DIRECTION OF LAW COMMISSION"S WORK ON TRANSBOUNDARY DAMAGE DEFEATED IN SIXTH COMMITTEE

Press Release
GA/L/3128

DIRECTION OF LAW COMMISSION’S WORK ON TRANSBOUNDARY DAMAGE DEFEATED IN SIXTH COMMITTEE

The Sixth Committee this afternoon took up the remaining chapters of the report of the International Law Commission -– those dealing with unilateral acts and prevention of transboundary damage.

Speaking in the debate were the representatives of Japan, Germany, Tunisia, New Zealand, Guatemala, Croatia, Argentina, Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Israel, Czech Republic, Republic of Korea, China, Niger, Poland and Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries).

On the issue of prevention of transboundary harm, several speakers commented on the Commission’s decision to accord separate consideration to the two subtopics of prevention and liability. Objecting to the separation, the representative of New Zealand said those two issues formed a continuum that encompassed all steps in a chain of obligations beginning with the duty to assess the risk of significant transboundary harm and ending with the implementation of the obligations to ensure compensation or other relief if such harm actually occurred.

In a similar vein, the representative of Argentina said it was a contradiction to say that there was an obligation to prevent transboundary damage and minimize risks, without at the same time providing consequences for damage that might occur. Most national legislation called for objective regimes of responsibility for dangerous, albeit legal, activities; it was inappropriate if threats or risks to the people or property of other countries were treated differently.

The speaker for Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic countries, said there was no need for the Commission to postpone its work on liability. A solution to the issue of effective compensation was urgently needed; the complexity of the issue should not be an excuse to delay.

Several speakers also addressed the Commission’s effort to draw up a practice guide on reservations to treaties. The representative of the United States said the guide was different in its approach from the three Vienna Conventions dealing with the law of treaties. In the

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3128 25th Meeting (PM) 3 November 1999

conventions, it was the rules that were important. The Commission’s commentary might shed light on the meaning of particular Convention provisions, but States seldom, if ever, looked at the commentary before citing the rule. With the Commission’s draft guidelines, however, the contrary might be true; States might be more likely to make use of the commentary than to rely on the guidelines themselves. He added that the definitions that established separate categories of statements that might be made by a State in respect of a treaty had the potential to shape State practice if States saw the guidelines as authoritative. That could lead the way to better analysis of alternatives to reservations as a means of expressing an attitude towards a treaty.

Japan’s speaker said the principle objective of the guide must be to clarify the legal effects of various unilateral declarations by States. Their definition became useful only when they provided each with a specific legal effect distinct from the others. The representative of Germany also cautioned the Commission not to lose sight of the fact that the real problems generated by reservations and interpretative declarations did not involve the question of their definition. The guide should provide practitioners with practical solutions to real-life problems.

The Chairman of the Commission introduced the chapters of the report that cover unilateral acts of States, and prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, Thursday, 4 November 1999 at 10 a.m. to continue its discussion of the report of the International Law Commission.

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to continue its discussion of the International Law Commission’s report, with specific attention to the chapter of the report that deals with reservations to treaties.

Statements

ZDZISLAW GALICKI (Poland), Chairman of the International Law Commission, introduced the remaining chapters of the Commission’s report, covering the following topics: unilateral acts of States (Chapter VIII); international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities)(Chapter IX); and other decisions and conclusions of the Commission (Chapter X).

He said that on unilateral acts of States, the Commission had had before it the second report of the Special Rapporteur, Victor Rodriguez-Cedeno, who was present in the Committee for the discussion of the Commission’s report.

He drew attention to the summary, in the Commission’s report, of the second report by the Special Rapporteur. In it, the Special Rapporteur addressed some general questions concerning unilateral acts, such as the advisability of taking the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as a frame of reference or starting point for the Commission’s work on the topic.

The Special Rapporteur had also dealt with the nature of unilateral declarations made by nuclear-weapon States containing negative security guarantees in the context of disarmament negotiations formulated outside the context of bilateral or unilateral negotiations, without the participation of the addressees, the non-nuclear-weapon States.

Other issues the Rapporteur had touched upon were: the possible “autonomy” of the unilateral act in question; individual, collective and joint unilateral acts; and the question of whether a “declaration” should be taken as the basic instrument governing unilateral acts, much in the same manner as in treaty law, where the treaty was the basic instrument used by States to create legal effects.

