Close sites icon close
Search form

Search for the country site.

Country profile

Country website

Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, First Session: Summary Record of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting Held at Lake Success, New York, on Friday, 10 February 1950, at 2.15 p.m.

Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, First Session: Summary Record of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting Held at Lake Success, New York, on Friday, 10 February 1950, at 2.15 p.m.

23 February 1950

Chairman: Mr. CHANCE Canada

Mr. CUVELIER Belgium
Mr. CHA China
Mr. LARSEN Denmark
Mr. KURAL Turkey
Sir Leslie BRASS United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Mr. HENKIN United Stated of America
Mr. PEREZ PEROZO Venezuela

Representatives of specialized agencies:
Mr. EVANS International Labour Organisation (ILO)
Mr. WEIS International Refugee Organization (ILO)

Consultants from non-governmental organizations:
Mr. STOLZ American Federation of Labor (AF of L)
Mr. LEWIN Agudas Israel World Organization
Mr. BERNSTEIN Co-ordinating Board of Jewish Organizations
Miss BAER Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

Mr. HUMPHREY Representative of the Assistant Secretary-General
Mr. HOGAN Secretary of the Committee


Article 36: Reservations

1. The CHAIRMAN asked the Committee to continue its discussion on the second reading of article 36, concerning the reservations which could be made by the Contracting States.

2. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America) said that article 36 was particularly important from the point of view of the Contracting States. He thought it would be difficult to make a final draft of the article before Governments had expressed their opinions on the draft convention and it was known which articles might be the subject of reservations.

3. The working group had considered that the clause concerning reservations should be included in the draft to be sent to Governments, on the understanding that the text of the clause was purely provisional and could be amended as a result of the comments by Member States on the draft convention.

4. He suggested that that solution should be adopted. If it was not acceptable, he thought it would be better not to draft the clause at all at that stage but to wait for the replies from Governments before doing so.

5. The CHAIRMAN said that the proposal made by the United States representative was practically the same as the one he had made to the working group.

6. The question of reservations was extremely delicate, and it could not be settle until the Governments had made known their views on the various articles of the draft convention. It seemed, therefore, that at that juncture the best solution would be to provide for the inclusion of an article on reservations without actually drafting the text. The Committee would explain the reasons for its decision in the report and would state that the terms of article 36 would be prepared after the receipt of comments from Governments.

7. Sir Leslie BRASS (United Kingdom) supported the Chairman's suggestion, which, he thought, would be the most reasonable solution.

8. If the Committee decided to draft the terms of article 36 immediately, his delegation, together with that of Denmark, would submit an amendment (E/AC.32/L.33) to the effect that the text proposed should be replaced by the following:

"1. A Contracting State may at the time of signature, ratification or accession make reservations to this Convention but no reservation shall be made to Article 1.

"2. A Contracting State may at any time withdraw a reservation by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations."

9. He explained that he had not mentioned article 23 in the first paragraph, in order to take into account the remarks made by the representative of Turkey at the twenty-fifth meeting.

10. He drew attention to the fact that the convention on refugees would be of a very special nature in that it was more of the nature of a declaration by States in favour of individuals than a contract between States conferring rights with corresponding obligations. Indeed, those who would benefit from the convention were individuals belonging to certain well-defined categories. The relations and obligations between Governments were thus less important than in most conventions. It seemed, therefore, that reservation should be accepted more freely than in the case of other conventions, especially if it were taken into account that some of the provisions of the existing draft would not be acceptable to all Governments. He felt sure that no State would be likely to make a reservation unless it considered it necessary and essential to do so. The United Kingdom, for its part, would not wish to make unnecessary reservations but he had pointed out in the discussions that there were provisions which his Government would probably be unable to accept.

11. In his opinion, article 36 could well be drafted in the way he had suggested. Nevertheless, he would not press for the adoption of his amendment for the time being, since it was doubtless better to follow the suggestion made by the Chairman and the United States representative.

12. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America) thanked the United Kingdom representative for having supported the suggestion that he and the Chairman had made. In his opinion, whatever solution was adopted, the Committee's report should contain a fairly detailed account of the discussion on the subject, in order to give a clear picture of the opinions and intentions of the members with regard to the article on reservations.

