81 



Arabic - Professor Yasseen (UAE) 



Chinese - Dr. Ni (China) 



English - Professor 0;:man (USA) 



French - Professor Treves (Italy) 



Russian - Dr. Yevseev (USSR) 



Spanish - Dr. Lacleta (Spain); Alternate, 



Dr. Yturriaga (Spain) ; Ambassador 



Valencia (Ecuador) 



Drafting proposals were first discussed in a language 

 group. After discussion, each language group submitted 

 its recommendations on the articles in question. These 

 were then collated on an article-by-article basis in all 

 six languages. Each language group then discussed the 

 recommendations of the other language groups. All of this 

 was accomplished without the need for interpretation. 



The coordinators of the language groups then met 

 together under the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to 

 discuss all of the changes, with interpretation. These 

 meetings were open to all participants, although discussion 

 was usually carried on only by the coordinators. Once 

 the coordinators approved recommendations in the six languages, 

 they were forwarded to the Drafting Committee for action. 

 At that point, most were approved without discussion. 



The effect of this procedure is that every proposed 

 drafting change in at least English, French and Spanish is 

 scrutinized many times -before it is finally recommended. 

 A single objection or hesitation at any stage is sufficient 

 to stop ;he proposal, despite the fact that the precise 

 text in the language in question was never in fact negoti- 

 ated closely, if at all. In part because it is the largest 

 and most diverse of the groups, the English Language Group 

 proved to be a substantial hurdle, particularly with 

 respect co any change that would affect the English text. 



Concordance. 



Efforts to improve concordance among the six languages 

 were initiated almost exclusively by the Arabic, Chinese, 

 French, Russian and Spanish language groups with respect to 

 their own language texts. While each worked largely from 

 the English text, as the original text of negotiation, for 

 political reasons this was not made explicit. 



Each language group showed considerable deference to 

 the stylistic preferences of the others, even where this 

 resulted in an absence of strict linguistic concordance. 



