/T/TAC
rter rel
could
uld'
arata
cond
A Teem
t have
to a
ey woul
thout
sub-par-t
A pro
d Art
rða
oth
thi
rnment
ether
been
he com
tersko
they
21
E/PC/T/TAC/PV/22
here to adhere to the club of the General Agreement on the same mitions as any non-negotiating Government or any Government hich bss not taken part in the negotiations in Geneva.
odified,
Furthermore, we thought that Peragraph 3 (u) should also be We therefore proposed a modification on the lines put Forward by the Delegate of the Netherlands, which now appears at
second proviso in Peragraph 3 (a).
The Netherlands Delegation pointed out that if any separate customa territory were included now in the list of the metropol- Îten territories at the time of the Signature of the Agreement, And if such territory should acquire complete autonomy in the future regarding the matters which now appear, in the Agreement and therefore become a separate customs territory; with:full autonomy
If it happened
I meant here, this should be provided for, Curing the period of the application of the Agreement, it ought to be provided for and the same treatment ought to be given to that new separate territory as that which existed at the time of the Agreement if that separate customs territory were included in the list of the metropolitan territories.
This is the object of the second proviso appearing in ragraph 3 (s), stating that "Provided further that if any of the customs territories on behalf of which a contracting party has accepted this Agreement possesses or acquires full autonomy in the conduct of its external oɔmmercial relations and of the other
tters provided for by
this Agreement, oto.
The Sub-committee further, thought that the provision included in Pragraph 3 (e), stating that the separate customs territories should be allowed to send representatives to the Contracting Parties (with capital letters), was insufficient, because it did not take into account the rights and obligations of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.