iNTER·GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME

CONSULTATIVE ORGANIZATION
SOLAS/CONF /C. l/Wl1 • l
21 October 1974
Original: ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 1974
Committee I
Agenda item 2 IMCO

cor·~STDE:J,\':P.ION OP TEE J:HXII~C !l.'EXT OF PH'::tCL'BS OF THE

IH11.EiiJ:!A'.l'lOHAL CONV}~tJTION .b10ll ~frlE SAFB1'Y 0~1 LI.ii'E AT
SEA, 1974
Comments..........on
~ ~_,...., IX ___
Article ,,.__

1. The J·apanese delegation fully agrees with the philosophy

behind draft Article IX that:
(a) the Mari time Safety Commi·ttee should be the
ap:;:>ropriate body to conslder proposed anendments
to the SOLAS Convention; o.nd
(b) when adopting amendnents, all and only Contracting
Governments, whether or not they are IMCO Mer.:ibers,
should have the right to vote.
2. The Delegation cannot, however, accept the idoa that
the adoption of amen.dments should be made ln 11 a Cor.irui:ttee of
Co'.:ltract1-ng Go·vern;r:e:nts", wrdch is a different body f.t•ora the
Mari tir.:ie Safety Cammi ttee. Such a procedure ·wuuld give rise
to many cooplex legal and administrative problel!'.ls, such as
are mentioned i!l the follow.ing:
(l) What is the legal status of "a Cor.i.11ittee of
Contracting Governments''? Is it a subsidiary organ
under Article 12 of the IMCO Convention, or a
conference convened under Article 3(b), or a
machinery for consultation among Governnents
under Article 3(c), or an organ outside IMCO?

For reasons of economy, this document •J p,.n,ed in a limited number. Delegates

are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
 ROLAr3/CONF/O. l/WP.1 - 2 -

(2) What is the relatlonship between the Mariti□e

Safety Coor:ii ttee and "a Comoi ttee of Contractin[.;
Governnents"?
(3) Who should decide to convene a □eeting of this
Comoi ttee - Asseobly, The Mari tir:1e Safe-ty Oooai ttee
or the Secretary~-Gencral?
(4) Should invitations to the meeting of the CorJDittee
of Contracting GoverruJents be issued separately
froo the invitations to the meeting of the Mariti □e
Safety Connittee?
(5) Should Contracting Governoents sub□it their credentials
for this Oonaittee in addition to those for the
Mariti □ e Safety CoIJmittee?

(6) What rules of procedure should be applied to this

Comraittee, such as quorum, chairman, representation
by observers? Certainly the Rules of Procedure
of the Maritine Safety CoCJC1ittes cannot be applied
because of different voting procedures.
(7) Who would bear the expense of holding □eetings of
this Cor::rrJi ttee - IMCO or Contracting Governoents?
(8) What will be the "i.fferen<,e between "a Con□ ittee of
Contracting Governnents" and a Conference of Con-
t1·actJng Govern□ ents convened under paragraph 3 of
Article IX?
3. Unless the above questions are clarified, it is not
possible for the Japanese delegation to accept the idea of
0 n Connittee of Contracting Govern□ ents". The Delegaticn is
of the firm opinion that the Mariti □ e Safety Con□ ittee should
be the adopting body of ar;1end□ ents to the SOLAS Convention
o.nd that □ eans should be found to enable the Mariti □e Safety
Coor:iittee to operate under d1fferent voting procedures when
adopting a□ end□ ents.
 - 3 - S0L.AS/C0Nl!"/0 .1/WP .1

