INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION
LEG/CONF.1O/6(b)
21 July 1995
Original: ENGLISH
LOVAVD. - E
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS
SUBSTANCES AND LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY, 1996
Agenda item 6(b)
';; '; r
.:.
-- ,
SAKSNR: ""\\o/;;).~;-o
D;J!<'..NR.
+
SAKSdEH.
;;;L
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND THE CONVENTION
ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND THE CONVENTION ON LIMITATION
OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
THE PARTIES TO THE PRESENT PROTOCOL,
CONSIDERING that it is desirableto amend the Conventionon Limitation of Liability for Maritime
Claims, done at London on 19 November 1976, to provide for enhanced compensation and to establish a
simplified procedure fur updating the limitation amounts,
HAYE AGREED as follows:
Article 1
For the purposes of this Protocol:
I.
"Convention" means the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976.
2.
"Organization" means the International Maritime Organization.
3.
"Secretary-General" means the Secretary-General ofthe Organization.
Article 2
Article 3, sobparagraph (a) of the Convention, is replaced by the following text:
Le( 7l/;
(
ftif.q:.
(a)
~1-
Claims for salvage, including any claim for special compensation under article 14 of the
InternationalConvention an Salvage 1989, as amended, or contribution in general average;
H:\CONFILEG\! 06B.
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
LEDILO/ABB/jr
LEG/CONF.IO/6(b)
-2­
Article 3
Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention is replaced by the following text:
I.
The limits of liability for claims other than those mentioned in article 7, arising on any distinct
occasion, shall be calculated as follows:
(a)
in respect of claims for loss oflife or personal injury,
(i)
[] Units of Account for a ship with a tonnage not exceeding 500 tons,
(ii)
for a ship with a tonnage in excess thereof, the following amount in addition to
that mentioned in (i):
for each ton from 50I to 3,000 tons, [
1Units of Account;
for each ton from 3,00 I to 30,000 tons, [ ] Units of Account;
for each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, [ ] Units of Account; and
for each ton in excess of 70,000 tons, [ ] Units of Account,
(b)
in respect of any other claims,
(i)
[1 Units of Account for a ship with a tonnage not exceeding 500 tons,
(ii)
for a ship with a tonnage in excess thereof the following amount in addition to
that mentioned in (i):
for each ton from 501 to 30,000 tons, [ ] Units of Account;
for each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, [
for each ton in excess of 70,000 tons, [
1Units of Account; and
1Units of Account.
Article 4
Article 7, paragraph 1 ofthe Convention is replaced by the following text:
·1 ~ ~
1. •
In respect of claims arising on any distinct occasion for loss of life or personal injury to
passengers of a ship, the limit ofliability of the shipowner thereof shall be an amount of [175,000] Units,~.
of Account multiplied by the number of passengers which the ship is authorized to carry according\the
\\
~~s~~
Y"16
R\CONFILEGlI06B.
.
L€X"'\\\)
fJ
9J
v-
LEDILO/ABB/jr
- 3 -
LEG/CONF 10/6(b)
Article 5
Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention is replaced by the following text:
2.
Nevertheless, those States which are not members of the International Monetary Fund and whose
law does not permit the application of the provisions of paragraph 1 may, at the time of signature without
reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval or at the time of ratification, acceptance, approval
or accession or at any time thereafter, declare that the limits of liability provided for in this Convention
to be applied in their territories shall be fixed as follows:
(a)
in respect of article 6, paragraph I (a) at an amount of:
(i)
[] million monetary units for a ship with a tonnage not exceeding 500 tons;
(ii)
for a ship with a tonnage in excess thereof the following amount in addition to
that mentioned in (i):
for each ton from 501 to 3,000 tons, [ ] monetary units;
for each ton from 3,001 to 30,000 tons, [
] monetary units;
for each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, [ ] monetary units; and
for each ton in excess of 70,000 tons, [ ] monetary units; and
(b)
in respect of article 6, paragraph 1(b), at an amount of:
(i)
[ ] million monetary units for a ship with a tonnage not exceeding 500 tons;
(ii)
for a ship with a tonnage in excess thereof, the following amount in addition to
that mentioned in (i):
7_each ton from 501 to 30,000 tons, [ ] monetary units;
for each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, [ ] monetary units; and
for each ton in excess of70,000 tons, [ ] monetary units; and
~I
(c)
in respect of article 7, paragraph 1, at an amount of [
] monetary units multiplied by the
number of passengers which the ship is authorized to carry according to its certificate.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 6 apply correspondingly to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph.
Article 6
The following text is added as paragraph 3bis in article 15 of the Convention:
/12 _
%1
3bis
Notwithstanding the limit of liability prescribed in paragraph 1 of article 7, a State Party may
rr....."Tu .q..::xregulate by specific provisions of national law the system of liability to be applied to claims for loss of
H:ICONFILEGII06B
LEDILOIABB/jr
LEG/CONF.1O/6(b)
-4­
life or personal injury to passengers of a ship, provided that the limit of liability is not lower than that
prescribed in paragraph 1 of article 7.
Article 7
Article 18, paragraph 1 of the Convention is replaced by the following text:
1.
Any State may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or at any
time thereafter, reserve the right:
(a)
to exclude the application of article 2, paragraphs 1 (d) and (e);
(b)
to apply to claims subject to the HNS Convention the limits of liability set out under that
Convention.
Article 8
Amendment of limits
1.
Upon the request of at least [
], but in no case less than [
], of the States Parties to this
Protocol, any proposal to amend the limits specified in article 6, paragraph 1, article 7, paragraph 1 and
article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention as amended by this Protocol shall be circulated by the
Secretary-General to all Members of the Organization and to all Contracting States.
2.
Any amendment proposed and circulated as above shall be submitted to the Legal Committee of
the Organization (hereinafter referred to as "the Legal Committee") for consideration at a date at least
six months after the date of its circulation.
3.
All Contracting States to the Convention as amended by this Protocol, whether or not Members
of the Organization, shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings of the Legal Committee for the
consideration and adoption of amendments.
4.
Amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Contracting States to the
Convention as amended by this Protocol present and voting in the Legal Committee expanded as
provided for in paragraph 3, on condition that at least one half of the Contracting States to the Convention
as amended by this Protocol shall be present at the time of voting.
5.
When acting on a proposal to amend the limits, the Legal Committee shall take into account the
experience of incidents and, in particular, the amount of damage resulting therefrom, changes in the
monetary values and the effect of the proposed amendment on the cost of insurance.
6.
(a)
No amendment of the limits under this article may be considered less than five years
from the date on which this Protocol was opened for signature nor less than five years
from the date of entry into force of a previous amendment under this article.
