inviting
a discussion of the Canadian and Belgian amendments
proposed for this paragraph.
The Delegate of CANADA explained that the Canadian
amendment of Article 39 aimed to present the subject
matter dealt with in Article 39 in a more logical sequence
than the arrangement of the New York text. By trans-
ferring some of the provisions of Paragraph 2 in the New
York Text to Paragraph 1, the Canadian Text states more
clearly the conditions which must exist before any practice
can be made the subject of an investigation.
The Chairman invited the Commission to debate any
considerations of substance raised by the Canadian amend-
ment to Paragraph 1, but to confine the debate to sub-
stantial issues and not to pure aspects of drafting.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES expressed his
regret that the ruling of the Chair confined the debate
to substantive issues raised by the Canadian amendment
to Paragraph 1. He explained that the Canadian amendment
constituted an entirely new framework for the whole
subject matter of Article 39. In its present form,
Article 39 contains two distinct parts, one, dealt with
in Paragraph 1, enunciating the general principle, and
the other, dealt with in Paragraphh 2 and 3, regulating
under what conditions an investigation can take place.
Be realised that in the present form these two parts
of the Article are not correctly tied to each other.
However, the United States needed tine for further study E/PC/T/B/SR/2
page 4
of the Canadian amendment in order to determine whether
the new framework supplied by the Canadian amendment is
a suitable means for the purpose. At first glance it
might appear that this new formulation involves a
considerable watering down of the original provisions.
The Chairman stated that he realised that the
Canadian amendment affected the whole of the Article,
and that for this reason it would be admissible to debate
the whole of the changes involved in the Canadian draft
of the Article.
The Delegate of NORWAY expressed his opinion that the
Canadian re-draft constituted a greatly improved formulation
over the New York Text. This re-draft made it clear that
the I.T.O. should not interfere with any internal national
cartel arrangements but should confine its investigations
only to practices of international cartels.
The Delegate of BELGIUM stated that the Canadian
amendment introduced entirely new aspects.. This amend-
ment eliminates any reference to the general purposes
of the Charter. In distinction, the Belgian amendment
ties the provisions of Chapter VI in with the general
purposes of the Charter. Since the text of Article 1 is
not yet fully established, it would not be permissible
at this time to single out any specific purposes in
establishing criteria for harmful cartel practices.
Instead, the correct course would be to refer to the
general purposes of the Charter in the manner proposed
by the Belgian amendment. E/PC/T/B/SR/2
page 5
The Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM explained the need
for the most careful consideration of the wording of the
Canadian amendment quite apart from the structural aspects of
the re-arrangement. He concurred with the Delegate of
Belgium and explained his preference for the original London
Text, noting that the Canadian amendment introduced a number
of very un-clear concepts which did not add to the text but
which introduced an element of judgment.
The Delegate of SOUTH AFRICA considered the Canadian
amendment a considerable improvement over the New York Text
and suggested the acceptance of the Canadian draft as a basis
of discussion of Article 39.
The Delegate of BRAZIL, expressing his consent to the
adoption of the Canadian amendment as a basis of discussion,
stressed two points previously proposed by Brazil: First,
Brazil had proposed to mention expressly economic development
in Article 39. This proposal had been met with the
observation that the reference in Article 39 to Article 1
obviated any need for specific mentioning of economic
development. However, since the text of Article 1 is not
yet established, Brazil reiterates her desire to have
economic development expressly mentioned in Article 39.
Second, Brazil had entered a reservation with regard to the
inclusion of public enterprises. This reservation is being
fully maintained.
The Chairman explained that there exists a text for
Article 1 in the New York draft, which for the time being
must be presumed to be the final text. If, in the later
course of the deliberations of the Preparatory Committee
changes should be made in this text, it would be always E/PC/T/B/SR/2
page 6
possible to amend. Article 39 in accordance with the need
arising from changes in the text of Article 1.
The Delegate of, FRANCE pointed out that the Canadian
draft involved changes in form as well as substance. These
changes necessitated a re-opening of debate on points which
had been compromised in London. For this reason the
Canadian amendment could not be accepted as a basis for
discussion. The text of the Canadian and the United States
amendment should be carefully considered by the Commission,
but the basis of discussion should be the New York Text,
without prejudice to possible changes in view of the new
amendments. Actually, the Canadian amendment does not only
involve the whole of Article 39, but all of Chapter VI, and
very careful consideration of its wording as well as of its
substantive implications is essential.
The Chairman asked for the opinion of the Committee
whether the Canadian amendment or the New York Text should
be used as a basis for discussion. After a short debate on
this question, the Commission agreed to use the New York
text as a basis of discussion without prejudice to changes in
its text on the basis of the Canadian and United States
amendments.
In opening the debate on Paragraph 2, the Chairman
directed the attention of the Commission to the reservations
mentioned in Notes 1 to 4 inclusive to Paragraph 2 in
Document EPCT/W/132.
With regard-to the French reservation, mentioned in
Note 1, the Committee approved the change in wording made by
the Drafting Committee.
The Delegate of CHILE withdrew his reservation. E/PC/T/B/SR/2
Page 7
In opening the debate on the reservations with regard to the
inclusion of public commercial enterprises, the Delegates of the
United Kingdom, Brazil and China maintain the reservations which
they had entered in the Drafting Committee and the Delegate of
Czechoslovakia stated his concurrence in these reservations.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES stressed that it would be
incorrect in principle to establish a double standard for public and
commercial enterprises. During the London Session, those countries
who used the instrumentality of public commercial enterprises had
been stressing the fact that such enterprises were operating accord-
ing to general commercial principles. For this reason, and in view
of the fact that international agreements of such enterprises with
other public or private commercial enterprises cannot be ruled out,
the possibility of investigation must be established for both types
of enterprises.
The Delegate of CZECHOSLOVAKIA pointed out that public
commercial enterprises should be subject only to the rules of State
trading, while the Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM expressed the view
that a Government allowing its public enterprises to indulge in
restrictive business practices would commit a breach of faith which
would call into play complaints in accordance with Article 35.
The Delegate of CHINA explained that the operations of public
commercial enterprises are not always strictly commercial, but
often primarily designed to raise revenue. Consequently, their
operations did not follow strictly commercial lines and should not
be subject to the same rules as the operations of private
enterprises. E/PC/T/B/SR/2
Page 8
In view of the divergence of views expressed on the issue of
inclusion of public commercial enterprises, the Chairman, with the
approval of the Committee, referred the issue to the sub-committee.
The Committee referred the amendments proposed by the United
States and Canada with regard to Article 39, Paragraph 2, to the
sub-committee, and the Delegate of the United Kingdom expressed his
view that the Canadian re-draft widened the scope of Article 39 in
two major substantive points: The New York Text had provided for
the investigation of particular cases upon a specific complaint,
whereas particular and "related practices" were subject to investig-
ation, without any clear understanding what the term related
practices" involved. Secondly, the Canadian amendment added the
phrase "in any particular instance" and the meaning of this phrase
was unclear and seemed to enlarge the scope of Article 39.
The Delegate of CANADA explained that his amendment would
empower the I.T.O. to make recommendations if, in investigating any
specific practice, it discovered the existence of related practices
which had not been the subject of a specific complaint.
The Delegates of the UNITED STATES and the UNITED KINGDOM agreed
that the phrase "in the particular instance" should be substituted
for the words "in any particular instance", this being acceptable
to both of them.
The Delegate of BELGIUM stated that the phrase "related
practices" as used in the Canadian amendment was not acceptable to
Belgium. E/PC/T/B/SR/2
page 9
In explaining the proposal of Czechoslovakia to delete
the words "or to about to have" (Note 7 to Paragraph 2 of
EPCT/W/132), the Delegate of CZECHOSLOVAKIA stressed that any
investigation of the I.T.O. should bear only on established
facts. The inclusion of this phrase would result in guess-work
and in the possibility of too wide an interpretation of
Paragraph 3.
The Chairman remarked that this phrase occurs
repeatedly in various places in Chapter VI. Since reservations
against this phrase in other places had also been tabled by
other Delegations, the right procedure would be to refer the
Czech proposal to the sub-committee. Upon the suggestion
of the Chairman, the Commission appointed a second sub-committee
composed of the Delegates of BELGIUM, BRAZIL, CANADA, FRANCE,
the UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED STATES. The first sub-
committee, which is to meet at 10.30 on Friday, May 30, is
solely charged with the elaboration of a text with regard to
the inclusion or exclusion of services. The second sub-
committee, which is to hold its first meeting on Monday, June 2,
at 10.30 will have to deal with the amendments proposed by the
United States and Canada and all other issues referred to it
by the Commission.
The meeting was adjourned to Friday, May 30, at 3 p.m.
The Commission rose at 6 p.m. |
GATT Library | kw812vx4717 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record Second Meeting in Executive Session held on Friday, 30 May 1947 at 3 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 2, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 02/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/3 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kw812vx4717 | kw812vx4717_90250132.xml | GATT_152 | 1,528 | 9,794 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNlES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL June E/PC/T/B/SR/3 2, 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
Summary Record
Second Meeting in Executive Session held on Friday,
30 May 1947 at 3 p.m. at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILLGRESS (Canada).
The CHAIRMAN, directing the attention of the Commission
to Document E/PC/T/W/130, Corr. 1, invited the Delegate of
Belgium to comment on his amendment to Article 39.
The Delegate of BELGIUM explained that in the case of
boycotts and the suppression of technological or scientific
knowledge, it seemed to him necessary to presume harmfulness
unless proof was given to the contrary. He did not, however,
insist upon his proposal with regard to the use of patents, trade
marks and copyrights, having considered the newly submitted
observations of the Netherlands Delegation and in view of a
certain obscurity of the text. The Delegate of the NETHERLANDS
agreed with the spirit of the Belgian amendment, which wanted
to distinguish between practices harmful in themselves and
others which required investigation. He thought, however,
that it would be better not to raise again the issue of the
presumption of harmfulness; certain practices such as boycotts
could be expressly termed harmful in the Charter. The Delegate E/PC/T/B/SR/3
page 2
of BELGIUM agreed with this view.
At the suggestion of the CHAIRIMAN, the Committee decided
to refer the Belgian amendment as well as the Netherlands
observations and drafting amendments of sub-paragraph-(f)
(W. 138) to Sub-Committee II.
The Delegate of BRAZIL, in commenting upon his amendment
(W.54) , stated that restrictive practices were considered by
the various delegations to have some good and some bad effects.
He thought that there should be an authority to determine when
the effects were good and when bad. The amendment had three
purposes: first, to bring such combinations into the open by
previous registration and thus permit their control; secondly,
to ensure some degree of publicity; and thirdly, to apply a
fair control of such activities. He knew there were juridical
objections, but national legislation could be adjusted in this
respect the same as it would be for other parts of the Charter.
The practical application was a matter for experts, but the
principle ought to be adopted.
The Delegate of NORWAY stated that he had come to the
conclusion that registration would not work. In Norway, they
had such control, but he doubted whether it would be possible
on an international scale. It would require an enormous
mechanism and far-reaching obligations on the Members and the
Organization should not be overburdened with it, certainly not
at its start.
The Delegate of CANADA shared the doubts of the previous
speaker, based on the extent of the work involved. He also E/PC/T/B/SR/3
page 3
pointed out that registration would be tantamount to licensing.
Only a fraction of the applications filed would be of interest,
but the civil service needed to deal with them would be enormous
and the task would be too large for the Organization.
The Delegate of CHIILE admitted that the difficulties
involved were very great, but the first step ought to be taken.
He would not accept the presumption of harmfulness for
unregistered practices and would support the amendment in its
present or a modified form.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES agreed with the
objections of the Delegate of Canada to the principle of the
amendment. Registration seemed to him quite impractical
because it would require a staff of between one hundred and two
hundred experts. The United States had considered similar
legislation and the studies undertaken in this respect showed
the extreme complexity of the subject. To illustrate this
complexity he quoted from a draft law regulating national
registration of restrictive business practices.
The Delegate of BRAZIL, asked whether he could reconsider
his position, pointed out that for countries in an early stage
of development the effects of international combinations were
very serious, and that he could not withdraw this amendment.
The Delegate of BELGIUM pointed out that if the Brazilian
proposal were considered, then not only international combinations
should be taken into account but all restrictive practices as
defined in Article 39. E/PC/T/B/SR/3
page 4
The Delegate of FRANCE stated that although his country
had prepared similar legislation, he did realise the practical
difficulties on an international scale. The issue of
registration might be dealt with under Article 76.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that any provision for the study
of this problem would belong not under Article 76 which dealt
with organization but under Article 41.
The Delegate of the UNION of SOUTH AFRICA objected to the
amendment because the presumption of guilt was wrong in principle
and too great an on us was placed on the Organization by this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN interpreted the sense of the Commission as
favouring the transfer of the Brazilian amendment to the Sub-
Committee. Upon the challenge of the Delegate of South Africa,
the CHAIRMAN put the question to a vote and the Commission
decided by a vote of 10 to 6 for the rejection of the Brazilian
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN announced that Sub-Committee I had concluded
its work and called upon its chairman to present it. Dr.
LENDERTTZ (Netherlands), chairman of Sub-Committee I, stated
that a new draft Article 44a had been unanimously approved by
the Sub-Committee, and presented on behalf of the Sub-Committee
its report (Document E/PC/T/W/144). The CHAIRMAN proposed to
discuss the report after the debate on Article 44 and in the
meantime to take up Article 40. He stated that his study of
the amendments and reservations to Article 40 had convinced him
that there were only three major matters of substance: 1) the E/PC/T/B/SR/3
page 5
NETHERLANDS and CZECHOSLOVAK reservations on the right of
appeal to the International Court of Justice; 2) the AUSTRALIAN
revision of Article 40; 3) the UNITED STATES revision of Article
40. He further proposed to confine the debate to the substantive
points raised by these three amendments and to refer the rest
of Article 40 to the Sub-Committee.
Upon the observation of the Delegate of FRANCE that also
the French and UNITED KINGDOM re-wording, mentioned in note 2,
page 9 of E/PC/T/W/132, contained a point of substance, the
CHAIRMAN ruled to extend the debate also to this point.
The Delegates of the NETHERLANDS and of CZECHOSLOVAKIA
withdrew their reservations regarding the right of appeal to
the International Court of Justice on the understanding that
they were to be entitled to take up this issue in connection
with a later debate on Article 86.
The Delegate of AUSTRALIA explained that some of the
points raised by the Australian Delegation had been met by other
more recent proposals and that consequently Australia would be
satisfied to have its amendment merely discussed in the Sub-
Committee.
The Delegate of the UNITED STATES explained that his
re-arrangement of Article 40 served the purpose to clarify the
procedure following upon complaints, by breaking it down into
a sequence of essential steps . In his re-arrangement, the
primary screening procedure is clearly distinct from the actual
investigation.
He directed attention to a number of points of substance E/PC/T/B/SR/3
page 6
by explaining that paragraph 4 aimed at establishing the right
of venue for all affected parties; the change in paragraph 9 is
designed to eliminate the possibility of suppressing publication
of the report because such suppression might lead to suspicion
in the motives and integrity of the Organization and would also
be ineffective. Distinction must be exercized in the
preparation, not in the publication of the report.
In debating the UNITED STATES amendment,
the Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM took objection to the change
in paragraph 4 and in paragraph 9, reserving further objections
to paragraphs 7 and 8 for a later date;
The CANADIAN Delegate concurred with the Delegate of the UNITED
KINGDOM regarding the too wide scope of paragraph 4 in the new
version proposed by the UNITED STATES;
The Delegate of FRANCE, reserving his right to detail his
objections at greater length, objected to paragraph 3, because
the second part of this paragraph might lead to a pre-damaging
effect on harmless practices; to paragraph 4 for the same
reasons as the Delegate of the UNITED KINGDOM, to paragraph 7
because the revision might involve an enlargement of scope, and
to paragraph 9 because it is a generally established practice
to edit certain parts of reports for confidential distribution
and other parts for general publication.
