Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T19:07:43.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The international protection of the cultural and natural heritage*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Raymond H.M. Goy
Get access

Extract

The protection of cultural objects through international law has developed significantly in the last couple of decades. Protection in the event of armed conflict was the subject matter of a convention in 1954; in 1970, measures were taken aimed at controlling the movement of recognized art treasures and other cultural property and, in recent years, efforts have been made to ensure the protection of immovable works of art in peace time. The latter works are threatened not only by age and cataclysms, through ignorance and vandalism of men but also, and increasingly, through the occupation of space required for the progress of civilization, such as the extension of residential zones, agriculture, industry, and the infrastructure for transport, and, generally by the devastating results of modern life manifested through industry and transportation. Even when protected these objects may suffer from old age and the fact that they have been turned into dead musea.

Type
Section A: Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 4 , December 1973 , pp. 117 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict, 28 May 1954; entry into force 7 August 1956, 249 U.N.T.S. p. 215; Documentation Française, Notes et Etudes Documentaires No. 2027.

2. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Paris, 14 November 1970, text in 65 A.J.I.L. (1971) pp. 887–895. Cf. the author's article “Le régime international de l'importation, de l'exportation et du transfert de propriété des bien culturels”, 16 A.F.D.I. (1970) pp. 605–624.Google Scholar

3. See on this problem: Ligen, P-Y., Danger and Perils, Analysis of factors which constitute a danger to groups and areas of buildings of historical or artistic interest (Council of Europe – Council for Cultural Co-operation, 1968)Google Scholar, and: Preservation and rehabilitation of groups and areas of buildings of historical or artistic interest, Council of Europe doc. CCC/ACV(69) 13 rev. p. 8 et seq. See also doc. 16C/19 para. 1–9 (31 July 1970).

4. Doc. 16C/19 para. 9 et seq.; doc. SHC/MD/17 para. 31; Report on the European Conference of Ministers responsible for the preservation and rehabilitation of the cultural heritage of monuments and sites (Premoli Report), Explanatory Memorandum para. 17, Council of Europe Consult. Ass. doc. 2714 (23 January 1970).

5. Legislation for protection is found in the following States:

Western Europe:

Austria: Federal Law No. 533 of 25 September 1951.

Spain: Law of 1933 on the protection of the historical and artistic heritage.

France: Laws of 31 December 1913 on historic monuments and the protection of sites; of 2 May

1930 on sites; of 4 August 1962 on protected zones.

Italy: Law of 1939 on La tutela delle cose d'interese artistico o storico.

Netherlands: Law of 1961 on Monuments.

German Federal Republic: Law of 1960 on construction and planning.

United Kingdom: Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1900, Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1913, Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 and 1961, Hictoric Building Act of 1953, Civic Amenities Act of 1967.

Eastern Europe:

Bulgaria: Law on cultural monuments of 1969.

Poland: Laws of 1918, 1933 and 15 February 1962 on the protection of cultural property.

USSR: Decree and law of 1948.

Yugoslavia: Federal Regulations of 1945, 1946, 1959, 1960.

America:

USA: Public Law No. 89–669 of 1969: Act to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Additional Historic Properties.

Asia:

India: Laws of 1904 and 1958.

Japan: Law of 1950.

Africa:

Egypt: Law of 1951.

Ghana: Ancient Monuments Act of 1951.

See Leisching, P., “A Comparative Analysis of Legislation”, in The reviving of monuments (report of Symposium B, Vienna, October 1965)Google Scholar, Council of Europe doc. CCC/CDS/B(65) 27 final VII. 20, pp. 62–69; see also Council of Europe, Preservation and rehabilitation of the cultural heritage of monuments and sites: European perspectives (work and conclusions of the European Conference of Ministers responsible for the preservation and rehabilitation of monuments and sites held at Brussels in 1969) p. 54; Council of Europe doc. CCC/ACV(69)13 rev.; doc. SHC/CS/27/8 pp. 5–8.

6. Art. I(2) (c) of its Constitution empowers UNESCO to assure “the conservation and protection of the world's inheritance of… works of art and monuments of history and science”, and to recommend “to the nations concerned the necessary international conventions.”

7. Salmon, Jean A., “De certains aspects juridiques et financiers de la campagne Internationale pour la sauvegaide des monuments de Nubie”, 9 A.F.D.I. (1963) pp. 639–669Google Scholar; Le Monde of 6 June 1972.

8. Laves, W.H.C. and Thomson, Ch.A., UNESCO: Purpose, Progress, Prospects (Bloomington, 1957) pp. 129–132Google Scholar; Le Monde of 6 April and 19 May 1972.

9. UNESCO, Legal Committee, Report to the 12th session of the General Conference, doc. 12C/LEG/SR/13, as cited by Salmon, op. cit. p. 649.

10. Salmon, op.cit. pp. 645, 656.

11. R. Maheu, as quoted in Le Monde of 6 April 1972.

12. E.g. doc. 16C/98 of 29 October 1970: first reports on the action taken on the recommendation of 19 November 1968 concerning the preservation of cultural property endangered by public or private works.

13. Doc. 9C/RESOLUTIONS p. 40.

14. Doc. 12C/RESOLUTIONS p. 139.

15. Doc. 15C/RESOLUTIONS p. 139.

16. Doc. 16C/19 para. 55 and 61 et seq.; cf. also: Council of Europe action for the preservation and rehabilitation of the cultural heritage of monuments and sites, Council of Europe (Directorate of Environment and Local Authorities) doc.DELA/MS(71) 1, p. 1.

17. This intergovernmental organization has been set up as a result of a resolution of the General Conference of 1951. Its Statute was approved by the General Conference on 24 April 1963. Its assembly meets every three years and it has a limited staff.

18. This non-governmental organization has been founded at a conference at Warsaw convened by UNESCO in 1964.

19. Non-governmental organization founded at a conference at Fontainebleau, convened by UNESCO in 1948 and was then called: Union international pour la protection de la nature (UIPN). The name was changed at the Edinburgh conference in 1956.

20. For text see ICOMOS-1966-I.

21. Council of Europe Consult. Ass. Doc. 1570 (18 April 1963).

22. Recommendation 365(1963), text also in 11 European Yearbook (1963) p. 345 et seqGoogle Scholar. and Preservation etc., supra n. 5, p. 84. See also resolution (66)20 of the Committee of Ministers (29 March 1966), 14 European Yearbook (1966) p. 237 et seq.Google Scholar

23. The Symposium (A) of Barcelona (May 1963) studied the criteria and methods for a list concerning the protection of sites and groups of buildings of a historical or artistic interest with a view to their preservation and presentation. It adopted the “Palma Recommendation”, which was taken over by resolution (66)19 of the Committee of Ministers. It proposed a standard European card index which was put into effect in a pilot inventory project. The Symposium (B) of Vienna (October 1965) studied the integration of monuments in their historical or natural setting and adopted the “Vienna Recommendation”, taken over by resolution ((66)20 of the Committee of Ministers, 14 European Yearbook (1966) p. 237 et seqGoogle Scholar. The Symposium (C) of Bath (October 1966) studied the principles and methods for the preservation and rehabilitation of groups and areas of buildings having a historical or artistic value, and adopted the “Bath Recommendation”, taken over by the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CCC) in February 1968 and by resolution (68)11 of the Committee of Ministers, cited in 16 European Yearbook (1968) p. 387Google Scholar. The Symposium (D)of The Hague(May 1967) studied the active maintenance of monuments, groups and areas of buildings having a historical or artistic interest, and regional planning. It adopted the “Hague Recommendation”, taken over by resolution (68)12 of the Committee of Ministers, cited in 16 European Yearbook (1968) p. 387Google Scholar. Finally, the Symposium (E) of Avignon (October 1968) studied the carrying out of the policy for the preservation and rehabilitation of groups and areas of buildings of historical and artistic interest, and adopted the “Avignon Recommendation”. See Council of Europe doc. DELA/MS(71)1 (supra n. 16) p. 6–7; Premoli Report, supra n. 4, para. 8–19.