13. He was not convinced by the United Kingdom representative's argument that, since the convention contained few obligations between Governments, reservations could be made without doing much harm. If there were too many reservations it would not be possible to ascertain exactly how much agreement had been obtained on each aspect between the Contracting States. Moreover, if Governments were given to understand that there would be a liberal attitude towards reservations, many of them would be inclined to take advantage of the situation and the effectiveness of the convention would be seriously impaired. The refugees would no longer be assured of the effective protection which the convention was intended to give them.

14. He thought it should be stated in the report that the Committee hoped there would be as few reservations as possible, or even that there would be no reservations. In any event, it should be emphasized in the report that the Contracting States should do their utmost not to make reservations which would seriously prejudice the scope and effectiveness of the convention. It could, for example, be pointed out that, when a certain provision was applicable in most cases but gave rise to difficulties in a few specific instances, it would not be appropriate to make a reservation with regard to the provision itself; in such circumstances, it would be sufficient to make a reservation with regard to the application of the provision in certain specific cases.

15. If such explanations were included in the report, it should be possible to obtain full and detailed comments from Governments; that would make it easier to prepare the final draft of the convention, for the comments would indicate which provisions and which situations would be likely to give rise to reservations.

16. Sir Leslie BRASS (United Kingdom) agreed with the views outlined by the United States representative. He knew that his own Government would wish to make only such reservations as were strictly necessary, and would endeavour to reserve when an article was not applicable to all cases, the specific cases only and not the whole article.

17. The CHAIRMAN noted that there was no opposition to the suggestion that the article concerning reservations should not be drafted at the existing juncture. Consequently, he proposed that the Committee should adopt that suggestion and that a detailed commentary along the lines indicated by the United States representative should be included in the report.

It was so agreed.

18. Mr. KURAL (Turkey) asked whether it would not be possible for the report to mention that the text proposed by the United Kingdom representative (E/AC.32/L.33) had received the support of certain delegations, including that of Turkey.

19. The CHAIRMAN pointed out that since the Committee had decided to postpone any decision on the question, it would be preferable for the report to contain nothing that might give the impression that the Committee was to a certain extent prejudging the solution to be adopted after Governments had outlined their views.

20. He pointed out, furthermore, that the existing text of article 36 would not be mentioned in the report, nor would the proposals made by France and the IRO. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to quote the text suggested by the United Kingdom representative, the more so as it had, in a way, been withdrawn by its author.

21. Mr. KURAL (Turkey) agreed with the explanation given by the Chairman and withdrew his request.

Article 37: Entry into force

Article 37 was adopted without discussion.

Article 38: Denunciation

22. Mr. LARSEN (Denmark) drew attention to the fact that paragraph 2 provided that "such denunciation shall take effect for the Contracting State concerned one year from the date upon which it is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations", whereas paragraph 5 of the Annex relating to the travel document referred to in article 23 provided that "the document shall have a validity of either one or two years, at the discretion of the issuing authority".

23. In his opinion, there was no imperative need to change either of those two provisions, but he felt that it was essential to emphasize in the Committee's report that denunciation did not affect the period of validity of the travel documents issued by the State denouncing the convention.

24. Sir Leslie BRASS (United Kingdom) supported the Danish representative. He held that denunciation would not have any effect on the provision for re-admission in travel documents issued by the State concerned while it was a Party to the Convention.

25. He suggested that paragraph 3 should be amended to include the same expression as that used in paragraph 1, namely: "by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations".

It was so agreed.

26. The CHAIRMAN proposed the adoption of article 38 thus amended.

Article 38, thus amended, was adopted.

Article 39: Revision

Article 39 was adopted.

Article 40: Notifications by the Secretary-General.

27. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America) suggested that the words "the present Convention" in paragraph (b) should be replaced by the words "this Convention".

28. The CHAIRMAN suggested that in the English text the expression "are equally authentic" should replace the expression "have equal validity".

It was so agreed.

Article 40, thus amended, was adopted.


29. The CHAIRMAN said that the only change made in the text as adopted at the first reading had been the insertion of sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 13.

30. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America) suggested that sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph 13 should be merged into one paragraph, since sub-paragraph 2 was merely a reservation on the general provision set forth in sub-paragraph 1.