The Delegate of the NETHERLANDS remarked that the main
object of the procedure according to Article 40 was for the
Organization to get all necessary information to appraise the E/PC/T/B/SR/3
page7
harmfulness of specific practices, but not to establish a
tribunal in which the Organization were to sit in judgment
over the case of two contesting parties; the UNITED STATES
re-draft, however, might lead to the latter result.
Upon the suggestion of the CHAIRMAN, the Commission
decided to continue the debate of Article 40 in the next
meeting and adjourned until Saturday May 30th at 10.30 a.m.
The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | jm348xb1079 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record Seventh Meeting held on Tuesday, 10th June, at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 10, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 10/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/7 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jm348xb1079 | jm348xb1079_90250137.xml | GATT_152 | 2,732 | 17,702 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/B/SR/7
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 10 June 1947
ORIGINAL.: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B.
SUMMARY RECORD
Seventh Meeting held on Tuesday, 10th June,
at 2.30 p.m. at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L.D.WILGRESS (Canada)
CHAPTER VII
Sub-Committee on Chapter VII
M. PETER (France) stated that the Drafting Sub-Committee
appointed yesterday had held its first meeting this morning,
and had already made some progress with its work. He raised
the question of the possibility of adding the delegate of the
Netherlands to the Sub-Committee, because the experience of
Mr. de Vries in connection with this Chapter of the Charter
would be valuable.
This proposal was supported by a number of delegates.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) warmly supported the proposal of
the French Delegate. He recognised that the rule of the
Steering Committee limiting the membership of sub-committees
was being infringed, but suggested that, in order to provide
a proper balance, the Indian delegate should be asked to
join the Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN said that although the rule limiting the
membership was not rigid, to make the Sub-Committee too
large might defeat the purpose for which it was designed E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 2.
He pointed out that every member of the Commission would have
an Opportunity of expressing his point of view on any particular
point to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, and he therefore
urged that membership should be restricted to a workable number.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) stated that, while he had no criterion
for judging the right number of members to serve on any
particular sub-committee, he supported the inclusion of the
representatives of the Netherlands and India.
Dr. ADARKAR (India) expressed his gratitude to delegates.
As it was undesirable to have a large Committee, he would be
content as long as there was an opportunity of attending the
meetings of the Sub-Committee.
The Commission approved the increase in the membership
of the Sub-Committee to eight by the inclusion of Mr. de Vries.
ARTICLE 48
Paragraph 1.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) outlined the reasons for the
suggestion of his delegation to delete "primary" in the third
line of the first paragraph. Although Article 52(c) limits the
field for regulatory agreements for non-primary commodities,
there was nothing, he thought, to prevent a non-regulatory
agreement for non-primary products, provided such an agreement
were governed by the general principles applicable to all
agreements as set out in Article 51. If that were so his
delegation did not see any reason to limit to primary commodities
the procedure for study groups and commodity conferences. In
the case of non-primary commodities consideration by such
bodies might lead to a non-regulatory agreement or, in the E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 3.
more limited circumstances of Article 52(c), to a regulatory
agreement. If such arrangements are permitted, it seemed
illogical to exclude non-primary commodities from Articles
48 and 49 which dealt with the setting up of study groups
and commodity conferences.
Mr. CHANG (China) supported the deletion of the word
"primary".
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada ) felt that the New Zealand
proposal would make a fundamental change in the whole conception
of this Chapter, which was an exception from the other provisions
of the Charter. Arrangements made under the Chapter could use
certain controls and regulations which are prohibited else-
where in the Charter. The exceptions are made, according to
the Chapter, because primary commodities are subject to
particular difficulties. The New Zealand proposal would seem
to alter the purpose of the Chapter, and introduce another
very large escape clause.
Mr. J. GUERRA (Cuba) supported the views expressed by the
Canadian Delegate, but nevertheless thought the substance of
the New Zealand amendment justified in relation to Article
52(c). He thought it desirable to make some reference to the
procedure by which the Organization would make determinations
regarding the exceptional cases contemplated in Article 52(c).
Amendment of the latter might meet the point raised by
New Zealand.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) agreed with the Canadian
delegate and supported the latter's view in his interpretation
of Chapter VII.
Mr. PETER (France) agreed in substance with the New
Zealand proposal, but thought it should be taken up in connection
with paragraph (c) of Article 52. E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 4.
Mr.E. de VRIES (Netherlands) also thought that a slight
addition to Article 52(c) - perhaps the addition of the words
"and provisions" after the word "principles" in that Article -
would meet the point raised by the New Zealand delegation.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) was not satisfied with the
suggestion for amendment of article 52(c) because that only
referred to regulatory agreement. He thought that the Chapter
as it stood, still left scope for agreements on non-primary
commodities, and it seemed inconsistent to exclude non-primary
commodities from Articles 48 and 49.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) supported the idea of amending
Article 52(c) so that the agreements to which it referred
should be subject to the same procedure as laid down for
primary commodities. Agreements on non-primary commodities must
still, however, be regarded as exceptional cases. On this point
he thought he differed fundamentally with the New Zealand
Delegate.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) supported the views of the Canadian
delegate.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the majority of the delegates
were opposed to the New Zealand proposal to delete the word
"primary" in Articles 48 and 49; but supported an appropriate
amendment of paragraph (c) of Article 52. He suggested that
the matter be referred to the sub-committee for examination in
relation to the latter Article.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand ) agreed, but suggested that as
Article 52(c) dealt with regulatory agreements, the. sub-committee
should also consider the position of non-primary commodities as
regards non-regulatory agreements.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that these matters be referred to
the sub-committee. This was agreed. E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 5
The Commission then passed on to a proposal made by the
United States Delegation with regard to paragraph 1.
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) explained that the
change proposed by his Delegation was intended as a drafting
change to bring the wording into line with changes in Article 46.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) and Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) thought
the change an improvement.
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) expressed doubt about the
reference to Article 46. He was not sure whether that Article
covered all possible cases in which it might be desirable to
set up a Study Group.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the U.S. proposal be referred
to the sub-committee and this was agreed.
The meeting then passed on to the amendment to Paragraph
2 proposed by the United Kingdom.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) explained that his Delegation
thought that the right principle in trying to secure the
widest possible measure of international co-operation on
commodity problems was to leave it to each country itself to
determine whether it had sufficient interest in any commodity
to participate.
Mr. PETER (France) supported the United Kingdom's amend-
ment. The procedure indicated in the amendment had proved
satisfactory in practice.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) also supported the United Kingdom
amendment, but asked for some explanation of the last sentence.
He wondered whether the words "Non-Members may also be similarly
invited" meant that all non-Members who considered they have
an interest in the commodity may be invited. E/PC/T/B/SR/ 7
page 6
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) agreed that the word "similarly"
might give rise to difficulty, and stated that he would not
object to its deletion.
Dr. CHANG (China) preferred the last sentence of the original
text, i.e. "Non-Members having a similar interest may also be
invited".
Mr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands) thought that in this case the
term "Study Group" was ambiguous. Insofar as negotiations to
establish an agreement were concerned, he thought that everybody
should be invited, but he doubted if this was desirable for a
Study Group.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) supported the United Kingdom amendment
with the change suggested by the Chinese Delegate. He thought
everyone should be invited, and then they could decline if their
interest was not substantial.
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) thought it desirable
to retain some criteria as expressed in the word "substantially
interested". Any country should be welcomed if it felt its
interest to be substantial.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) pointed out that, unlike the rest
of the Charter, Chapter VII was already being applied as a general
guide, not merely by all the Members of the Preparatory Committee,
but by all the members of the Economic and Social Council. That
was shown by the resolution of the Economic and Social Council at
its session last March. The Commission should not lose sight of
the actual existence of arrangements which ware in full conformity
with the basic spirit of Chapter VII and which commanded the
support of many more nations than were represented on the Prepara-
tory Committee. As regards right of participation in a Study
Group, governments could be relied on not to abuse what might seem
an unusually wide principle.
The E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 7
The CHAIRMAN thought that the Commission had discussed the matter
sufficiently to see the differences of views between the various
members of the Commission. The majority had supported the principle
underlying the amendment suggested by the United Kingdom that it should
be left to the Membe s themselves rather than to the Organization to
decide who had a substantial interest. He suggested that the question
should be referred to the sub-committee. This was agreed.
The meeting then proceeded to discuss paragraph 3 of Article 48.
Mr. D. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) emphasised the difficulties of the
post-war period, when conditions in many primary commodities were
highly abnormal. Study Groups could be of great value even if there
was no immediate need for a commodity agreement.
Mr. W.T. DOIG (Australia) considered that the substantial amend-
ment proposed by the United Kingdom delegation emphasised a rather
negative approach to the question. The emphasis of the United Kingdom
amendment on a situation in which difficulties were so serious that
they were unlikely to be overcome except by intergovernmental action
did not take into account the fact that the Section applied not only to
regulatory agreements but also to the non-regulatory or agreements of a
minor regulatory character. He opposed the United Kingdom wording, and
favoured the present text of Article 48 (3), subject only to minor
drafting amendments.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) shared the Australian point of view. At the
London meetings Study Groups had been conceived as fundamentally fact-
finding bodies to investigate a situation and then to offer advice to
the Organization and the Governments. The United Kingdom amendment
involved a transfer of functions in that it would give to the Study
Group the authority to recommend whether intergovernmental action was
required or not, and also what form such action should take. He
strongly opposed the United Kingdom amendment and supported the
retention of the present text.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the United Kingdom amendment be
referred to the Sub-Committee. This was agreed. E/PC/T/B/SR/7.
page 8.
ARTICLE 49.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Indian Delegation 's
amendment to paragraph 1 be taken with Article 50.
Mr. PAHYMTOOLA (India) agreed.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) suggested that, in the light of
the discussion on the previous amendment by the United Kingdom,
their amendment to paragraph 1 shoul also be referred to the
Sub-Committee. This was agreed.
It was also agreed that the United States amendment should be
referred to the Sub-Committee.
The United Kingdom amendment to paragraph 2 was also referred
to the Sub-Committee..
ARTICLE 50.
The CHAIRMAN first drew attention to the General Note on the
Article. As this concerned re-arrangement of the Chapter he
proposed that it should be referred to the Sub-Committee without
further discussion. This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN then invited the French Delegate to speak on
his Delegation's note (E/PC/T/W157 Rev. 1.) regarding the functions
of Specialised Agencies.
Mr. PETER (France) pointed out that this was not an amendment.
in certain conferences or study groups those seemed to be a lack of
precision regarding the respective functions of various inter-
governmental organisations. His delegation thought it desirable to
avoid conflicting competence between inter-governmental organisations.
They felt that there should be some authority which could determine
the competence of each of the organisations, and suggested that
this authority should be the Economic and Social Council.
Mr. YATES (F.A.O.) said that his Organisation would be very
happy to inform the Economic and Social Council of whatever
distribution of responsibility might eventually be agreed as E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 9.
between F.A.O. and the I.T.O., and would welcome the comments
of the Economic and Social Council. The question of distribution
of functions between inter-governmental agencies was one which
had occurred in several cases already. The F.A.O. was in process
of negotiating an inter-agency agreement with the I.L.O., under
which mechinery would be established for the allocation of work
which might lie on the frontiers of the sphere of competence of
the two Organisations, likewise when the time came he hoped that
no difficulties would be encountered in drawing up agreements
between F.A.O. and I.T.O. He felt that it was proper that the
Economic and Social Council should wish to review such agreements,
and if this was what the French delegation had in mind he felt
that they would receive general support.
The CHAIRMAN asked the French delegate whether, in view of
the remarks of the representative of F.A.O., he still wished
reference to be made in the Report of the Preparatory Committee
regarding this subject.
Mr. PETER (France) said that he was quite satisfied with
the explanations given by the F.A.O. Observer. His delegation
was only anxious that provision should be made for the settlement
of conflicts, should any arise in future. He agreed that the
Economic and Social Council would be the competent body to
solve them. He would be satisfied if mention wore made of this
short discussion in the report of the Preparetory Committee.
This was agreed.
The CHAIRMAN than passed to the amendment to Article 49(1)
of the Indian delegation.
Mr. .RAHIMTOOLA (India) said that the main purpose of his
delegation in moving this amendment was to widen the scope of
this paragraph.
Mr, de VRIES (Netherlands) withdrew his own amendment in E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 10.
favour of the Australian one which would cover the Indian point.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) stated that his delegation was not in a
position to support the amendment of either the Indian,.
Australian or Netherlands' delegations: he did not believe that
the right to take action should also be given to Organisations
other than I.T.O.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) supported the Cuben delegate in his
declaration. If several Organisations called conferences, then
there might arise a great deal of duplication and overlapping.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) considered that such an amendment as
his delegation proposed would in fact rather facilitate consultation
between specialised agencies, and would help to reduce to a
minimum the danger of duplication mentioned by other delegates.
Mr. de SWARDT (South Africa) felt that it was important
that, after a Study Group had made a report and the evidence has
been reviewed, the Organisation alone should decide whether a
conference should be held. He was in favour of removing the
right of a Member to ask for a Conference. He was opposed to
the amendment suggested by the United Kingdom to paragraph 1 of
Article 50, namely that it is only on the request of the I.T.O. that
specialised agencies can submit studies. He expressed himself in
favour of the Australian amendment to Article 50.
Mr..R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) suggested that much of the
differences could be resolved, in the sense of the balance of the
two extremes; by using the Australian proposal, but changing the
word "request" to "recommend" or "suggest"..
Mr. YATES (F.A.O.) stated that he was in favour of the
substance contained in the Australian amendment. In his opinion
this amendment cleared up the question of who was responsible for
convening Commodity Conferences. Whilst F.A.O. or other appropriate E/PC/T/B/SR/7
page 11.
intergovernmental Organisations might sponsor a study group,
the calling of the Commodity Conference would fundamentally
be the job of I.T.O. However, the course of action to
be taken would be based on the recommendations of the study
Group, i.e. of the Governments themselves.
It was agreed that the next meeting of Commission B
would be at 2.30 p.m., Wednesday, 11th June. |
GATT Library | wc067tw7341 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B. Summary Record Sixth Meeting held on Monday, 9th June, at 3.35 p.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 11, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 11/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/6 and E/PC/T/B/SR/1-9 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wc067tw7341 | wc067tw7341_90250136.xml | GATT_152 | 2,423 | 16,096 | UNITED NATlONS NATIONS UNIES Restricted
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/B/SR/6
11 June 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL Original:English
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPA-RATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMMISSION B.
SUMMARY RECORD
Sixth meeting held on Monday, 9th June, at 3.55 p.m.
at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Chairman: Hon. L. D. WILLGRESS (Canada)
CHAPTER VII.
ARTICLE 46:
The CHAIRMAN proposed that as the United States Delegation's
suggested alterations to Article 46 appeared to constitute
drafting points they should be referred to the Sub-Committee.
Mr . SCHWENGER (United States) agreed with this suggestion.
M. PETER (France) thought that the amendment proposed
by the United States constituted a substantive change, at
least on two points: the first was in the use of the term
"persistence" of disequilibrium. It was desirable to take
action as soon as disequilibrium appeared. Secondly, in
regard to the last sentence of the United States amendment,
it was not only a matter of exceptional treatment of trade but
also of production and consumption. He preferred the original
text of the Drafting Committee.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) in general preferred
the United States wording on the grounds that it was clearer
than the original. He agreed, however, that the reference to
"persistence" should be deleted. He also wished it to be clearly
understood that the term "discquilibrium" covered conditions of
' 1t~ tl l
*e a, hero E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 2
scarcity as well as conditions of surplus. In regard to
wording, he pointed out that it was incorrect to say that
burdensome stocks and pronounced fluctuations in prices do
not characterise the trade in manufactured goods. It was
agreed that primary products were subject to special
difficulties in these respects, and he therefore suggested
some such wording as "different in their substances" to be
added to the reference to manufactured goods.