24. Cf. Preservation and rehabilitation of groups and areas of buildings of historical or artistic interest (memorandum destined for the Ministers responsible for the immovable cultural heritage, 18 March 1969) Council of Europe (Council for Cultural Co-operation) doc. CCC/ACV(69)13 rev.; cf. also Preservation etc., supra n. 5.

25. Premoli Report, supra n. 4.

26. Recommendations 589(1970) and 590(1970), text inter alia in 18 European Yearbook (1970) (1970) p. 295Google Scholar, and in Preservation etc., supra n. 5 p. 70.

27. Set up within the Directorate of Environment and Local Authorities of the Council of Europe.

28. Council of Europe doc. DELA/MS (71)1, pp. 3–5, 16–17.

29. Proposal for European action to protect the archaeological heritage (Report by Massimo Pallotino), Council of Europe (Council for Cultural Co-operation) doc. CCC/AC(65)13.

30. European Treaty Series No. 66.

31. Report on a draft outline law for the active protection of immovable cultural property in Europe, Council of Europe Consult. Ass. doc. 2819 of 18 September 1970; followed by Consultative Assembly recommendation 612(1970), text in 18 European Yearbook (1970) p. 305 et seq.Google Scholar; cf. also Council of Europe doc. DELA/MS(71) 1, p. 2.

32. Cf. Council of Europe doc. DELA/MS(71)1, p. 1.

33. Recommendation 249(1963).

34. Recommendation 408(1969) concerning the responsibility of local authorities in the matter, 17 European Yearbook (1969) p. 251 et seq.Google Scholar, adopted after the Flämig Report, Council of Europe Consult.Ass. doc. 2557 of 7 May 1969.

35. Cf. resolutions 44(1964) and 65(1970) of the European Conference of Local Authorities, Council of Europe doc. DELA/MS(71)1, p. 10.

36. Order 216(1963).

37. Indirectly it brings together thousands of specialized associations such as, in France, La Demeure Historique, Les Vieittes Maisons de France, Les Maisons Paysannes de France. Cf. Council of Europe doc. DELA/MS(71)1, p. 20 et seq.

38. Doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. I, p. 7.

39. Doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, para. 51.

40. See the observation of the United Kingdom and Japan, ibid.

41. Doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. I p. 7; doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 1. The draft establishes a World Heritage Committee composed of all the Parties, and a Board comprising fifteen States. It provides for a World Heritage Register compiled by the Board, and a World Heritage Trust Fund relying on voluntary contributions. It commits the implementation of the programmes concerning natural areas to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUNC) and those concerning sites to the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

42. Draft Recommendations: see Educational Information, Social and Cultural Aspects of Environmental Problems, Report of the Secretary-General, A/CONF.48/9 para. 123, 124, 125. Final Report, see A/CONF.48/12 para. 164. Text of recommendations 98 and 99 as adopted: A/CONF.48/14 p. 52. Adoption of recommendation 98: ibid. p. 99 (U.N. documents).

43. See the General Conference resolutions 3C/6.42 and 3C/6.43 (1948), 4C/6.42 (1949) and 5C/4.45 (1950). Committee of Experts, Report of October 1949, in: Museums and sites of history and art, series Museums and Monuments, vol. 1 (UNESCO publication 729).

44. Report (of the Director-General) on the possibility and advisability of adopting an international convention instituting a special tourist tax for the preservation of monuments and museums, doc. 6C/PRG/10 of 10 May 1951.

45. Resolution 6C/4.23. See also Study of measures for the preservation of monuments through the establishment of an international fund or by any other appropriate means, doc. UNESCO/ CUA/122 (28 June 1963).