(b)
No limit may be increased so as to exceed an amount which corresponds to the limit laid
down in the Convention as amended by this Protocol increased by [six] per cent per year
calculated on a compound basis from the date on which this Protocol was opened for
signature.
H:ICONFILEGII06B.
LEDILOIABB/jr
- 5 -
(c)
LEG/CONF.I O/6(b)
No limit may be increased so as to exceed an amount which corresponds to the limit laid
down in the Convention as amended by this Protocol multiplied by [three].
7.
Any amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 4 shall be notified by the Organization
to all Contracting States. The amendment shall be deemed to have been accepted at the end of a period
of eighteen months after the date of notification, unless within that period not less than one-fourth of the
States that were Contracting States at the time of the adoption of the amendment have communicated to
the Secretary-General that they do not accept the amendment, in which case the amendment is rejected
and shall have no effect.
8.
An amendment deemed to have been accepted in accordance with paragraph 7 shall enter into
force eighteen months after its acceptance.
9.
All Contracting States shall be bound by the amendment, unless they denounce this Protocol in
accordance with paragraphs I and 2 of article 8 at least six months before the amendment enters into
force. Such denunciation shall take effect when the amendment enters into force.
10.
When an amendment has been adopted but the eighteen-month period for its acceptance has not
yet expired, a State which becomes a Contracting State during that period shall be bound by the
amendment if it enters into force. A State which becomes a Contracting State after that period shall be
bound by an amendment which has been accepted in accordance with paragraph 7. In the cases referred
to in this paragraph, a State becomes bound by an amendment when that amendment enters into force,
or when this Protocol enters into force for that State, if later.
Article 9
I.
The Convention and this Protocol shall, as between the Parties to this Protocol, be read and
interpreted together as one single instrument.
2.
A State which is Party to this Protocol but not a Party to the Convention shall be bound by the
provisions of the Convention as amended by this Protocol in relation to other States Parties hereto, but
shall not be bound by the provisions of the Convention in relation to States Parties only to the
Convention.
3.
The Convention as amended by this Protocol shall apply only to claims arising out of occurrences
which take place after the entry into force for each State of this Protocol.
[4.
Nothing in this Protocol shall affect the obligations of a State which is a Party both to the
Convention and to this Protocol with respect to a State which is a Party to the Convention but not
a Party to this Protocol.) i
H:\CONFILEG\106B.
LED/LO/ABB/jr
LEG/CONFIO/6(b)
-6­
FINAL CLAUSES
Article 10
Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession
1.
This Protocol shall be open for signature at the Headquarters of the Organization from [ ] to
[ ] by all States.
2.
Any State may express its consent to be bound by this Protocol by:
(a)
signature without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval;
(b)
signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval followed by ratification,
acceptance or approval; or
(c)
accession.
3.
Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument
to that effect with the Secretary-General.
[4.
Any Party to the 1976 Convention may sign without reservation as to ratification,
Le 1~L acceptance or approval, ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Protocol only ifit denounces the
r:
r£..... (
••
I
'''''j 1976 Convention. In the case of such denunciation any expression of consent to be bound by the
(eo Protocol shall, for the purposes of article 11, paragraph 1, only be effective ninety days before the
1"../ Jlenunciation takes effect in accordance with article 19, paragraph 3 of the 1976 Convention. ] ,
'r""
re.. . -a-g
[5.]
Any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited after the entry into
force of an amendment to the Convention as amended by this Protocol shall be deemed to apply to the
Convention so amended, as modified by such amendment.
Article 11
Entry into force
I
This Protocol shall enter into force 90 days following the date on which [10] States have
expressed their consent to be bound by it
(..J
2.
For any State which expresses Its consent to be bound by this Protocol after the conditions in
paragraph 1 for entry into force have been met, this Protocol shall enter into force 90 days following the
date of expression of such consent.
Article 12
Denunciation
1.
This Protocol may be denounced by any State Party at any time after the date on which it enters
into force for that State Party.
H:\CONFILEG\106B.
LEDILO/ABB/jr
- 7 -
LEG/CONF. IO/6(b)
2.
Denunciation shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of denunciation with the
Secretary-General.
3.
A denunciation shall take effect 12 months, or such longer period as may be specified in the
instrument of denunciation, after its deposit with the Secretary-General.
4.
As between the States Parties to this Protocol, denunciation by any of them of the Convention
in accordance with article 19 thereof shall not be construed in any way as a denunciation of the
Convention as amended by this Protocol.
Article 13
Revision and amendment
I.
A conference for the purpose of revising or amending this Protocol may be convened by the
Organization.
The Organization shall convene a conference of Contracting States to this Protocol for revising
or amending it at the request of not less than one-third of the Contracting Parties.
2.
Article 14
Depositary
This Protocol and any amendments accepted under article 8 shall be deposited with the
I.
Secretary-General.
2.
The Secretary-General shall:
(a)
inform all States which have signed or acceded to this Protocol of
(i)
(ii)
each new signature or deposit of an instrument together with the date thereof;
each declaration and communication under article 8, paragraph 2 of the
Convention as amended by this Protocol, and article 8, paragraph 4 of the
Convention;
(iii)
the date of entry into force of this Protocol;
(iv)
any proposal to amend limits which has been made in accordance with article 8,
paragraph I;
(v)
any amendment which has been adopted in accordance with article 8, paragraph
4',
(vi)
any amendment deemed to have been accepted under article 8, paragraph 7,
together with the date on which that amendment shall enter into force in
accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of that article;
H:\CONF\LEG\ I068.
LED/LO/ABB/jr
LEG/CONF.! 0/6(b)
(vii)
(b)
-8­
the deposit of any instrument of denunciation of this Protocol together with the
date of the deposit and the date on which it takes effect;
transmit certified true copies of this Protocol to all Signatory States and to all States
which accede to this Protocol
3.
As soon as this Protocol enters into force, the text shall be transmitted by the Secretary-General
to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication in accordance with Article! 02
of the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 15
Languages
This Protocol is established in a single original in the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian
and Spanish languages, each text being equally authentic.
Done at.......
***
H:\CONFILEG\1068.
LEDILO/ABB/jr
LEG/CONF. 10/6(b)
ANNEX
NOTES TO THE DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND THE CONVENTION ON
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
Article 9
The removal of either the brackets or the text within them should be considered in the light of the
decision to be taken by the Conference on a proposal for a compulsory denunciation included within
square brackets in article 10, paragraph 4 (see note 2).
