:
DSR 11C
wished to retain the sentence. It is therefore a significant change which can be said to show that the Conference did not intend the general non-discriminatory rule which may have been intended by the words of the provision in question without this addition. Indegd interpretation (b) comid
could even be reconciled with the opening statement of the
US referred to above, if it is assumed that what the US
objected to was the pooling of cabotage, ie an agreement
with certain countries who share cabotage and who agree
together to exclude all other countries from that cabotage.
(6) This is exactly what even interpretation, prevents, in that it precludes a closed pool of cabotage while permitting the
grant of cabotage without obliging a state to extend that
grant to other countries.
37.
Exactly,
the same wording as in the second sentence of Article 7 appears in section 4 of Article I of the International Air Transport Agreement which was adopted at the Chicago Conference. The French and Belgian delegations expressed fears that they would be precluded from sharing with each other their cabotage routes. As is recorded in part II of Appendix A to C-WP/4460, on page 21 of the Appendix, the United Kingdom and United States responded to the French fears by saying that refusal to a cabotage privileges to other States would not be a breach of section 4 of Article I, and they "expressed the opinion that this section, as well as the corresponding provisions of the other draft agreements, did not affect the above situation". If these opinions can be read generally they are very helpful as contemporaneous interpretative statements, but one must be cautious about placing too much reliance on
accord and
RESTRICTED
/this because
Page 15Page 16