4. With th:ts in view the Japanese delegation suboitted to

the fifth Extraordinary session of the IMCO Asseobly proposals
for amenduents to Article 43 of the IMCO Convention, which
are contained in A/ES.V/5/1, in order to achieYe the above
objec·tive. Due to the late submission of the proposals nnd
to the limited time available for the extraordinary session,
the Assembly decided to postpone the proposals to the ninth
regular session of the Asser.:1bly.
5. To that session of the Assembly the Japanese delegation
also submitted a draft resolution, as an interim measure
pending the entry into force of am.endr.:1ents to Article 43 of
the IMCO Convention. The draft resolution contained in
A/ES.V/5/1/Add.l was so designed. that the .Assenbly, in
accordnnce with Article 55 of the IMCO Convention, interprets
the voting rules of the IMCO Convention in such a way that
nothing in the IMCO Convention shall prevent the Mariti □ e
Safety OoI:l!:littee fro □ following the rules of procedure as
provided in a convention of which IMCO is the depositary,
when the Mariti□e Safety Co □r.1ittee perforos functions
conferred upon it by such a convention, in particular voti.ng
rights of States represented in the Maritioe Safety Comittee
when adopting a.□ endo.ents to the convention.
6. In ·the view of the Japanese delegation such an interpre-
tation should be possible under Article 29(b) of the IMCO
Convention, since the Maritime Safety Cor:II:littee, when adopting
cr1endoents, is considered as a oachinery assig:n~d to it by
the convent.ion in question, rather than as an IMCO organ
perfor□ing duties under Article 29(a). A si □ilar decision
was in fact taken by the Assenbly at its eighth session with
regard to the voting rights of non-IMCO Me□ ber States.
(Resolution A.294(VIII).
7. In the Assembly, there appeared to be a general ~greenent
with the principle of the draft resolution proposed by the
JaparJ.ese Delegation. Howe"'1er, due to insufficient tiae
available to sooe delegations -to consult their Governnents
on this question, the Aasanbly decided to defer consideration
of the draft Resolution to its ninth regular session.
 SOLAS/CONF/C.1/WP.l - 4 -

8. In the light of tho above the Japanese delegation proposes

that:
(a) draft Article IX should be so aaended that aoendoents
shall be adopted in the Mariti □ e Safety Conaittee by
a two-thirds □ ajority of Contracting Governnents
present and voti11g; and
(b) the Conference should recor.:u:tend to the Asse□ bly that
it should adopt at its ninth regular session a
Resolution to interpret the IMCO Convention in such
a way that the Co□□ ittee, when perfor□ing functions
conferred upon it by a convention, can follow the
voting procedures as provided for in the convention.
9. The tTapanese delegation fully realizes that the interpre-
tntion of the IMCO Convention is the prerogative of the IMCO
l:..ssenbly and not the SOLAS Conference. The delegation believes,
however~ that in the light of discussions made during its
fifth Extraordinary session the Asse□ bly would consider the
□utter synpathetically and respond to the reco □nendation of the
Conference in a favourable □anner.
10. The text of aoend□ ents to Article IX to incorporate the
~bove proposals shown at Annex I, and the text of the draft
resolution of the Conference to the above effect set out at
Annex II, are sub1Jitted herewith for consideration by the
Conference. (The above redraft of Article IX does not
include COIJ□ ents by the Japanese delegntion on other nsp~cts
c1f ltrticle IX).
 SOLAS/CONF/C.l/WP.l

ANNEX I
gticl.9....ll

2. Aoendoents within the Orgonization:

(/!\) - (c) [No change].
(d) arnendoents shall be adopted by a two-thirds oujority
of the Contracting Govemoents present and voting
in the Maritioe Safety Comnittee;
(e) [No change].
(f) an enendment shall be dee□ed to have been accepted
in the following circunstances:
(i) [no chnnge].
filernative I
(ii) an amend□ ent to the Annex to the Convention
shall be dee□ ed to have been accepted in
accordance with the procedure specified in
sub-paragraph (f)(iii) unless the Maritioe
Safety Connittee at the tine of its adoption,
deter□ ines by a two-thirds oajority of

Contracting Govern□ents present and voting

that the aoend □ ent shall be dee□ed to have
been accepted in accordance w~th the proce~ures
specified in sub-paragraph (f)(i).
 30 :, .,.;/l"'!riNF/C .1/'~P .1
AN:t-JEX 7
Page 2