Article 10
The Legal Committee decided to include a proposal on compulsory denunciation within square
brackets. The second sentence has been introduced to co-ordinate this provision with that in article 19
of the 1976 Convention. With this co-ordination, it has not been felt necessary to abandon the modem
treaty language used in article 11 in order to harmonize the expression for the calculation of the day for
entry into force with the then traditional treaty language used in article 17 of LLMC 1976 (see
paragraph 100, LEG 72/9). Such harmonization may further complicate the co-ordination just referred
to.
2
H:ICONF\LEGl106BAN
LED/LO/ABB/jr
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION
LEG/CONF.10/6(b)/1
23 January 1996
Original: ENGLISH
.,1..-<:;
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE NJUSTI~3DEPAf1TEr-J1ENTET
LOVAVD. - E
HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS
SUBSTANCES AND LIMITATION
"': ".
'"
L
t , .. U
LIABILITY, 1996
Agenda item 6(b)
SAi<SNR: ~ \0 d-"5::::'~
(
._-!,
_ .._..
Qp
tr',
~ .'~ ,~,
DOK.[\~R.
o
SAKSl3EH.
,/
f
.
-C'I.. ')
..
l.
'S-"<­
----.
------ ­
Submitted by the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH)
Harm may be caused to personnel within port areas and damage may be caused to port
superstructures as a consequence of catastrophic accidents and other incidents occurring in port areas
compensation for which is not covered by specific Conventions such as those dealing with oil pollution
or nuclear damage. In such a situation IAPH members must rely on recourse through the
1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims as revised from time to time.
In so far as consideration is now being given to the adoption of a draft Protocol to that
Convention, IAPH believes that it is appropriate to make the following comments:
Article 3: Port works such as swing bridges, locks, quays, jetties, terminals and handling equipment are
not infrequently damaged by vessels while manoeuvring.
In addition to such physical damage, grounding can result from faulty manoeuvres, engine or
steering failure, leaks, fire, etc., resulting in consequential damages.
Both port authorities and management companies of private property in the port zone can sustain
such damages. In addition, there are also other port users (ships, terminal operators, customers) whose
activities or movements may be blocked with consequential serious financial loss.
Pollutiondamage from bunker fuels from ships other than oil tankers, or even damage caused by
explosions of oil tankers in ballast can result in claims for damage.
During the deliberations of the 1976 Diplomatic Conference, levels of limitation were agreed as
if they were to come into force immediately. In fact, the 1976 Convention did not enter into force until
I December 1986. During the intervening period, the monetary erosion in the purchasing power of the
IMF's Special Drawing Rights, the unit of account of the 1976 Convention, reflected the considerable
erosion of the different currencies that compose the SDR. In many cases that purchasing power had
fallen by 50% compared to the value of 1976 (see LEG 70/511) and in some cases by as much as 75%.
IAPH takes the view that in these circumstances compensation for damages to port personnel
and/or property which may occur as a result of maritime related accidents will only cover a fraction
(say 1110) of their true actuarial value. More realistic compensation levels (e.g., the previous figures
multiplied by at least 3.5) should be included in the draft Protocol. These levels should also be capable
of being quickly and frequently adjusted to relate to current volumes of currencies comprised within
the SDR basket.
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
~J
,(
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND THE CONVENTION
ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
I:\CONFILEG\IO\6(B)-1
2'8/~ -9{
LEG/CONF.10/6(b)/1
-2 ­
Article 4: Noting that the 1990 Protocol to the 1974 Athens Convention concerning passengers and their
baggage raised the level of limitation from 46,666 to 175,000 units of account per head for claims by
passengers in cases of death or injury. It would therefore be logical that the draft Protocol under
consideration should recognize the applicability of similar compensation amounts in respect of other
claims for loss of life or personal injury,
Article 6: A number of incidents, especially in ports, can cause extensive damage to property, without
involving high loss of life or personal injury, Since insurance coverage is already provided, in one
direction, there is no reason why it should not be used for property damage and the spill-over clause
should work in both directions. IAPH proposes that an addition to article 6.2 be included as follows:
"Where the amount calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.l(b) is insufficient to pay the
claims there mentioned in full, the remainder of the amount calculated in accordance with
paragraph 6.I(a), after full compensation for claims other than those mentioned in article 7,
arising in respect of loss of life or personal injury, shall be available for the payment of the
unpaid balance of claims arising under paragraph 6.I(b)".
I:ICONFILEGI1016(B)-1
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION
LEG/CONF.IO/6(b)/2
6 February 1996
Original: ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS
U ". ~ ;..... \ i"-,·":.'J
SUBSTANCES AND LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY, 1996
SAKSNR: ~
~ "Cc:::,~
Agenda item 6(b)
DOK.NR. \ \
SAK~~0
"'"
""
,~.
'-,
.<
,~,
~
"\
\o!
I
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND
THE CONVENTION ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
Note by the International Chamber of Shipping
INTRODUCTION
ICS has participated in tbe discussions in tbe Legal Committee on tbe revision of tbe Convention
on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 and broadly supports tbe proposed new draft
Protocol. ICS offers tbe following comments on certain specific provisions of tbe draft Protocol
(1996 LLMC).
LIMITS OF LIABILITY - THE GENERAL LIMITS - ARTICLE 3
Article 3 of tbe 1996 LLMC would amend tbe limits of liability contained in Article 6
paragraph I oftbe 1976 LLMC, tbe new limits being for decision by tbe Conference. One proposal for
determining tbe revised figures is tbat tbey should be based primarily on a statistical analysis of tbe effect
of inflation on tbe real value oftbe 1976 Convention limits.
However, ICS does not believe tbat tbe rate of inflation presents a full picture. In reaching its
decision on the general limitation figures, the Conference will also need to take into account both the
historic claims record and, importantly, whether limitation proceedings under the HNS Convention
will be linked with proceedings under the 1996 LLMC
ICS strongly favours "linkage". However, if tbe Conference decides tbat tbere will be no
"linkage" HNS claims will be removed from tbe ambit of tbe 1996 LLMC and tbe scope of tbe general
limitation regime will be considerably reduced. In tbat event tbe remaining claims would obtain higher
compensation and tbere would be no need to increase tbe general limits. Furtbermore, apart from
personal injury claims most non-HNS claims today relate to damage to property owned by maritime
interests and tberefore generally insured in tbe marine market.
If, on tbe otber hand, tbere is linkage between HNS and general limitation, more insurance
capacity will be available enabling additional compensation for HNS claims tbrough tbe supplementary
shipowner fund and tbe HNS Fund. ICS fully endorses tbe views of tbe International Group of
P&l Clubs set forth in tbeir submission document (LEG/CONF.IO/6(a)/5) including tbeir
recommendation tbat witb linkage, a 50% increase in tbe 1976 LLMC figures would be sustainable.
