https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/5eb30d0432075c3825787aab3d5cc464.pdf 2a91a28700448eb9bf1db08fa26b0831 PDF Text Text CSC 2108-1Au/228(CJS) SECRET 30 A p r i l 1964 Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, East Block, Ottawa, Ontario. Draft Agreement Between NATO Members for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information 1. Reference NATO Paris messages 802, 803 dated 24 April 1964, 815 dated 27 April 1964 and telephone conversation Mr. Black/S/L Dixie of 29 April 1964. 2. The referenced messages have been reviewed by the JAG staff who have no objections to the proposed revisions of Ac/228-WP/l resulting in the new draft agreement AC/228-WP/2 which is to form the basis for discussion at the 4 May meeting of the V/orking Group. 3. The following general observations are forwarded for your consideration: a. The reference to "French version para 5" at line 8 of the text of message 803 Is not understood ae Article IV para 5 of AC/228-WP/l does not contain a French version. In addition, there appears to be a typographical error in that Articles III and IV are both to be renumbered Article V. This would leave the text without an Article IV. Presumably it was intended that Article III be renumbered Article IV. b. Reference is made in message 803 to "new versions" of certain paragraphs; i.e., Section X of the Security Annex, but the texts of the new versions are not included. The compromise effected between the US and France would appear to indicate that the new versions referred to will be along the lines of the present French version contained in WP/1. c. The effect of what will now be Article II (present Article VIII) is to make the Agreement one whereby the US provides information on the terms specified in the Agreement. If other members intend to supply information a new agreement similar to the present one ./2 000252 �-2- S E C R E T will be required. By virtue of Article VIII (present Article VII) the present Canada-US Bilateral Agreement is unaffected and no change ,to procedures now in effect will be required. d. The French approach to the powers of the Secretary-General in the field of security . would appear preferable to what was originally proposed. Originally it was intended that the Secretary-General could 'direct corrective action where deficiences were apparent.- The French version only permits him to bring deficiencies to the attention of national authorities. e. The British concern that information received under the 1955 Agreement should continue to be treated under the terras of that Agreement 7 has not been resolved, but this does not , appears to be of concern to Canada. 4, Article VI has been reviewed by the Deputy Minister1s staff with respect to patent implications. It. is not considered -that the question of patent rights will be important in the carrying out of the exchange of information in this Agreement and in view of the urgency in this matter the Article is considered to be acceptable as proposed. 5. If there is opportunity for revision of Article VI it is suggested that it could be improved by consideration of the following points: a. The first objection is the ambiguity of the expression, "any inventions resulting from possession of such information" could lead to trouble. In some ways a recipient country receiving information from the United States of America could be placed at a disadvantage in cases where an invention was created by independent effort and where the information transferred had not been contributory to the creation of , the invention. b. There has been considerable difficulty during the drafting of the. agreement on the fundamental question as to the source of most of the information but Article VI would be stronger if a free right to use an,invention was conveyed to all donating countries or, in the alternative, that a free right to use the invention be extended to*all member countries of NATO. c. Thepword "resulting" is rather ambiguous and if Article VI could be revised it should be replaced by an expression such as the following: . ,'..'.. "inventions which are directly based upon the information". �S E C R E T mm j mm 5 Since there are no major objections t.o \,"he revised draft agreement and in view of the US requirement for early agreement, your proposal to instruct the Canadian members of the Working Group to accept the draft agreement at the 4 May meeting is supported. 8i'ifladJ*r (R.L. Purves) Brigadier for Chairman, Chiefs of Staff. JPD/2-8253/ep 000254 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDNW04962 Title A name given to the resource CCOS to USSEA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 30-Apr-64 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived NATO Agreement for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, RG24-B-1, vol. 21471, CSC 2108-1-AC-228, Library and Archives Canada (LAC). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Department of National Defence Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource NATO, nuclear weapons Description An account of the resource Draft Agreement Between NATO Members for Co-operation Regarding Atomic Information Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource en