page 150 note 1/ Preamble to be prepared by the Conference.

page 155 note 1/ It was observed that this provision might be included in a separate article

page 155 note 2/ This paragraph would be deleted if Article 3, paragraph 5, were to be retained.

page 156 note 1/ This paragraph would have to be deleted if paragraph 7 of Article 6 were not retained.

page 158 note 1/ These paragraphs would only be necessary if it were decided to adopt Alternative I of Article 8, paragraph 1.

page 163 note 1/ The appropriateness of this provision will have to be reviewed in the light of the decision taken in respect of the system of limitation of liability of the shipowner.

page 173 note * If this paragraph were not included,then presumably Article 40(5) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties could apply. Article 40(5) of the Vienna Convention reads:

Any State which becomes a party to the treaty after the entry into force of the amending agreement shall, failing an expression of a different intention by that State:

(a) be considered as a party to the treaty as amended; and

(b) be considered as a party to the unamended treaty in relation to any party to the treaty not bound by the amending agreement.

page 177 note 1/ With regard to entire articles or paragraphs which apply either only to the phased-in approach or only to the delayed denunciation system, such texts have been set side-by-side, the former on the left, the latter on the right. Provisions where the differences between the two approaches are minor, two types of brackets have been used; texts which apply to the phased-in alternative only are bracketted by single < > marks and texts which apply to the delayed-denunciation approach only are bracketted by double « » marks.

page 178 note 1/ The Committee noted the existence of persistent non-hydroc arb on mineral oils (e.g. silicones). It was suggested that, in future, the carriage by sea in bulk of such substances might become more important and that it could therefore be justified to consider extending the scope of the Protoco]. in this respect. This could be done by deleting the word “hydrocarbon”. Reference was also made to the possible relevance in this context of persistent non-mineral oils.

page 178 note 2/ It was recognized that if the definition of “oil” were to be amended to include non-persistent oils, this would have an impact on Article Vll(i) and (ii) of the Liability Convention which deal with the shipowner's obligation to maintain insurance.

page 181 note 1/ The Committee recognized that with the entry into force of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 the use of the term “unit” might no longer be appropriate since tonnage was no longer being expressed on a linear, but on a logarithmic scale. One delegation suggested that in Alternative A the matter might be solved by inserting the phrase “multiplied by the figure showing the ship's tonnage” in place of “for each unit of the ship's tonnage”. Attention was also drawn in this connection to resolution A.493(XIl) of the Assembly according to which it was no longer appropriate to use the term “tons gross tonnage”.

page 182 note 1/ If Alternative B were adopted and the constitution of the limitation fund thus were to be optional, it might be considered advisable to introduce a new Article V Bis based on the text of Article 10 of the 1976 LLMC Convention.

page 183 note 1/ Text drafted along the lines of the corresponding provisions of the 1980 Convention concerning International Transport by Rail (COTIF) (Appendix A, Article 6.3) and of the 1976 Protocol to the 1969 Liability Convention (Article II, paragraph 2).

page 183 note 2/ This reference to Article 12 of the 1984 Liability Protocol will need further consideration since it would not be appropriate to refer in the text of the Convention as amended to an Article forming part of the final clauses of the 1984 Protocol.

page 184 note 1/ Reference is made to the draft resolution on certificates prepared by the Committee, reproduced in Appendix B.

page 185 note 1/ This amendment depends on the wording of Article II

page 186 note 1/ It was noted that the provisions on becoming a Contracting State differ in the two conventions. Under the 1969 Liability Convention a State may become a Contracting State by signature without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval (Article XIIl(2)(a)), whereas under the Fund Convention the deposit of an instrument of ratification, etc. is necessary in all cases (Articles 37.2 and 3 and 38.l). The Committee considered it desirable to insert in both Protocols a provision similar to the one contained in Article 37 of the 1971 Fund Convention - according to which a signature even without a reservation does not bind the signing State but requires ratification. It was noted that such a solution had already been adopted for the 1976 Protocol to the I969 Liability Convention.

page 187 note 1/ Some delegations proposed a text which was based on the immediate denunciation system and which would constitute an alternative to either of the texts set out for paragraph 4. The provision would read as follows:

Any Contracting State to the 1969 Liability Convention which, once the conditions provided in Article 13, paragraph 1, for entry into force of this Protocol are met, has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in respect of this Protocol, shall be obliged to denounce the 1969 Liability Convention so that such denunciation takes effect on the day on which the Protocol enters into force, unless it has already denounced the 1969 Liability Convention.

page 187 note 2/ It was proposed that paragraph 4 of the phased-in approach be deleted and that an additional paragraph be inserted after Article 16, paragraph 4. (see footnote l/ on page 17.)

