LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1980 Vienna Diplomatic Conference

The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT PROVISIONS PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION, DECLARATIONS, RESERVATIONS AND OTHER FINAL CLAUSES AND OF THE DRAFT PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (agenda item 3) (A/CONF.97/6) (continued)

Draft Protocol to the Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods (A/CONF.97/7; A/CONF.97/C.2/L.14, L.18, L.18/Add.1, L.18/Add.2, L,21, L.26) (continued)

1. Mr. ENDERLEIN (Secretary of the Committee) said that it was clear from the vote taken at the previous meeting (A/CONF.97/C.2/SR.7) that the feeling in the Committee was that article 3, paragraph 1 of the Prescription Convention should not be left unchanged. It was proposed, therefore, that consideration of article 3, paragraph 1 should continue, the proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.21) being taken first. If that amendment was rejected, the proposal by Norway (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.14) should be voted on.

2. After the voting on those proposals, which were related to article 1(1)(b) of the draft Convention [became CISG article 1(1)(b) ], had been completed, the Committee could take up the proposed new article VIII bis on denunciation (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.18/Add.2). After that clause had been discussed and, possibly, adopted, the Committee might go on to consider the remainder of the comparisons in annex I to the Secretariat document (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.18/Add.l).

3. When the principles of the provisions of the Prescription Convention and of the Contracts Convention in regard to the scope of application and final provisions had been sufficiently discussed, the Committee could, if necessary, vote on the various proposals made in that connection.

4. Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) said he noted that the version of article 1 proposed by the Japanese delegation in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26 differed very little from his own delegation's proposal for that article and that he was ready to accept the Japanese formula.

5. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that, as he understood it, the Committee was engaged in the process of completing the vote on article 3, paragraph 1, and he did not think that that procedure should be altered by his delegation's proposal. While he agreed that the version of article 1 proposed by his delegation was virtually the same as the version proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, he felt that the whole of the Japanese proposal in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26 should be left out of consideration for the time being.

6. The Secretary had suggested an order of voting that differed slightly from the procedure that had, in his view, been agreed upon at the previous meeting. It had then been agreed that the Norwegian proposal and the proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany were more or less identical in substance. Separate votes on the two proposals might thus produce some strange results. He thought it could be assumed that, if the proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany was adopted, the Norwegian proposal would be withdrawn.

7. Mr. SAM (Ghana) asked the representative of Norway if he agreed that his delegation's proposal was identical in substance with that of the Federal Republic of Germany, so that if the latter was adopted there would be no need to vote on the Norwegian proposal.

8. Mr. STENERSEN (Norway) said that the differences between his delegation's proposal and that of the Federal Republic of Germany were matters of drafting only and that their substance was, in fact, the same.

9. Mr. ROSENBERG (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that, before a vote was taken on article 3, paragraph 1, he would like to point out that the Committee was required by its terms of reference to harmonize the provisions of the Prescription Convention and of the Contracts Convention in regard to the scope of application and the final clauses. Article 1, subparagraph (1)(b) of the draft Contracts Convention [became CISG article 1(1)(b) ] as approved by the First Committee stated that the Convention should apply "when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State". The proposal of the Federal Republic of Germany went further, however, and stated that the Convention should apply if the rules of private international law made the law of a Contracting State applicable to the contract of sale.

10. Although that was an interesting proposal, he wondered if the Second Committee was within its mandate in voting on what was virtually an amendment to the provisions of article 1 as approved by the First Committee. By being more specific, the proposed wording extended the scope of the subparagraph too far and put it out of harmony with the Prescription Convention.

11. Mr. SONO (Japan), speaking on a point of procedure, said that the Committee was actually engaged in voting. Nevertheless, it was important that an anxiety such as the representative of the USSR clearly felt should be given expression. There had been little support voiced at the previous meeting for paragraph 1(b) of article 1 of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 1(1)(b) ]. He called again for the completion of the vote on article 3, paragraph 1.

12. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany that article 1 of the Protocol, as reproduced in document A/CONF.97/7, be replaced by the text in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.21.

13. The proposal in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.21 was approved by 10 votes to 7, with 3 abstentions.

14. The CHAIRMAN said that any proposals not in keeping with the amendment by the Federal Republic of Germany would thus seem to have been rejected. If there was no objection therefore, he would assume that the Committee did not wish to vote on them explicitly but to proceed to the new draft article on denunciation A/CONF.97/C.2/L.18/Add.2).

15. It was so agreed.

16. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to consider the proposal put forward by the Secretary-General in response to the request it had made at its previous meeting (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.18/Add.2).

17. Miss O'FLYNN (United Kingdom) said that, as had been pointed out at the previous meeting, it was not clear whether Contracting States would be able to denounce the Protocol because there was no specific provision to that effect. The Secretary-General's proposal for a new article VIII bis would fill that gap.

18. The situation provided for in paragraph 3 of the proposed new article was unlikely to arise very often but, if it did, the paragraph would offer a satisfactory solution.

19. As for the more usual situations dealt with in paragraphs 1 and 2, she wondered what the position would be if a State denounced the 1974 Convention but not the Protocol. Denunciation of the main instrument would normally be taken as a denunciation of the Protocol, since adhesion to the Protocol without the Convention would be meaningless, but it was not altogether clear from the text. She wondered whether a provision should be included to the effect that denunciation of the Convention was to be taken as denunciation of the Protocol also.

20. Mr. ROMAN (Assistant-Secretary of the Committee) said that there was no specific provision in the draft Protocol to meet the case mentioned by the representative of the United Kingdom because the Protocol was an amending instrument that referred only to certain specific provisions of the Convention. If the Convention itself was denounced, the Protocol would be unable to stand alone and would therefore cease to exist.

21. Miss O'FLYNN (United Kingdom) said she agreed that the Protocol was clearly subsidiary to the main instrument, and, of course, no State would adhere to the Protocol only.

22. Mr. SAMI (Iraq) said he wondered whether it might not be necessary to provide for a partial denunciation of the Convention. A State might find that its jurisdiction changed after it had ratified the Convention, and that it had become unable to apply some provisions to which it had not initially objected.

23. Mr. VIS (Executive Secretary) said that there was no provision to that effect in the current text and he knew of no case in which provision was made for the partial denunciation of an agreement. If such a provision were made, it would mean in effect that, although the Convention set forth what reservations were allowed in regard to certain subjects, the door would be opened to make reservations indirectly as well as those that were expressly permitted.

24. Mr. ROMAN (Assistant-Secretary of the Committee) said that there were some instances in ILO Conventions of provisions for partial denunciation. What was before the Committee, however, was a draft Protocol to amend the Prescription Convention. The introduction of a provision making it possible to denounce parts of the Protocol would be tantamount to permitting reservations after the ratification of an instrument. That was not a problem which came within the framework of the document under discussion.

25. Mr. SAMI (Iraq) said that, if provision was made for partial denunciation, it would not be necessary for a State to enter new reservations.

26. The CHAIRMAN said that the Protocol referred to the Prescription Convention which, unlike the draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, made no provision for partial ratification or acceptance. The Protocol for the Prescription Convention could not therefore include any provision for partial denunciation. He invited the Committee to vote on the new article VIII bis proposed by the Secretary-General (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.18/Add.2) as a whole.

27. Article VIII bis of the draft Protocol was approved by 15 votes to none, with 6 abstentions.

28. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to continue its consideration of the tabular comparison of the provisions of the Prescription Convention and of the Contracts Convention, in annex I to document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.18/Add.l. He asked for comments on article 4 of the Prescription Convention and on the corresponding article of the draft Convention, namely article 2 [became CISG article 2 ].

29. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that subparagraphs (a) and (e) of article 4 of the Prescription Convention should be brought into line with paragraphs (a) and (e) of article 2 of the draft Convention [became CISG article 2 ].

30. Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) said he wished to make it quite clear that the adoption of his delegation's proposal in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.21 meant that it had been decided to delete paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Prescription Convention and to make the former paragraph 3 of that article, paragraph 2. He took it that the former paragraph 3 had been adopted without change. He wished to clarify that point because, in the Statement by the Secretary-General (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.18/Add.l), there was a note to paragraph 3 of article 3 saying that there was no substantial difference between it and article 5 of the draft Convention [became CISG article 6 ]. That note was not entirely correct, because the word "expressly", which did not appear in the new Convention, should be retained in what had become paragraph 2 of article 3.

31. In regard to article 4 of the Prescription Convention, he supported the Japanese proposal that paragraphs (a) and (e) should be brought into line with the corresponding paragraphs of the draft Convention.

32. Mr. ROSENBERG (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said he agreed with the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany that there were specific differences between the former paragraph 3 of article 3 of the Prescription Convention and the terms of article 5 of the draft Convention [became CISG article 6 ]. The Prescription Convention envisaged the possibility of excluding all the provisions of the Convention in respect of both parties. The new draft Convention provided for the exclusion of the application of the whole Convention and also made it possible to derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provisions. That, of course, was not possible under the Prescription Convention.

33. Miss O'FLYNN (United Kingdom) said that her delegation too supported the Japanese proposal. She also wished to endorse fully the views expressed by the representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the Soviet Union with regard to article 3 of the Prescription Convention. In her delegation's view, there were substantial differences between paragraph 3 of article 3 of the Prescription Convention and article 5 of the draft Convention [became CISG article 6 ], but nothing should be done to bring the Prescription Convention into line with the provisions of article 5 of the draft Convention [became CISG article 6 ].

34. Mr. TARKO (Austria) also supported the Japanese proposal.

35. Mr. SAMI (Iraq) said he thought it would be difficult for the Committee to decide which of the two texts was to be preferred unless the text used for the draft Convention included the amendments approved by the First Committee and any changes made by the Drafting Committee.

36. Mr. SONO (Japan) reminded the members of the Committee that they were engaged in discussing the principles of the articles in the annex to the Statement by the Secretary-General. Since the question was solely one of substance, the Committee could proceed with its discussion of each of the articles regardless of the exact wording.

37. Mr. ENDERLEIN (Secretary of the Committee) said he could assure the Committee that the tabular comparison in annex I was based on the latest version of the draft Convention, received from the Drafting Committee after its consideration of articles 1 to 9, as approved by the First Committee.

38. The task of the Committee was to determine whether the differences between the provisions of the two Conventions were important enough to justify amending the Prescription Convention. The Committee had already decided that the Prescription Convention should be amended and, once it had determined in principle what amendments were necessary, it would then be able to decide precisely how the draft Protocol should be amended. That would be the point at which the Japanese proposal in A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26 became relevant to the discussion.

39. Mr. STENERSEN (Norway) said that the amendment to article 4 contained in the document submitted by his delegation (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.14, article II) was based on the old text of the draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. As that text had since been changed by the Drafting Committee, he wished to withdraw the proposal concerning article 4 and endorsed the proposal submitted by the delegation of Japan (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26).

40. After a brief discussion in which Mr. SONO (Japan) and Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) took part, the CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to vote on the substance of the Japanese proposal relating to article 4 (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26, article II).

41. The proposal was adopted by 18 votes to none, with 3 abstentions.

42. Mr. STENERSEN (Norway) drew attention to the amendment to article 6 contained in his delegation's proposal (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.14, article III),

43. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that he was opposed to the Norwegian amendment. The Committee had agreed to avoid changing the text of the Prescription Convention wherever possible. In his view, the result achieved would be the same without the Norwegian amendment.

44. Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) said that it was his understanding also that the Committee had agreed not to amend the Prescription Convention if no substantial difference was involved.

45. Miss O'FLYNN (United Kingdom) pointed out that, while many delegations had expressed disagreement with the Secretariat's notes to the effect that there was no substantial difference between certain provisions of the Prescription Convention and those of the Contracts Convention, particularly with regard to article 3 of the Prescription Convention, they did not necessarily, however, wish the Prescription Convention to be brought into line with the Contracts Convention.