Seven draft articles were proposed by the Special Rapporteur to serve as a basis for discussion in the Commission: article 1, on the scope of the draft articles; article 2, on the definition of unilateral acts; article 3, concerning the capacity of States to formulate unilateral acts; article 4, on representatives of a State for the purpose of formulating unilateral acts; article 5, on subsequent confirmation of a unilateral act; article 6, on the expression of consent; and article 7, on the causes of invalidity of a unilateral act.

He said doubts had been expressed concerning some of the elements contained in the definition of unilateral acts provided by the Special Rapporteur in his second report. The word “legal”, qualifying the expression “unilateral act”, was generally considered unnecessary to the extent that it would be clearly established in the definition that the unilateral acts under study by the Commission were those purporting to create “international legal effects” and not merely declarations of a political nature.

Another issue considered was the setting of general guidelines for compilation of information on the practice of States. It had been suggested that the Secretariat prepare a typology or catalogue of the different kinds of unilateral acts to be found in State practice. A questionnaire was going to be circulated to Governments, requesting information and inquiring about the practice of States with respect to unilateral acts.

On international liability, he recalled that the Commission had divided the topic in two parts and had decided to proceed with the first part, i.e., prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities. He said the Commission, assisted by its Special Rapporteur on the topic, P.S. Rao, had been able to complete a set of draft articles on that question last year. It had been circulated to Governments for their comments. The Commission intended to begin the second reading of the topic at its next session. The Special Rapporteur had submitted a second report, outlining the future course of the topic with respect to the question of liability.

Noting that the question of liability was the second aspect of the topic, he said the Special Rapporteur had offered three options. The first option was to proceed on the topic of liability and finalize some recommendations. The second was to suspend the work on liability until the Commission completed its second reading of the draft articles on the regime of prevention. The third option was for the Commission to terminate its work on the topic of international liability, unless a fresh and revised mandate were given by the General Assembly. The Commission had eventually chosen the first option.

Turning to the last chapter of the report, dealing with other decisions and conclusions, he said a meaningful and effective dialogue with the Sixth Committee had always been of concern to the Commission. The Commission, in cooperation with the Committee, had taken a number of steps to that end. For example, it had included in Chapter III of its report a highlighting of specific issues requiring more attention from the Committee. Moreover, in recent years, Special Rapporteurs who happened to be in New York during the consideration of the Commission’s report had formally addressed the Committee, and spoken to members in informal settings, about their respective topics. An indispensable part of the dialogue between the Commission and Governments was the submission of written comments by Governments in response to particular requests from the Commission. Unfortunately, he said, not enough Governments replied to the Commission's requests.

On the issue of the Commission’s cooperation with other bodies concerned with international law, he said it had been mindful that its statute provided for such cooperation. On various occasions, it had held consultations with individual experts on specific topics, either in a formal manner, as in the case of the delimitation of the territorial sea of two adjacent States, or informally, as in the case of consultations with UNHCR experts on aspects of the topic of nationality, including Statelessness.

He said the Commission had for many years been exchanging views with experts of the International Committee of the Red Cross on international humanitarian law. That had been useful with respect to the Draft Code of Crimes against the peace and security of mankind. The Commission had also maintained close relations with academic institutions, including the Geneva Institute for International Studies.

Finally, he said the Commission had recommended holding split sessions it because it believed they would be more efficient and effective and would facilitate the uninterrupted attendance of more members. They would allow inter-sessional preparation to be carried out in such a way as to make the second part more productive. The Commission did not believe there were any disadvantages to a split session. It had asked to hold a split session next year at Geneva, from 1 May to 9 June and 10 July to 18 August.

CHUSEI YAMADA (Japan) said that the draft guide on reservations, while preserving the Vienna Conventions treaty regime, would fill in gaps and remove ambiguities in the current regime of reservations to treaties. The principle objective must be to clarify the legal effects of various unilateral declarations by States. Definitions became useful only when they provided each type of declaration with a specific legal effect distinct from the others.

Perhaps the guide had become too grand a project, he suggested. For example, in the treatment of interpretative declarations, the Commission had created too many subcategories. Such subcategories might not be relevant. He expressed the hope that the Commission would revisit the issue.