-2
i
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copie~
LEG/CONF.I0/6(b)/2
-2­
LIMITS OF LIABILITY - PASSENGER CLAIMS - ARTICLE 4
Article 4 of the 1996 LLMC would amend Article 7, paragraph 1 of the 1976 LLMC in two
respects. First the shipowner's limit ofliability for claims arising on any distinct occasion for loss oflife
or personal injury to passengers of a ship would be increased from 46,666 SDR to [175,000] SDR
multiplied by the number of passengers which the ship is authorised to carry according to the ship's
certificate. Secondly, the cap (currently 25 million SDR) on the amount of the shipowner's liability for
such claims would be removed.
rcs accepts the proposed figure of 175,000 SDR, believing it to be a realistic figure consistent
with public expectations. As regards the removal of the cap, the industry acknowledges that an overall
ceiling is a sensitive issue. However, the Conference will wish to consider the fact that a large
passenger ship, certificated to carry perhaps 2000 passengers, would face a potential liability of
350 million SDR (assuming a per capita figure of175,000 SDR). Whether such a figure is insurable
in the long term must be questionable.
SCOPE OF APPLICATION - ARTICLE 6
Article 6 of the 1996 LLMC would amend Article 15 of the 1976 LLMC by adding a new
paragraph 3bis which would provide that "a State Party may regulate by specific provisions of national
law the system of liability to be applied to claims for loss of life or personal injury to passengers of a
ship, provided that the limit of liabilityis not lower than that prescribed in paragraph 1 of Article 7.".
[CS recognises that the Legal Committee decided that this amendment should be submitted to
the Conference but would point out that it will have the effect of seriously undermining one of the
main purposes ofthe Convention: uniform limits ofliability in States Parties.
RESERVATIONS - ARTICLE 7
Article 7 of the 1996 LLMC would amend Article 18 of the 1976 LLMC by allowing States
Parties to reserve the right to apply to claims subject to the HNS Convention the limits of liability set out
under that Convention. This proposal should be reviewed following the final decision in respect of
"linkage".
COMPULSORY DENUNCIATION - ARTICLE 10 PARAGRAPH 4
Article 10 paragraph 4 of the 1996 LLMC would compulsorily require States Parties to
denounce the 1976 LLMC. The decision on this proposal win affect Article 9 paragraph 4 which has
accordingly been placed in square brackets.
[CS is strongly opposed to compulsory denunciation ofthe 1976 LLMC, believing that it will
undermine the general global limitation system. The 1976 LLMC creates a system of international
procedural law which is applicable only between member states. The benefit of this system win be lost
if States Parties to the 1996 LLMC must denounce the 1976 LLMC. In addition there is the possibility
that the old and the new regimes win cover too few States to have any significant effect on international
procedural law. A transitional period for phasing out the old regime is therefore vital.
I:\CONF\LEG\! O\6(B)-2
-3-
LEG/CONF.l O/6(b)/2
In practical terms compulsory denunciation will mean that a limitation fund constituted in a
1976 LLMC State will not be recognised in a 1996 LLMC State and vice versa In a number of cases,
therefore, two global limitation funds will have to be established from the ground up which will result
in an inefficient use of insurance and greater costs. Forum shopping will also be encouraged because the
same incident will not be dealt with in the same way in States Parties to the 1996 LLMC as in States
Parties to the 1976 LLMC. By creating a completely independent new Convention, international
uniformity will be undermined, whereas by maintaining the traditional treaty relationship between the
old and the revised LLMC regionalism will be avoided.
I:\CONFILEG\10\6(8)-2
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION
LEG/CONF. IO/6(b)/3
6 February 1996
Original: ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 0
HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS
SUBSTANCES AND LIMITATION 0
LIABILITY, 1996
Agenda item 6(b)
~.
....,
U :.~ __ t ..,
-,
'~"""
~..J_.;J
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND
THE CONVENTION ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
Comments on the draft Protocol of 1996 to amend
the Convention on Limitation of Liability
for Maritime Claims, 1976
Snbmitted by Japan
I
Reference is made to the draft Protocol of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of
Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, as presented in LEG/CON. 1O/6(b). Japan would like to propose
some revisions to the draft Protocol as attached at annex.
Action requested of the Conference
2
The Conference is invited to consider these proposed revisions during discussion of Protocol
of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976.
•••
I:\CONFlLEG\1O\6(B)-3
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
LEG/CONF. I0/6(b)/3
ANNEX
1
Article 2 of the draft Protocol
It is our understanding that the proposed amendment of article 3(a) of the Convention as
provided or in article 2 of the draft Protocol is intended to clarify the interpretation of the present
article 3(a) of the Convention, and not to change the substance of the article. In any event, claims for
special compensation under article 14 ofthe 1989 Salvage Convention will not be recognized in a State
Party which is not a party to the Salvage Convention, unless the rules of private intemationallaw of that
State designate, as applicable law on claims on salvage, the law of a State which is a party to the Salvage
Convention. If this understanding is correct, it might be appropriate to insert the following words
between the words "amended," and the word "or" on the second line of the proposed text of article 3(a)
in order to clarify the meaning of a specific reference to the 1989 Salvage Convention in the amendment
"to the extent that such a claim is recognized under the applicable law of a State where limitation of
liability is invoked".
(Explanation)
It is desirable to clarify how the amended version of article 3(a) of LLMC as provided for in
article 2 of the draft Protocol is intended to operate with regard to those States which are not parties to
the 1989 Salvage Convention.
2
Article 6 of the draft Protocol
The following new sentence be added at the end of the proposed text of the new paragraph 3bis
of article 15 of the Convention:
"A State Party which makes use of the option provided for in this paragraph shall inform the
depositary of the limits of liability adopted or of the fact that there are none."
(Explanation)
Since the new paragraph 3bis of article 15 allows the Convention to be implemented differently
from one State Party to another, State Parties should be notified, through the depository of the
Convention, of whether or not a State Party has opted out ofparagraph I of article 7 and, if so, the extent
ofliability applicable under the law of that State Party.
I:\CONFILEG\10\6(8)-3
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION
LEG/CONF.IO/6(b)/4
13 February 1996
Original: ENGLISH
11 :0~ lQ ,r:::Jr· p""'Ci\nc,\!'Tr:: 7
,JVv I ivUi-~ ru ,I LI~lL, J . I - i
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 0
LOVAVD. - E
HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS
SUBSTANCES AND LIMITATION 0
LIAlBILfIl{, 1996
Agenda item 6(b)
SAKSNR: "'"\ '-0 ~ '6 C:::,j ,.
