Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the representative of Singapore had raised a crucial question.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the representative of the Russian Federation had raised an important issue that called for further deliberation.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said he expected that any budgetary request in respect of the convening of a diplomatic conference would encounter strong resistance.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the Commission was fully competent to accept or reject proposals regarding a legal text that it was drafting.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the travaux préparatoires of the Vienna Convention showed that the Convention did not apply to private international law.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) proposed deferring the discussion of draft article 19 bis until the Commission had concluded its discussion of draft article 22.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that his delegation did not interpret article 18 as being limited in the way described by the Canadian delegation.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that his delegation supported draft article 17 and had no objection to maintaining the amendment mentioned in footnote 8.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the ad hoc drafting group had agreed on the following compromise wording for paragraph 4 of draft paragraph 16 bis

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that his understanding was that it would be left to individual REIOs to interpret place of business when making a declaration.

Contents Introductory note J. E. Byrne and H. Burman, p. 735 738. I.L.M. Content summary and English Text of the United Nations Guarantees Convention (1995), p. 739 753.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that he would be able to support Japan's proposal only if the clarification did not contradict the conclusions of the Working Group.

35. Mr. BURMAN (United States of America) said that the Commission could undertake a re examination of the text at any time in order to bring it up to date.

The 1974 Constitution divided the country into seven ethnic minority States (Chin, Karen, Kachin, Kayah (formerly Karenni), Mon, Rakhine (Arakan) and Shan States) and seven Divisions, largely inhabited by the majority Burman population.

Mr. Burman (United States of America), Mr. Adensamer (Austria) and Ms. Lahelma (Observer for Finland) expressed support for the deletion of the word mandatory in the text proposed by the ad hoc drafting group.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the words any State should be replaced by either any Contracting State or any State Party or possibly both, depending on how those terms were differentiated.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that, in his view, a State could properly make such a declaration under draft paragraph 2, although his delegation hoped that not many States would feel compelled to do so.

In particular, the addition of the word implicitly in draft article 3 would create legal uncertainty Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that there seemed to be a consensus in favour of keeping the draft article unchanged.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that it had emerged during the deliberations of the Working Group that some countries were already allowing some procedures pertaining to family contracts and the law of succession to be conducted by means of electronic communications.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) reiterated the Working Group's conclusion after lengthy debate that several specific exclusions should be deleted from draft article 2 on the grounds that States wishing to exclude them would be free to do so under draft article 18.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the commentary should reflect what he understood to be the conclusion of the Working Group, namely that family and succession matters could be covered by the Convention unless a declaration was made to exclude them under draft article 18.

Mr. Schöfisch (Germany), supported by Mr. Burman (United States), proposed that, in the interests of consistency with the wording of draft article 1, the words contract or agreement should be replaced with the word contract wherever they appeared in paragraphs 1 to 4 of draft article 20.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that he wished to amend the recommendation of three years contained in the written comments by the United States (A CN.9 578 Add.13) to two years, which would allow time for the special event he had suggested and leave some additional time thereafter.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that his delegation was strongly opposed to the wording of the proposed new paragraph, since it was wholly inappropriate for a United Nations body to be asked, in drafting a treaty, to set out mandatory terms governing its application to member States of another organization.

Mr. Burman (United States) said that it had been the practice since the 1970s to provide generous scope for declarations that did not amount to reservations it was particularly important to continue that practice in the case of the present draft convention because rapidly changing circumstances might require States to make adjustments when they came to implement it.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) noted that the language of the draft article was very similar to that of a clause in the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) adopted at a conference of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) that had been attended by many of the delegations discussing the draft convention.

1. Mr. BURMAN (United States of America) said that the occasion of the 600th meeting of UNCITRAL was a source of pride to all delegations since the Commission had contributed substantially to the harmonization of legal procedures between nations with different legal systems and from different parts of the world. It was widely recognized that over the years UNCITRAL had achieved its objectives while remaining non politicized, technically focused and productive.

Mr. Burman (United States of America) said that the Working Group, after extensive deliberations, had decided to eliminate a number of possible areas of exclusion from draft article 2, including matters relating to matrimonial law and the law of succession, so that States wishing to apply the draft convention to such matters were free to do so. States wishing to exclude them could make a declaration to that effect under draft article 18.