Emne: Submission #2 today from Norway to the HNS-LNG correspondence group

Fra: Erik Rosag

Dato: Wed, 19 Sep 2007

Til: François Marier

Dear François,

Thank you very much for this contribution to the correspondence group,
and indeed all your contributions. I believe your idea to attribute the
draft resolution solely to me as the coordinator of the correspondence
group deserves further consideration. As far as I can see at this stage,
it consists of three elements:

First, it signals that you distance yourself further from the work in
the group than already suggested with the clause you proposed earlier
that "The views expressed in this paper should not be taken as
representing the formal position of the delegations or their governments
who contributed to the work of the correspondence group," which is
included in the draft text. Obviously, you are free to do so, and that
will, of course, be reflected in the paper if you so wish. However,
perhaps it would be helpful if you could explain what has triggered the
change in your attitude after your previous contributions, where indeed
what I understood to be a text of the resolution acceptable to you was
attached; a text which is very much reflected in the current draft.

Second, your proposal implies that I am willing to put this text forward
 as my personal recommendation. However, as is clear from the
correspondence, the current text is a compromise far from my original
ideas and far from my preferences. I would be happy to forward my
personal views if requested to do so, but unless asked to do so, I would
feel that would be inappropriate. And certainly, then the text would
look much different from the current text. The current text is an
attempt to compromise.

Third, your proposal implies that other correspondents also would wish
to distance themselves from the draft resolution to a further extent
than what follows from the clause quoted above. I do not think that
there is a basis in the correspondence for saying so. On the contrary,
correspondents continue to contribute to adjust the text. But perhaps
you possess additional information? As you have noticed, I have not
participated in informal meetings in the past, and may therefore
unfortunately very well not be in touch with the finer changing of modes
in government and industry circles.

I think all of us are aware that a correspondence group is not the end
of any discussion. On the contrary, it is an attempt to start and help
the discussion in London. I think the idea is tat it is much better to
have the arguments on the table and to have a text to play with than to
start with blank sheets of paper. Any proposal from a correspondence
group must be read in this light, and will be read in this light. In
particular this is so when it comes to this correspondence group, because

- there is an express clause that states do not commit themselves
- there is no co-sponsoring of the paper
- disagreements are clearly reflected
- reservations as to the perhaps narrow, legal, scope of the discussions
are clearly reflected
- reservations as to the need for further discussions are clearly reflected
- in respect of item 1 of the draft resolution, it is expressly said
that there is no consensus
- etc

Obviously it would be better to present a solution that all involved
could support whole-heartedly. However, the current paper is how far we
can expect to come in the limited time available after the
correspondence got rolling. And I do not think it would serve any
constructive purpose to complicate this even further by adding further
distance between the correspondents and the text.

After his, François, I must unfortunately conclude that I disagree with
your latest proposals. I am, however, willing to carefully consider any
further arguments you may have and, of course, the views of other
correspondents.

Best regards,
Erik


        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Professor Erik Røsæg (Rosaeg)
Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law
University of Oslo
POB 6706 St. Olavs plass
    N-0130 Oslo, Norway

    Tel: (+47) 2285 9752 - (+47) 4800 2979
Fax: (+47) 9476 0573
erik.rosag@jus.uio.no
https://rosaeg.no/erikro/index.html

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++






Marier skrev:

Erik:

Thank you for the latest draft paper for the IOPC Assembly. I would like to make one comment in particular in order to add clarity as to the recommendations in the paper, including the resolution.

We would suggest that in the summary box on the first page, under _Action to be taken_, that the following italicized words be added at the begininng: "/The Coordinator of the Correspondence Group proposes/ to adopt the annexed Resolution..."

Also, similar wording should be added to the paragraph 2.15: " A draft resolution /proposed by the Coordinator of the Correspondence Group and /that reflects..."

We believe this is important in order to make the clear distinction between the various opinions expressed in the correspondence group and the recommendation from its Coordinator.

Regards,

*/François Marier/*
Senior Policy Advisor - International Marine Policy
Conseiller en politiques principal - Politique maritime internationale
marierf@tc.gc.ca
Tel: (613) 993-4895 / Fax: (613) 998-1845
Transport Canada, Place de Ville Tower C, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0N5
Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada



-----Original Message-----
From: nifs-hnslng-owner@jus.uio.no
[mailto:nifs-hnslng-owner@jus.uio.no]On Behalf Of Erik Rosag
Sent: September 18, 2007 8:00 AM
To: nifs-hnslng@jus.uio.no
Subject: Submission from Norway to the HNS-LNG correspondence group


Dear Correspondents,

Please find enclosed a Norwegian proposal on how the draft of the IOPC
paper due on Friday should be amended. I will later circulate a new
draft for comments, implementing the proposed amendments, in accordance
with the procedure helpfully suggested by Spain.

Naturally, all comments, observations, nuances, ideas, proposals for
further discussions etc cannot be detailed in a summary paper. I trust
that particularly interested readers will look into the correspondence,
and that the summary report will be supplemented by additional papers
and interventions from the floor in London. But I have tried to reflect
any statement in the correspondence that directly relates to the latest
draft text. Please feel free to tell me if I have overlooked something.

The deadline for comments at this stage will be Thursday 20 September at
12 noon GMT.


Regards,
Erik Røsæg