M. MOSTIN (Belgium) expressed a preference for the
text proposed by the United States. He could not agree,
however, that the difficulties covered by the Article were
peculiar to primary conditities; but the means to solve
them were different.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) agreed that the United States text
represented a change in substance, particularly in the
reference to "persistence" of disequilibrium. He suggested
a reference instead to "the tendency to disequilibrium". He
was opposed to the deletion of the reference to "adverse
effects on the interests of producers and consumers". He
regarded the lest sentence of the United States text as an
improvement. Chapter VII was only concerned directly with
trade; it was not necessary to specify regulation or
production.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) in general supported the United
States text. Like the Cuban delegate, however, he was not
happy about the deletion of the reference to adverse effects
on producers and consumers. To delete this reference in
Article 46 might involve deletion of similar references in E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 3
other parts of the Chapter, and he would be opposed to
this. He supported the final sentence of the United States
text, and, with certain reservations, the consequential
changes in Article 47.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) thought that Article 46
should now be referred to the Sub-Committee, bearing in
mind its special importance as introduction to the whole
Chapter. This was agreed.
ARTICLE 47:
Title.
It was agreed to refer to the Sub-Committee the
change in title proposed by the United Kingdom.
Preamble.
It was agreed to refer to the Sub-Committee the
amendments to the preamble proposed by the United States
and the United Kingdom.
Sub-paragraph (a).
Mr. WHITE (New Zealand) explained his Delegation's
proposal to insert the words "and consumption" between the
words "production" and "adjustments". This was desirable
to achieve consistency with Article 46. Merely to refer to
"production" made the scope of the sub-paragraph too limited.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) agreed with the sense of
the New Zealand amendment, but suggested that the words
"adjustments between production and consumption" would be
preferable. E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 4
Mr. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) and Mr. CAPLAN
(United Kingdom) supported the New Zealand amendment,
and Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) supported the wording
proposed by the United States. It was agreed to accept
the New Zealand amendment in principle and refer it to the
Sub-Committee.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) explained the purpose of his
Delegation's amendment. It was only a drafting change to
bring sub-paragraph (a) into line with sub-paragraph (a) of
Article 52. He suggested that it might be submitted to the
Sub-Committee.
Professor DE VRIES (Netherlands) argued that the . u
Australian proposal was more than merely a drafting change,
in particular as regards the deletion of the words "as rapidly
as the circumstances require. He agreed, however, that as
it was not the intention of the Australian delegation to make
a substantive change the amendment might be referred to the
Sub-Committee.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) agreed with the Netherlands Delegate.
He strongly opposed the deletion to which the latter had drawn
attention.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) agreed with the Netherlands and
Cuban delegates regarding this deletion.
It was agreed to refer the Australian proposal to the
Sub-Committee.
Sub-paragraph(c)
Mr. SCHWEBGER (United States(, introducing the
United States amendment, stated that his Delegation
had originally opposed the words shown -n square
brackets, but as these had been supported by a number E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 5
of other delegations, they had reconsidered their position
in the matter, and had now included the substance of the
words in question in their amendment.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) stated that his Delegation had taken
the lead in securing the insertion of the words in square
brackets in the Drafting Committee's Report, and they were
now prepared to accept the wording proposed by the United
States.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) thought that the idea
represented by the words in square brackets, or in the form
proposed by the United States, was a valuable one, but the
wording might perhaps be improved. He proposed the following
alternative wording:
"to moderate pronounced fluctuations in the price of
a primary commodity in order to achieve a reasonable
degree of stability on the basis of prices fair to
consumers and remunerative to efficient producers".
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) supported the wording proposed by
the United States.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) stated that since the United Kingdom
had withdrawn their opposition to the sense of the words shown
in square brackets, he was ready to see the matter referred
to the Sub-committee.
Professor DE VRIES (Netherlands) expressed a preference
for the United States wording.
It was agreed to refer to the Sub-Committee both the
United States amendment and the wording suggested by the
.ited Kingdom.
Sub-paragraph (d)
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States( suggested that consideration
of his Delegation's proposal for a separate section dealing E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 6
with conservation agreements should be deferred, as this was
closely linked with their proposals regarding Article 59 and
also with the problem of rearrangement.
This was agreed.
Sub-paragraph (e)
Mr SCHWENGER (United States) proposed the deletion of this
sub-paragraph on the grounds that the objective to which it
referred was covered by Article 59.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) argued that there were different
degrees of, shortage: on the one hand acute shortage, where
arrangements for equitable distribution were essential - these
were excluded from the provisions of Chapter VII under Article 53;
on the other hand, conditions where shortage was not so serious,
but where expansion of production would be of value to producing
and consuming countries. It was this second type which should
be referred to in Article 47.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) emphasised again that the
term "disequilibrium" as used in Article 46 referred to shortages
as well as to surpluses. Article 59 referred solely to
distribution of commodities in short supply. The amendment
proposed by the Czechslovak delegation referred to both
distribution and expansion of production.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil:) supported the United States proposal
to delete the sub-paragraph on the grounds that it could be
interpreted in different ways. For example, it might be
interpreted in a manner prejudicial to countries which were
developing their own resources. He suggested that discussion
should be deferred until Article 55.
Mr. GUERRA (Cuba) recalled the discussions at the London
meeting of the Preparatory committee. Article 59 referred E/PC/T/B/SR/6
Page 7
only to an emergency. In London they had recognised the
need for long-term measures to expand production; hence the
present sub-paragrpah (e). There was no contradiction between
the letter and Article 59. They referred to two quite distinct
situations.
Mr. DEUTSCH (Canada) agreed with Mr. Guerra.. He was
opposed to deletion of sub-paragraph (e) which would be a
substantive change.
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) also agreed with Mr. Guerra.
In regard to the Czechoslovak amendment he thought that sub-
paragraph (e) might not be the best place for a reference to
"equitable distribution". He proposed the following alternative
wording:
"to provide for an expansion of the production of
primary commodities of which the supply could be
increased with advantage to consumers and producers".
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) drew attention to the
fact that in the French translation of the Annotated Agenda the
term "fair prices" had been incorrectly translated as "prix
normal".
Mr. PETER (France) associated himself with the remarks
of the Czechoslovak delegate regarding disequilibrium due to
shortage, and also regarding the French translation of the
word "fair"'.
Mr. de SWARDT (South Africa) supported the United
Kingdom wording and hoped that the United States would
withdraw their amendment. He thought that in spite of
probable difficulties, the door should be kept open for
expansionist arrangements. E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 8
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) emphasized that his
Delegation were in favour of the idea expressed in sub-
paragraph (a) but only questioned the appropriateness of
mentioning it in article 4'.
Mr. MARTINS (Brazil) withdrew his support for the
deletion of sub-paragraph (e). He expressed his approval
of the reference in the United Kingdom amendment to the
interests of producers in the expansion of production.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the question should be
referred to the Sub-Committee, end this was agreed.
Dr. ADARKAR (India) explained the reasons of his
Delegation for wishing to add at the end of sub-paragraph
(e) the words "or where expansion is required to aid in
the achievement of internationally approved consumption
programmes". He pointed out that sub-paragraph (e) referred
only to primary commodities in short supply. It might be
necessary, in the case of basic foodstuffs, to increase
production even when a surplus existed, e.g. under the F.A.O.
proposals for seles at special prices for nutritional purposes.
He thought that the I.T.O. Charter should provide for arrange-
ments if this kind. He thought that the wording proposed by
the United Kingdom might cover the point, as it referred to
the desirability of expanding production whenever such expen-
sion was of advantage to producers and consumers. He raised
the further question whether, if multilateral arrangements
were impracticable, bi-lateral arrangements woul d be permitted
under the Charter for expanding the production and consumption
of goods in short supply. He would like the Sub-Committee
to consider this question.
Professor De VRIES (Netherlands) supported the sense
of the Indian amendment but was not satisfied with the
wording. "Expansion" might not be 'necessary, but merely
prevention of restriction. As regards bi-lateral arrangements, E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 9
he recalled that the London text had provided for commodity
arrangements consisting of two or more governments provided
that such arrangements were open for all other countries to
join. Also, bilateral arrangements between state trading
enterprises were excluded from the provisions of Chapter VII
under Article 59. A further type of bilateral arrangement
might fall under restrictive business practices and become
subject to Chapter VI.
M. PETER (Frence) expressed sympathy with the Indian
amendment. He was not clear,however, whether sales at
special prices were consistent with the provisions against
discrimination in Chapter V and against harmful commercial
practices in Chapter VI. He hoped that the Sub-Committee would
be able to find a form of words consistent with the provisions
of these Chapters.
Mr. CHEN (China) thought that the United Kingdom amend-
ment of the Czechoslovak proposal would cover the point
raised by the Indian delegation.
Dr. ADARKAR (India) emphasised that the Sub-Committee
should definitely decide whether or not sales at special
prices under the F.A.O. would be permitted under the terms
of the I.T.O. Charter and make their decision clear in the
Charter. He also thought that if bilateral arrangements
were permitted in the Charter; there should be less string-
ency regarding the procedure relating to their conclusion
e.g. in regard to insistence on the calling of Study Groups
and Commodity Conferences.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the matter should be
referred to the Sub-Committee and this was agreed.
Suggested Article 47A.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the new Article 47A
proposed by the United Kingdom should be referred to the
Sub-Commitee as it concerned rearrangement of the Chapter. E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 10
Mr. CAPLAN (United Kingdom) agreed that the new Article
did not represent a substantive alteration and that it should
be referred to the Sub-Committee. However, he reserved the
right of his delegation to return to the matter if they were
not satisfied with the Sub-Committee's rearrangement of the
Chapter.
Mr. DOIG (Australia) agreed with the idea or the United
Kingdom proposed but disliked the emphasis on study groups,
particularly in the light of paragraph 1 of Article 48.
It was agreed to refer the suggested Article to the
Sub-Committee.
Nominations for Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that a delegate of each of the
following countries should be appointed to serve on the Sub-
Committee:
Australia
Canada
Czechoslovakia
France
United Kingdom
U.S.A.
They would elect their own chairman. If other delegations
not represented on the Sub-Committee wished to present their
views they should approach the chairman of the Sub-Committee.
Mr. MUNOZ (Chile) asked whether delegations not rep-
resented on the Sub-Committee might be circulated with
relevant papers; otherwise they would be unable to keep in
touch with its proceedings.
The CHAIRMAN stated that, although no minutes would be
kept of the Sub-Committee's proceedings, the Secretary would
keep all delegations informed.
Mr. AUGENTHALER (Czechoslovakia) proposed that the
delegate for Cuba should be added to the Sub-Committee,
and this proposal was supported by Mr. Munoz (Chile). E/PC/T/B/SR/6
page 11
The CHAIRMAN stated that he would himself have made
this proposal if he had not known that Mr. Guerra was
leaving Geneva this week. He asked whether Mr. Guerra's
alternate would be prepared to serve. It was agreed to
add Cuba to the countries represented on the Sub-Committee.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Sub-Committee would
hold its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 10th. |
GATT Library | vs127pj1907 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Commission B Summary Record Tenth Meeting held on Monday, 16 June 1947, at 2.45 p.m. in the Palais des Nations, Geneva | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 16, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 16/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/B/SR/10 and E/PC/T/B/SR/9/CORR.1-14 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vs127pj1907 | vs127pj1907_90250144.xml | GATT_152 | 2,016 | 13,061 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/B/SR/10
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 16 June 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION B
SUMMARY RECORD
Tenth Meeting held on Monday, 16 June 1947, at 2.45 p.m.
in the Palais des Nations, Geneva
Chairman: The Hon. L.D. WILGRESS (Canada)
ARTICLE 30 - General Undertaking Regarding Subsidies -
Elimination of Export Subsidies -Exceptions
The CHAIRMAN opened the discussion by inviting
comments on the recommendation of the Sub-Committee on
Chapter III for re-examination of Article 30 with reference
to the situations mentioned in Article 8 (formerly Article 7)
dealing with safeguards for Members subject to external
deflationary pressure.
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) outlined the functions
exercised by the Organization under Article 30. He
thought that the only way the Organization could, in the
exercise of those functions, have regard to the need to
help a country suffering from deflationary pressure, was to
put less obstacles in the way of a country wishing to use
subsidies or to increase subsidies. Since the Organization
has, under the present draft, a substantial measure of
discretion in determinations and consultations, no major
redrafting seems required. He also pointed out that the use E/PC/T/B/SR/10
Page 2
of subsidies was limited only slightly by Article 30,
whereas Chapter V severely circumscribed other methods
of departing from liberal trade principles.
Mr. ROYER (France) thought that the provisions of
Article 8 should be kept in mind when examining paragraph 4,
which referred to the procedures of Chapter VII, which might
be too slow in the evnt of a crisis.
It was agreed that the Sub-Committee should take into
Account the relationships between Article 30 and Article 8.
Proposed Reference in Article 15 to subsidies permitted under
Article 30.
It was decided that consideration of a proposal by
the United States Delegation to make an addition to
Article 15 containing a reference to Article 30, should be
postponed until the Sub-Committee dealing with Article 15
would have concluded its work.
PARAGRAPH I
Suggestd Deletion of Paragraph:
Mr. CHANG (China) explained that in under-developed
countries it may be necessary to subsidise the production
of a commodity and thought that this should not be subject
to notification to the Organization. He thought this
paragraph served rather to maintain the status que than
to help expand world trade and he therefore proposed
its deletion. E/PC/T/B/SR .10
page 3.
Mr. De VRIES (Netherlands) could not agree to this
proposal, since the provision concerned was already much
weaker than, for example, that on tariffs. Its deletion would
open still wider possibilities to wealthy countries and this
he could not accept.
M. DESCLEE DE MAREDSOUS (Belgium), H.-.M. Erik COLBAN
(Norway), Mr. A.E. RICHARDS (Canada), Mr. S.J. de SWARDT
(South Africa), Mr. F.L. FRESQUET (Cuba), Mr. G.D.L. WHITE
(New Zealand) and Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) also
supported the retention of this paragraph.
M. LECUYER (France), expressing himself in favour of
the retention of this provision, wished to draw attention to
special subsidies granted for the purpose of compensating
certain producers for disadvantages arising from specific
conditions. These may have the effect of a subsidy and should
be considered along with this Article.
M.F.L. FRESQUET (Cuba) opposed the deletion of the
sub-paragraph and pointed cut that domestic subsidies as well
as export subsidies reduced international trade.
It was decided to refer the amendment to the Sub-
Committee, which would take into account the remarks made in
the Commission.
PARAGRAPH 2.
Reservations:
Upon the invitation of the CHAIRMAN to comment on the E/PC /T/B/SR .10
page 4.
Chinese reservation made in the Drafting Committee Report,
Dr. T.T. CHANG (China) announced that he was withdrawing
the reservation.
M. F. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile), referring to the reserv-
ation made in the Drafting Committee Report by the Delegate
of Chile, stated that it was intended to take care of products
of territories where, owing to conditions of distance and
transport, domestic prices were higher than world prices.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) held that as this
happened in the normaI course of trade, there was no
question of subsidy by a Government and the case did not come
under Article 30.
H.E.M. Erik COLBAN (Norway) supported this view.
M. F. GARCIA OLDINI (Chile) stated that he would not
insist upon the reservations if it was made quite clear in
the record that the case he had mentioned was covered.