REINHARD HILGER (Germany) said the Commission ought not to lose sight of the fact that the majority of real problems generated by reservations and their consequences, as well as by interpretative declarations, did not involve the question of their definition. Last year and this year, Committee members had stressed the need for a guide to practice. He hoped that, after completing the first chapter on definitions, the Commission would concentrate on finding practical solutions to real-life problems. He gave as an example the effect of inadmissible reservations, which should not simply be left to a system of declarations and objections among individual parties to a multilateral treaty. He supported the view that it was always the exclusive responsibility of the State to rectify a defect in the expression of its consent to be bound.

That State had various options, he continued. It could withdraw the inadmissible reservation or amend it to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or it could refrain from becoming a party to the treaty altogether. He recalled an International Court of Justice opinion that stated that where a State’s reservation was not compatible with the object and purpose of a convention, the State could not be regarded as a party to the convention. That principle, as clear as it might sound, created uncommon difficulties when applied in practice. He expressed the hope that the Commission would concentrate at its next session on the question of inadmissible reservations. A guide to practice could fill in the gaps of the Vienna system and, over time, become a well respected codex for the main questions left unanswered by the Vienna Conventions’ regime of reservations.

He said the United Nations Treaty Section made a practice of circulating those modifications to reservations and giving the other States parties 90 days’ notice to register objections. The absence of objections was considered by the depository as amounting to tacit acceptance by all parties of the modified reservation. That 90-day period had no basis in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, he said. Germany would welcome it if the Commission could find a solution, which should then be implemented by the Treaty Section.

NABIHA HAJJAJI (Tunisia), speaking on State responsibility, said the draft text presented by the Commission deserved support. Chapter III of the draft articles, dealing with breach of international obligations, was a core section. Tunisia found a great deal of merit in the approach adopted by the Special Rapporteur in adapting the subject matter to international practice. The provision in article 16 concerning the existence of a breach of an international obligation should be further examined. It should deal with conflicts in the provisions on international obligations.

A balance should be struck in the provisions relating to the involvement of a State in the wrongful acts of another, she said. The provisions in chapter IV on international crimes were essential for the balance of the draft articles. She called for reformulation of provisions on consent in the chapter covering circumstances precluding wrongfulness.

Turning to reservations to treaties, she favoured the guidelines presented by the Commission. The text stressed the need for a distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations, with the former being properly defined. The draft guidelines must complement the Vienna Conventions.

VICTORIA HALLUM (New Zealand), speaking on international liability, said her delegation had last year congratulated the Commission for its landmark achievement in adopting 17 draft articles on “prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities”. At the same time, it had expressed serious concern about the Commission’s decision to separate the two key aspects of the topic into subtopics relating to prevention and liability, when the two were integrally linked. New Zealand had noted that the Commission had decided to defer consideration of international liability, pending completion of the second reading of the draft articles on transboundary damage, she continued. It would have preferred that the Commission reconsider its decision to split the topic. She urged the Commission to continue considering all aspects of the topic and not to lose the opportunity to make a long-lasting and tangible contribution in that important area.

New Zealand saw prevention and liability as a continuum encompassing all steps in a chain of obligations beginning with the duty to assess the risk of significant transboundary harm and ending with the implementation of the obligations to ensure compensation or other relief if such harm actually occurred, she explained.

Suggesting areas towards which the Commission’s future work on the subject should be directed, she said the draft articles should maximize the freedom of States at international law to permit the conduct, within their territory or under their jurisdiction or control, of activities that were not in themselves unlawful. The text should set the conditions under which States were entitled to permit the conduct of such activities, even if they involved a risk of significant transboundary harm through their physical consequences, or did in fact cause harm, whether or not they were identified as risky.

She said the conditions for allowing States the maximum freedom of action must include provisions for compensation or other relief for actual harm that occurred despite preventive measures or in their absence if the harm were not foreseeable. In the absence of those minimum conditions, affected States and the international community were likely to insist that the State of origin must prevent all harm caused by the activities in question.

ROBERTO LAVALLE (Guatemala) said that each provision related to unilateral acts in the guide would have to be examined in the context of all the others. Yet the Committee only had before it a set of draft definitions. The Commission still had to resolve almost all of the fundamental issues associated with unilateral acts. He suggested amending the title of the chapter on definitions to something along the lines of “scope of the guide”, which he said would more accurately reflect its contents, since it went beyond a simple listing of definitions.

