¹ Document E/Conf.4/61, March 6, 1948.

² The Convention was ratified in 1950 and the ratification withdrawn in 1956. Cf. Document IMCO/A.1/3/Rev.1.

³ This took place in 1958, ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Document E/Conf.4/29.

⁶ Cf. The New York Times, February 27, 1948, p. 43, col. 5: “The United States is especially opposed to Panama being a Council member but of course does not say so.”

⁷ Document IMCO/A.1/Resolution 11; cf. l.C.J. Reports, 1960.

⁸ Document IMCO/A.1//Rev.1/Add.1.

₉ This was a compromise proposed by the United Kingdom. See Document IMCO/A.1/Working Paper 2.

¹⁰ Cf. Document A/4311. The item was proposed by the representative of India and inscribed as follows: “Reservations to Multilateral Conventions: The Convention of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization.” The issue of the “unanimity rule” was avoided by construing the statement in question to be “a declaration of policy intended to be consistent with the Convention and not amounting to a reservation” (ibid., p. 4). A resolution was then adopted, the second operative paragraph of which stated that the Assembly hoped that “an appropriate solution to regularize the position of India may be reached in the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization at an early date.”

¹¹ This is an accounting system whereby unavoidable losses or damages of a certain kind sustained during the course of a voyage are shared by all the interests participant to that voyage; thus if it becomes necessary to jettison cargo of one merchant in order to lighten the vessel, the cargoes of other merchants are subjected a “general average” or “contribution” in order to spread the loss in an equitable manner.

¹² Cf. Cooper, Jọhn C., The Right to Fly (New York, 1947), p. 122 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Cf. The Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of April 29, 1958, Document A/Conf.13/L.52, Part I, Section III.

¹⁴ Cf. Hackworth, , Digest of International Law (Washington, 1941), Vol. 2, p. 206–208Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The quotation is taken from a treaty between the United States and Germany, 44 Stat. 2132, 2137, cited in Hackworth, op. cit. Cf. The Maritime Ports Conisvention, 58 League of Nations Treaty Series (L.N.T.S.) (1926–1927), p. 287, 301.

¹⁶ The discussion does not cover the case of unrecognized states.

¹⁷ For a list of organizations concerned with maritime navigation and transport, see Mance, , International Sea Transport (London, 1945), p. 1–2Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 7.

¹⁹ It was proposed at one time that an International League Against Rats be established (ibid., p. 54). The two most important nongovernmental organizations, however, were the International Maritime Committee, which brought a universally acknowledged expertise to bear on a variety of legal issues connected with maritime commerce, and the International Shipping Conference, comprising shipowners' organizations in over thirty countries, which dealt with numerous subjects on the regulatory side of shipping. Additionally, a number of ad hoc diplomatic conferences were held from time to time to consider technical matters and questions of maritime law. Cf. Bulletin of the International Maritime Committee, No. 24; Marx, Daniel Jr, Inter national Shipping Cartels (Princeton, 1953), p. 269–271Google Scholar; and Document E/Conf.4/4, Annex 7.

²⁰ Salter, , Allied Shipping Control (Washington, 1921)Google Scholar; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917, Supp. 2, Vol. 1, p. 334 ff., 413–415, 422Google Scholar; and League of Nations, Transport Problems Which Arose from the War of 1914–1918 (Geneva, 1945)Google Scholar.

²¹ L.N.T.S.. Vol. 7, p. 73.

²² Cf. Hackworth, Digest, op. cit.

²³ Cf. League of Nations, Official journal, Special Supplement, 01 1921, p. 14Google Scholar; Cheever, and Haviland, , Organizing for Peace (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), p. 170, 171, 518–520Google Scholar; Hostie, , “Communications and Transit,” World Organization (Washington, 1942), p. 158–188Google Scholar; and Mance, , op. cit., p. 3Google Scholar.

²⁴ US Department of State Bulletin, 10 1, 1944, p. 357Google Scholar.

²⁵ Ibid., January 31, 1942, p. 88.

²⁶ Belgium, Canada, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Membership was subsequently expanded to include Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, France, India, New Zealand, Sweden, the Union of South Africa, and Yugoslavia.

²⁷ Department of State, International Organization and Conference Series IV, Publication 3196, “Toward a World Maritime Organization,” p. 5–6Google Scholar.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 6–7.

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ Ibid.; cf. United Nations Press Release B-7, April 26, 1946.

³² Document E/42.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ Cf. Document E/CN.2/4.

³⁵ Department of State, “Toward a World Maritime Organization,” op. tit., p. 9Google Scholar.

³⁶ US Department of State Bulletin, 10 6, 1946, p. 631Google Scholar.

³⁷ Document E/CN.2/4.

³⁸ Cf. Documents E/270 and E/Conf.4/4, p. 17.