46. Mr. STENERSEN (Norway) withdrew his delegation's amendment to article 6.

47. After further discussion in which Mr. TARKO (Austria), Mr. ROSENBERG (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Mr. SAM (Ghana), Mr. SHORE (Canada) and Mr. SONO (Japan) took part, the CHAIRMAN invited the Committee, in the absence of any proposal to amend article 6, to proceed to the consideration of article 7.

Article 7

48. Mr. STENERSEN (Norway) said he noted the absence of support for his delegation's proposal to amend article 7 (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.14, article IV) and thus withdrew it.

49. Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) proposed that the reference to good faith in international trade, contained in article 6(1) of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 7(1) ], and the provision concerning the manner of settling matters not expressly settled in the Contracts Convention, contained in article 6(2), should be incorporated in article 7 of the Prescription Convention.

50. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that he strongly opposed that proposal. The Prescription Convention was a technical document which had nothing whatever to do with the general principles governing the relationship between buyer and seller, in the context of which the concept of good faith in international trade was quite irrelevant. In that connection, he welcomed the Norwegian representative's decision to withdraw his amendment to article 7, the text of which should remain unchanged.

The meeting was suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.50 p.m.

51. Mr. SAM (Ghana) said he agreed with the representative of Japan that, like the other general principles, the principle of good faith in international trade was not germane to the rules set forth in the Prescription Convention.

52. Miss O'FLYNN (United Kingdom) said she endorsed the proposal made by the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Committee had an opportunity to bring article 7 of the Prescription Convention into line with the text of the Contracts Convention, and failure to do so might be interpreted as a deliberate choice. The concept of good faith referred to in article 6(1) of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 7(1) ] was perhaps less relevant to the Prescription Convention, but it was not entirely irrelevant. Similarly, she was unable to agree with the Japanese representative that the reference to general principles contained in article 6(2) of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 7(2) ] was unnecessary in the context of the Prescription Convention.

53. Mr. WAGNER (German Democratic Republic) said that he fully agreed with the Japanese representative and opposed the proposal made by the Federal Republic of Germany.

54. The proposal was rejected by 11 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions.

Article 31

55. Mr. SONO (Japan) proposed that the text of paragraph 4 of article B of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 93 ] should be added to article 31 of the Prescription Convention.

56. Mr. STENERSEN (Norway) drew attention to document A/CONF.97/C.2/L. 19, submitted by his delegation, which contained an identical proposal in respect of article 31.

57. Mr. SAM (Ghana) and Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) endorsed the proposal by the Japanese and Norwegian representatives.

58. The proposal was adopted.

59. Mr. SONO (Japan) proposed that mutatis mutandis article 34 be replaced by article C of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 94 ] in its entirety.

60. The CHAIRMAN said that, if there was no objection, he would take it that the Committee agreed on the question of substance and that the provisions of article C would be substituted for those of article 34, subject to drafting changes.

Article 37

61. Mr. SONO (Japan) proposed that article 37 should be retained as it stood, since there was no substantive difference between it and article D of the Contracts Convention.

62. Mr. ROSENBERG (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that, while his delegation agreed with the Japanese point of view in regard to substance, there were some terminological differences. The Contracts Convention referred to "international agreements" and article 37 of the Prescription Convention to "conventions". It would be desirable to make sure that the Prescription Convention would be interpreted as applying not only to conventions but to all sorts of international agreements.

63. Mr. WAITITU (Kenya) asked why the Secretariat had felt that it might be advisable to align article 37 of the Prescription Convention with article D of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 90 ].

64. Mr. ENDERLEIN (Secretary of the Committee) pointed out that, during the discussions in the Committee, the view had been expressed that "international agreement" was sometimes considered a more generic term than "convention", which could be understood in either a narrow or a broad sense. The suggestion that "international agreement" be used was therefore an attempt to avoid any ambiguity, although the change was not imperative. If the Committee decided not to use the term "international agreement", the Secretariat would understand "conventions" as having the same meaning as the term "international agreement" in the Contracts Convention.

65. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that in view of the Secretariat's statement and the interpretation of the word "conventions" by the Soviet delegation, he assumed that the existing text could be maintained.

66. Mr. WAITITU (Kenya) said that his delegation could agree to the text as it stood but that, in view of possible different interpretations, it might be advisable to align the Conventions.

67. Mr. ROMAN (Assistant-Secretary of the Committee) said that, bearing in mind the final clauses in which reference was made to international agreements, it might be useful to harmonize the texts. In the Prescription Convention "convention" in the sense of international agreement appeared only once and it could therefore be changed quite easily.

68. Mr. MAKAREVITCH (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that, for the sake of uniformity, it might be advisable to standardize the language, since that did not appear to be a complex matter. It would entail changing "conventions" to "international agreements", the remainder of the text remaining the same.

69. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to vote on the replacement of the word "conventions" by "international agreements".

70. The proposal was adopted.

71. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that as the Committee had decided to replace article 34 by the provisions of the new article C of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 94 ] some adjustment would be necessary. He drew attention to the provisions of article H(5) of the Contracts Convention [became CISG article 97(5) ] which were not reflected in article 40, paragraph 1 of the Prescription Convention. His delegation therefore proposed that article 40, paragraph 1, be replaced by provisions such as those of article H(5) [became CISG article 97(5) ]. It was a matter of technical alignment and was referred to in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26.

72. Mr. SAM (Ghana) said that his delegation had no difficulty with the Japanese proposal and suggested that, since it was not a matter of substance, the necessary changes might be left to the Secretariat.

73. Mr. ENDERLEIN (Secretary of the Committee) said that the Secretariat agreed with the comments of the representative of Japan. After article 34 had been replaced by the substance of new article C [became CISG article 94 ], there would be a gap in the Prescription Convention since it contained no provision relating to joint or reciprocal declarations. The Japanese proposal, if approved, would remedy that situation.

74. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that the matter of principle and substance should be decided upon in the Committee. Speaking on a point of order, he proposed that the debate on annex I be closed and that the Committee proceed to the examination of formula, in regard to which his delegation wished to introduce document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26

75. Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) requested clarification on the question of joint, reciprocal and unilateral declarations covered by the proposed addition to paragraph 1 of article 40 and the period of time referred to in the proposed amendment.

76. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that the six-month period was mentioned in article 40, paragraph 1, but was not quite clear on the subject of the situation of reciprocal and unilateral declarations. The last part of article H(5) [became CISG article 97(5) ] covered such a situation and should therefore replace the existing text.

77. Mr. ENDERLEIN (Secretary of the Committee) said that in article H [became CISG article 97(5) ], which the Committee had already adopted, there was a provision that determined the moment at which declarations under article C [became CISG article 94 ]would take effect. He took it that it was the intention of the Japanese delegation to include such a sentence in article 40, even though the text as circulated in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26 did not in fact seem to be a complete repetition of article H [became CISG article 97 ]. He suggested that, if the Committee could agree on the matter of principle, the provisions in article H [became CISG article 97 ] in their entirety should be included at the end of article 40.

78. Mr. STENERSEN (Norway) said that his delegation agreed with the comments of the Japanese representative and the Secretariat.

79. Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) said that his delegation also agreed in principle that article 40, paragraph 1, should be brought into line with article H(5) [became CISG article 97(5) ].

80. The CHAIRMAN said that, if there were no objections, he would take it that the suggestion by the Secretariat that provisions such as those contained in article H [became CISG article 97 ] should be included at the end of article 40 was approved.

81. It was so decided.

82. Mr. ENDERLEIN (Secretary of the Committee), replying to a question put by Mr. NOVOSSILTSEV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), confirmed that the Secretariat would carry out the work of bringing article 40 into line with article H [became CISG article 97 ] on the assumption that some words had been unintentionally omitted in document A/CONF.97/C.2/L.26.

