RESTRICTED
DSR 11C
it had had the matter under consideration, without reaching any conclusion, before the 16th Session of the Assembly; that the proposed amendment therefore did not meet the criteria, set out in Resolution A4-3, of having been "proved necessary by experience" or of being "demonstrably desirable
or useful"; that hence there was no justification for
embarking now on the long and complicated process involved· in the adoption and ratification of an amendment to the Convention; that there might be more to the question raised by Sweden that the simple deletion of the second sentence of Article 7 - for instance, whether it was necessary to retain the first sentence, which simply re-stated, in language also open to misinterpretation, the principle of national sovereignty enunciated in Article 1; and that even though the drafters of the Convention had been remarkably far- sighted, it would be necessary sooner or later to undertake a general review and revision of that instrument and in
this context the whole question could be examined. paragraph 37.5 of ICÃO Dọc 8960 A18-EX p.33).
22.
(See
In 1972 the Swedish proposal was approved in Committee by 67 votes to 3 with 5 abstentions but again failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds of the votes in plenary.
22.
Thus, despite the lengthy consideration in ICAO no conclusion emerged. However, contrary to the views then expressed by the United Kingdom, Article 7 clearly had given, and does now give rise to difficulties or inhibitions. (The UK had itself encountered such inhibitions in negotiations with India on 22 January 1960; see para 3 of note AOPA1/45/01. "Shri Raha explained...
.. the real difficulty was that the wording of para 4 of the UK draft had specifically mentioned cabotage which, because of Article 7 of the Chicago Convention, the Indian Government would prefer not to mention by name ").
ཀ ཤ ན བ ན དབན ཡད、
lar.
Academic ́