46. Resolution 14 C/3.342.

47. Resolution 14C/3.3411.

48. Final Report of the meeting, doc. SHC/CS/27/8. The basis of discussion consisted of four reports: scientific reports SHC/CS/27/3 and 4, legal report (by R. Brichet) SHC/CS/27/5, and report on advantages offered to the international community by States in return for aid from UNESCO or from other States, SHC/CS/27/6.

49. Final Report of the meeting, doc. SHC/MD/4, p. 38.

50. Doc. 84 EX/14, annexed to doc. 16 C/19.

51. Resolution 16C/3.3412.

52. Doc. SHC/MD/17 of 30 June 1971, with two annexes.

53. Doc. SHC/MD/18 of 21 February 1972, with four annexes (revised drafts).

54. Draft Report: doc. SHC/72/CONF.37/19 of 21 April 1972; draft convention doc. SHC/72/ CONF.37/20 of 20 April 1972; draft recommendation doc. SHC/72/CONF.37/21 of 21 April 1972. Final Report (modifications para. 37 et seq.) with draft convention (Art. 15 modified and without Art. 34) and draft recommendation, in doc. 17C/18.

55. Report of Commission V: doc. 17C/99 para. 249–294, and Annex para. 49 et seq., draft convention and draft recommendation as adopted by the Commission and recommended for adoption by the General Conference: docs. 17C/106 and 17C/107.

56. Plenary Meeting of 16 November 1972, provisional verbatim reports doc. vr/33 prov.

57. Docs. SHC/MD/17 and 18.

58. Docs. SHC/72/CONF.37/20 and 21; 17C/18; 17C/106 and 17C/107.

59. Text of the Convention (minus Arts. 34–38) in 11 I.L.M. (1972) pp. 1358–1366; text of the recommendation in ibid. pp. 1367–1374.

60. Cf. Preliminary draft Arts. 2 and 4(b).

61. “Monuments, groups of historic buildings and sites formed an integral whole, each element being inseparable from the other. That concept put an end to the distinction between different categories of immovable cultural property, which were in reality complementary”: Final Report of the meeting of experts 1969, doc. SHC/MD/4, para. 24, also quoted in doc. 16C/19 para. 7.

62. Austria wanted this distinction: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II par. 51.

63. The United Kingdom wanted to avoid a proliferation of international instruments, one drawn up by UNESCO on the cultural heritage and another by IUCN on sites. The Secretariat asserted UNESCO's competence in both sectors and underlined the necessity of a single convention: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 51 et seq. Luxembourg wanted to confine the convention to the cultural heritage only: doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 2 p. 4 et seq.

64. Report of the Special Committee of Governmental Experts, April 1972, doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 13 and 18.

65. Preliminary draft Arts. 2, 4(b), 19, 20, 26, 27: doc. SHC/MD/17 Ann. II.

66. Austria: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 53, p. 10.

67. The 1954 Hague Convention applies to centres containing monuments and other immovable cultural property of very great importance (Art. 8).

68. This is a unilateral competence which does not bind the organization and the other Parties: Final Report (of the Director-General), doc. SHC/MD/17 para. 18.

69. Preliminary Study of the Director-General, doc. 16C/19 Annex, para. 50; Preliminary Report (of the Director-General), doc. SHC/MD/17 para. 88. See also observation of Egypt on preliminary draft Art. 5: doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 4 p. 3.

70. Only mentioned occasionally (Arts. 8 and 16) the Assembly has not become institutionalized on purpose: Report of the Special Committee of Governmental Experts, doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 25.

71. Some proposals provided for two committees, one for the natural and the other for the cultural heritage: doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 25, or alternatively providing for a separation of the administrative and financial task and the cultural and technical one. E.g. the Italian proposal: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. I p. 8.

72. Egypt proposed that certain States should participate by right on account of their rich cultural heritage, their record in conservation or their contributions: doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 4 p. 3.

73. Art. 16 para. 5, inserted after discussion, to be analysed infra.

74. Some States wanted to leave the administrative and financial tasks to the Committee and to give the technical functions to either a committee of experts (Italy: SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 61) or to ICOMOS (Italy: SHC/MD/18 Add. 2 p. 4).