There was a lack of coordination between guideline 1.1, on definitions, and 1.1.1, on the object of reservations, he said. He noted that there had been a change to the text of guideline 1.1.2, on instances in which reservations may be formulated, and said he preferred the revised version. He expressed concerned that guideline 1.1.5, on statements purporting to limit the obligations of their author, was difficult to understand. It introduced something additional to what had been seen in earlier sections of the guide. He also recommended changing the title and text of guideline 1.1.6, on statements purporting to discharge an obligation by equivalent means, as both the title and the content were too narrow.

LJERKA ALAJBEG (Croatia) welcomed the work of the Council of Europe on reservations. Their recommendations on inadmissible reservations were valuable, practical contributions to the work of the Commission. Such a practice-oriented approach would be equally suitable for the Commission’s work on the matter. She supported the Commission’s using the Vienna Conventions on treaties as the point of departure for further elaboration and said that their regime for reservations, proven in practice to be efficient, should not be changed.

However, she continued, the Vienna regime did not provide clear answers to all questions, especially with respect to interpretative declarations. She therefore welcomed the draft articles of the guide to practice relating to interpretative declarations. Citing some of the problems encountered successor States in assuming the treaty obligations of the predecessor State, she said Croatia regarded interpretative declarations as defined in the draft, as an important mechanism for interpretation and adjustment of treaty obligations for successor states. The fact that interpretative declarations, unlike reservations, were not strictly linked to the moment of initial consent, provided the flexibility to examine and interpret rights and obligations arising from treaties signed by predecessors.

SILVIA FERNANDEZ DE GURMENDI (Argentina), speaking on prevention of transboundary harm, said the Commission had established a wise balance between the interests of States where dangerous activities originated and the interests of states that could be adversely affected by those activities. The Commission’s work should not be limited solely to the question of prevention. It would be unsuitable to postpone indefinitely an identification of norms of liability with regard to those activities. A breach of obligation of prevention brought about responsibility as a result of wrongful act. The consequences of that breach must be identified as should the consequences of a state having met all its obligations of prevention.

It would be a contradiction if one determined that there were a general obligation to prevent transboundary damage and minimize risks, but did not at the same time foresee consequences for any damage that might occur she said. As most national legislation called for objective regimes of responsibility for dangerous, albeit legal, activities, it would be inappropriate if threats or risks to the people or property of other countries were treated differently. The question of how to proceed in treating the topic of responsibility could be dealt with after a second reading of the draft articles on prevention. Concerning the final form of the instrument to be adopted, she preferred a convention of broad scope, but could accept the adoption of a series of guidelines in the form of a declaration that could assist States in formulating bilateral or regional agreements. Turning to unilateral acts, she stressed the importance of the topic, particularly in the light of the current uncertain regime. It was necessary to distinguish between the four types of unilateral acts—promise, waiver, recognition and protest. Each had its own unique characteristics, which could be properly analyzed by Commission in its upcoming work. It was also necessary to be absolutely clear about who had the ability to obligate a State through a unilateral act or declaration. In terms of a general approach to the project, the Commission should not limit itself to treating a single category of unilateral act but should embrace all of them, such as declarations. The Commission should try to achieve as much consistency as possible between the draft on reservations to treaties and that on unilateral acts.

KARI HAKAPAA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries, said it was the prerogative of a sovereign State to act unilaterally while not violating the rights of others. There was hardly a need nor a possibility to regulate all such instances. The Commission should focus on acts with legal consequences. In general terms, the Nordic States agreed with the concept elaborated by the working group for the basic focus of the Commission’s study. In principle, the study should deal with unilateral statements, whether they entailed incurring obligations or acquiring or maintaining rights.

They found questionable the limitation by the Commission to categorically exclude from consideration unilateral acts subject to special treaty regimes, he said. Such situations usually referred to practical situations in particular need of legal analysis, they said. The Nordic countries agreed with the Commission’s suggestion that the focus of its study should be on a unilateral statement made by a State with the intention to produce legal effects in its relation to one or more other States or international organizations. The study could be expanded to cover statements of rights and privileges as well, taking into account the results of the work on obligations.