³⁹ Documents E/408, E/437, and E/Conf.4/4, p. 20–21. The version known as the “Washington Draft” may be found in Document E/Conf.4/1.

⁴⁰ The following governments were represented by delegations at the Conference: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The following governments were represented by observers: Cuba, Ecuador, Iran, and the Union of South Africa. The following organizations were also represented by observers: the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Cooperative Alliance, the International Law Association, and the International Transport Workers Federation.

⁴¹ Cf. Marx, , op. cit., p. 273–274Google Scholar.

⁴² Document E/Conf.4/2/Add.1, p. 2.

⁴³ Document E/Conf.4/2, p. 11.

⁴⁴ Documents E/Conf.4/SR.3, p. 6–7, and E/Conf.4/SR.7, p. 5.

⁴⁵ The Main Working Party was composed of the representatives of the following governments: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

⁴⁶ Cf. Document E/Conf.4/SR.Rev., p. 12–14.

⁴⁷ Mance, , op. cit., p. 7Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Cf. Document E/Conf.4/SR.Rev., p. 9, 11. The original proposal of the temporary Transport and Communications Commission, it may be recalled, dealt with an organization in the technical field (supra, p. 528–529).

⁴⁹ Document E/Conf.4/SR.2, p. 6.

⁵⁰ Cf. Document E/Conf.4/2, p. 2.

⁵¹ The New York Times, February 21, 1948, p. 26. col. 1, and Document E/Conf.4/SR.Rev., p. 24.

⁵² Sweden and Norway claimed that the United States had renounced a “Gentleman's Agreement” concluded at the Washington Conference of the UMCC. The United States replied that the Scandinavian countries had failed to give the organization the kind of support they had originally promised and that the United States no longer felt bound by the earlier understanding—The New York Times, February 25, 1948, p. 37, col. 8.

⁵³ Ibid., February 25, 1948, p. 47, col. 7.

⁵⁴ Cf. Article 4 of the Convention, infra, p. 534.

⁵⁵ Article 18 reads as follows: “Except as provided in Appendix I to the present Convention, the Council shall also determine, for the purpose of Article 17 (c), the Members, governments of nations having a substantial interest in providing such services. Such determinations shall be made by a majority vote of the Council including the concurring votes of the Members represented on the Council under Article 17 (a) and (c). The Council shall further determine for the purpose of Article 17 (b), the Members, governments of nations with the largest interest in international seaborne trade. Each Council shall make these determinations sit a reasonable time before each regular session of the Assembly.”

⁵⁶ In the decade between the signing of the Convention and its entry into force there have been a number of marked shifts in maritime power and influence among the nations of the world; the “largest interest” referred to in Article 17 was one thing in 1948 and another in 1939, and the composition of the Council is, therefore, to a slight extent somewhat out of date.

⁵⁷ Cf. Document E/Conf.-t/SR.Rev., p. 62.

⁵⁸ Document E/Conf.4/SR.7, p. 5.

⁵⁹ The New York Times, February 27, 1948, p. 43, col. 5.

⁶⁰ Ibid.

⁶¹ Ibid., February 29, 1948, Section V, p. 7, col. 1, and ibid., March 29, 1951, p. 55, col. 2, where Chile expressed the opinion that IMCO's structure was not democratic and noted that it was not inclined to ratify the Convention, although it was keenly interested in such an agency.

⁶² In the absence of a weighted voting procedure such difficulties seem inevitable.

⁶³ Cf. Article 60 of the Convention.

⁶⁴ Supra, p. 531; Japan and Italy were subsequently elected to the Council under Article 17 (0 (Document IMCO/A.1/SR.3); Germany (Federal Republic) and the USSR were elected under Article i7(d) (Document IMCO/A.1/SR.4).

⁶⁵ Document E/Conf.4/6s, Annex A.

⁶⁶ The following nations voted in favor of the Convention: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Frince, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Voting against the Convention was China. Abstaining were: Denmark, Egypt, Lebanon, Norway, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Sweden. Absent were: Czechoslovakia, Panama, and Peru.

⁶⁷ The New York Times, March 7, 1948, Section V, p. 7, col. 3.

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ Ibid., December 7, 1954, p. 67, col. 4, where the Norwegian Ambassador informed the State Department “that Norway along with Denmark and Sweden continued to oppose the creation of a United Nations Maritime Agency.”

⁷⁰ Ibid., January 18, 1949, p. 45, col. 1, and ibid., January 20, 1949, p. 55, col. 8.

⁷¹ Ibid.; it was feared that, since chief support for IMCO came from governmental bureaus, decisions within the organization would be on a governmental rather than an industry level.

⁷² Cf. Parry. 25 B.Y.I.L. 437–457 (1948).