75. Convention Art. 11. It does not draw up itself a list so as to avoid difficulties with States: doc. 16C/19 para. 78 et seq.

76. The preliminary draft (SHC/MD/17 Ann. II p. 4) provided for only one list (Art. 9) and such was considered sufficient by some States, e.g. the USSR in the Special Committee of Governmental Experts, doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 31.

77. Some stressed their inevitable priority. See Final Report of the meeting of experts 1968, doc. SHC/CS/27/8 para. 86; observation of Sweden on preliminary draft convention: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. I p. 11; cf. observations of Egypt, doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 4.

78. Preliminary draft, Art. 19(2), Cf. also Preliminary Study (of the Director-General), doc. 16C/19 Annex, para. 53; Preliminary Report (of the Director-General), doc. SHC/MD/17, para. 106; observations by the United Kingdom of the preliminary draft convention, doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, para. 67; observations of Egypt, doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 4 pp. 4–5; Report of the Committee of Governmental Experts, doc.17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 48.

79. The preliminary draft provided for only one restricted list (Art. 9) and required the inscription on that list only. The final draft having two lists, the US insisted on entry on the restricted list (17C/99, para. 260) while Egypt pleaded for an extensive application (see its observations on the preliminary draft, doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 4, p. 5).

80. Some wanted two funds, one for the cultural and one for the natural heritage: see the Report of the Committee of Governmental Experts, doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 37. The Fund could be autonomous or be integrated into UNESCO: see doc. 16C/19 Annex, para. 72.

81. A tax on tourism has been proposed by the General Conference in 1950 (resolution 5C/4.45). This was followed by a circular letter from the Director-General to the Governments of Member States, enclosing an explanatory note and a questionnaire (doc.CL/452 and Ann. I, annexed to doc. 6C/PRG/10), and further followed by a report of the Director-General (doc. 6C/PRG/10).

82. Sweden wanted to finance the fund through contributions of international organizations: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, para. 63. To overcome the deadlock, Belgium proposed, during the General Conference of UNESCO, to finance it through appropriations from the UNESCO budget: plenary meeting of 16 November 1972, doc. vr/33 prov., p. 21.

83. Preliminary draft Art. 15, doc. SHC/MD/17 Ann. II, p. 5; cf. also the observation of Switzerland on the preliminary draft, doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 3 p. 3.

84. Preliminary Report (of the Director-General), doc. SHC/MD/17, para. 19; 17C/99, para. 265 et seq. See on this point the remarks of the Director-General in his report of 15 May 1962, in connection with the Nubia campaign: doc. 61 EX/13, p. 16.

85. In the preliminary draft the principle had been adopted (Art. 12(a), doc. SHC/MD/17 Ann. II), and according to Art. 13 the General Assembly of States Parties was to fix the amount. The accompanying report, however, mentioned its amount as being 2 per cent of the UNESCO contribution: doc. SHC/MD/17, para. 98; cf. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 64.

86. Italy drew attention to the reservations of various States as to the principle but approved of a contribution amounting to 2 per cent of the UNESCO quota: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 63.

87. Observations by the United Kingdom, Sweden, France: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 63.

88. See the draft report of the Committee of Experts of 21 April 1972 (para. 36) and the draft convention of 20 April 1972: SHC/72/CONF. 37/19 and SHC/72/CONF.37/20.

89. For an account of the discussions in the Committee, see its final report, doc. 17C/18, para. 38–43. Text of the final draft convention in doc. 17C/18, Annex Section B.

90. This division has been variously interpreted. The Committee, going by its rules of procedure, was of the opinion that the paragraph had not been maintained. A minority held that no decision had been taken and that the paragraph had not been modified: doc. 17C/18, para. 43.

