ABSTRACT
After two weeks of elaborate manoeuvring and posturing by the delegations in Paris, the way still had not been cleared for any substantive discussions. Unlike the Lausanne Protocol of May 1949, an opening declaration of intent was not easy to obtain from the participants, even as a procedural device. Instead, weeks were spent on legalistic wrangling over acceptable wording, notably the difference between the narrower formulation 'use of force', and the broader phrase 'acts of hostility'. Unable to endorse the wording of the PCC's preamble, the Arab delegations soon began preparing their own version of a non-aggression 'declaration', while the Israelis pressed the Commission to urge the Arabs to consider their draft nonaggression 'treaty'. The parties were thus soon faced with three different formulations to consider