The CHAIRMAN proposed to refer this aspect to the
Sub-Committee for consideration. This was agreed.
Deletion of "directly or indirectly".
The CHAIRMAN then invited comments upon the Chinese
proposal to delate the words "directly or indirectly" at the
beginning of paragraph 2 (a). E/PC/T/B/SR. 10
page 5.
Dr. T.T. CHANG (China) explained that this was
merely a drafting matter, the sentence being complete without
these words.
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) pointed out that the
deletion of these words would greatly limit and weaken the
provision.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) pointed out that a
subsidy might not be considered as being granted if it evolved
out of other action.
M. DESCLEE DE MAREDSOUS (Belgium) supported this view.
Dr. T.T. CHANG (China) withdrew the proposal.
United States Proposal to insert the word "sub-paragraph" in
the Proviso in Paragraph 2 (a).
Mr. S. MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that
the first part of paragraph (a) states what is prohibited, and
the second part states three different kinds of action that are
permitted, namely, "exempting exported products from duties or
taxes imposed in respect of like products when consumed domestic-
ally, from remitting such duties or taxes which have accrued, or
from using the proceeds of such duties or taxes to make payments
to domestic producers".
He thought that the point needed clarification as it
was possible to suppose that all of these three actions required E/PC/T/B/SR.10
page 6
the procedure of paragraph 1, that is informing the Organiz-
ation and negotiating with other Members. On the other hand,
it was also possible to hold that none of the actions had
anything to do with paragraph 1 and he considered it natural
that the third type of action should come under paragraph 1.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) considered that para-
graph 1 covered all of the subject matter under paragraph 2
(a), though the first two cases could hardly be causes of
action under paragraph 1. He agreed, however, that the third
case could cause serious damage to another Member.
M. S.MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia) could not accept the
suggestion that the first two cases should require notification
and consultation, and declared that the Czechoslovak Delegation
would propose to the Sub-Committee to restore the London text
under which only the third case was subject to the requirements
of paragraph 1.
M. LECUYER (France) agreed that the present draft was
ambiguous and that the difference in regard to the third case
should be clearly stated and its application declared illicit.
Mr. SCHWENGER (United States) remarked that these matters
would come under paragraph 1 only if they were subsidies, and
suggested that the Drafting Committee should consider whether
in fact they were subsidies.
Dr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands) pointed out that in
Articles 14, 15 and 30 the words "duties", "taxes" and "charges"
are used in different combinations and suggested that the E/PC/T/B/SR.10
page 7.
Drafting Committee should keep this point in mind.
Substitution of "one year" for "three years".
Mr. B.N. ADAKAR (India), commenting on the Indian
proposal to reduce in sub-paragraph (b) the time limit for
the elimination of export subsidies from three years to one
year, stated that subsidies are particularly objectionable
and ought to be removed as quickly as possible.
Mr. J.J.DEUTSCH (Canada) supported the amendment
and pointed out that the present shortage of goods favoured
the removal of export subsidies whilst in three years' time
the position might be less favourable. The Article provides
for extension in particularly difficult cases.
M. DESCLEE DE MAREDSOUS (Belgium) and Dr. T.T. CHANG
(China) also supported the amendment.
Mr. E. McCARTHY (Australia) wished to reserve his
position until paragraph 3 had been considered.
Dr. E . de VRIES (Netherlands) and Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER
(United States) agreed with the principle and thought it ought
to be discussed after consideration of paragraphs 3 and 4.
Mr. G.D.L. WHITE (New Zealand) shared the view of the Aus-
tralian Delegate.
The CHAIRMAN proposed to instruct the Sub-Committee
to take up the Indian suggestion after considering paragraphs
3 and 4. This was approved. E/PC/T/B/SR. 10
page 8.
Determinations under paragraph 2 (b):
The Commission considered the possibility of amending
the last sentence so that it would state that determination as
to extensions of time would be made by the Organization.
Mr. Garcia OLDINI (Chile) pointed out that the word
"Organization" was used sometimes without it being made clear
what organ it implied.
It was pointed out that this question would come up
in the discussion on Chapter VIII and the Commission decided
not to make any change at this point.
Proposed Sub-Paragraph (c ):
The CHAIRMAN then invited comment on the United
Kingdom proposal for the addition of a new sub-paragraph (d).
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) stated that it was
intended to take care of a special case not yet covered, namely,
when a Member was meeting the subsidised competition of a non-
Member in a third market. The possibility of other Members
being damaged by the counter-subsidy was provided for by the
requirement of consultation. -
Dr. E. de VRIES (Netherlands) agreed with the
principle, but wished to re-inforce the obligation to consult
with other Members. E/PC/T/B/SR.10
page 9
Dr.T.T. CHANG (China), M. S.MINOVSKY (Czechoslovakia)
and Dr. G.D.L.WHITE (New Zealand) supported the amendment, the
latter on the understanding that it did not clash with other
provisions dealing with relations with non-Members.
M. H.E.M. Erik COLBAN (Norway) wished to consider the
possibility of prior consultation. It was suggested by Mr.
SHACKLE (United Kingdom) that this point might be considered
by the Sub-Committee.
Mr. S.J.de SWARDT (South Africa) wondered if the amendment
went far enough and whether it ought not also to cover two-price
systems operated by private organizations.
Mr. R.J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom), however, thought
that an extension of the paragraph to cover action by private
enterprise seemed to open too wide possibilities.
Mr. R.B. SCHWENGER (United States) saw no objection to
the proposed new sub-paragraph, but suggested that the Sub-
Committee ought to consider whether the obligation of consult-
ation with the Organization should not be made stronger.
Mr. DESCLEE DE MAREDSOUS (Belgium) thought that too great
freedom was left to Members applying this measure and that
the Organization should play a greater rôle in this connection.
The question of relations with non-Members raises the necessity
for common action.
M. E.M. Erik COLBAN (Norway) warned of the danger of
extending this provision to cover the problems raised by the
South African Delegate. These could be examined by the
Organization. He hoped that the Sub-Committee would not take
it as an instruction to work out positive suggestions on these
lines.
It was agreed to refer the amendment to the Sub-Committee. E/PC/T/B/SR . 10
page 10.
SUGGESTED NEW PARAGRAPH 2 .A:
M. FRESQUET (Cuba) stated that an undeveloped country
could not use subsidisation without resorting to taxation. His
proposal would enable a small and young nation to use a simple
and direct way to foster economic development.
Mr. J.J. DEUTSCH (Canada ) pointed out that the exemption
of national products from taxes would have the same effect as
tariff duties and he could not, therefore, agree with this proposal.
Dr.E. de VRIES (Netherlands) supported the remarks of the
Canadian Delegate.
Mr. George HAKIM (Lebanon) thought that the amendment
did not come under Article 30 which dealt only with export
subsidies. If it was meant to be an exemption from Article 15,
it should be raised there.
M. FRESQUET (Cuba) pointed out that Article 30 was a
"General Undertaking regarding Subsidies". He did not think
that Article 30 was confined to export subsidies and therefore
the amendment was rightly raised in this connection.
The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. |
GATT Library | gp108nw3609 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Communication of Information Concerning Changes in Lists of Tariff Concessions | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 30, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 30/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/143 and E/PC/T/66-91 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gp108nw3609 | gp108nw3609_92290096.xml | GATT_152 | 227 | 1,604 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/143
AND ECONOMIQUE 30 May, 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Communication of Information Concerning
Changes in Lists of Tariff Concessions.
In accordence with the procedure described in document
E/PC/T/96 of 21st May, which wes approved by thu Preparatory
Committee in Executive Session this morning, the Head of each
Delegation is expected to advise the Control Secretariat each
fortnight of the changes made in the concessions offered by his
Delegation to all other Delegations with which tariff
negotiaitions are in progress.
The first Report which is now, called for should cover
the period from the beginning of negotiations up to and inoluding
31st May, and subsequent Reports should cover periods of two
weeks each. Each Report should consist of a general statement
with the details of the changes in concessions enumerated on
forms attached thereto. Forms for the general statement and for
the detailed reports, on the lines of thu Annexures to Document
E/PC/T/76, will be distributed to the Secretaries of Delegations.
The Reports should be delivered in sealed envelopes,
addressed to the Executive Secretary, marked "Secret", to Room
220, and receipts should be obtained. The first Report should
be handed in not later then June 2nd, and subsequent Reports
on alternate Mondays thereafter.
UNITED NATIONS.
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | vy963bt7930 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Communication of Information Concerning Changes in Lists of Tariff Concessions | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 31, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 31/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/125-150 and E/PC/T/W/125-150 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vy963bt7930 | vy963bt7930_90050279.xml | GATT_152 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | gw424mp5769 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Communication of Information Concerning Changes in Lists of Tariff Concessions | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 31, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 31/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/125-150 and E/PC/T/W/125-150 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gw424mp5769 | gw424mp5769_90050279.xml | GATT_152 | 102 | 731 | NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED.
31 May, 1947.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Communication of Information Concerning
Changes in Lists of Tariff Concessions.
The symbol of document E/PC/T/143 distributed on May
30th 1947 should be changed to E/PC/T/82.
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
Communication des renseignements relatifs aux modifications
apportees aux listes de concessions tarifaires.
La cote du document E/PC/T/143 distribue le 30 mai 1947
doit être change en E/PC/T/82. |
GATT Library | cn403wk7029 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Completion of Negotiations. Report by the Tariff Negotiatioins Working Party | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/91 and E/PC/T/66-91 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cn403wk7029 | cn403wk7029_92290107.xml | GATT_152 | 385 | 2,565 | RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/ 91
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 9 June 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMlTTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
COMPLETION OF NEGOTIATIONS
REPORT BY THE TARIFF NEGOTIATIOINS WORKING PARTY
In acco-dance ;ith the decision reached by the Preparatory
Committee ln Executive Session on 4 June 1947, and ln the light
of the discussion which took place on that occasion, the Tariff
Negotiations ',Working Party has reconsidered the question of whether
or not the fact of the comvleton of any one set of bilateral
tariff negotiations should be made public.
The Working Party believes that the objections raised to the
procedure outlined ln Annex E to the Sixth Report on the Progress
of Tariff Negotiations (document E/PC/T/84 (a) of June 2, 1947)
would in large measure be overcome if, instead of the public
announcement being made by the Executive Secretary, the Working
Party would include information as to the completion of bilateral
tariff negotiations ln their puriodical Progress Reports, as and
when the completion of such negotiations takes place. The Working
Party would base their information as to the completion of any one
set of bilat-ral tariff negotiations on thttt supplied ln the forms
to be returned each fortnight by the Delegations ln accordance with
the procedure outlined ln document E/PC/T/6 of June 3.
In making reference to the completion of negotiations by any
one pair of negotiating teams,the Working Party would point out
that the outcome of these negotiations Is subject to any adjust-
ments that may be required ln the light of other negotiations as
they are ompleted, and is to be incorporated in the Schedules to
be annexed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Further,
the General Agreement, when arrived at, may be subject to approval
by the authorities of the countries concerned.
In these circumstances, the Working Party assumes that the
parties concerned will await the conclusion of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade before giving effect to the agreed
modifications ln their tariffs.
The Working Party recommend the adoption of this procedure
and, If it is approved, will Include the information regarding the
completion of bilateral tariff negotiations in those parts of
their regular Progress Reports which are issued as unrestricted
documents,
UNITED NATIONS
NATI0NS UNIES |
GATT Library | cx739ht1890 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Completion of Tariff Negotiations | United Nations Economic and Social Council, October 8, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 08/10/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/234 and E/PC/T/228-267 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/cx739ht1890 | cx739ht1890_92290299.xml | GATT_152 | 224 | 1,430 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/ 234
B October 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Completion of Tariff Negotiations
The Tariff Negotiations Working Party, after reviewing
the present state of negotiations, believes that It should be
possible to complete all negotiations by October 15th. Any Delega-
tion which finds that it may not be able to conclude its negotia-
tions by that date, should notify the Secretariat by noon, Saturday
October llth, so that the Tariff Negetiations Working Party May
review the position at its meeting at a30 pm. on that day,
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA COMEERENCE DES NATIONS UNIES SUR LE
COMMERCE ET L 'EMPLOI
Fin des négociations tarifaires
Le Groupe de travail des negociations tarifaires,
après avoir passé en revue l'état présent des négociations, estime
qu'il devrait etre possible de terminer toutes les négociations
pour le 15 octobre. Toute délégation qui craindrait de ne pas se
trouver en mesure de terminer ses négociations à. cette date, vomdra
bien en notifier le Secrétariat au plus tard le samedi 1l octobre
à midi, de manière que le Groupe de travail des négocïations tari-
faires puisse étudier l'état de la question lors de la séance qu'il
tiendra ce jour-là à 14 heures 30. |
GATT Library | hn728bd1351 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Consultation with Non-Governmental Organisations in Category A. Note by the Executive Secretary | United Nations Economic and Social Council, April 16, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 16/04/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T 45 and E/PC/T/44-66 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hn728bd1351 | hn728bd1351_92290050.xml | GATT_152 | 1,411 | 9,441 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T 45 16th April 1947
. AND ECONOMIQUE
SCCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
CONSULTATION WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS IN
CATEGORY A
NOTE BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY *
In an address made to a plenary session of the Preparatory
Committee on April 11, 1947, .Monsieur Jean Duret, representative
of the World Federation of Trade Unions, complained about the
*limited opportunities afforded to the Federation to participate
in the work of the First Session of the.Preparatory Committee.
This matter has also been the subject of representation by Monsieur
Duret to the Executive Secretary. There is circulated herewith
a draft communication which the Chairman, with the Committee's
concurrence, proposes to address to Monsieur.Duret. (Annexure).
The Committee is also invited to consider the question of
the arrangements to be made during the present Session for con-
sultation with non-Governmental agencies.
The Committee's position in this matter is set out in Rule 46
of .the Rules of Procedure (page 46 of the Report of the First
Session), and follows the practice endorsed and applied by the
Economic and Social Council.. The Committee has, for this purpose,
assimilated itself to a Commission of the Council.
It is true, however, that owing to the pressure of business
at the First Session and to the fact that most of its work was
oonducted in closed meetings, the non-Governmental organizations
*were afforded comparatively limited opportunities to observe the
*s - ---- ---- - S --------------*--- ----
This paper will receive preliminary consideration by the Chairman's
Committee (Heads of Delegations) prior to its submission to the
Preparatory Committee.
- L/PC/T 45
Page 2
discussions or to enter into consultation on matters of particular
interest to them. The Committee may wish to consider whether
more ample opportunity should not be afforded during the present
Session.
The first relevant point is to determine whether the Charter
discussions at the Second Session should, as was the case at the
First Session, be conducted in closed meetings. The decision
to work in closed meetings at the First Session was taken because
the members of the Committee would be expressing views as officials
on matters of policy on which they were not competent to commit
Governments. It was felt that this distinction would not be
appreciated by Press or public and it would therefore tend to
inhibit discussion if the meetings were public. It might be
.argued that this consideration has not the same forced at the
Second Session in view of the publication of the Report of the
First Session and the subsequent ventilation of views in the
Press and on the platform. If the Committee were in these
circumstances to deoide that Charter discussion were to be
conducted in open meetings, then one of the difficulties encountered
by the non-Governmental organizations would be eliminated in that
they would be in a position to follow the detailed discussions
on the Charter. If, however, the Committes should decide that
Charter talks should be conducted in closed meetings, the question
arises whether the Committee would, nevertheless, allow representa-
tives of the non-Governmental agencies to attend these meetings
as observers. It should be pointed out here that this would be
going somethat further than would appear to be contemplated in the
Report of tne Committes of the Economic and Social Council on this
matter since that report makes no reference to the admission of
representatives of non-Governmental organizations to closed sessions. E/PC/T 45
page 3
In any event it is suggested that the Preparatory Committee
should establish at an early date a Committee to consult with the
representatives of non-Governmental organizations in Category A.
and that this Committee, after studying the comments made by any
such organizations on the Report of.the First Session, should
invite the representatives of the organizations to discuss these
comments with the Committee, together with any other points which
the organizations might have to raise on the Report of the
Drafting Committee. The consultative Committee would remain in
being when the Charter talks are resumed and would consult with
the non-Governmental organizations from time to time during the
course of the Charter discussions. E/PC/T.45 Preparatory Committee of the
Page 4. United Nations Conference on
Trade and Employment,
Palais des Nations,
Geneva.