page 189 note 1/ In the case of the delayed denunciation system, the period specified for the entry into force should be not less than 12 months.

page 189 note 2/ The Committee recognized that it was important to select a tonnage criterion in respect of which statistical data could readily be obtained.

page 189 note 3/ Some delegations proposed a text which was based on the immediate denunciation system and which would constitute an alternative to either of the texts set out for paragraph 2. The provision would read as follows:

2. For any Contracting State to the 1971 Fund Convention, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in respect of this Protocol shall take effect only on the date on which that State has ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the 1984 Protocol to that Convention.

page 189 note 1/ Some delegations proposed a text which was based on the immediate denunciation system and which would constitute an alternative to either of the texts set out for paragraph 2. The provision would read as follows:

2. For any Contracting State to the 1971 Fund Convention, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in respect of this Protocol shall take effect only on the date on which that State has ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the 1984 Protocol to that Convention.

page 189 note 2/ In the case of the delayed denunciation system, the period specified for the entry into force should not be less than 12 months.

page 191 note 1/ It was proposed to insert the following additional paragraph in respect of the phased-in approach: < 4 bis Any Contracting State to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971 which ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Protocol but fails to deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in respect of the Protocol of 1984 to the 1971 Fund Convention with the Secretary-General of the Organization on a date not later than the date on which the denunciations provided for in paragraph 5 of Article 32 of that Protocol are required to be made shall be obliged to denounce the 1971 Fund Convention with effect from a date not later than the date on which the denunciations provided for in that paragraph take effect. Any such State which does not so denounce the 1971 Fund Convention shall be deemed to have denounced this Protocol with effect from the date mentioned above.> If this alternative were to be adopted, Article 12, paragraph 4 would have to be deleted.

page 196 note 1/ With regard to entire articles or paragraphs which apply either only to the phased-in approach or only to the delayed denunciation system, such texts have been set side-by-side, the former on the left, the latter on the right. Provisions where the differences between the two approaches are minor, two types of brackets have been used; texts which apply to the phased-in alternative only are bracketted by single < > marks and texts which apply to the delayed-denunciation approach only are bracketted by double « » marks.

page 197 note 1/ See footnote l/ to Article 2(2) of the 1984 Liability Protocol.

page 198 note 1/ If Alternative I is adopted, a new paragraph is to be inserted after paragraph 2 reading as follows:

2.bis. The fund shall administer both this Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention.

page 198 note 2/ The draft Protocol is based on the assumption that the Fund's relief function under Article 5 of the 1971 Fund Convention will be abolished. If this system of relief of the shipowner were to be maintained, the texts of Articles 2.1(b) and J.2 would have to be re-inserted.

page 198 note 3/ If Alternative II is adopted reference to “the Fund 1984” will require other amendments to the text.

page 199 note 1/ see footnote 2 on page 3

page 201 note 1/ The Committee was of the opinion that if the diplomatic conference were to adopt an article containing a simplified procedure for the up-dating of amounts, Article 4.6 of the 1971 Fund Convention should be deleted. Conversely, that provision (with suitably amended amounts) should be retained if no article on the revision of monetary amounts were to be adopted.

page 201 note 2/ The text of the Protocol has been prepared on the assumption that Article 5 will be deleted. In case it were decided to retain the Fund's indemnification function, the existing Articles 2.1(b) and 3.2 of the 1971 Fund Convention would have to be re-inserted and the amendments proposed in Articles 7.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10 and one amendment proposed in Article 23 of the draft Protocol would become redundant.

page 202 note 1/ In case it were decided to retain the system of initial contributions it could be considered whether initial contributions should be paid only by States not having already paid initial contributions under the 1971 Fund Convention. In this case it may also be considered whether the amount payable with respect to each ton of contributing oil received should be expressly laid down in the Protocol.

page 203 note 1/ If it were decided not to abolish the Executive Committee, the first sentence of Article 16 of the 1971 Fund Convention would have to be maintained in its original form and the amendments proposed in Articles 18.1, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and some of the amendments proposed in Article 24 of the draft Protocol would become redundant.

page 205 note 1/ If it were decided not to abolish the system of increasing the Fund's limit of liability contained in Article 4.6 of the 1971 Fund Convention, then Article 33.1(a) would have to be retained.

page 207 note 1/ It may be advisable for the criterion “X” to be expressed as a proportion of total world carriage of oil by sea.

page 208 note 1/ One delegation proposed that, instead of inserting this text, the system of increasing the Fund's liability as contained in Article 4-6 of the 1971 Fund Convention be maintained.

page 211 note 1/ It may be advisable for the criterion “Y” to be expressed as a proportion of total world carriage of oil by sea.