Decisión nº: 002613
In October 1997 the 1992 Fund Assembly noted the conclusions of the 1992 Fund’s 1st intersessional Working Group, which had been established to study possible alternative dispute settlement procedures. It was noted that the Working Group had considered three options, namely: States would present claims for compensation on behalf of national claimants; the establishment of a special international body (tribunal) to deal with all claims; and the establishment of a compensation board to deal with all claims before their submission to national courts. Although the Assembly’s consideration of the Working Group’s report did not result in any decision being taken, it appeared that there was no support for studying these three options. It was noted that the Working Group had also considered other methods of facilitating claims settlement, such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation. In view of the position taken by the Assembly and the Executive Committee of the 1971 Fund (which had been endorsed by the 1992 Fund Assembly) that a claim was admissible only if it fell within the definitions of ‘pollution damage’ or ‘preventive measures’ laid down in the Conventions as interpreted by the Funds’ governing bodies, the Assembly recognised that the scope for the 1992 Fund to submit claims to arbitration would be limited. As regards mediation and conciliation it was decided that such procedures should be examined further.