DiJK.NR.
SI\KSl1EH.
\~
I
'- ....
'2-x
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND THE CONVENTION
ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
Comments by the Swedish Delegation
SUMMARY
The Swedish Delegation supports the revision of the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for
Maritime Claims (1976 LLMC), with the aim of increasing the limits ofliability.
Of special importance is the improvement for passenger claims (Article 4 of draft Protocol).
The Delegation also supports the introduction of a tacit amendment procedure for the limits of liability
(Article 8 of draft Protocol).
THE GENERAL LIMITS
The Swedish Delegation favours a considerable increase in the amount laid down in the present version
of the Convention. Already the inflation that has taken place since the Convention was adopted in 1976
makes such an increase necessary.
It would also, in the opinion of the Delegation, be advisable to pay special attention to the limits of
liability for small ships. The principle should be to set the limits taking account of the fact that small
ships can cause great damage.
THE LIMIT FOR PASSENGER CLAIMS
The Swedish Delegationstrongly supports the introduction of the limit in the 1990 Protocol to the Athens
Convention and the removal of the global limitation of25 millions SDR ceiling per incident.
Recent incidents with large ferryships have shown that the global limitation for passenger claims is not
realistic in view of such ships. Neither have shipowners in these cases invoked the global limitation
which indicates that it is outdated.
The Swedish Delegation accepts Article 6 of the draft Protocol. This enables the
unlimited liability for passenger claims.
intrQ"(lue~n
\
'---"~
\
J \
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copjes,
of
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION
LEG/CONF. I O/6(b)/5
I3 March 1996
Original: ENGLISH
tiii'll
~
~
~~
.
7.P
y"
r J lM<Q~[;-"-~'~;-~¥
EJ'.1 r C2T
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
LOVi\VD. - E
HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS
SUBSTANCES AND LIMITATION OF
1J. APR
LIABILITY, 1996
SAKSNR:
Agenda item 6(b)
1935
OOt<:.NR.
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND
THE CONVENTION ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
DRAFTING POINT
Submitted by Norway
Article 6 of the draft Protocol proposes a new paragraph 3 bis of article 15 of the Convention.
The new paragraph 3 bis of article 15 should refer to article 8 of the Convention in the same manner as
article 7:
''Notwithstanding the limits of liability prescribed in paragraph 1 of article 7 andparagraph 2(c)
ofarticle 8, a State Party may"."
I:\CONFILEG\1O\6(B)-5
- o-,
r -F
-,e-as-on-s-o-fe-c-o~~my, this
_,_~indly
docu-~ent is pri"~-~'~d in a limit;'d'~-~-~b~~-:"'Delegate;-;;;--l
to~ m~etings an~.~_~~_~o requ~"~~.~~ditiona_~_::OPies:.......J
asked to bring their copies
LEG/CONF.1 O/6(b)/6
27 March 1996
Original: ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATiON
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS
SUBSTANCES AND LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY, 1996
Agenda item 6(b)
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT PROTOCOL OF 1996 TO AMEND THE CONVENTION
ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS, 1976
Note by the Secretariat
1
The Legal Committee at its seventy-third session (11-13 October 1995) requested the Secretariat
to provide the Conference with updated information from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the
erosion of the real value of the Special Drawing Right (SDR).
Pursuant to this request, the Secretariat has provided in the annexes to this document official
2
statistics from 1976 onwards relating to the following factors:
the SDR exchange rate in respect of the currencies of the States Parties to LLMC 1976
(annex 1);
the SDR exchange rate in respect of the currencies of twelve countries, including nine
States Parties to LLMC 1976, on which statistical data are published on a regular basis
(annex 2);
the exchange rate SDR and ECU vs US Dollar and Deutsche Mark, and Japanese Yen
vs US Dollar, in graphic form (annex 3);
the variations in wholesale prices and consumer prices in graphic form (annex 4); and
the Industrial Production Index (annex 5).
3
These statistics are provided by IMF and are the latest available at this stage.
The Secretariat has also prepared the following tables on the evolution of the SDR purchasing
4
power from December 1976to December 1994:
for States Parties to LLMC 1976; and
for 12 countries, including nine States Parties to LLMC 1976, on which statistical data
are published on a regular basis.
5
These tables are based on IMF statistics and are contained in annexes 6 and 7, respectively.
I:ICONFILEtnl6(!l) 6
..
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly a.=ked to bring their copies ~_meetin~s an? not to request additional copies.
LEG/CONF.IO/6(b)/
-2­
Action requested of the Conference
6
The Conference is invited to take note of the information contained in this document and to
comment and decide as appropriate.
•••
1:\CONFILEG\10\6(B)-6
END OF PERIOD
SDR EXCHANGE RATE IN RESPECT OF THE CURRENCIES OF THE STATES PARTIES TO LLMC 1976
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
SDR per Australian dollars
.9351
.9396
.8831
.8392
.9257
.9690
.8889
.8616
.8445
.6199
.5435
.5093
.6357
.6032
.5436
.5312
.5008
.5930
.5321
Bahamian dollars per SDR
1.1618
1.2147
1.3028
1.3173
1.2754
1.1640
1.1031
1.0470
.9802
1.0984
1.2232
1.4187
1.3457
1.3142
1.4227
1.4304
1.3750
1.3736
1.4599
Barbados Dollars per SDR
2.3281
2.443 I
2.6203
2.6495
2.5652
2.3411
2.2187
2.1057
1.9715
2.2093
2.4602
2.8534
2.7066
2.6432
2.8614
2.8770
2.7655
2.7626
2.9362
Belgian Francs per SDR
Croatia
Francs (Benin) per SDR
41.806
40.013
-
-
288.70
285.76
37.520
40.205
36.948
-
-
-
272.28
264.78
287.99
44.766
51.758
-
-
334.52
370.92
58.252
436.97
6.724
7.018
6.631
7.067
7.672
8.526
9.248
Oeutsche Marks per SOR
2.7448
2.5570
2.3815
2.2810
2.4985
2.6245
2.6215
2.8517
Dutch Guilders per SDR
2.8546
2.7695
2.5652
2.5102
2.7160
2.8632
2.8951
Egyptian Pounds per SDR
.4546
.4753
.5098
.9221
.8928
.8148
Finnish Markkaa per SDR
4.3766
4.8807
5.1148
4.8886
4.8976
French Francs perSDR
5.7740
5.7152
5.4457
5.2957
5.7598
Japanese Yen per SOR
Liberian Dollars per SOR
Norwegian Kroner per SDR
47.032
10.339
70.11
11.037
50.255
46.994
44.078
415.26
394.78
378.78
407.68
44.730
45.623
49.599
46.478
380.32
364.84
370.48
378.57
04.89
780.44
9.852
8.981
8.649
9.250
8.683
8.217
8.459
8.601
9.302
8.880
3.0857
2.7035
2.3740
1.2436
2.3957
2.2312
2.1255
2.1685
2.3193
2.3712
2.2610
3.2084
3.4793
3.0448
2.6812
2.5217
2.6907
2.5173
2.4043
2.4466
2.4944
2.6659
2.5330
.7722
.7329
.6861
.7689
.8562
.9931
.9420
1.4456
2.8453
4.7633
4.5792
4.6292
4.9518
5.0714
5.8366
6.0828
6.4008
5.9501
5.8640
5.5980
5.6102
5.3742
5.1699
5.9120
7.2119
7.9454
6.9244
6.6904
7.4184
8.7394
9.4022
8.3052
7.8957
7.5756
8_1536
7.6064
7.2968
7.4096
7.5714
8.0978
7.8044
43.13
46.91
50.43
59.35
67.08
77.85
103.30
125.94
162.30
169.73
178.64
199.30
207.36
h24 .25
250.73
95.05
342.32
50.51
340.18
291.53
253.52
315.76
258.91
12 55.95
59.23
243.10
246.13
220.25
194.61
175.20
169.36
188.52
191.21
179.09
171.53
153.63
145.61
1.1618
1.2147
-
SOR per New Zealand Dollars
49.429
43.02
Marshall Islands
Mexican New Pesos per SDR*
55.316
-
Danish Kroner per SOR
Greek Drachmas per SOR
61.832
23.179
1.3028
-
27.618
1.3173
29.605
30.078
1.2754
1.1640
-
-
29.661
30.529
1.1031
1.0470
106.428
.9802
1.0984
150.688
188.749
1.2232
1.4187
1.3457
1.3142
1.130
1.4304
1.3750
-
08.283
1.4227
3.135
3.070
3.471
4.190
4.393
4.284
1.3736
1.4599
-
-
4.266
7.774
.8177
.8395
.8187
.7486
.7545
.7083
.6640
.6252
.4872
.4538
.4280
.4635
.4669
.4544
.4132
.3783
.3740
.4068
.4401
6.0241
6.2430
6.5433
6.4892
6.6066
6.7597
7.7813
8.0847
8.9072
8.3288
9.0516
8.8418
8.8412
8.6932
8.4044
8.5440
9.5212
10.3264
9.8715
Polish Zlotys per SDR""
385.75
403.28
4.33
5.14
5.87
6.50
9.54
10.30
12.37
16.24
24.17
44.76
67.63
854.20
1.35
1.57
2.17
2.93
3.56
Spanish Pesetas per SDR
79.34
98.28
91.34
87.14
101.08
113.43
138.55
164.06
169.97
169.32
161.94
154.63
152.67
144.19
137.87
138.31
157.61
195.34
192.32
Swedish Kronor per SDR
4.7943
5.6721
5.5961
5.4623
5.5771
6.4844
8.0466
8.3766
8.8116
8.3650
8.3409
8.2963
8.2855
8.1833
8.1063
7.9096
9.6841
11.4054
10.8927
Swiss Francs per SDR
2.8459
2.4294
2.1105
2.0814
2.2492
2.0934
2.2002
2.2818
2.5338
2.2809
1.9858
1.8130
2.0239
2.0323
1.8431
1.9389
2.0020
2.0322
1.9146
SDR per United Kingdom Pounds
1.4653
1.5691
1.5616
1.6883
1.8700
1.6392
1.4636
1.3855
1.1798
1.3151
1.2055
1.3192
1.3447
1.2217
1.3552
1.3078
1.0996
1.0784
1.0703
Vanuatu Vanu per SDR
93.32
92.37
88.01
85.59
93.09
106.19
106.06
106.55
Yemani Rials per SDR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
New Pesos: Per thousand SDR through 1985 and per SDR thereafter
Zlotys: Per million SDRs through 1977, per thousand SDRs 1978-89 .
I:\CONFILEG\I O\6(B)-6
100.55
110.12
142.18
142.00
141.37
145.48
-
155.43
158.48
163.63
165.93
163.62
:.­
z
Z
t'l
;.<
-
c­
m
Q
n
~
~
17.0861
17.1795
16.5138
16.4965
17.5328
~
~
~
0"
~
END OF PERIOD
SDR EXCHANGE RATE IN RESPECT OF THE CURRENCIES OF TWELVE COUNTRIES
Belgian Francs per SDR
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
41.806
40.013
37.520
36.948
40.205
44.766
51.758
58.252
61.832
55.316
49.429
47.032
50.255
46.994
44.078
44.730
45.623
49.599
46.478
1.3028
1.5350
1.6886
1.8440
1.6050
1.5215
1.6507
1.6530
1.7478
1.8186
2.0479
9.852
8.981
8.649
9.250
8.683
8.217
8.459
8.601
9.302
8.880
3.0857
2.7035
2.3740
2.2436
2.3957
2.2312
2.1255
2.1685
2.3193
2.3712
2.2610
3.2084
3.4793
3.0448
2.6812
2.5217
2.6907
2.5173
2.4043
2.4466
2.4944
2.6659
2.5330
8.7394
9.4022
8.3052
7.8957
7.5756
8.1536
7.6064
7.2968
7.4096
7.5714
8.0978
7.8044
Canadian Dollars per SDR*
Ll725
1.3294
1.5451
1.5388
1.5237
1.3803
1.3562
Danish Kroner per SDR
6.724
7.018
6.631
7.067
7.672
8.526
9.248
Deutsche Marks per SDR
2.7448
2.5570
2.3815
2.2810
2.4985
2.6245
2.6215
2.8517
Dutch Guilders per SDR
2.8546
2.7695
2.5652
2.5102
2.7160
2.8632
2.8951
French Francs per SDR
5.7740
5.7152
5.4457
5.2957
5.7598
6.6904
7.4184
10.339
1.2952
11.037
Italian Lire per SDR*
1,016.6
1,058.7
1,081.0
1,059.1
1,186.8
1,396.8
1,511.3
1,737.4
1,897.6
1,843.7
1,661.3
1,658.8
1,757.2
1,669.6
1,607.8
1,646.5
,022.4
,340.5
,379.2
Japanese Yen per SDR
340.18
291.53
253.52
315.76
r258.91
255.95
259.23
243.10
46.13
220.25
194.61
175.20
169.36
188.52
191.21
179.09
171.53
153.63
145.61
79.34
98.28
91.34
87.14
101.08
113.43
138.55
164.06
169.97
169.32
161.94
154.63
152.67
144.19
137.87
138.31
157.61
195.34
192.32
Spanish Pesetas per SDR
""
ZZ
Swiss Francs per SDR
2.8459
2.4294
2.1105
2.0814
2.2492
2.0934
2.2002
2.2818
2.5338
2.2809
1.9858
1.8130
2.0239
2.0323
1.8431
1.9389
2.0020
2.0322
1.9146
SDR per United Kingdom Pounds
1.4653
1.5691
1.5616
1.6883
1.8700
1.6392
1.4636
1.3855
1.l798
1.3151
1.2055
1.3192
1.3447
1.2217
1.3552
1.3078
1.0996
1.0784
1.0703
t"l
kInited States Dollars per SDR'
Ll618
1.2147
1.3028
1.3173
1.2754
Ll640
1.1031
1.0470
.9802
1.0984
1.2232
1.4187
1.3457
1.3142
1.4227
1.4304
1.3750
1.3736
1.4599
N
*
~
Not party to the LLMC 1976 Convention.