31. Mr. LARSEN (Denmark) felt that no final decision should be taken regarding the provisions of sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 13 until the Committee had examined the specimen travel document. The specimen adopted in principle provided that the cover of the travel document should include, inter alia, the following words: "The holder is authorized to return to...". On the other hand, no mention was made anywhere of the fact that a return visa might be necessary in some cases. The consular and customs authorities of all countries could not be expected to have full knowledge of provisions which were not mentioned in documents they were called upon to examine.

32. The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the question of a return visa would interest only the consular and customs authorities of countries requiring such a visa; those authorities were fully acquainted with the question.

33. Mr. ROBINSON (Israel) drew attention to the fact that the specimen travel document was not sacrosanct; the documents issued by each State should be similar to the specimen, but they need not necessarily be identical in every respect. There was nothing to prevent the States concerned from adding on the cover a statement explaining that as far as they were concerned a return visa was required.

34. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America) did not want the travel documents to indicate that in certain cases a return visa was necessary. Such a statement might detract from the effectiveness of the provision relating to the right of return.

35. As the representative of Turkey has explained, the return visa was a formality which some countries imposed for reasons of a basically financial character. The need to obtain a return visa did not in any way prejudice the fundamental principle of return being guaranteed. The Committee should not consider a measure which might later be interpreted as limiting the exercise of the right of return, a right which had been admitted without reservations by all members of the Committee.

36. The CHAIRMAN proposed that the schedule should be adopted, the sole amendment being that sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph 13 should be combined.

The schedule, as amended, was adopted.


37. Mr. CHA (China) drew attention to the phrase "as evinced in various resolutions of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, especially resolution 319(IV)A, 3 December 1949". He thought he was correct in stating that the question of the international status of refugees had been raised and discussed in the first place by the Economic and Social Council, but had subsequently been taken over entirely by the General Assembly. He did not think that the Economic and Social Council had adopted any resolutions which had not been approved and endorsed by the General Assembly.

38. He concluded, therefore, that the phrase he had mentioned could be deleted and that it would suffice if explicit reference were made to resolution 319 (IV).

39. The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Committee was a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council and had been established in accordance with one of the Council's resolutions which had not been submitted to the General Assembly. He thought, therefore, that it would serve some purpose to mention the resolutions of the Economic and Social Council.

40. Mr. PEREZ PEROZO (Venezuela) fully agreed with the Chairman. He recalled that the question of the international status of refugees had been raised by one of the functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council, namely the Commission on Human Rights. The work on which the Committee was engaged at the moment was based on several of the Council's resolutions and that fact should be mentioned in the preamble to the convention.

41. His delegation attached particular importance to the activities of the Economic and Social Council, for it considered that the Council had thus far accomplished more useful work and achieved more positive results than any other organ of the United Nations. His delegation could not support the Chinese representative's amendment.

42. Mr. CHA (China) withdrew his proposal.

43. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America) proposed two purely drafting amendments, which affected the English text only. The first was the addition of a comma after the word "discrimination" and the second was the insertion of the word "of" before the words "the Economic and Social Council".

44. He further proposed that the words "that problem" should be replaced by the words "the problem of refugees".

The three amendments submitted by the United States representative were accepted.

45. Mr. ORDONNEAU (France) recalled that the French draft had referred to the right of asylum. At the time of the first reading, the Committee had decided to postpone the question until the text of the preamble was considered. He would like to hear the views of the Committee on that point; he, for his part, would urge that the right of asylum should be mentioned explicitly together with the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

After a brief exchange of views, the Committee decided that the words "especially in article 14" should be added after the words "in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

46. Mr. PEREZ PEROZO (Venezuela) was glad that article 14 had been mentioned but he felt that the same should be done for article 6, which laid down that everyone had the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. That was one of the most important articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was of particular importance for the convention relating to the status of refugees, for the convention was in fact based on the principle laid down in that article.

47. He proposed, therefore, that the preamble should read "especially in articles 6 and 14".

It was so agreed.

48. The CHAIRMAN proposed that the preamble, thus amended, should be adopted.

The preamble, thus amended, was adopted.