[Nevertheless, at any time before the entry intn

fnrce of an amendment to the Jnnex to the Convention,
a Cnntracting Gnvernment· may notify the Organization
that its express approval will be necessa::-y before
the amendment enters into force for it. The latter
shall bring such notiiication and ~he ~at~ of its
receipt to the notice of the Contracting Governments];
filernat±Y:.,e +IY
(ii) An amendment to the J\nnex ·shal 1 be deemed to have
been accepte~ at t~e end of a'period of not less
than one year, or at the end of a longer period if
determined by a two-thirds majority of the Contracting
Governments present and voting in the Maritime
Safety Committee at the time of its adoption, unless
within that period not less than one-third of the
Contractinr Governments, or Cont~acti?g Governments
the combined n.erchant fleets of which cora ti tute not
' '
less than fifty p~r cent of the gross tonnage of the
~orld 1 ~ merchant fleet, whichever condition is first
f½lfi~led, notify the Organization that they object
to tbe amendment.
(ii-bis) Any Contracting Government may, ·before the date set
for acceptance, give notiQe· to. the Organization that
it exempts itself from giving effect to the amendment
f0r a period not exceeding two, years from the date
of entry .into fo,;ce of, that amendment; provided that
the effect of any such notification shall not be
to extend the period for which a G0vernment may delay

Y The text of sub-paragraphs (ii) and (ii-bis) was inserted by

the Mori.time Safety Committee.
 Allli.DJL Z
Page '3

giving effect to an a"1endnent beyond throe yeo:rs

froc the date on which the a.r.Jendnent is
notified to Contracting Governnents for
acceptance, unless decided otherwise by~
two-thirds najority of the Contracting
Governnenta present and voting in the Mn.riti □e
Safety Co□□ittee at the ti □ e of its adoption.
(iii) An ariendaent to an Appendix shall be dee1::ied.
to have been accepted at the end of a period
of ten oonths or at the end of a longer
period if deter□ ined by a two-thirds aajority
of the Contract.ing Govern□ ents present and
voting in the Maritiae Safety Connittee at
the tioe of its adoption, unless within that
period an objection is coD.Dunicated to the
Organization by not less than one-third of
the Contracting Governaents or by the Contracting
Govern□ ents the co □bined □ erchant fleets of

which constitute not less than fifty per cent

of the gross tonnage of the world's □erch~nt
fleet, whichever condition is fulfilled;
(g) [no change].
3 - 7 [no change].
(8. The Mariti::ie Safety Connittee, by a two-thirds Dajority
of the Contracting Govern□ ents present and voting, r:iay -loter-
1:1ine at the ti□ e of its adoption that an ao.endoent to the
1-i.nnex is of such an i □portru1t nature that if any Contre.cting
Govern□ ent oak:es a declaration before the date of its entry
into force that it does not accept the ru:iendoent and does
not accept the araendoent within a period of [X) 1:1onths after
it enters into force, [the other Contracting Governuents
shall not be under an obligation to extend to that Goverruxmt
the benefits of the present Convention] [that Contracting
Govern□ ent, upon the expiry of this perioc.. sh::i,11 cease to
be party to the present Convention]. Such detemination
shall be subject to the condition that objection to it is not
coo□unieated to the Organization by at least one-third of the

Contracting Govern□ents prior to the entry into force of the

 SOL.AS/CONF/C.1/WP.l

ANNEX II
Draft Resolution
VOTING RIGHTS IN THE MARITIME SAFETY
COMMITTEE FOR THE ADOPTION OF .AMENDMENTS

THE CONFERENCE,
RECALLING that one of the main objectives of the Conference
is to incorporate improved ar:iend□ ent procedures in a new
Convention to replace the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1960,
HAVING CONCLUDED the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 to replace the 1960 Convention,
BEING SATISFIED with the provisions of Article IX of the
1974 Convention that ar:iendm.ents to the Convention shall be
adopted by a two-thirds □ajority of Contracting Governnents
present and voting in the Mariti □ e Safety Comnittee,
NOTING that the Assenbly of the Inter-Governoental Maritirae
Consultative Organization at its fifth extraordinary session
decided by Resolution A.317(ES.V) that the Organization should
pursue studies on proposals for anendments to the IMCO
Convention in order, inter alia, that the Mariti □e Safety
Connittee could follow voting procedures as provided for in
a convention when exercising functions conferred upon it by
such q convention,
RECOGNIZING that the interpretation of the IMCO Convention
is 'the prerogative of the Asseobly of the Org1:.mizution in
accordance with Article 55 of that Convention,
RECOMMENDS the Asse::.1bly that it give favourable
consideration to the interpretation of the IMCO Convention to
enable the Mariti □ e Safety Connittee to follow voting
procedures for adopting anend □ents to the 1974 Safety
Convention as provided for in Article IX thereof.