(b) With respect to those articles of this Convention that come within the legislative jurisdiction of Constituent States, provinces or cantons which are not, under the constitutional system of the Federation, bound to take legislative action, the Federal Government shall bring such articles with a favourable recommendation to the notice of the appropriate authorities of states, provinces or cantons at the earliest possible moment. (c) A Federal State Party to this Convention shall, at the request of any other Contracting State transmitted through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, supply a statement of the law and practice of the Federation and its constituent units in regard to any particular provision of the Convention showing the extent to which effect has been given to that provision by legislative or other action. 1. There were no considerable differences in the conference regarding the advisability of including such a clause or its wording. The Yugoslav representative said he could not accept it unless it was understood that federal states would have the same obligation as other Contracting States (meaning that he could not accept para. (b)), but found little support in the conference. The article, as incorporated in the Refugee Convention was approved by 12 votes to none, with 3 238 abstentions. 2. The reason for this Article is that the implementation of the provisions of the Convention may fall within the jurisdiction of the component parts of a Federal State. Its purpose is to facilitate adherence by Federal States and so avoid the necessity of making reservations to articles which the Federal States cannot implement under its Constitution. Under Article 37 the provisions of the Convention are divided into two groups: (a) provisions for which the federal legislative authority is competent, and (b) provisions over which the legislatures of the component parts have jurisdiction. However, there exists a third case, viz., when, under the Constitution, the component parts are competent for certain of the provisions of the Convention, but are obliged under the Constitution to implement, by legislative measures, the provisions of a treaty to which the Federal State 239 has adhered. Article 37 puts into one group the first and third cases: in respect to them there exists no difference between the obligations assumed, under the Convention, by a unitary state or a Federal State. Only with respect to the second group is there a distinction: in the case of a Federal State these provisions do not automatically enter into force upon completion of the formal requirements for adherence to the Convention. The Federal State undertakes only the obligation to recommend them, at the earliest possible time, to its component parts for adoption. If the component parts adopt the recommendation (all relevant provisions or some of them) they become valid; otherwise they are not applicable. Component parts of a Federal State cannot be authorized to enter reservations to 240 international treaties. But the Federal State could do so for them. The conclusion would therefore be that Article 37 would prevent the component parts from adopting “blocked” provisions (i.e. provisions of the Convention to which no reservations are permitted) with modifications, but there is nothing in the Convention which would preclude their adoption of modifications in “free” articles (i.e., articles to which reservations may be made) if this is 241 done formally by the Federal State by way of a reservation. This means that in a Federal 238 SR.12, pp. 10-11. 239 This is the case in Austria (SR.30, p. 22 of the Refugee Conference), Germany (SR.30, p. 26, ibid.), and Switzerland (ibid.) 240 241 See Article 36 above. In the Refugee Conference the problem was discussed in detail. The French representative thought that a Federal State could, through the provisions of Article 41 (identical with Article 37 of this Convention) make reservations on articles to which no reservations were permissible. This was supported by the British representative as regards provincial authorities. However, the French representative agreed later (SR.35, p. 29) that this clause would not be used as a basis for reservations to articles to which no reservations were permitted in general. The Danish representative believed that