A highly relevant question, they said, was the applicability of treaty law to unilateral statements. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties might offer useful guidance but could not simply be transformed so as to apply also to unilateral action. It would seem to be useful in general terms to define the unilateral acts having legal effects in international law and, in particular, to define how the principle of good faith should be reflected in the determination of the legal effects of such acts. The study should be conducted within a reasonably short time.

EHUD KEINAN (Israel), speaking on reservations to treaties, said the issue of conditional interpretative declarations was especially significant in view of the abundance of new treaties prohibiting reservations. He agreed with Commission members who distinguished between conditional interpretative declarations and reservations. That distinction lay not only in the different purpose each was meant to achieve, but also in the special nature of conditional interpretative declarations that applied only if and when the condition were fulfilled.

Israel believed that conditional interpretative declarations should not be treated as reservations, especially prior to the fulfillment of the condition. Furthermore, there were more aspects that required clarification to enable the implementation of the draft guideline on conditional interpretative declarations, especially regarding the possible consequences of such declarations. He wanted the provisions concerning statements of non-recognition deleted from the present draft, in the light of the complexity of the topic. MILAN DUFEK (Czech Republic), speaking on reservations to treaties, said the present efforts of the Commission to bring some certainty and stability to the issue of reservations and interpretative declarations were very valuable and could contribute significantly to progressive development of international law of treaties.

The current wording of the draft definitions of reservations and interpretative declarations was satisfactory and represented a good basis for drafting other secondary rules on the subject, he said. The Czech Republic also supported the inclusion of the cluster of rules dealing with the method of implementation of the distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations to the guide to practice.

JOHN CROOK (United States) said the proposed guide to practice on reservations was different in its approach from the three Vienna Conventions dealing with the law of treaties. In the conventions, it was the rules that were important. The Commission’s commentary might shed light on the meaning of particular convention provisions, but States seldom, if ever, looked at the commentary before citing the rule. With the Commission’s draft guidelines, however, the contrary might be true; States might be more likely to make use of the commentary than to rely on the guidelines themselves.

Citing the material that had been collected by the Commission on state practice, he said that the overview would be a valuable resource for States when drafting treaty provisions relating to reservations, declarations, and interpretative declarations. It would also be useful when they considered the possibility of making reservations or responding to reservations or interpretative declarations made by other States. The definitions that established separate categories of statements that might be made by a State in respect of a treaty had the potential to shape State practice in the future if States saw the guidelines as authoritative. That could lead the way to better analysis of alternatives to reservations as a means of expressing an attitude toward a treaty.

The United States had a practice of incorporating understandings in its instruments of ratification, he said. That “understanding” was an interpretative statement, designed for the purpose of clarifying or elaborating, rather than changing, the provisions of an agreement. He noted that, under the terms of the draft, those understandings would fall outside the scope of the guide. He requested further consideration of that part of the commentary when the Commission turned to its second reading. He appreciated the inclusion of a discussion of the applicability of unilateral statements, including reservations, to bilateral treaties.

CHOUNG IL CHEE (Republic of Korea) took note of the redrafting of the articles on State responsibility, and said that simplification left greater room for flexibility as States put the articles into practice. Concerning article 30, on countermeasures, specifically on an act not in conformity with an obligation being precluded if it constituted a legitimate measure under international law, he said that if an act by an injured State were legitimate under international law, there was no question of raising the wrongfulness of the act by that State against another State. Therefore, the question of wrongfulness should not arise and he saw no justification for retaining article 30 in the draft. If the Commission wished to retain the article, it should redraft it to clarify what constituted a permissible countermeasure, such as an act of sanction or a reactive act.

He suggested that the scope of article 34, on self-defence, be expanded beyond the condition set under Article 51 of the Charter, which required an armed attack as a condition for invoking the right of self-defence. That condition was unrealistic, given the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He supported deleting article 45, on satisfaction, saying it could easily be abused by a State committing a wrongful act, as when a State invoked the dignity of state as a defence so as not to comply with obligations arising from its misconduct. He added that one of the consequences of committing the international crimes listed in article 19 should be that no statute of limitations should apply to the prosecution of those crimes.