Adoption of the draft Convention and of the Schedule

49. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America) wished to propose the following new text for article 31 before the whole of the draft convention was adopted:

"Each of the Contracting States shall, within a reasonable time and in accordance with its constitution, adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to the provisions of this convention, if such measures are not already in effect." (E/AC.32/L.34).

50. He believed that his text was clearer and more logical than the existing text of the draft convention.

51. Sir Leslie BRASS (United Kingdom) supported the amendment proposed by the United States representative.

The text proposed by the United States representative was adopted.

52. The CHAIRMAN called upon the Committee to adopt the draft Convention and the Schedule, bearing in mind the remarks made by members of the Committee during the debate.

The draft convention and the schedule were adopted.

53. Mr. HENKIN (United States of America), explaining his vote in favour of transmitting to the Economic and Social Council the fruits of the Committee's labours, declared that the United States delegation wished to note again the general agreement of the members of the Committee that their Governments were not to be deemed bound to accept the present Convention or any of its provisions. In referring again to his Government's reservation with regard to the Convention, the United States representative wished to take this opportunity to make a few remarks for the information of the Committee as to the status of refugees in the United States.

54. The problem of refugees did not occur in the United States. It was not that that country had not contributed to their relief; it had already received them by the hundreds of thousands, and it hoped to receive hundreds of thousands more in the course of the next few years. Nevertheless, it was correct to say that there were really no refugees in the United States, a fact of which the United States Government was rather proud. Any refugee admitted to the country was considered as an ordinary immigrant and immediately enjoyed all the rights of residents. Those rights were of such breadth that as a whole they far exceeded the common denominator set by the convention for the refugees who would come under its protection. In general, United States legislation did not even use the term refugee; no special label was given to persons who answered to that definition, and they were rapidly assimilated among the other residents. After a very few years, the refugee could be granted the highly esteemed status of United States citizenship, which conferred on him at least as many rights as he could acquire elsewhere.

55. In those circumstances, it could be asserted that the measures laid down in the convention were not required in order to ensure the protection of refugees in the United States; very few articles of the convention covered problems which might arise in that country and few of them could add anything whatever to the protection already granted to refugees. The United States Government had nevertheless participated in the preparation of the convention, because it was vitally interested in everything relating to the protection of refugees wherever they might be, partly for the reasons given in the preamble, that is, the international nature of the problem and the profound concern of the United Nations in the question, and partly for purely humanitarian reasons.

56. In collaborating in the preparation of the draft convention, the United States Government had not lost sight of the interests of the United Nations itself; it had been anxious to see that the convention prepared by one of the organs of the United Nations should be in conformity with the principles of the Organization and should fulfil the hopes of the international community, which desired to guarantee, by means of the convention, the degree of effective protection that refugees so urgently needed. The United States delegation had, however, been careful not to forget that it was the other countries, where the problem of refugees was acute, which were the most directly concerned by the provisions of the convention and that consequently it was for them to say how far they could go in the matter of the protection of refugees and to determine the precise nature of the measures necessary to ensure that protection, taking into account the domestic legislation of their countries.

Protocol concerning stateless persons (E/AC.32/L.32)

57. The CHAIRMAN opened discussion on the draft protocol appearing on the last page of the draft convention, the purpose of which was to solve the problem of the protection of stateless persons who were not refugees.

58. The Working Group had had three suggestions on the subject to consider.

59. The first was to insert in the convention a special article on stateless persons; it had soon become apparent that such an article would destroy the homogeneity of the convention and that it would be better not to take up the entirely different problem of stateless persons within the framework of a convention concerning refugees.

60. The Working Group had then wondered whether it would not be better to draft a special convention on that subject; but the objection to that had been that such a document would be very difficult to prepare and that the problem of statelessness should be examined from a more general point of view than that of the mere protection of stateless persons, since that problem called for the application of special technical methods.