~
~
~7J
~
~
~
I:\CONF\LEGllO\6(B)-6
LEG/CONF.IO/6(b)/6
ANNEX 3
Exchange Rates
SDR andECt! vs. V.S. Dollar
(period Averages)
1 . 4 , - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
,"
0.9
1.0
....... ---,
,,
,,
,
"
" "
0.9
",
,...
0.8
SDRIUSl
"<,
... -...........
...........
0.8
.... ...
'--- ... -------­......
0.7
0.6
0.7
l---.Jl---'_--'_--l_--l_--l_--'-_-'-_-'-_...L_-'-_...L_...L,..,--'-,..,-L..,,..,-L..,,..-J 0.6
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Deutschemark: & Japanese Yen vs. V.S. Dollar
(period Averages)
"
'{tUSS
2.8
"
•
,
\
,
,
,,
2.6
2.4
,
,,
,
,,
,
\
\
\
,
I
"
"'...
1.8
,
....
I
I
_--,
180
\
\
\
\
I
~,
200
\
\
\
I
2.0
220
\
,,,,,.,
I
2.2
240
'--,"<'--"1\
,
,
(righr scald
160
DMlUSS
(kft scal~)
,,
140
',--_...... ......... '
....---­
1.6
1978
1979
1980
I:\CONFILEG\ I 0\6(B)-6
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
120
LEG/CONF. IO/6(b)/6
ANNEX 4
Prices
WholesalePrices
(percent Change over Previous Year)
Consumer Prices
(Percent Change overPrevious Year)
120,----------------,
120
100
100
80
80
:
De~'doping
60
Countries :
..'
-:»,
40
Devtioping COUlllrits .:
,.
.'
'.
:
60
'
;.'
.........
,
40
','
.............
20
......... - ... ,'~ ..._-'--)
.... - ... _- _...... _­
'"
IndustrialCOlUuries
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
o
Industrial Counrries
·20 LL.LL..J....I...LJLLLLLL.LL..J....I...LJLLLL.LL..J....I...LJLLLl
1965
20
1993
1989
·20
1965
1969
WholesalePrices
(Percent Change over Previous Year)
(Developing Countries)
1000,---------------,
Log Scale
1973
1977
1981
1985
1993
1989
Consumer Prices
(Percent Changeover Previous Year)
(Developing Countries)
,---------------,1000
Log Scale
WesternHemisphere ... ~.
WesurII HeMisphue ,: '" ~ c­
r- '.:
I
I
100
i .
/
\
I
\
I
\
I
\
I
EuropeI
.... I
I <
I
I
100
_,
v
I
. .
\
\
I
/ Europe \
',I
I
1
I
/
I Africa
- ­ / ­I
"
10
,
Middle East
I
1969
1973
1977
I:ICONFILEGI! 016(B)-6
1981
1985
1989
1993
1%5
1%9
1973
1977
1981
\985
\989
1993
-_ .._....
1976
__..._.­
1977
Industrial Production
1978
1979
1980
1981 .
77.5
78.3
83.0
76.0
68.5
96.0
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1224
82.8
85.7
89.3
85.3
87.4
94.3
86.3
88.3
94.2
88.9
9\.6
98.8
94.1
96.5
10l.l
99.6
98.1
95.6
98.2
99.6
95.9
96.6
101.7
10\.8
100.4
107.9
108.4
78.4
77.4
11\.9
84.7
80.)
110.7
84.5
80.1
108.9
93.4
90.8
10).0
100.0·
100.0
100.0
96.4
10\.8
95.0
lOO.)
95.6
lO\.O
104.8
91.2
107.7
11l.l
9\.8
112.2
74.4
80.1
76.6
78.2
87.7
79.5
96.1
55.0
82.9
62.9
80.9
64.8
69.)
81.4
82.5
76.6
80.4
74.5
8\.6
79.)
80.5
87.1
79.9
94.7
59.5
80.9
66.)
8).9
7 \.0
71.5
818
85.9
76.5
8).)
78.9
8).8
87.9
84.1
87.)
82.1
96.0
65.2
8).5
75.1
87.)
76.7
73.6
84.4
92.0
79.3
83.4
82.4
85.1
91.7
87.4
87.6
85.4
98.4
67.5
84.7
80.2
90.9
79.1
74.4
86.1
94.8
83.2
88.0
83.4
85.9
98.6
88.9
88.4
87.2
97.8
69.0
88.2
82.4
90.9
8\.9
79.2
88.6
95.2
86.7
90.1
88.5
82.8
106.9
8).8
88.1
95.7
9).7
90.0
87.4
95.8
75.1
90.5
82.8
91.8
87.)
82.8
92.6
97.6
87.0
9).7
97.9
99.0
103.4
97.6
96.1
104.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.6
68.7 .
100.2
77.2
17.0
79.7
7l.)
70.7
98.)
9).0
96.5
100.0
100.1
98.2
94.8
102.9
95.7
100.6
99.7
98.2
98.4
91.2
100.1
102.5
97.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.5
98.0
101.8
90.3
99.9
10).2
99.1
102.8
97.8
99.6
102.7
102.0
100.0
99.)
94.9
100.4
96.1
100.4
97.9
103.7
92.)
98.9
101.3
97.9
112.9
97.2
98.8
102.7
108.5
97.)
96.1
93.4
99.8
95.9
IndcA Numbcn:1990= 100
Industrial Countries ..............................
United States .....................······.......... ··
Canada ......... ,......................................
Australia..............................................
Japan .,.................................................
New Zealand .......................................
Austria ........ ,......................................,
Belgium ...............................................
Denmark .............................................
