4, Unless otherwitie agreed between the States concerned6 a State cannot inlloke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State which is okhorwise competent in any proceeding relating to the carriage of cargo on board a .!]~!a owred or operated by that State and engaged in commercial [non-g1**,.c, inmental) service provided that, ot the time tho cause of action arctso, the ship was in use or intended e.rclusj:tely fo: use for commercial [non-governmental] purposes. 5. E’aragraph 4 does not apply to any cargo carried on hoortl t.hc ships referred to in paragraph 2, nor to any caLgo belonginq to a St.at.c and used or intended for- use in government. nou-commercial &l!rvice. 6. Stat.es may plead nl 1 measnrr!~; of defence, prc?sr:r iption an:1 limitation of liability, which are avail;tb,le to private ships and carqoer; and t.hf ir ~:wners.on the article in hi6 second report p;L/ and was now recommending the deletion of! the word “nun-governmental” in paragraphs 1 and 4, which in his view r ndered their nsaning ambiguous and might create a departure from the pract.ice followed in a number of treaties related to the law of the sea. Those !reatios were cited in his third report. dZ/ As to tho suggeetion mado by clome Qovernruente to introduce in tho present article the concept af segregated State property relating to State-owned or State-operated shi:?s engaged in commercial 6ervice, the Special Rapportour was inclined to tho opinion, shared by Borne other mombors, that the Commission ohould be careful to avoid unnecoosary &rplicatfon, in part.icular with article 11 trLp. If the ship concerned belonged to a Stato enterprise, it would be subject, under that article, to the same rules and 1iabiliLiss aa were applicable to natural or juridical persona. As to the question of State-owned or Sc-ie-operated aircraft engaged in commercial eervice, the Special Rapporteur had suggested