83. In reply to a question put by Mr. TARKO (Austria), he said that, as the Committee had already adopted proposals in connection with the Protocol, the Secretariat assumed that its proposal contained in annex II had been implicitly rejected.

84. The CHAIRMAN took it, in the absence of any objection, that the Committee agreed that such was the case.

85. It was so decided.

86. Mrs. KAMARUL (Australia), referring to article 3, paragraph 1(b) of the Prescription Convention as amended by the Protocol, said that it seemed to her delegation to be unfortunate that the benefits of the provisions of the Convention regarding cessation of the limitation period would not apply to parties that were otherwise regulated by the Convention, since article 30 would not be applicable where only one party was a Contracting State or where neither party was a Contracting State. Her delegation wondered whether the majority of the Committee shared its concern on that point, and whether the matter might not be debated further so as to decide if the word "Contracting" should be deleted from article 30 or another more appropriate amendment made to that article.

87. Mr. LANDFERMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) said that, in his delegation's view, the difficulty with regard to the sphere of application of article 3, paragraph 1(b), was not as great as it might appear. Article 30 referred to two Contracting States but they were not identical with the Contracting States under the old Prescription Convention. Thus, even if parties had their places of business in two Contracting States and the Convention was applicable, a creditor might start proceedings in a third, non-Contracting State where he would not therefore have the benefit of article 30.

88. It was true that the conditions of article 30 were not always fulfilled in every case where the Prescription Convention applied, but in the view of his delegation that did no harm. The reason for including the word "Contracting" in article 30 was that the benefit of interrupting the limitation period was to restrict legal proceedings as far as the Contracting States were concerned. Article 30 could thus remain unchanged, even with the new sphere of application.

89. Mr. ROSENBERG (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his delegation endorsed the view of the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 30 applied to States which were Contracting States and did not refer to the manner in which provisions were to be applied.

90. Mr. PIRC (Czechoslovakia), referring to the final provisions of the Protocol, said that his delegation proposed that a text be included having the same wording as that proposed by his delegation for new article C bis [became CISG article 95 ] (A/CONF.97/C.2/L.7), the word "ratification" being deleted and the word "Convention" replaced by "Protocol". The possibility of making reservations regarding the sphere of application would make both Conventions more acceptable to a greater number of countries. As some countries had specific legal systems governing the sphere of application or conclusion of agreements regarding international trade, too broad a sphere of application might be an obstacle to many countries, including his own.

91. The CHAIRMAN said that the Czechoslovak proposal would be considered later, following further discussion of the point raised by the representative of Australia.

92. Mrs. KAMARUL (Australia) said, with regard to article 30, that her delegation had no specific text to propose, other than the suggestion that the word "Contracting" might be deleted. It would like to know if the Committee was concerned about the discrepancy it had pointed out since, in that case, the matter might be referred to the Secretariat for consideration. However, if the majority did not feel any concern, her delegation was willing to withdraw its proposal.

93. Mr. SONO (Japan) said that his delegation was against debating the issue at that meeting.

94. Mr. PFUND (United States of America) said he assumed that the representative of Japan was in favour of having the issue debated in a plenary meeting, a view that his delegation supported.

95. Miss O'FLYNN (United Kingdom) said her delegation supported the Japanese view that the matter was worth considering further in a plenary meeting.

96. Mr. SAM (Ghana) said that, as he understood the matter, the Australian delegation was asking only for the views of the Committee.

97. The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the proposal that the matter be debated.

98. The proposal was rejected.

99. Mr. LI Chih-min (China) said that his Government had not taken part in the formulation of the Prescription Convention, nor had it ratified that Convention or acceded to it. Consequently, his delegation had not expressed its views during the discussion on the subject. However, his delegation was willing to take note of matters relating to the Protocol to the Prescription Convention and its relationship to the Contracts Convention and also to note the decisions taken by the Committee.

100. The CHAIRMAN confirmed that the Committee would take note of the position of the Chinese delegation.

Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law