text: StatG would have a narrower immunity thau that conferred on its own diplomatic agents under article 31 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The view of one member was that the current version of article 13 ’ was in complete contradiction with article 31 of the Vienna Convention. Anoth6r view, however, was that there was no contradiction, as was suggested, between the provision of article 13 and that of article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Although the Vienna Convention provided for various immunitiee for diplomatic and consular premiees end psrsonnel, it contained nothing to make a foreign State immune from the courts of tho State of the forum itself with respect, for example, to actions arising out of commercial contracts between a State and a private person or out of torts. A further view was that the problem concerning the article was thet it contained a numbor of related notions without clearly distinguishing them. The article spoke only of the State, not of diplomats, and of an act or omission “attributable to the State”, a distinction that must be made clear. 190. Different views were also expressed as to the scope of the article; some members supported the idea that the application of the article ba limited to pecuniary compensation arising from traffic accidents, while one member opposed it . Concerning the reference to the so-celled “pretence rquiremr+rlt.“, - 84 -there wa8 general support for the retention of the phrese “if. the author of the act or omission was present in the territory at the time of act or omission”. One member suggested that, if the draft article were maintained, the e vpress ion @‘act or omission which ia alleged to Le attributable to the
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international law and diplomatic immunity, specifically the immunity of a State (StatG) and its agents under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on international relations and law. The text does not mention economic development, natural resources, environment, agriculture, forestry, fishing, industry, transport, communication, health, education, employment, humanitarian aid, or culture.