C
Department of Trade and Industry
COMMERCIAL RELATI, NS & EXPORTS
1 Victoria Street London SW1H OET
Telex 27366 Answer Back DTIHQ London Telegrams Advantage London SW1
Telephone 01-222 7877 ext
قرارم
(128)
pre caply HK your give
(Ma Setters)
ква
Z
19-2
Xu
GL Pearson Esq UK Mission Geneva
મ
REGATEVA 1 19 PLUMIZ
Your reference
Our reference
Date
18 December 1972
HLX6/8
STANDARDS CODE: DEPENDENT TERRITORIES.
I am sorry I haven't written before to confirm our conversations in Geneva about your two letters of 20 November to Mr Rogers. The points we discussed were those relating to "conditional mfn" (3(d) in your second letter), and the questions in your first letter about application of the code to dependent territories.
2. On conditional mfn, I explained that DTI are at present keeping their options open. In fact, there was no real discussion of the question while I was present in the Working Group (as you know, this was during the first week only), and it was agreed that when the draft code is finally transmitted to the IFC - whenever that is! the cover note will draw attention to the way in which the code is drafted from this point of view. It is obviously a question of general importance which would be better discussed in the IPC than in a particular working Group, and which as you said would presumably have in the end to be settled by the Contracting Parties as a body.
3.
I
On the question of the "adherence" of dependent territories to the code, i suggested the inclusion of the following formula (which was circulated as duc, Spec (72)103).
"Contracting parties may adhere in respect of those territories other than their metropolitan territories for which they have international responsibility in accordance with the provisions of Article XXVI: 5(a) and (b) of the GATT".
The
I explained (orally) that the intention of this formula was to leave dependent territories free adhere to the Code or not as they wished, and when they wished. effect would be that the UK would have to notify, when signing itself, those territories which did not want to adhere those unnamed would be deemed to be covered by the UK @oga ture. Notifications of non-adherence could be withdrawn later.
I also said that we assumed that this formula would cover the rights of dependent to withdraw if they wished to do so, though A XXVI doesn't in fact refer to withdrawal Peter Williams of the GATT Secretariat confirmed that in his opinion it would do so.
4.
S
**
not
Mr Schlosser of the Commission, predictably, raised a number of questions altogether seriously the gist of which was whether we really meant that Standards bodies in non-adherent dependent territories should be left free to do as they wished to which I said the answer was Yes. The Americans made a drafting suggestion, to alter the words from "in accordance with onwards to "in the same manner as provided for acceptance of the GATT in Article XIVI 5(a) and (b)". I said we
-
"
1