4.
in Part III paragraph 20(ii)
The proposal thatxoazdistinctionzsbauldxb is designed to
chantes panties (Du panasuph 138f the paper) Box counteract provisions in some pitts of lading that losses due
to delay when a ship has picked up refugees, as distinct from
Aeroak survivors of shipwreck etc, should fall on the shipowner.
This can lead to additional pressures on the Master to ignore his
obligations to render assistance.
REFUGEE-RUNNING
5,6. ((Take paras 18 and 19 from Part I of Paper)}
UNHCR
7. At present the UNHCR accepts responsibility for refugees only
after they have disembarked. The proposal is that he should agree
to process them immediately on rescue, not that he should take on
financial responsibility at that point, though the latter might
favour
find some support and could be supported by the UK.
FIRST PORT OF BALL
B.
highly desirable for
7
It is xixatzio/the avoidance of shipping losses that this
should
principle/be fully adopted in its widest acceptable form, ie
including the ideas in paragraph 20(ii). There would however be
falsely invoking
scope for abuse by Masters appealingzka/these provisions in order
to disembark refugees, and it they are for this and more general
reasons unlikely to Kamasax be adopted.
FLAG STATE LAST RESORT
9. The proposal in paragraph 23 isxafzcomzxe goes beyond current
UK policy, which is to consider "ships' cases" on their merits and
case by case. Ru Domestically it might make little difference to
** since any refugees accepted would no doubt be deducted from our
the problem is that
overall quota, but/there would be a corresponding reduction in .
those taken from Hong Kong, and Moreover the unpredictability of
ships cases would cause difficulties in handling the quota.
Nevertheless in present circumstances there is
no practical
/alternative
}
་ ༥