⁷³ Article 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “The purposes of the Organization are: (a) to provide machinery for co-operation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade, and to encourage the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety and efficiency of navigation; (b) to encourage the removal of discriminatory action and unnecessary restrictions by Governments affecting shipping engaged in international trade so as to promote the availability of shipping services to the commerce of the world without discrimination; assistance and encouragement given by a Government for the development of its national shipping and for purposes of security does not in itself constitute discrimination, provided that such assistance and encouragement is not based on measures designed to restrict the freedom of shipping of all flags to take part in international trade; (c) to provide for the consideration by the Organization of matters concerning unfair restrictive practices by shipping concerns in accordance with Part II; (d) to provide for the consideration by the Organization of any matters concerning shipping that may be referred to it by any organ or Specialized Agency of the United Nations; (e) to provide for the exchange of information among Governments on matters under consideration by the Organization.”

⁷⁴ Cf. International Chamber of Commerce, Sea Transport and the United Nations, Committee Report, Brochure No. 128 (Paris, 1948), p. 8Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Membership in IMCO is defined by the provisions of Articles 5 through 11. A nonvoting associate membership is provided for non-self-governing territories.

⁷⁶ The New York Times, February 26, 1048, p. 47, col. 7.

⁷⁷ Article 3(a), it may be recalled, refers in turn to the first four paragraphs of Article 1 (supra, fn. 73).

⁷⁸ Cf. Article 28: “(a) The Maritime Safety Committee shall consist of fourteen Members elected by the Assembly from the Members, governments of those nations having an important interest in maritime safety, of which not less than eight shall be the largest shipowning nations, and the remainder shall be elected so as to ensure adequate representation of Members, governments of other nations with an important interest in maritime safety, such as nations interested in the supply of large numbers of crews or in the carriage of large numbers of berthed and unberthed passengers, and of major geographical areas, (b) Members shall be elected to a term of four years and shall be eligible for re-election.”

⁷⁹ Cf. The New York Times, January 20, 1949, p. 55, col. 8.

⁸⁰ Document IMCO/A.1/3/Rev.1.

⁸¹ Document IMCO/A.1/1; the Council met at the same time. See Document IMCO/A.1/SR.5 for the report of the Chairman of the Council to the Assembly.

⁸² Document IMCO/A.1/11; the provisional agenda may be found in Document IMCO/A.1/2/Rev.1.

⁸³ Mr. Ove Nielsen, who was a member of the Danish Delegation during the Geneva Conference of 1948, was named Secretary-General (Document IMCO/A. 1/Resolution 1). The composition of the budget was to consist of initial assessments based on contributions to the United Nations budget together with added assessments reflecting the volume of gross registered tonnage in each country (Documents IMCO/A.i/Working Paper 16 and IMCO/A.i/Resolution 20).

⁸⁴ Cf.Document IMCO/A.1/2/Rev.1.

⁸⁵ Cf.Documents E/Conf.4/2, p. 11, and E/Conf.4/2/Add.1, p. 2.

⁸⁶ Cf. Harper, , The English Navigation Laws (London, 1939)Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Mance, , op. cit., p. 109Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Ibid., p. 108–111, and Marx, , op. cit., p. 38–40Google Scholar, and passim.

⁸⁹ Organization for European Economic Cooperation, Trends in Economic Sectors, ”Maritime Transport,” MT (56) 4 (Paris, 1956), p. 63Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Mance, , op. cit., p. 111Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Ibid.

⁹² Shipping concerns may be involved in either “liner'.’ or “tramp” operations. The distinction between the two usually concerns the regularity of sailing schedules, whether a fixed route is involved, and occasionally the nature of the cargo. When trade is active, tramp rates tend to rise sharply; when demand for space is weak, tramp rates decline. Liner rates are generally more stable and liners rarely intrude in the tramp trade except when there is a marked slump in shipping. Shipping conferences, generally speaking, are agreements between lines to restrict certain kinds of competition, regulate sailings and ports of call, and determine rates. When demand for space is high, the activity of shipping conferences tends to diminish, and in some cases they even disband. When tonnage exceeds trade, shipping conferences tend to flourish. Cf. Marx, , op. cit., p. 3–4Google Scholar; Mance, , op. cit., p. 68–69, 95–104Google Scholar; and Fayle, , A Short History of the World's Shipping Industry (London, 1933)Google Scholar.

⁹³ Cf. Marx, , op. cit., p. 263Google Scholar; on shipping rates and economics, generally, see Chapters I–III, ibid.

⁹⁴ Cf. Marx, , Shipping Conferences, United Nations Transport and Communications Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, 10–12 1953, p. 17 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁵ Marx, , International Shipping Cartels, op. cit., p. 302Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Ibid., p. 287–288.

⁹⁷ Mance, , op. cit., p. 132–140Google Scholar. An interesting analogy is provided by the case of the various international commodity agreements.

⁹⁸ This, of course, is complicated by the requirements of national security.