61. It was for that reason that the Working Group had chosen the third suggestion, which was that a short protocol should be drawn up, to which all States, whether or not signatories of the convention on refugees, would be invited to adhere. It was a temporary solution by means of which the position of stateless persons could be improved, pending a settlement of the problem of statelessness as a whole. It was impossible to do less, for the Committee's terms of reference obliged it to give its attention to the fate of stateless persons. The Committee had, of course, wanted to ensure the protection of refugees in the first place, since the United Nations was particularly concerned about their fate. Something, however, had also to be done for stateless persons, who would not be protected by the convention, if the Committee was not to lay itself open to the charge of taking no interest in their fate. The draft protocol, which had emerged from a lengthy discussion in the working Group would appear, in the prevailing circumstances, to provide in a satisfactory manner for the protection of stateless persons.

62. The Committee had still to deal with the problem of the elimination of statelessness, the difficulties of which could not be denied. By approving the draft protocol, however, it could bring abut an immediate and considerable improvement in the fate of stateless persons.

63. He pointed out that an error had crept into the last line of the English text of the third paragraph, which should read as follow: "...refugees, to stateless persons to whom that Convention does not apply."

64. Mr. LARSEN (Denmark) stated that, while it realized the difficulty and complexity of the questions which arose concerning the juridical status of stateless persons, his delegation hoped that the Committee would endeavour to find a solution to the problem, which for along time had been felt particularly keenly in certain parts of the world. The difficulties arising from that problem of nationality were unknown in certain countries, such as the United States of America, but that was not the case in Europe, nor perhaps in other continents.

65. The Committee had undoubtedly acted wisely in settling the question of the protection of refugees first, but the measures adopted in that connexion were not necessarily valid in the case of stateless persons. He had hoped that the Committee would make a separate study of the position of the latter and would prepare a special draft convention for them. The very general solution proposed in the protocol could not satisfy a number of countries, particularly in Europe, which were not willing to grant stateless persons the privilege - which they were ready to allow refugees - of treating them as their own nationals. It must therefore be expected that only those States for which the real problem of statelessness was, so to speak, non-existent, would adhere to the protocol.

66. The CHAIRMAN stated that the aim of the protocol was to grant to stateless persons a certain number of the benefits which refugees would receive under the Convention. Certain States, such as Denmark, might fear that if those benefit were too great they would lead, not to the elimination of statelessness, but rather to its perpetuation, for certain individuals might be prompted to abandon their nationality in order to have the benefit of those privileges. That difficulty could be avoided if a suitable clause, the text of which should be proposed by the countries concerned, was adopted.

67. Mr. CUVELIER (Belgium) did not altogether share the fears of the Danish representative, although there were many stateless persons in Belgian territory. It must be remembered that the protocol did not govern the admission of stateless persons into any given country any more than did the Convention on refugees. The sole aim of the protocol was to determine the status of stateless persons already residing in the country. While it was true that a refugee was, by definition, a displaced person, since he had been driven from his country, the same was not true of a stateless person, or he would become a refugee like the others. The stateless person, in principle, was not displaced. He was either stateless by birth or had lost his nationality in the very place where he resided: in both cases he had been residing for a long time in the country that had received him and he already enjoyed practically the same treatment as that of its nationals, so that the protocol would scarcely add anything to his rights. The purpose of the protocol was to guarantee him minimum rights where he did not already enjoy them: the benefits envisaged in the Convention had been carefully scrutinized and only those that had seemed to be really indispensable had been retained. It would appear, therefore, that there was no reason why most countries could not adhere to the protocol.

68. Mr. LARSEN (Denmark) would like the Contracting Parties to be able to "reserve the right not to extend to persons whose statelessness was the result of an act of their own will other than marriage the enjoyment of privileges more extensive than those to which their original nationality entitled them". He pointed out that nationality tended to become the object of a sort of trade: certain individuals gave up their nationality solely in order to obtain advantages and an improvement in their material position, and there was even a Government which, by its interpretation of laws and treaties, sought to make a large number of its citizens stateless in order to oblige other countries to keep them and to grant them privileges to which their previous nationality did not entitle them. The clause that he had in mind would enable the countries concerned to defend themselves against such inadmissible procedure.

69. The CHAIRMAN thought that such a clause could be limited to the exclusion of the kind of persons referred to by the Danish representative from the sphere of application of the protocol.