91. Doc. 17C/DR.244 (3 November 1972).

92. Commission V had fixed this majority to avoid that the problems would again be raised in the plenary meeting.

93. Doc. 17C/DR.257 Rev. (4 November 1972).

94. Report of Commission V: doc. 17C/99 para. 262–273.

95. Plenary meeting of 16 November 1972, doc. vr/33 prov., para. 1 et seq. and para. 53.2

96. Art. 5. Cf. the observations of Austria and Italy on the preliminary draft: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 57.

97. Art. 17. Cf. the observations of Austria, Italy and the United Kingdom on the preliminary draft: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II.

98. See supra, n. 2.

99. E.g. Austria, alleging its federal constitution: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 71.

100. Doc. 17C/18 Ann. Section A para. 56.

101. UNESCO practice permits the accession of non-member States on the invitation of the Executive Board (17C/99, para. 278). See, inter alia. Convention against Discrimination in Education, Art. 13, and the accession of Swaziland to this Convention.

102. See doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 58; doc. 17C/99.

103. See doc. 17C/DR.245;doc. 17C/99 para. 277–278.

104. The GDR was admitted on 21 November 1972, a few days after the Convention was adopted: doc. vr/41 prov.

105. Art. 31. See doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 58.

106. Soc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para 60.

107. Cf. the observations of Austria on the preliminary draft: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, para. 71.

108. Doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 61. The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict provides for its revision by either a conference or by agreement (without a conference) among the Parties (Art. 39). The Convention itself had been adopted by a diplomatic conference and not by UNESCO.

109. Preliminary draft paragraphs 13, 28, 39, 54, 67, 69. See doc. SHC/MD/17 Ann. I.

110. See the account of the discussions in the Special Committee of Governmental Experts, doc. 17C/18, Annex Section A, para. 62.

111. Preliminary and revised draft paragraphs 4, 13, 28, 39, 54, 67, 69. See docs. SHC/MD/17 Ann. I and SHC/MD/18 Ann. III. See also the preliminary report, doc. SHC/MD/17, paragraphs 15 and 25, and the Secretariat comment on an observation by Australia on the preliminary draft, doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, para.. 16–17.

112. Paragraphs 49 and 50. Cf. doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, para. 16–17.

113. See the observations of the United Kingdom on the preliminary draft, doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, paras. 6 and 38.

114. Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the preliminary and revised drafts were thus removed from the section on “legal measures”.

115. Compare paragraph 1 of the preliminary draft, doc. SHC/MD/17 Ann. I, with paragraph 1 of the revised draft, doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. III. The United Kingdom proposed to protect “property of such interest as to warrant protection”: doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 6.

116. Art. 1 of the Rules of Procedure concerning Recommendations to Member States and International Conventions covered by the terms of Article IV, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, adopted by the General Conference at its fifth session (resolution 5C/40.6), amended at its 7th session (resolution 7C/43).

117. Constitution, Arts. IV(B)(4) and VIII.

118. Compare paragraphs 6, 18, 24, 49 of the final text with paragraphs 5, 20, 27, 60 of the preliminary draft, doc. SHC/MD/17 Ann. I.

119. Compare paragraphs 11, 55, 57, 58, 59 of the final text with paragraphs 11, 62, 63, 64, 65 of the preliminary draft.

120. Mainly with regard to property rights. Cf. observations of Canada (doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 2), Switzerland (doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 3), Egypt (doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 4). Compare para. 42 to 45 of the preliminary draft with para. 43 of the final text.

121. Compare paragraphs 3, 18, 40 of the final text with paragraphs 2, 20, 38 of the preliminary draft.

122. Compare paragraphs 13 and 17 of the final text with paragraphs 13 and 19 of the preliminary draft.

123. Cf. observations of Austria (doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II, para. 20), Canada (doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 2 p. 3), Switzerland (doc. SHC/MD/18 Add. 3 p. 2).

124. Cf. observations of the U.S. (doc. SHC/MD/18 Ann. II para. 34), and the oral amendment of the USSR to para. 11, adding the words “there where such sector exists” to “private sector”. It was presented in Commission V but later withdrawn, given the use of the conditional word “might”.