Dear Sir,
I wish to refer to the following statement contained in
the address which you made to the Second Meeting of the Second
Session of the Preparatory Committee:
"It ie true to say that very grave difficulties were
encountered because restrictive measures were applied to
its intervention.
The Federation was not permitted to participate regularly
in the work of the Commission where the real work was
performed and could only be admitted to make one declaration
before the First and Second Commissions without obtaining
any assurance that productive discussions would be engaged
in on those propositions, and it did not even receive
an answer-to the questions which the delegation had asked
on a certain number of points which appeared to be
particularly important."
I also wish to refer to your representations on the same subject
addressed recently to the Executive Secretary.
The Preparatory Committee is a working body established by
the Economie and Social Council and as such it is bound to
follow the procedures of the Council. The procedures of the
Council with regard to consultation with non-governmental
organizations are laid down in the Report of the Committee on
Arrangements for Consultation with Non-Governmental Organiza-
tions adopted by the Couneil on 21 June, 1946. By Rule 46 of its
Rules of Procedure the Preparatory Committee at its First
Session decided to apply this Report as the basis of its
relations with non-governmental organizations. E/PC/T 45
Page 5.
The above mentioned Report does not make any mention of
"relations between-non-governmental organizations and working
committees of the Economic and Social Council as distinct from
the Council itself and its commissions. However, the Preparatory
Committee at its.First Session decided to interpret the Report
liberally. and to assimilate its position to that of a commission,
thus enabling consultation between itself and non-governmental
organizations.in Category A. Accordingly, such organizations
were invited to send representatives to the First Session.
With regard to consultation between commissions and non-
governmental organizations in Category A, the Report provides
that a commission may arrange consultation either directly or
through ad hoc committees either on the initiative of the
commission or of an organization. Accordingly the Preparatory
Committee at its First Session invited the four non-governmental
organizations in Category A to submit in writing views.upon
questions on which they desired consultation and informed them
that after considering these views the committees concerned
would decide what arrangements could be made for consultation.
To this invitation the World Federation of Trade Unions did
not reply.
Notwithstanding this failure to reply to the Committee's
invitation, the.representative or the World Federation of Trade
Unions and of one other non-governmental organization in Cate-
gory A were invited to present views orally to the two
committees of the Preparatory Committee in whose work it was
considered these organizations would be most interested, and
to present general views to a plenary meeting of the Preparatory
Committee itself. These invitations were accepted. E/PC/T. 45
Page 6.
I feel that I should point out to you that the Preparatory
Committee is purely a working body composed of representatives
of governments and charged by the Economic and Social Council
with a very different task which has to be oompletad within a
limited timetable. The work being done is still preliminary
and formative. de hope to carry it a stage further at Geneva
and I teel that the assistance of your organisation and of
&ther non-governmental organisations will then be of greater
value to the Committee. Moreover the Preparatnry Committee
will in due course present a report to the Economic and Social
Council and submit the result of its work to a World Trade
Conference and there will therefore be ample opportunity for
the effective representation of the views of the organisations
concerned.
I should add that the Preparatory Committee apreciates
the interest and advice of your organisation and hopes shortly
to be able to communicate to you suggestions for consultation
during the current session in Geneva. It is envisaged that in
the somewhat di fferent circumstances of this Session, it will
be possible to afford more ample opportunity for these
consultations.
Yours faithfully,
Monsieur Jean Duret,
World Federation of Trade Unions,
Paris. |
GATT Library | kc814js7400 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Consultation with Non-Governmental Organizations in Category A*. Note by the Executive Secretary | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 6, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 06/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/45 Rev.1 and E/PC/T/44-66 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kc814js7400 | kc814js7400_92290051.xml | GATT_152 | 583 | 4,253 | ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECNOMIQUE E/PC/T/45 Rev.1
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 6th May, 1947.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
CONSULTATION WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS IN CATEGORY A
Note by the Executive Secretary
The.Committee is invited to consider the question of the
arrangements to be made during the present Session for :consultation
with non-governmental agencies. The .Committee's position in this
matter is set out in Rule 45 of the revised.Rules of Procedure
(E/PC/T 40) and. follows the practice endorsed and applied .by the
Economïc and .Social.Council. The Committee has, for this purpose,
assimilated itself to a Commission of the Council.
Owing to the pressure of business at the First Session and to
the.fact that most of the Committee's work was conducted in.closed
meetings, the. non-goverimental.organizations were afforded
comparatively limited opportunities to observe the.discussions or to
enter into consultation on matters of interest to them. The
Committee may now wish to consider whether more ample opportunity.
should not be afforded during the present Session.
Following. the practice of the First Session, it is assumed the
work of the Committee will normally be conducted.in closed meetings.
It is suggested that the Committee may wish, nevertheless, to invite
the representatives ofthe non-governmental agencies to attend
certain meetings as.observers, that is, with the right to
participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Such an
occasion may arise either when points of particular interest to
these organizations are being discussed or when there is reason to
believe their representatives can make a contribution to the
discussion.
In order to implement these suggested arrangements and to
provide a continuous mechanism for consultation, it is recommended
that the Preparatory Comiittee establish a committee to consult
with the representatives of non-governmental organizations in
Category A. This Consulatative Committee, after studying the
comments made by such organizations on the Report of the First
Session, should invite the representatives of the organizations to
discuss these comments with the Consultative Committee, together with
any other points which the organizations may raise on the Report
of the Drafting Committee. The Consultative Committee should also
consult with the representatives of the non-governmental organizations
from time to time during the course of the Charter discussions.
The suggestions made in this paper are submitted to the Preparatory
Committee in the light of a preliminary discussion by the
Chairman's Committee.
NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS E/PC/T 45/Rev.1
Page 2.
It should be open to the representatives of those
organizations to request, and to the Consultative Committee to
recommend to the Preparatory Committee, that the representatives
of non-governmental organizations be allowed to discuss
particular points with the Preparatory Committee.
*It is suggested that the Consultative Committee should be
instruoted to report regularly to the Preparatory Committee, not
only because this would be useful to the latter, but because it
would assure the representatives of the non-governmental agencies
that their comments were being given due consideration.
The Chairman's Committee Heads of Delegations) recommends
that the following delegates, who have special knowledge of the
Draft Charter, be nominated for election to the Consultative
Committee:
Dr. Coombs (Australia)
Mr. Wunz King (China)
Dr. Augenthaler (Czecho-
slovakia)
Mr. Malik. (India).
- Chairman of Committee II
(First Session)
- Chairman of Committee I
(First Session)
- First Vice-Chairman
(First Session)
- Chairman of Joint Committee
on Industrial Development
(First Session)
M. Baraduc (France)
Mr. Colban (Norway) - Chairman or Dralting Committee
Mr. Helmore (United Kingdom) - Chairman of Committee IV
(First Session)
Mr. Wilcoz (United States) |
GATT Library | bn014dz8855 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corigenda to Protocol of Provisional Application. Note by Secretariat | United Nations Economic and Social Council, October 13, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 13/10/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/214 Add.2 Rev.1 Corr.2 and E/PC/T/214/ADD.1/REV.1-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bn014dz8855 | bn014dz8855_92290277.xml | GATT_152 | 101 | 722 | UNITED NATIONS
RESTERICTED
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL E/PC/T/214 Add.2 Rev.1 Corr.2x
ECONOMIQUE 13 October 1947
ET SOCIAL ENGLISH ONLY
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Corigenda to Protocol of Provisional
Application
Note by Secretariat
The following corrections should be made in the
English text of the Protocol of Provisional Application
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (E/PC/T/214
Add.2 Rev.1.):
Page 4, last line but one:
Insert comma after "October".
Page 4, last line:
- Insert hyphen between "forty" and seven".
x Corrigendum 12 was in French only.
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | rd442gv2175 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrections to the remarks made by the Indian Delegate Corrigendum to Verbatim Report of Fourteenth Meeting of Tariff Agreement Committee (E/PC/T/TAC/PV/14) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, September 12, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 12/09/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/TAC/PV/14.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/TAC/PV/14-15 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rd442gv2175 | rd442gv2175_90260052.xml | GATT_152 | 138 | 967 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/TAC/PV/14.Corr.1
AND ECONOMIQUE 12 September 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ENGLISH ONLY
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrections to the remarks made by the Indian Delegate
Corrigendum to Verbatim Report of Fourteenth Meeting
of Tariff Agreement Committee (E/PC/T/TAC/PV/14)
1. Page 42
Line 21 substitute the words "that involved in"
for the words "to go forward with"
2. Page 45
Line 9 of paragraph 3 substitute the word
"desirable" for the word "possible"
3. Page 46
Line 2 delete the word "it"
Line 3 delete the words "may be that"
Line 4 insert the word "that" after the word
"occasions"
Line 5 after the word "Charter" substitute a
comma in place of the full stop, and substitute
"We are" for "We were".
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED |
GATT Library | qk225rn8842 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrections to the Verbatim Record of the remarks made by the Indian Delegate at the Sixth Meeting of the Tariff Agreements Committee held on 28th August, 1947 | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 30, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 30/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/TAC/PV/6 Corr.1 and E/PC/T/TAC/PV/6-8 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qk225rn8842 | qk225rn8842_90260017.xml | GATT_152 | 215 | 1,420 | E/PC/T/TAC/PV/6 Corr.1
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 30 August 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE English only
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSIOlN OF THE PREPARATORY COMMISSION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrections to the Verbatim Record of the remarks
made by the Indian Delegate at the Sixth Meeting of the
Tariff Agreements Committee held on 28th August, 1947.
(pages 26-30)
1) Substitute the words "the Draft Charter", wherever
they occur, by the words "the I.T.O. Charter".
2) Substitute the last paragraph but one on page 28
by the following: "It is because the General
Agreement and the Charter are linked in this way
that these problems arise".
3) Insert the following, after the words "the
simultaneous publication" in the middle of the
page 29: "That is our hope".
4) Substitute the last two sentences of the last
paragraph but one on page 29 by the following:
"They are not strictly related to safeguarding the
value of the particular tariff concessions we have
provided for in the General Agreement, but raise
wider issues of commercial policy. I admit that
these issues are certainly relevant to the objective
of promoting world trade, but".
5) Substitute "or" for '"and" after "a minimum provision"
in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 30.
RESTRICTED
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | tz827zm7856 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corridenda to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Note by Secretariat | United Nations Economic and Social Council, October 13, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 13/10/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/214.Add.1.Rev.1.Corr.2 and E/PC/T/214/ADD.1/REV.1-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tz827zm7856 | tz827zm7856_92290275.xml | GATT_152 | 174 | 1,191 | UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED x)
E/PC/T/21 4. Add.1.Rev .1. Corr .2 .
ECONOMIC CONSEIL
AND ECONOMIQUE 13 October ENGLISH ONLY.
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMlTTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERËNCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corridenda to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.
Note by Secretariat.
The following corrections should be made in the English
text of the General Agreement (E/PC/T/214 Add.1.Rev.1):
Page 11. title of Article V:
For "transit" substitute "Transit".
page 21. line 15:
Insert coma after "practice".
Page 22 line 4 of sub-paragraph (c):
Omit "s" from "provides", and for "objective an"
read "objective and".
Page 24, line 1 of paragraph 2 .(a):
For "institute" read institute".
Page 28, last line but 4:
Omit comma after bracket.
Page 45, line 3 of paragraph 4 (a):
Insert comma after "measure".
Page 57 paragraph 4, first line:
For "purpose" read "purposes".
Page 60, paragraph 6:
For "authorised" read "authorized:.
Page 80, last line of Final Act:
For 'trades" read. "trade".
x) Corrigendum 1 was in French only. |
GATT Library | bw048sr3939 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigenda to Amendments proposed by the Belgian Delegation. Chapter VI | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 30, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 30/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/130.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/125-150 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bw048sr3939 | bw048sr3939_90050266.xml | GATT_152 | 124 | 860 | UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/W/130.Corr.11
30 May 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TREDE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Corrigenda to Amendments proposed by the Belgian
Delegation.
CHAPTER VI
1. Article 39, para. 3, for sub-para. (c) substitute
``boycotting particular enterprises."
2. Article 39, para 3, add as sub-para. (g) the original
text of sub-para. (f).
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE DE LA
CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L' EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
CHAPITRE VI
ERRATA AUX AMENDEMENTS DEPOSES PAR LA DELEGATION BELGE
1. Article 39, par. 3, litt.c.
remplacer par "qui boycottent certaines entreprises
particulieres"
2. Article 39, par. 3
ajouter "litt.g : ancien texte du litt.f" |
GATT Library | tc441fs5457 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigenda to Final Act Note by Secretariat | United Nations Economic and Social Council, October 13, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 13/10/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/214.Rev.1. Corr.2 and E/PC/T/212-214/ADD.1.REV.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/tc441fs5457 | tc441fs5457_92290273.xml | GATT_152 | 115 | 777 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
RESRICTED x
CONSEIL E/PC/T/214.Rev.1. Corr.2.
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
13 October 1947.
ENGLISH ONLY
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
COrrigenda to Final Act
Note by Secretariat
The following corrections should be made in the English
text of the Final Act (E/PC/T/214.Rev.1.);
Page 1, title:
Omit second capital "E" in "EMPLOYEMENT"!
Page 2. line 1.
Substitute "Initiated" for 'initiated".
Page 2, line 2:
Insert comma after "representatives."
Page 3, line 9:
Insert comma after "l947".
Page 3, line 20:
Insert hyphen between "forty" and "seven".
Page 5:
Omit hyphen in "New Zealand."
x Corrigendum 1 was in French only. |
GATT Library | wq612yp4394 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigenda to Report of the Second Session (E/PC/T/186). Note by Secretariat | United Nations Economic and Social Council, October 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/10/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/222 Add.1 and E/PC/T/214/ADD.1/REV.1-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wq612yp4394 | wq612yp4394_92290286.xml | GATT_152 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | yf646vr1444 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigenda to Report of the Second Session (E/PC/T/186). Note by Secretariat | United Nations Economic and Social Council, October 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/10/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/222 Add.1 and E/PC/T/214/ADD.1/REV.1-228 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yf646vr1444 | yf646vr1444_92290286.xml | GATT_152 | 97 | 746 | ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/222 Add.1.
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 9 October 1947.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFEERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigenda to Report of the Second Session (E/PC/T/186)
Note by Secretariat
Members of the Preparatory Committee are asked to
inform the Secretariat by October 11th of any significant
corrections to be made in the draft Charter in addition
to those listed in E/PC/T/222.
In particular they are asked to draw attention to
any withdrawal of reservations which at present appear
in the draft Charter.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | ss549td4607 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigenda to the Report of the Legal Drafting Committee on Articles 16-23 and 37 | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/154.Corr.3 and E/PC/T/153-156 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ss549td4607 | ss549td4607_92290191.xml | GATT_152 | 831 | 4,843 | UNITED NATlONS
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/154.Corr.
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 9 August 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ENGLISH ONLY
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
CORRIGENDA TO THE REPORT OF THE LEGAL DRAFTING
COMMITTEE ON ARTICLES 16-23 AND 37
Page 2. paragraph 1
The following note should be inserted after the words in square
brackets:
"Note by Legal Drafting Committee
It is suggested that the last sentence of paragraph 1 be made
a new paragraph."