70. Mr. ROBINSON (Israel) was aware that Denmark had suffered considerably from the application of the Delbrueck law, which had created a kind of artificial statelessness by enabling Germans to acquire a new nationality without thereby losing the right to resume their nationality of origin upon their return to Germany. It had in reality been an internal law, which involved no obligations for other countries, which could consequently disregard it. In any case, however, it was obvious that the provisions of the Convention and of the protocol could only apply to bona fide refugees and stateless persons. The instances cited by the Danish representative were cases of what was known in domestic law as defrauding the law. Therefore, if the protocol was perverted to serve as an instrument of policy, it would be lawful to deny its benefits to those invoking it in bad faith. That did not call for such a clause as that proposed by the Danish delegation, which would in any case be difficult to draft, since it would have to be sufficiently broad, yet at the same time strictly limited. Mover, the clause raised the extremely complicated question of loss of nationality, which might be due to a deliberate act on the part of the individual, to a circumstance beyond his control, or to causes which combined the two. Thus the entire problem of statelessness would be raised before the Committee had even begun to study it.

71. The simplest course, therefore, would be to adopt the protocol as it stood and in certain cases to apply the procedure agreed upon at the Danish delegation's suggestion. The protocol would be transmitted to Governments for their comments and the text would be revised when the time came to establish the differences between the various categories of stateless persons. In the meantime, Denmark's apprehensions regarding possible malpractice could be mentioned in the record of the meetings or in the Committee's report, which should give that country full satisfaction.

72. Mr. LARSEN (Denmark) explained that he had not been thinking of the Delbrueck law, the effect of which had been to waive, by a kind of tacit agreement, the general rule that every German citizen residing abroad had the right, on reaching the age of twenty-one years, to renounce his nationality of origin. It was that general rule which the Danish representative had had in mind. The result could be the constant creation, in certain countries, of a mass of stateless persons, who, under the terms of the protocol, would have to be allowed, for example, the benefits of article 19 of the Convention, which guaranteed to refugees the same treatment with regard to labour laws and social security as that reserved to nationals. The signatory States would find themselves faced with excessively heavy obligations which they had had no intention of assuming.

73. When Alsace-Lorraine had been returned to France, Germany, by a narrow interpretation of its nationality law, had withdrawn German nationality not only from Alsace-Lorrainers of French stock, but also from all Germans residing in the province, on the pretext that their bond of allegiance to Germany had been due solely to the fact that, as inhabitants of a territory of the Reich, they had had the status, which they had now lost, of German citizens. In that manner authentic Germans had become stateless persons; but did that mean that France should extend to them the treatment reserved for its own nationals? Such a solution in a border region could not possibly be considered.

74. In addition to that historical example, he instanced the fact that Swiss women enjoyed certain rights and privileges in Denmark as a result of certain treaty provisions between the two countries. If such women were to marry foreigners and thereby lose their nationality, that should surely not mean that they should receive far more favourable treatment than that to which their nationality had entitled them. Yet that would be the effect of the application of the protocol. It was hardly likely that many countries would accept a solution of that nature.

75. For that reason, the Danish delegation was not prepared to accept so general a clause as that of the protocol.

76. Mr. WEIS (International Refugee Organization) thought that it might be appropriate at that stage to deal with a question which had been raised previously and which was also linked to the problem to which the Danish representative had drawn attention. The privileges extended to stateless persons might result in perpetuating statelessness rather than abolishing it, since some stateless persons might desire to retain their status - on the whole an advantageous one - rather than assume the obligations involved in the possession of a nationality. In order to overcome that difficulty, provision might possibly be made to deny the benefits of the convention to refugees who, having the possibility to become naturalized, failed to file the necessary application within a required period of time.

77. The CHAIRMAN remarked that the question was directly connected with the problem of the elimination of statelessness, which was to be considered later. For the time being, the only subject under discussion was the draft protocol, to which the Danish representative had proposed the addition of a restrictive clause.

78. Mr. CHA (China) was of the opinion that it would be better to adjourn the debate in order to give members of the Committee time to study the text of the protocol in relation to the articles of the Convention mentioned therein.

79. The CHAIRMAN requested the members of the Committee to study the comments on the draft Convention (E/AC.32/L.32/Add.1) and to formulate their views on the matter as soon as possible, so that they could be included in the report.

The meeting rose at 4 p.m.