Finland ..,.........................................;...
France .................................................
g~~~~~:..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ireland .................................................
Italy .................,......,............................
Luxembourg ........................................
Netherlands .....................................,...
Norway ....................................... ,........
Portugal ...............................................
Spain ....................................................
Sweden ................................................
Switzerland..........................................
United Kingdom .................................
67.7
6l.J
74.6
70.7
70.5
76.3
73.7
75.1
79.4
17.5
78.1
84.1
77.6
76.6
81.3
193 69.8
158 54.4
196 ....
112 64.5
124 17.9
128 69.1
172 59.7
132 82.0
134 76.6
174 8).)
178 42.4
136 75.7
137 62.8
138 8).8
142 50.9
182 67.2
184 76.0
144 86.2
146 72.)
112 77.6
65.7
56.7
88.)
69.7
60.)
86.1
7l.)
64.7
92.1
73.7
67.8
91.1
67.1
17.8
70.0
60.0
813
78.5
84.5
45.8
76.5
63.1
8).8
50.4
74.9
79.9
81.5
75.5
8\.6
68.8
79.5
71.9
611
85.)
80.0
91.0
49.5
78.)
66.1
83.8
55.7
80.)
82.0
80.)
76.2
83.9
7l.8
83.1
74.6
69.8
88.6
84.0
96.6
5).3
83.)
68.3
87.2
60.0
111.7
82.9
85.9
77.3
87.2
75.9
82.1
75.0
75.5
89.2
84.1
97.5
52.6
87.)
66.1
86.4
619
118.1
82.8
84.9
8\.4
81.5
110
111
156
75.0
79.9
75.0
77.5
88.4
82.1
lO\.O
55.5
85.5
62.3
84.5
65.4
64.)
82.)
84.0
80.6
78.9
75.1 .
72.7
74.8
87.5
9).)
97.6
96.9
94.3
90.5
100.6
85.4
96.8
92.6
94.5
89.5
85.9
95.6
98.9
92.8
98.2
lOO.)
98.7
9).1
101.3
97.4
95.2
94.5
94.4
119.2
94.4
96.1
10\.8
112.7
90.7
107.6
99.2
97.5
134.1
;..­
:z
:z
t'l
X
Ul
105.6
121.J
94.4
104.2
98.1
103.2
r­
trl
Q
(J
~
-
~
~
~
1976
Australia
1994/1976 Local Ratio
Consumer Prices
Index Numbers (1990 == 100)
Period averages
SDR Value
in local currency
Endof period
1976
1994
SDR Value
1994
Consumer
PriceIndex
SDR Purchasing
Power
.5321
.9351
fSDR per Australian Dollars)
31.5
108.1
0.5690
3.43
0.16
Bahamas
1.1618
1.4599
43.7
118.0
1.2565
2.71
0.46
Barbados
2.3281
2.9362
37.4
114.1
1.2612
3.05
0.41
51.4
111.2
1.1117
2.16
0.51
2.7033
-
-
-
41.806
Belgium
46.478
-
-
Benin
288.70
780.44
Croatia
-
-
Denmark
6.724
8.880
37.4
108.0
1.723
2.88
0.60
.4546
4.9518
12.6
165.0
10.8926
13.09
0.83
Finland
4.3766
6.9244
35.8
110.3
1.5821
3.08
0.51
France
5.7740
7.8044
36.3
109.7
1.3516
3.02
0.45
2.2610
Egypt
2.7448
Germany
Greece
Japan
66.1
115.4
0.8237
1.74
0.47
43.02
350.51
9.4
175.7
8.1476
18.69
0.44
340.18
145.61
64.8
107.1
0.4280
.94
0.22
58.4
130.6****
1.2566
2.23
0.56
-
-
Liberia
1.1618
1.4599
Marshall Islands
-
-
-
-
.
.3
164.7
0.3359
2.5330
63.9
112.2
0.8873
1.75
0.51
.4401
.8177
rSDR ner New Zealand Dollars)
21.3
106.8
0.5382
5.01
0.11
9.8715
35.0
109.8
1.6387
3.13
0.52
23.179
Mexico*
Netherlands
New Zealand
2.8546
6.0241
Norway
Poland'"
Spain
7.774
549
0.0006118
385.75
3.56
.4
468.4
0.0092
79.34
192.32
20.6
122.9
2.4240
5.96
0.41
32
120
2.2720
3.75
0.61
1171
4.7943
10.8927
Switzerland
2.8459
1.9146
64.9
114.7
0.6727
1.76
0.38
1.4653
1.0703
fSDR oer United Kinedom Pounds)
31.6
114.3
0.7304
3.62
0.20
35.0
117
1.7533
3.34
0.52
1.0261
-
-
Vanuatu
93.32
Yemen
17.0861***
.....•
****
163.62
17.5328
New Pesos: perthousand SDRs through 1985 andper SDR thereafter
Zlotys: permillionSDRsthrough 1977, permillion SDR 1978-89
1990
1989
1:\CONFlLEGlI0\6(b)-6
-
-
~
'"
0.0000078
Sweden
United Kingdom
;>
Z
Z
r
tT1
~
~
~
~
~
0"
~
a;
Consumer Price
Index(1990 = 0)
Period averages
SDR Value
in local currency
1994
1976
46.478
41.806
Belgium
1976
1994/1976 weal Ratio
1994
SDR Value
Consumer
Price Index
SDR Purchasing
Power
51.4
111.2
1.1117
2.16
0.51
Canada"
1.1725
2.0479
39.7
109.4
0.5725
2.78
0.20
Denmark
6.724
8.880
37.4
108.0
1.723
2.88
0.60
France
5.7740
7.8044
36.3
109.7
1.3516
3.02
0.45
Gennany
2.7448
2.2610
66.1
115.4
0.8237
1.74
0.47
Italy's
Japan
...
21.3
121.5
2.3403
5.70
0.41
64.8
107.1
0.4280
.94
0:22
Z
63.9
112.2
0.8873
1.75
0.51
20.6
122.9
2.4240
5.96
0.41
~
1.9146
64.9
114.7
0.6727
1.76
0.38
1.0703
1.4653
(SDR ner United Kinedom Pounds)
31.6
114.3
0.7304
3.62
0.20
43.6
113.4
1.2565
2.60
0.48
145.61
340.18
2.8546
Netherlands
2.5330
79.34
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom
2,379.2
1,016.6
192.32
2.8459
United States"
1.1618
I
1.4599
Z
-.l
.. Not party to LLMC 1916 Convention.
r­
trl
Q
o
§2
-~
~
~
CT
~
I:\CONFILEG\I0\6(B)-6