Page 3. paragraph 2
Insert the word "the" after the word "via" in line 4.
Page 3, paragraph 3
Delete the letter "s" from "Customs" in line 4.
Page 4. paragraph 3
Line 3 should read:
"or those commensurate with ..."
Page 5 - Note by the Legal Drafting Committee
In the second line of the second paragraph the words "call
attention to" should be substituted for the word "reiterates".
In the fourth line of the third paragraph a capital F should be
substituted for the small f in French.
Page 8
The words "of any Member country" in the first line should be
underlined.
Page 9. paragraph (ii)
The sentence, beginning with "Due allowance" should begin a new
paragraph as in the French text.
The words "in conditions and terms of sale, for differences"
* Corrig. 1 and 2 were in French only.
3* E/PC/T/154.Corr. 3
Page 2
should be inserted after the word "differences" in line 7.
Page 11.
The words "a particularl" should be substituted for the words
"any special" before the word "product" in line 13.
In the sixth line of the Note by the Legal Drafting Committee the
word "or" should be substituted for the word "and" between the
words "duty" and charge".
Page 15.
A colon should be inserted. after the words "Note by the Legal
Drafting Committee".
Page 16. Article 18.
Delete the s from the word "VALUATIONS" in the heading to this
Article.
Page17, Article 18 2.
The words "following [sub-]" in line 5 before the word "paragraphs"
should be in square brackets.
In line 6 the word "and" between 4 and 5 should be deleted and a
comma substituted.
In lines 12 and 13 the "s" in square brackets after the word
"importation" and the word exportation" should be deleted. The
word "may" in line 24 should be underlined.
The word "Article" in the final line should have a capital A.
Page18.
Delete the underlining from the word "or" in the seventh line.
Page 19.
The Note by the Legal Drafting Committee should read as follows:
"It is not clear whether the expression '"in the ordinary
course of trade' qualifies the word 'sale', or the words
'time and place'. If the former, it should be placed
after the word'' sa..e'"
Page 20.
Ini lne 4 (b) should be underlined. E/PC/T/154.Corr.3
page 3
Page 22
In the first line of the final paragraph a should appear in
brackets thus (a).
Page 23
In the first line of the second paragraph b should appear in
brackets thus (b),
In the first lino of the final paragraph c should appear in
brackets thus (c)
Page 24
The words "of this Article" in line 10 of the first paragraph
should be underlined.
Page 25
The words "[Sub-] Paragraph [2(c)]: 5" in the first line of
the second paragraph should be deleted and the words "Note to
paragraph 5:" substituted. The whole of this paragraph should
be in single spacing.
Page 27
The word "The" in the first line of paragraph 2 should be under-
lined.
Page 29
The words "Note to" should be inserted before the word "Paragraph"
in the first line. The whole of this page should be in single
spacing.
Page 31
The word "affixed" should be substituted for the word "fixed"
in the fourth line of paragraph 3.
Page 33
The words "to an" before the word "extent" in line 14 should be
underlined. E/PC/T/154.Corr.3
page 4
Page 38
The full stop after the comma in square brackets on line 11 should
be deleted and a semi colon substituted, thus ;
The note by the Legal Drafting Committee on this page has become
unnecessary because of the change made by the French Delegation in
the French text, andshould be deleted.
Page 39
The word "such" should be substituted for the word "each" at the
end of the third line.
An "e" should be substituted for the "a" at the beginning of the
word "entrusted" in line 6.
Page 40
There is a typing error on' the fourth line of this page, which
should. read:
"much detail as is reasonably"
Page 41
The word "of" before the word "paragraph" in line 3 should appear
in square brackets.
Page 42
The word "improving" in the last line but one should be underlined.
Page 49
The word government" in the eighth line should be spelt with a
small g;
A semi colon should be substituted for the full stop in line 9. |
GATT Library | fp743bb1634 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendue to observations of the Czechoslovak Delegation on the amendments of the U.S. Delegation concerning International investments (Document E/PC/T/W/174) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 11, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 11/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/174.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/151-176 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fp743bb1634 | fp743bb1634_90050312.xml | GATT_152 | 203 | 1,568 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T /W/174.Corr.1.
AND ECONOMIQUE
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
CORRIGENDUE TO OBSERVATIONS OF THE CZECHOSLOVAK
DELEGATION ON THE AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S.
DELEGATION CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS
(Document E/PC/T/W/174)
On Page 1, sub-paragraph (c): the words "in respect
of compensation" to be inserted after the word "treatment".
Accordingly, the paragraph should read as follows:
(c) the foreign investor should receive just
and equitable treatment in respect of
compensation, no less favorable than that
accorded to the Member's own nationals.
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA COFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DR L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES.
CORRIGENDUM AUX OBSERVATIONS DE LA DELEGATION TCHECO-
SL+VAQUE RELATIVES AUX AMENDEMENTS PROPOSES PAR I
DELEGATION DES ETATS-UNIS CONCERNANT LES INVESTISSEMENTS
INTERNATIONAUX (document E/PC/T/W.174)
Paragraphe (c) de la page 2: insTrer après le verbe
recevoir les mots "à titre de compensation" de façon
que le texte soit ainsi conçu :
(c) Le fournisseur Ttranger de capitaux d'investissements
doit recevoir, à titre de compensation, un treatement
juste Tquitable, qui ne sera pas moins favorable
que celui dont bénéficient les ressortissants de
l'Etat Membre en question. |
GATT Library | gg335cs9323 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 13, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 13/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/PV/35 Corr.1 and E/PC/T/A/PV.34-36 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/gg335cs9323 | gg335cs9323_90240180.xml | GATT_152 | 113 | 838 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/A/PV/35 Corr.1
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 13 August 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
CORRIGENDUM
Page 13 (French). For the first paragraph, with the
exception of the first sentence, substitute the
following:
"The new text, developed from a fusion of these
two amendments, is satisfactory to us in the sense that
it permits negotiation, without previous authorisation
of the Organisation, of the necessary agreement for pro-
gress towards a Customs Union and thereby covers the
initial transitional period it implies. It is on these
grounds that we gave our approval to the Sub-Committee's
wording."
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | qc439tf1640 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 5, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 05/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/236 Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/236-260 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qc439tf1640 | qc439tf1640_90050385.xml | GATT_153 | 228 | 1,582 | .
UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED
CONSEIL E/PC/T/W/236 Corr.1
ECONOMIQUE 5 July 1947
ET SOCIAL ENGLISH ONLY *
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum
Substitute the following for page 12 as it now appears:
U.S. Proposal
CHAPTER VIII.
MISCELIANEOUS
Nullification or
Impairment
Article 92.
Disputes
NEW
Article 35, para.2,
Consultation-Nullification
or impairment
Article 83. Interpretation
and settlement of disputes
Article 93.
Article 94.
Article 95.
Article 96.
Article 97.
Article 98.
Relations with Non-
Members 2/
3/
General Exceptions
Amendments
4/
Review of Charter
Withdrawal and
Termination
Registration and Entry
into Force
Article 36. Contractual
relations with non-Members.
Treatment of the trade of
non-Members
Article 37, sub-para.c,d,e,k,
General Exceptions to
Chapter V
Article 85. Amendments to
the Charter
4/
New
Article 89, same plus new para.
suggested by U.S. in
E/PC/T/W/210- Rev.1, p.32
Article 88, Entry into Force
plus Secretariat suggestion
on Registration, plus mater-
ial on language in Article
86, para.1 (as suggested by
UK in E/PC/T/W/210-Rev.1,
page 28)
* Incorporated in French text of E/PC/T/W/236
1/ It may be decided to merge these two articles.
2/ U.S. Delegation plans to submit a protocol concerning relations
with Germany, Japan and Korea, to be annexed to the Charter.
3/ See Annex A for draft.
4/ See draft Article in annex B.
.
Article 91. |
GATT Library | zp980sp8650 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum | United Nations Economic and Social Council, September 19, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 19/09/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/TAC/PV/21.Corr.2 and E/PC/T/TAC/PV/21,22 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zp980sp8650 | zp980sp8650_90260078.xml | GATT_153 | 547 | 3,384 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/TAC/PV/21. Corr. 2.
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 19 September 1947
AND ECONOMIQUE ENGLISH ONLY
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERRNCE, ON TTADR AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum
The following changes should be made in the Verbatim
Report of the twenty-first meeting of the Tariff Agreement
Committee, held on Tuesday, 16 Septermber 1947:
Page 5. last paragraph: substitute:
"MR. R. J. SHACKLE (United Kingdom) : Mr. Chairman, there
is Just one remark which I would like to make and I think it has
a bearing on what has just been said. As the Protocol of
Provisional Application is at present, that is as embodied in
document E/PC/T/W/316, it provides for provisional application
of Parts I, III and II of the General Agreement but not of the
Protocol of Signature. I think it follows, as Mr. Leddy has
just said, that as these documents are at present drafted - I
refer to the Protocol of Provisional Application and the
Protocol of Signature - there is no Provision by which the
principles of the Charter would be brought in. It would be quit
simple to rectify that by changing the draft of the Protocol of
Provisional Application".
Page 9, 4th line from foot of page : for "can simply leave"
read "should deal with".
Page 14, 6th line from foot of Dage: for "his" read "that the".
Pape 29, last line but one: For "refer to" read "mean".
Page 30. 1st line: for "refers to" read "means".
4th line: for "shall" read "are to".
5'th line: insert "as practicable" after "thereafter".
7th line from foot of page: for "think I will"
substitute "am prepared to".
Pafe 33, 10th line: the word "of" should be inserted before:
...........the words "and other charges expressed in money".
Page 35. 2nd and 3rd lines: for "on the first page" read
"respectively at the head of the first page of each Part".
Page 39, 17th line: the sentence "For instance, at the present
moment ............." should be read as follows: "For instance,
.at the present moment a surtax of 50% is levied in the
Netherlands Indies".
Page 40. 2nd paragraph, 4th line: delete "broaden our" and
substitute "print these schedules the broad way of the". E/PC/T/TAC/PU/21.Corr.2
page 2
Page 40. 4th line from the bottom: the sentence: "Otherwise
you have to repeat "surtax" on every item" should be "Otherwise
you have to repeat the "surtax" under every item".
Page 41, ith line from the top: the paragraph should be read
as follows: "In regard to the second observation about the
note in the Schedule on item 331, here the words "internal tax
preference" seem to cause some confusion. I refer to the
case of an "internal tax", that is going to be withdrawn.
(After interpretation). Perhaps it would be more clear and
not confusing if we delete the word "preference"; it has
many meanings".
Page 46. 17th line: the paragraph should be read as follows:
"Mr. Chairman, Perhaps you are aware of the excellent work
that has been produced by the Delegation of Canada; so it
might be useful for all parties concerned to know whether they
can follow that example or not".
Page 47. 8th line from foot of page:
for "thought" read "think". |
GATT Library | rx244mc3454 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum | United Nations Economic and Social Council, April 23, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 23/04/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/50/Corr.1 and E/PC/T/44-66 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/rx244mc3454 | rx244mc3454_92290058.xml | GATT_153 | 86 | 576 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/50/Corr .1
23 April 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
CORRIGENDUM
On line 11 of page 1 of Document E/PC/T/50,
E/PC/T/51 should be replaced by E/PC/T/47.
SECONDE SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
CORRIGENDUM
A la ligne 13 de la page 1 du document E/PC/T/50,
remplacer E/PC/T/51 par " E/PC/T/47 " |
GATT Library | qf166tt6631 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 7, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 07/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/236 Corr.2 and E/PC/T/W/236-260 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qf166tt6631 | qf166tt6631_90050386.xml | GATT_153 | 71 | 491 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/W/236
Corr.2
7 July 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum
Insert on page 12 as it appears in E/PC/T/W/236 Corr.1,
in column 2 under NEW, following line 12 and opposite
Article 94 the following
Article 59, sub-paragraph c.
Article 42, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph c(i). |
GATT Library | sq556fv7148 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 8, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 08/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W.35/Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/23-81 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/sq556fv7148 | sq556fv7148_90050163.xml | GATT_153 | 55 | 383 | UNlTED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/W.35/Corr.1
English only
8 May 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum
On page 1, 4th line of sub-paragraph b) should
read as follows:
"Condition cannot be deemed to be fulfilled when" |
GATT Library | ds751sf1646 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum in the Verbatim Report of the Thirty-ninth Meeting of Commission A (E/PC/T/A/PV/39) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 21, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 21/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/PV/39 Corr.6 and E/PC/T/A/PV.39-41 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ds751sf1646 | ds751sf1646_90240202.xml | GATT_153 | 74 | 526 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/PV/39
Corr.6
21 August 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum in the Verbatim Report of the Thirty-ninth
Meeting of Commission A (E/PC/T/A/PV/39)
Page 23, line 26.
Mr. OLDINI (Chile) (not interpreted) ....... should
read:
"On the contrary, I have maintained that this
sentence covers the objection which has been raised."
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | dq754zs1915 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum of the Summary Record of the 36th Meeting of Commission A. (E/PC/T/A/SR/36) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 21, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 21/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/36.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/dq754zs1915 | dq754zs1915_90250054.xml | GATT_153 | 115 | 773 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQU E
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/SR/36. Corr. 1
21 August, 1947
ORIGINAL ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE OT TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum of the Summary Record of the 36th Meeting of
Commission A.
(E/PC/T/A/SR/36)
On page 1, paragraph 3, line 1, instead of the word
"former" read "formal".
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L' EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
CORRIGENDUM AU COMPTE RENDU DE LA 36ème
REUNION DE LA COMMISSION A
(E/PC/T/A/SR/36)
A la page 2, paragraph 1, lire:
"Le PRESIDENT souligne que les réserves formelles
et les notes explicatives....''.
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | kd942zy9840 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Amendment Proposed by the Delegations of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg to Article 18 (Tariff Valuation) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 10, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 10/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W.37 Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/23-81 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kd942zy9840 | kd942zy9840_90050166.xml | GATT_153 | 80 | 558 | UNITED NATIONS
RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
E/PC/T/W.37 Corr.1
10 May 1947
English only.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPRRATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
CORRIGENDUM TO AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE
DELEGATIONS OF FRANCE, BELGIUM, THE NETHERLANDS
AND LUXEMBURG TO ARTICLE 18 (Tariff Valuation)
Paragraph ) Line 3.
Before "regulated" insert
the words "in some way".
Amendment to Line 5 should read: Before the word "to"
insert the word "particularly".
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | fv330xt9280 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to comments of the Netherlands Delegation on the draft schedules to be attached to the general Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (E/PC/T/W/296) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 16, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 16/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/296.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/261-306 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fv330xt9280 | fv330xt9280_90050448.xml | GATT_153 | 183 | 1,222 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/W/296.Corr.1
ECONOMIQUE 16 August 1947
ET SOCIAL Original : ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
CORRIGENDUM TO COMMENTS OF THE NETHERLANDS DELEGATION
ON THE DRAFT SCHEDULES TO BE ATTACHED TO THE GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (E/PC/T/W/296)
Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b, first sentence should
read as follows
Art. I, par. 3 of the Draft agreement does
not provide for the scheduling of the preferemtoal
rate, the M.F.N. rate remaining unscheduled.
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATORIE
DE LA CONFERNCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
CORRIGENDUM AUX CO COMMENTAIRES DE LA DELEGATION DES PAYS-BAS
SUR LES PROJETS DE TABLEAUX A Annexer A L'ACCORD .GENERAL
SUR LES TARIFS DOUANIERS ET LE COMMERCE (E/PC/T/W/296)
La premiere phrase de l'alinea b du paragraphe 1 doit
être redigée come suit :
Le paragraphe 3 de l'article I du projet
d'Accord ne prévoit pas la mention du taux pré-
férentiel dans les tableaux, le taux N.P.F. n'y
étant toujours pas mentionné.
TIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | wr557zp0398 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Document E/PC/T/139 | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 1, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 01/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/139.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/135-142 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wr557zp0398 | wr557zp0398_92290168.xml | GATT_153 | 205 | 1,288 | ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/139.Corr.1.
AND ECONOMIQUE 1 August, 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
CORRIGENDUM TO DOCUMENT E/PC/T/139
1. The following amendments should be made to the English
text of the Report of the Committee on Chapters I, II, and VIII:-
(a) Insert "or" before "approved" in the foot-note on
page 30.
(b) The lettering of the sections in the right-hand
column of page 32 should be amended to read
section "B, C, D, E, F, G" instead of
"C, D, E, F, G, H".
(c) "(21)" appearing under "article 86" on page 21 should
read "(2)".
2. The following amendments should be made in the English
and French texts of the Report:-
(a) The words in brackets at the end of paragraph 4 of
Article 89 should be moved to the end of paragraph 3
of that Article.
(b) "Miscellaneous" the heading of Chapter VIII on page 21
should be deleted as should be the words "Section A".
(c) "Section" in Article 89 (1) on page 25 should read
"Chapter".
(d) "Section B - General" on page 25 should read
"Chapter IX - General".
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED |
GATT Library | zy796df3033 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Document E/PC/T/195, Preparation for the Signature of the Final Act and of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and of the Protocols | United Nations Economic and Social Council, September 13, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 13/09/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/195.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/189-196 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zy796df3033 | zy796df3033_92290250.xml | GATT_153 | 154 | 1,008 | NATIONS UNIES
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/195.Corr.1
13 September 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to Document E/PC/T/195, Preparation
for the Signature of the Final Act and of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and of
the Protocols.
Page 1:
The wrord 'Draft' should be deletod above the title
of this document.
Page 3. first line:
The number of the document should be "E/PC/T/172 ".
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANlSATION DES NATIONS UNIES
Corrigendum au Document E/PC/T/193,
Projet
"Preparatifs de signature de l'Acte Final et de
l'Accord gèneral sur les tarifs douaniers et le
commerce et des Protocoles"
Page 1
Le mot "Projet" doit atre supprimé au dessus du
titre de ce document,
Page 3, 5e line.
La cote du document doit etre "E/PC/T/172"
UNITED NATIONS |
GATT Library | kb615vq3588 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to document E/PC/T/210 Add.l.Rev.1 (Production of Schedules to the General Agreement) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, September 24, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 24/09/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/210 Add.1.Rev.1.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/210-212 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kb615vq3588 | kb615vq3588_92290268.xml | GATT_153 | 186 | 1,248 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/210 Add .1 .Rev.1.
Corr.1
24 September 1947
Original: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PAPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to document E/PC/T/210 Add.l.Rev.1
(Production of Schedules to the General
Agreement )
The instruction under (2) in this document should be
disregarded.
It is considered by the Tariff Negotiation Working
Party that it will be sufficient to have the first page
only of each Schedule marked. "SECRET" by means of a
rubber stamp rather than by cutting the stencil.
DEUXIEME SESSSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L' ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
Corrigendum au document E/PC/T/210 Add.1.Rev.1
(Présentation deus listes annexées à l'Accord
général)
Il convient de ne pas tenir compte de l'indication
continue au paragraphe (2) de ce document.
Le Groupe de travail des négociations tarifaires
estime qu'il suffira de faire figurer le mot "SECRET"
à la première page seulement de chaque Liste en l'im-
primant au moyen d'un timbre en caoutchouc plutôt qu'en
le frappant sur le stencil.
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | bd983zg6631 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to document E/PC/T/228 | United Nations Economic and Social Council, October 9, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 09/10/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/228 Corr. 1 and E/PC/T/228-267 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/bd983zg6631 | bd983zg6631_92290293.xml | GATT_153 | 119 | 893 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED
CONSEIL E/PC/T/228-Corr. 1.
ECONOMIQUE 9 October 1947.
ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
. . . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- - --- - -
Corrigendum to document E/PC/T/228
It should be noted that in the snecimen Schedules
contained in the above document, the vertical lines dividïng
the three column. were accidentally omitted.
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA. CONFERENCE DES NATIONS UNIES
SUR LE COMMERCE ET L'EUMPLOI
Corrigendum au document E/PC/T/228
on voudra bien noter que dans les modèles de
listed contenues dans le document ci-dessus, les lines
verticals séparant les trois colonnes ont été omises
accidentellement.
Original .: ENGLISH |
GATT Library | wk964wj5144 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Document E/PC/T/A/SR/40 (1) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 20, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 20/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/40(1) Corr.1 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wk964wj5144 | wk964wj5144_90250059.xml | GATT_153 | 110 | 789 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
RESTRICTED
ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/A/SR/40 (1) Corr.1
. . .20 August 1947
CEl SUL
ORIGINAL: FRENCH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORMY COMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Cgorriendum
Page 1 Paragraph 2(a),
to Document E/PC/T/A/SR/40 (1)
lie 4:
for M. de SMEDT read
M. Van TICHELEN
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/SR/40(1) C.1orr
20 August 1947
ORIGINAL: FRENCH
XIDMEEE SESSION DE LA MCO4ISSION PREPARATOIRE DE LA
CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE DU COMMERCE ET DE
L'M EPLOI
orrigendum au Document E/PCT/t'/SR40/+(1)
Pargaraphe 2 a)( quatrèmie lgine: remplacer M. de SMEDT par
"M. Van TICHEENL"
- - - ---- - -- - --- - I - -
NATIONS NlES |
GATT Library | vh967tc2010 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Document E/PC/T/W/220 - June 21, 1947 | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 25, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 25/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T W/22O.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/220-235 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vh967tc2010 | vh967tc2010_90050368.xml | GATT_153 | 119 | 820 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL E/PC/T W/22O.Corr.1
25 June 1947 RESTRICTED
ECONOMIQUE Original: ENGLISH
ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
CORRIGENDUM TO DOCUMENT E/PC/T/W/220 - June 21, 1947
Page 6,
Delete lines 14, 15 and 16, beginning with
".... otherwise seriously" and ending with
should be deleted".
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE-LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
CORRIGENDUM AU DOCUMENT E/PC/T/W/220 - 21 Juin 1947
Page 5,
Supprimer les deux dernieres lignes, commençant
par les mots ".... ou n'entraine aucun autre
prejudice" et se terminant par les mots "supprimer
ce membre de phrase".
ATIONS UNIES
. |
GATT Library | fq056vk9472 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Document E/PC/T/W.28 | United Nations Economic and Social Council, May 8, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 08/05/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W.28/Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/23-81 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fq056vk9472 | fq056vk9472_90050155.xml | GATT_153 | 148 | 1,119 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/W.28/Corr.1
AND ECONOMIQUE 8 May 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
CORRIGENDUM TO DOCUMENT E/PC/T/W.28.
The following proposal by the Canadian Delegation should
have appeared on page 12 of the above-mentioned document:
"Addition to Article 37
(1) Relating to the importation of goods the
production of which was prohibited in the country
of importation prior to 1 July 1939."
SECONDE SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE DE LA
CONFERENCE DU COMOERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI DE L'ORGANISATION
DES NATIONS UNIES
CORRIGENDUM AU DOCUMENT E/PC/T/W.28.
La proposition suivante de la Délégation canadienne aurait
dû. figure à là page 12 du document mentionné ci-dessus:
"Addition à Article 37
(1) Relatives à l'importation de marchandises dont
la production était interdite dans le pays impor-
tateur avant le ler juillet 1939." |
GATT Library | fv732cz5590 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Draft Charter - Articles 16-23 and 37 (Document E/PC/T/142) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 4, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 04/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/142.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/142-152 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fv732cz5590 | fv732cz5590_92290172.xml | GATT_153 | 126 | 808 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/142.Corr.1
4 August 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to
37
Draft Charter - Articles 16-23 and
(Document E/PC/T/142)
Footnote on Page 14 refers to Paragraph 3 of
Article 19 and should be read as footnote to Page 15.
DEUNIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L' EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
Corrigendum au Projet de Charte - Articles 16-23
37 (Document E/PC/T/142)
et
La note figurant au bas de la page 14 se rapporte
au paragraphe 3 de l'article 19 et doit, en conséquence,
être considérée comme répendant de la page 15.
NATIONS UNIES |
GATT Library | hq944rd7538 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Draft of Final Act (E/PC/T/W/315) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, September 2, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 02/09/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/315.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/W/307-344 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hq944rd7538 | hq944rd7538_90050468.xml | GATT_153 | 184 | 1,582 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/W/315.Corr.1
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 2 September 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Corrigendum to Draft of Final Act (E/PC/T/W/315)
The second page of the above document should read as follows::
N FAITH WHEROF, the Representatives of the above a
ollows:lisional application of the Agreement,
ptember, one
Athousand nine hundred and forty-seveny irit6 Force".
wealth of Australia .....................raph 1 and re-
.............................hs accordingly
lands ...........................ar thïs date,
...................................il June .O, 19at the
s of Brazil..........................New
Canada.................................he i1 Act
epublic of Chile .............................on of the
epublic of China ...................................rence
he Republic of Cuba ................................this
the Czechoslovak Repub
Amend the present paragraph 1 as fFor the F
". 7 5, This Agreement shall enter fdrinitiveix7
into force, a mnth govrrnents acca ttingF LEbenon
the thirtieth day followring the daFor New Zealand ........
of acceptance have been deposiFor the Kingdom of Norway
General of the Unitod Nations onFor Pakisn ........
governments the territFor Syria ..................
of the total trade For the Union of South Africa ........ |
GATT Library | qp828cp5918 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to (E/PC/T/A/PV/21) Twenty-First Meeting of Commission A | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 12, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 12/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/PV/21.Corr.3 and E/PC/T/A/PV.20-22 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/qp828cp5918 | qp828cp5918_90240131.xml | GATT_153 | 211 | 1,370 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/A/PV/2 1. Corr. 3
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 12 July 1947
AND ECONOMIQU E ENGLISH ONLY
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to (E/PC/T/A/PV/21) Twenty-First
Meeting of Commission A
The following corrections should be made to the remarks of the
Delegate of China:
Page 3
4th Line
That is the first point I want to make clear.
Para 2, 6th Line:
...... .to serve as the basis of autarky economy;
Para 2, 11th Line:
...... .inter-Governmental arrangements. In case of a
world surplus ......
Page 21
5th Line:
Also, there may be some business secret about the commodity
which the country is going to protect and if there is a leakage
of this business secret there will be a sudden disturbance in the
market that will defeat the very object which the country is
going to protect.
15th Line:
...... .can go on as consistent provisions, without any
20th Line:
...... .but will be merely a mirage.
Page 39
Last paragraph but one: Mr. TUNG (China):
The Chinese proposal relating to the deletion of certain
principles in Article 27 para. 4; is a .... ..... that I wish
that deletion to be discussed . |
GATT Library | kd316mq7000 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Note by the Brazilian Delegation on the adjustment of the Brazilian customs tariff (document E/PC/T/151) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 6, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 06/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/151.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/142-152 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kd316mq7000 | kd316mq7000_92290187.xml | GATT_153 | 257 | 1,528 | UNITED NATIONSi'N
1OMICtV\
A N D
SOCIAL COINCWL
COILE H .
NCOIQUEiQI
LT SOCIAL
TFISoECTFD
E/PC 'T/151.Corr.1.
6gAu:ust 1947.
EISH J!LYNTY
ECOOND SESSIOF CH TPE PREFARATORYMMITTEE OOTEF THE
TED UNATIaDTNS N0'FEREiCEN nOrTADE AND -M'LMY1INT.
Qcrgi4enmui to Note by thBrazilian Ddeegar.tion on the adjust-
rnnt ot Ihe Brazilian cusmors tarffs document E/PC/T/151).
Pag4 o cf tha 'bovmentioned docucument should beerrplaced
by thfollowing:g: -
ME EXAMPLES OF THE EFFECT OF CURRENCY DEPRECTATI
E.1L CUSML'Ot TA2TOMS TARIFF AND OF THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SAM
T ARIEF TARIFF
DESCRIPTION 1934 . U.S.S
(bLREMs
OR CRU-
ZETROS)
TARIFF P-
'\AR! THFU
AD 7S 3: JME
(CRUEI R0ZEIR
THE 'AR TFF
U.S.e A$JUSTMENT U.S.9
( .ON THE
SIS 0COFS
( CRZIRoUZEIRO
5tJ Lea ther
shocs Etc.
(Pair)
No 86 Preserved
No 98 Condensed
riMm (kg.)
No 107 Cheesc (kg.)
No 267 CLFalgares
(kg.)
.½8No 286 Olive il
9(ig*)
N'o291 Charmpagn
(kg .
No 410% CCton
SSnocking
No 631 Ornaments
(kg. )
No 739 Farcy, goods,
etc.(copper)
(kg)
No 576 GoId watches
(one )
29.12 2t_0 i 29,10
8.32 0.66 8,30
3.12 Q 25; 3 . 0
6.294 0o.9 6 .20
6.24~~~~~~~~~;
60. 84 4 . 8o 6o. 80
2.08 0'16 2,10
6. 2L4 O 6,20
2 08 o .6 2.10
62.1iC0 c, 62. +o
2.h 4° 4. 91 62.4.0
2-L, 2.-i 21- e-..Q,
40,80
il 61
2.18
c,62
4,34.
8.68
85.30
1,
4St
0.1,:
"Il
,ii
O 11,
o l .1.
_.
2,94
3.68
2.98
G-82. 20
o. 16
o. '+6
0.16
4.68
32, 20
_ . . S _
- S! E5S |
GATT Library | nv375st8224 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Note by the Secretariat on the Editing of the Text of the Draft Charter (E/PC/T/106) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 25, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 25/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/106.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/106-124 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nv375st8224 | nv375st8224_92290127.xml | GATT_153 | 69 | 458 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
UNRESTRICTED.
E/PC/T/106.Corr .1.
25 June 1947.
ENGLISH ONLY
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to Note bv the Secretariat on the Editing
of the Text of the Draft Charter (E/PC/T/106)
In paragraph 3, fourth line, the number of the
, Chapter should be III and not VI. |
GATT Library | vs834vc6598 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Note of the Cuban Delegation | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 22, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 22/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/184.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/180-186 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/vs834vc6598 | vs834vc6598_92290238.xml | GATT_153 | 0 | 0 | |
GATT Library | nf889ph6729 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Note of the Cuban Delegation | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 22, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 22/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/184.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/180-186 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/nf889ph6729 | nf889ph6729_92290238.xml | GATT_153 | 99 | 682 | United Nations
ECONOMIC
AND
Nations Unies
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE RESTRICTED
1iw * T
SOCIAL COUNCIL E/PC/T/184.Corr.I
SOCIAL COUNCIL 22 August 1947.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to Note of the Cuban Delegation
Page 3, line 1 substitute for "May 22, 1943'"
"May 22, 1934".
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE
DE LA CONFEFRENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
Corrigendum a la Note de la délégation de Cuba
A la promiére ligne do la page , remplacer "22 mai 1943"
par "22 mai 1934' . |
GATT Library | kc892tg0016 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Report (E/PC/T/180) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 20, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 20/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/180. Corr 4 and E/PC/T/180-186 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/kc892tg0016 | kc892tg0016_92290229.xml | GATT_153 | 512 | 3,308 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC CONSEIL RESTRICTED
AND ECONOMIQUE E/PC/T/18o, Corr 4*
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL 20 August, 1947
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to Report (E/PC/T/180)
Page (ii) of the Introduction -
The last 3 sentences beginning with the words
"Invitations to attend the Conference .
and ending with the words" . . . represented at
the Conference" should be deleted.
