Dear Malcolm,
Yes you are right. That is a very sebnsitive issue and the views in GAC ids clealy divided.
I do not know whether thay could ever reach a consensus on the text. But that is my personal view as CCWG Participant ,
The problem is that , irrespective of the lack of consensus in the GAC, there is also divergence of views in CCWG. One group is in favour of the current text with slight improvement including 2/ 3 Board's Vote for rejection of the advice, some other infavour of Simple majoarity .As Steve Delbianco mentioned on the other day, the current text is , in my view representing some sort of balance but if the people insist on the lowering the threshold it makes it very difficult even for those GAC member who almost could agree with the current text to agree to the lowering the threshold.
In addition, there are doubnt which were cast about the meabning of "Determines" and direct reference to voting. I personally agree with both. However, should colleagues wish a direct refernce to vote rather than " determine" I could agree to that as well.
My problem is the extreme scupulous action / position to define what is the meaning of " Due account " or " taking due account " this is unacceptable to me.
I have looked to perhaps ten Convention, Charters and have noted that the term " with due avccount " or " duly taking into account " and similar qualified expressions which have not caused any problem to the entire world's community .Such qzualifier, provide the implememntor some degree of latitude and maouvers to make their judgement based on circumstances, and the context in which they examine the case.
In international law ,there are two basic elements
1. LetterS of the Law
2. Spirit of the Law
The second one covers the circumstances in which the law has been adopted as well as the cicumstance in which it would be applied.
i HOPE i HAVE DESCRIBED THE CASE CLEARLY
Remains
Kavouss