cided that five technical committees should be set up to consider the detailed provisions of the proposed convention and that their final conclusions should be then dealt with by a drafting committee. A committee of heads of delegations would meet when necessary on matters of policy not required to be handled by a plenary session. Each committee was to have the authority of electing its own chairman and vice chairman. The committees with their chairmen and secretaries were as follows: Construction Committee Chairman: Karl Hjalmar Sjöholm (Sweden) Vice Chairman: H. V. Anderson (Canada) Secretaries: A. R. Hiscock and S. A. Hodges (United Kingdom) Lifesaving Appliances Committee Chairman: Ove Neilsen (Denmark) Vice Chairman: P. S. van't Haaff (Netherlands) Secretary: C. W. Wood (United Kingdom) Radio Committee Chairman: Edward M. Webster (United States) Vice Chairman: Col. A. H. Read (United Kingdom) Secretary: F. G. Pope (United Kingdom) Safety of Navigation Committee Chairman: G. Anduze-Faris (France) Vice Chairman: V. Kushnarev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) General Provisions Committee Chairman: N. A. Guttery (United Kingdom) The delegates to the Conference were asked to designate members of their delegations to serve upon the Conference committees. The United States Delegation was assigned as follows, the first named being, in each case, the spokesman for the United States Delegation: Upon the completion of the organization of the technical committees, those committees undertook the study of the proposals which had been submitted for the revision of the convention. As the several technical committees completed their work, their reports were submitted to a plenary session and as approved or amended by that session were then transmitted to the drafting committee for final preparation. This latter, of course, was not empowered to make any changes of substance in the reports of the technical committees. REPORTS ON THE CONFERENCE Summary The Conference concluded its work and the convention (appendix 1) and the final act (appendix 4) were signed on the evening of June 10, 1948. The two Delegates of the United States signed the convention, while the delegates, advisers, and secretaries were authorized to sign the final act. Both documents are in English and French texts of equal authenticity. The final act embraces certain resolutions, recommendations, and the proposed new rules for the prevention of collisions at sea. The convention itself consists of 15 articles. It is accompanied by six chapters of technical regulations which form an integral part of the convention. These documents are attached hereto (appendix 2) and speak for themselves. It is difficult to paraphrase or abridge them without affecting to some degree their significance. They will, however, be commented upon primarily to indicate the directions in which they differ from the 1929 Convention. The convention itself has chiefly to do with the contractual relations between the governments party to it. Throughout this convention the concept that there will come into being a permanent international maritime organization is followed. Article I contains the contract between governments to give effect to the convention by any necessary national action. Article II sets forth the ships to which the convention applies. Article III provides for an interchange of information between governments and article IV deals with cases of force majeure. In general these articles differ little from the 1929 language. The convention contains in articles V and VI provisions for deviation from its requirements in cases of emergency. Article V permits the carriage of persons, in excess of the normally approved capacity of a ship, from a territory in which their lives would be in danger. Article VI authorizes a government which is affected by a war to suspend part or all of the regulations. These two articles are intended to legitimatize practices which the contracting governments would resort to in any case. These authorized deviations do not deprive other nations of their right of control over any ships within their ports and all instances in which advantage is taken of article V or VI must be reported to IMCO. 8 Article VII abrogates the 1929 Convention as between contracting governments and follows otherwise the phraseology of article 60 of that Convention. Initially it was proposed to eliminate subsection 3 of article 60 as being superfluous. The Conference however considered that retention of this sentence would make unnecessary the first and second reservations which the United States attached to its ratification of the 1929 Convention and therefore, at the insistence of the United States Delegation, this section was retained as subsection (d) of article VII. Article IX provides for future amendments of the convention or of the regulations. In order to visualize the amendment procedure it is necessary to study also the constitution of the proposed IMCO. The assembly provided for in the Imco Convention is a meeting of representatives of the various member states, in effect an international diplomatic conference meeting at fixed intervals of two years. The IMCO Convention also provides for a maritime safety committee to study matters in the field of maritime safety. This committee is composed of representatives of 14 member states with major interests in maritime safety, of which eight must be the largest shipowning nations. All proposals for amendments, submitted by member governments, go to the Maritime Safety Committee in the first instance. The committee studies them and, if two thirds of the committee recommend their adoption, they are circulated to member governments at least six months before the next regular meeting of the assembly. If, at a regular meeting of the assembly, the amendments secure a favorable vote by at least twothirds majority, they are then referred to the member governments for acceptance in accordance with the respective constitutional procedures of such governments. Under this system any proposed amendment would have been prescreened by the Maritime Safety Committee; ample time for its study by all governments would be insured and the requirement for approval by a large majority of both the assembly and the Maritime Safety Committee would guarantee that it would be practical and desirable from the viewpoint of the maritime countries. At the same time, the biennial meetings of the assembly would offer means to adopt needed amendments without long waits as in the case of ad hoc conferences. With this machinery for keeping the regulations up-to-date by necessary amendment from time to time, no long period would elapse during which need for a sweeping revision of the regulations might arise. Consequently, it was visualized that the 1948 regulations would form a basic structure, subject only to such amendments and additions as developments provided necessary. However, if the practice of keeping the regu lations up-to-date by a series of amendments was to operate effectively, the problem of acceptance had to be solved. In the course of time there might be a number of amendments and under some circumstances each amendment might be accepted by different groups of nations. In such case safety certificates issued by some governments would not indicate full compliance with current regulations and there would be no uniformity in their significance. Article IX therefore provides that in the case of important amendments governments not accepting such amendments within a specified time shall cease to be parties to the convention. This, of course, is only parallel to the case of a nation which refuses to ratify a complete convention submitted to it. Under the terms of the 1929 Convention any revision of the convention-other than a modification which could be unanimously agreed to by correspondence—would involve the drafting of a complete new convention and its acceptance or rejection as a whole by interested governments. The 1948 Convention is an example. It abrogates the 1929 Convention as between contracting governments. Any state accepting it will presumably denounce the 1929 Convention as regards all other governments, effective when the 1948 Convention comes into force. A state which does not accept as a whole the 1948 Convention will then be unable to issue safety certificates that will have validity in the ports of states which have accepted it. The only difference between past procedure and that proposed in the 1948 Convention is that under article IX a nation might not accept a minor amendment, presumably one not materially affecting safety, and yet could issue still valid safety certificates as a party to the convention. A contracting government is obligated either to take a positive action in accepting or rejecting the amendment or, in default of such action, to have the amendment come into force with respect to it one year after the amendment has been accepted by two thirds of the contracting governments. Subject to this, no amendment can come into force with respect to a particular country except after acceptance by the government itself. No organ of IMCo has other than recommendatory power with respect to the acceptance of amendments. It will be noted that article IX differs from the 1929 provisions regarding amendments by requiring a screening by the Maritime Safety Committee of IMCO; by requiring circulation at least six months in advance of consideration; by permitting consideration only at biennial meetings of the assembly (a provision of the IMCO Convention); and by requiring 805762 O-482 |