Page (iii) of the Introduction -
In the 3rd paragraph on that page the sentence
beginning "lt was felt ..." and ending" ... at
the Second Sessïon" should be deleted and replaced
by the following sentence:
"It was felt by the Preparatory Committee that
the observation presented in Part 11 of the
Report of the First Session represented a
general statement of the guiding principles
which have been followed and developed in the
work of the First Session, the Drafting Com-
mittee and the Second Session."
Page (iv) of the Introduction -
The word "which'' should be substituted for the
word "who" before the word "account" in the
clause given in parentheses.
In footnote number (2) the words "Economic Union"
should be added after "Belgium-Luxemburg."
Page (x)
The title of Chapter VIl should be changed from
"ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS" to "THE INTERNATIONAL
TRADE ORGANIZATION."
Page (xi)
In the title of Chapter Vlll the word "SETTLEMENTS"
should be replaced by the word "SETTLEMENT".
Page 25 - Following the words "CHAPTER IV" inserted by the
previous corrigendum, the following title of the
chapter should be added:
"COMMRCIAL POLICY"
Page 27 - (which as indicated in Corr.1, should follow page 134).
A footnote should be added to the following effect:
"The Brazilian Delegation has recorded a
reservation on Article 23, Paragraph 5(b).
* Corrig 2 & 3 were in French only.
P.T.O.
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/180.Corr 4
Page 2.
Page 38 - The following footnote should be added:
"The Belgian Delegation has reserved its
position on Article 21 pending examination
of the Charter as a whole by the Belgian
Government."
Page 48- The following footnote should be added:
"The Belgian Delegation has reserved its
position on Article 23 pending examination
of the Charter as a whole by the Belgian
Government."
Page 53 - The following footnote should be added:
"The Belgian Delegation has reserved its
position on Article 24 pending examination
of the Charter as a whole by the Belgian
Government."
Page 64 - In the footnote relating to sub-paragraph 1(a)
the following sentence should be added after the
words "exclusive or special privileges."
"The Belgian Delegation reserved its position
on the text of this note."
Page 78 - In the 3rd paragraph of the note relating to
Paragraph 3 the word "discount" should read
"discounts."
In the 4th paragraph of the footnote relating to
Paragraph 3, the word "duty" should be added after
the word "assess."
Page 98 - The footnote relating to Paragraph 11 should be
revised to read:
"The Norwegian Delegation, referring to sub-
paragraph (b), stated that provisions relating
to permanent price regulation ought to be in-
cluded in the Charter. |
GATT Library | ds057pt0706 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Report from the International Chamber of Commerce (Document E/PC/T/44) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, April 21, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 21/04/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/44/Corr.1 and E/PC/T/44-66 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/ds057pt0706 | ds057pt0706_92290049.xml | GATT_153 | 72 | 571 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
UNRESTRICTED
E/PC/T/44/Corr.1
April 21st, 1947
English only
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
CORRIGENDUM TO
REPORT FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
(DOCUMENT E/PC/T/44)
Page 16: Footnote to read:
x) Article 10 of the London Draft.
Page 23: Section A: General Commercial.Provisions -
Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
add:
"Article 14: General Most-Favoured-Nation
Treatment" |
GATT Library | fj366xw4832 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Report of Committee on Voting and Membership of the Executive Board (Document E/PC/T/143) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 4, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 04/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/143.Corr.2 and E/PC/T/142-152 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/fj366xw4832 | fj366xw4832_92290175.xml | GATT_153 | 128 | 861 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
E/PC/T/143. Corr.2
4 August, 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Corrigendum to Report of Committee
on Voting and Membership of the Executive
Board
(Document E/PC/T/143)
The first word of paragraph 6 (b) on page 5 of Document
E/PC/T/143 should be "seven" instead of "eight."
_________
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE --
DE LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI
DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
Corrigendum au rapport du Comité chargé d'étudier
la question du vote et la composition du Comité
exécutif
(Document E/PC/T/143)
Le premier mot du paragraphe 6 (b), page 6, du document
E/PC/T/143 doit être "sept" au lieu de "huit".
NATIONS UNIES
RESTRICTED |
GATT Library | yk054sm8644 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Report of Committee on Voting and Membership of the Executive Board (Document S/PC/T/143) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, August 2, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 02/08/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/143 Corr. 1 and E/PC/T/142-152 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/yk054sm8644 | yk054sm8644_92290174.xml | GATT_153 | 104 | 687 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/143 Corr. 1
2 August 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EXPLOYMENT
CORRIGENDUM TO REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON
VOTING AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
(Document S/PC/T/143)
1. On page 10 paragraph 2 should read:
"2. "Ljght" Weighted Voting.
in Attachment A."
See the plan set forth
2. Sub-paragraph III(b) on page 7 should read:
"(b) The representatives of Canada and the United
Kingdom favoured a system of "light" weighted voting as
set out in Attachment A to this Report." |
GATT Library | pw284xb7293 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Report of Tariff Negotiations Working Party | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 25, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 25/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/133.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/124-135 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/pw284xb7293 | pw284xb7293_92290160.xml | GATT_153 | 99 | 721 | UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATIONS UNIES
CONSEIL
UNRESTRICTED
E/PC/T/133.Corr.1
25 July 1947
ECONOMIQUE ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
CORRIGENDUM TO REPORT OF TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS WORKING
PARTY
This Report should read: "ELEVENTH REPORT OF
TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS WORKING PARTY".
DEUXIEME SESSION DE LA COMMISSION PREPARATOIRE DE
LA CONFERENCE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'EMPLOI DE
L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES
CORRIGENDUM AU RAPPORT DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL DES
NEGOCIATIONS TARIFAIRES
Le titre de ce Rapport est le suivant: "ONZIEME
RAPPORT DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL DES NEGOCIATIONS
TARIFAIRES". |
GATT Library | wf612zr0333 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Seventeenth Meeting of Commission A (Document E/PC/T/A/PV/17) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 27, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 27/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/PV/17.Corr.2 and E/PC/T/A/PV.15/CORR.1-17/CORR.4 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/wf612zr0333 | wf612zr0333_90240116.xml | GATT_153 | 1,077 | 6,553 | IONS UNIES UNITED RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/PV/17.Corr.2
AND ECONOMIQUE 27 June 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL ENGLISH ONLY
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
Corrigendum to Seventeenth Meeting of Commission A
(Document E/PC/T/A/PV/17)
The following should be substituted for the remarks made
by the Delegate from Australia:
Mr. McCARTHY (Australia): Mr. Chairman, the problem one finds
in examining this particular Article or Section is the
endeavour to introduce something which will take the place of
the negotiations on tariffs in the one case, and the
quantitative restrictions in the other; and we feel that in
Article 32 the best that can be done pretty well has been
done. We can see that in certain transactions it will be
possible to negotiate margins, that is, margins between the
landed cost of the imported goods and the price at which they
are distributed - the values at which they are distributed
relative to the values of the home-produced goods; but in
others it will be extremely difficult, and the more detail
you put in, and the more criteria you endeavour to set down,
we think the greater difficulty you will have in getting a
result.
NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS E/PC/T/A/PV/17 Corr. 2
page 2
I think it is quite conceivable, in the case of wheat,
for instance, or sugar, or butter, that a long-term contract
between sellers, or a seller and a State trader importing, could
be negotiated pretty thoroughly, even though the mixing of the
home produced product with the imported product is quite exten-
sive. There you have got a standardized product and it will
be possible to trace the margins, identify them, and then
possibly negotiate them; but there are other products which
after landing go through various processes and where the actual
capacity to compare those products with the competitive products
within the country is extremely difficult.
Meat, I believe, would be quite difficult; because you
have got different classes, you have got the different processes,
and some form of comparison between the stages which the meat
goes through between the imported product and the home product,
or the comparison of such processes with other processes, would
be extremely difficult. We therefore rather take the view that
Article 32 should. stand with certain amendments which would be
on the lines of making clear the objectives.
If it is stated clearly what it is desired to do, to
actually replace any other protective measures that stand in
the case of a private transaction by such an examination as will
enable the margins of difference to be negotiated, then I think
it will be found, according to the different products, that a
quite different process of examination will be imposed, and you
will be in the position of doing the best you can. E/PC/T/A/PV/17. Corr. 2.
Page 3.
Now the suggestion of Mr. Shackle and Mr. Deutsch - the
comparison of the imported price with that of the home produced
article - would be, I think quite applicable in some cases.
In others, it would be found difficult.
Also, the other point mentioned, that of, I think, the
prices at which the product is re-sold to the home consumer,
would in some cases be easy and in other cases difficult.
The next other point we wish to mention is the suggestion
by the American Delegation; the total quantity of a commodity
which the Member maintaining a monopoly shall agree to import
from all sources. We find difficulty in seeing the point in
that, and in seeing that it would be of any great value, unless
you have a complete arrangement based on quotas.
The interest of a country selling to an importer would be
in the quantity which he wishes to sell himself, if he were
dealing in quantities. If he were able to sell all that he had
to sell, he would not be very interested in the total imports of
that country. If, however, the importing country said - "Well,
we cannot take any more from you than for example a hundred
thousand units because of our requirements, or the quantities
that we want to take from somebody else, the seller would then
be interested in saying, "But what are your total imports?".
The next .point would be, having arrived at that, what has
happened to the balance; and the balance would be what sold by
other countries. So there I think you would depart entirely
from the bilateral element in the transactions visualised in
this, and go into the multilateral field. E/PC/T/A/PV/17. Corr. 2
page.4.
That takes you to the Netherlands idea of employing the
provisions of Chapter VII. There, I think, you are undertaking
something which would have to be very carefully worked out.
Chapter VII, as it stands now, would, to my mind, hamper very
much the activities of state traders; so much so, that I think
it would be found that they would either have to depart from
their state trading or declare their inability to meet the
conditions of Chapter VII. It does not follow at all that there
is not something in it. In fect, the negotiations which
recently took place on wheat indicate how far state trading
can be introduced into a Chapter VII agreement, but, without
going into the details of the wheat proposals it would take a
long time.
I think it can be said that wheat is an exceptional case.
It is exceptional in its susceptibility to an international
arrangement, and in the fact that, at the present time,
importers are more eager than they normally are to commit
themselves well ahead; but the arrangement which was recently
discussed and carried well forward in draft form would really
amount to a multilateral state trading transaction. However,
the detail that was covered in those negotiations indicates
that it would not be practicable to cover many state trading
transactions by a multilateral agreement under Chapter VII.
Our conclusion, then, would be that this suggestion
which is in the American proposal to negotiate totals does
involve rather closely the negotiation of quotas over a number
of countries, and that could not be done except by a detailed
multilateral negotiation, which we think is not contemplated
under this Chapter and would not be practicable. If it were
introduced into Chapter VII, then Chapter VII would have to be
amended to remove or adjust some of the conditions already
laid down. |
GATT Library | jp876gr0379 | Second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to suggested redraft of paragraph 2 of Article 14 and annexure a with suggested new paragraph 3 for Article 14 (Document E/PC/T/W/183) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 13, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 13/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/W/183 Corr.2 and E/PC/T/W/177-207 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/jp876gr0379 | jp876gr0379_90050326.xml | GATT_153 | 84 | 598 | UNITED NATIONS
.
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL
NATlONS UNIES
CONSEIL
ECONOMIQUE
ET SOCIAL
RESTRICTED
E/PC/T/W/183 Corr.2
13 June 1947
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
CORRIGENDUM TO SUGGESTED REDRAFT OF PARAGRAPH 2
OF ARTICLE 14 AND ANNEXURE A WITH SUGGESTED
NEW PARAGRAPH 3 for ARTICLE 14
(DOCUMENT E/PC/T/W/183)
Page 2:
"Dependent territories of the United Kingdom
and Northern Ireland" should read:
"Dependent Territories of' the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern, Ireland". |
GATT Library | hy739gt0329 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Summary of 21st Meeting of Commission A held on 30th June 1947 at 2.30 p.m | United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 7, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 07/07/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/21.Corr.3 and E/PC/T/A/SR/21/CORR.1-40(1)/CORR.1 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/hy739gt0329 | hy739gt0329_90250040.xml | GATT_153 | 138 | 1,020 | UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES RESTRICTED
ECONOMI C C ON S E I L E/PC/T/A/SR/21.Corr.3
ECONOMIC CONSEIL 7 July, 1947
AND ECONOMIQU E Original: English
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Corrigendum
to
Summary of 21st Meeting of Commission A
held on 30th June 1947 at 2.30 p.m.
The 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph on page 4
is changed as follows:
"The Delegate of the NETHERLANDS expressed his
approval of the UNITED STATES amendment, pointing
to the fact that the information on sources of
supply was intended as confidential information
from Government to Government; the Delegate of
NORWAY objected to this amendment and the Delegate
of the UNITED KINGDOM aligned himself with the
observations of the Norwegian Delegate." E/PC/T/A/SR/22
E/PC/T/A/SR/23
N'existe pas.
Does not exist. |
GATT Library | zn628qk1086 | Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment : Corrigendum to Summary Record of Eighthenth Meeting of Commission A (E/PC/T/A/SR/18) | United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 28, 1947 | United Nations. Economic and Social Council | 28/06/1947 | official documents | E/PC/T/A/SR/18.Corr.1 and E/PC/T/A/SR/10/CORR.2-21 | https://exhibits.stanford.edu/gatt/catalog/zn628qk1086 | zn628qk1086_90250033.xml | GATT_153 | 410 | 2,753 | RESTRICTED
ECONOMIC CONSEIL E/PC/T/A/SR/l8.Corr.1.
AND ECONOMIQUE 28 Tune 1947
SOCIAL COUNCIL ET SOCIAL. ORIGINAL : ENGLISH.
SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT.
Corrigendum to Summary Record of Eighthenth Meeting
of Commission A (E/PC/T/A/SR/18)
The following corrections should be made in the
remarks by Dr. COOMBS (Australia):
Page 2:
The following two paragraphs should be substituted
for the second and third paragraphs of the remarks made by
Dr. Coombs:
"There was, however, a further requirement
for expanding world trade - increasing inter-
national specialization. If countries were to
be able to concentrate fully on international
specialization, they may have to develop their
industrial structure by protection, but it was
possible that an unwise interpretation of the
protective element in economic policy would lead
to a contraction of world trade and would handicap
specialization in the production of goods between
countries. Provisions were made in London to
enable a country which wished to develop its
national resources without resorting to an
increase of its foreign indebtedness to protect
itself against recurring exchange difficulties.
It would, therefore, be unfair to say that the
London Conference did not attempt to meet the
circumstances of economies of the type of New Zealand.
P.T.O.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES E/PC/T/A/SR/18. Corr. 1
page 2.
"The essence of the speech of the New Zealand
Delegate was that countries which so desired should
have the right to plan international trade as an
end in itself, not merely when it became necessary
as a consequence of their domestic economic and social
policy. A country adopting a policy of planning its
international trade had an obligation to see that its
planning was consistent wise the, general purposes of
the Charter and with the interests of other countries,
and not to attempt to obtain privileges which were
denied to other people."
Page 3
3rd Paragraph, 12th line : The following text should
take the place of the last part of this paragraph beginning with
a new sentence in the middle of the page
".... The nature of those obligations should be
determined in discussions of those parts of the
Charter which dealt with the parallel obligations
of other countries; for instance, a decision as to
the use of quantitative restrictions for protective
purposes should be reached in discussions on Article 25
and the decision applied to Articles which dealt with
other types of economies. He was sure that the New
Zealand Delegation........... " |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.