Turning to reservations to treaties, he commended the Commission for its effort to distinguish between reservations and interpretative declarations. The main problem with interpretative declarations was determining whether they could constitute reservations to treaties. The issue became acute when it came to the conditional interpretative declaration, which the Commission categorized as being close to a reservation. He recommended adding a provision in the draft stating that interpretative declarations did not add any rights and obligations to what was already provided under the treaty. Furthermore, he said, the conditional interpretative declaration should be clarified as a part of the reservation regime in treaty law.

SUN GOUSHUN (China), speaking on reservations to treaties, said their integrity should be preserved, and they must also achieve wide acceptance. Although the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties contained provisions on the concept of reservations, related questions remained to be clarified.

The provisions adopted by the Commission provided a comprehensive commentary on the definition of reservations to treaties. The new draft presented various related questions and clarified certain ambiguities. The text would benefit future international practice; however, there were still questions with respect to some provisions. When a treaty prohibited in explicit terms any reservation to all or some of its provisions, no reservation of substance formulated in any unilateral statement was permissible. That element should be reiterated and properly reflected so that the distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations could be clearly defined.

On the issue of reservations formulated jointly and interpretative declarations formulated jointly, he said separate provisions should be made to the effect that neither situation affected the unilateral nature of those acts. The draft guide had failed to touch on joint, unilateral or separate withdrawal of reservations or interpretative declarations. The inclusion in the text of provisions concerning unilateral statements other than reservations and interpretative declarations, in China’s view, exceeded the scope of the topic of reservations to treaties.

BOUBACAR TANKOANO (Niger), speaking on reservations to treaties, said the distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations should be made, and the two should not be subject to the same legal regime. The Commission should further study the issue and come up with a simple solution, he said.

He supported the Commission’s definition of a reservation to a bilateral treaty. It was unreasonable to allow a party to a bilateral treaty to express reservations about it. The better concept would be to consider such a statement as the introduction of an amendment to the treaty, rather than a reservation. A draft text on the subject should be clear and unambiguous.

Niger welcomed the Commission’s formulations on the question of reservations to human rights instruments.

PIOTR OGONOWSKI (Poland), speaking on reservations to treaties, supported the definition of interpretative declarations drafted by the Commission, adding that the guidelines on them were useful. He agreed with the formulation on unilateral statements, particularly those concerning modalities of implementation of a treaty at the internal level. Poland welcomed the Commission’s determination that statements of non-recognition made in the treaty context constituted neither reservations nor interpretative declarations. However, he said, it believed that the issue should be addressed further, perhaps under the topic of unilateral acts of States in the context of recognition.

The inclusion of a guideline on interpretative declarations made to bilateral treaties was extremely useful for future practice, the Polish representative said, adding that his country belonged to those who applied such declarations.

As for the issue of unilateral acts of States formulated in contradiction to a norm of general international law or a Security Council decision under Chapter VII of the Charter, he said the question was whether they constituted grounds for invalidity. Poland shared the view that a unilateral act could depart from customary international law. Such an act could not, however, produce legal effects without the acceptance of States affected.

Similarly, he said, a unilateral act violating a Security Council decision under Chapter VII of the Charter should be viewed in terms of legal effects -- primacy of obligations enshrined in the Charter (article 103) -- rather than invalidity. He noted that many Council resolutions of that nature had temporary effects, and ceased to be applicable when the reasons for their adoption were no longer present. The issue therefore could also be one of suspension of a legal effect or a unilateral act.

BERTIL ROTH (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, said the topic of international liability for injurious consequences was extremely complex. During the past two years, the Commission had limited itself to treating only one part of the subject, namely, prevention of transboundary harm, leaving aside the question of compensation. The Nordic countries felt that a future legal instrument must cover both aspects of the subject.

It was time to proceed on the liability question, he said. There was no need to wait for a second reading of the articles on prevention before continuing work on other parts of the project. A solution to the issue of effective compensation was urgently needed; the complexity of the issue should not be an excuse to delay. He stressed that the issue of prevention was not so much related to activities involving risk, such as hazardous activities, but also involved containing and minimizing adverse effects from normal conduct.

The Nordic countries were flexible as to the form of the instrument, he said, suggesting the possibility of a framework convention, with the option of treating certain parts of the topic in the form of guidelines or recommendations.

* *** *