CLASSIFICATION /CONTROL OF LAW OF THE SEA COUNTRY STUDY - - CANADA (GCR LOS 75-8), DATED MAY 1975

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 58
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 28, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 22, 1975
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 200110
;41,9-01054A000300070001-1
22 May 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Recipients of Law of the Sea Country Studies
SUBJECT
Classification/Control of Law of the Sea
Country Study -- Canada (GCR LOS 75-8),
Dated May 1975
Map #502439, dated 4-75, which appears at the end of
GCR LOS 75-8, is CONFIDENTIAL/NO FOREIGN DISSEM.
25X1A
Acting Chief, Special Research Branch
Geography Division, OGCR
Classified by 019841
InFIDEMIALExempt from general declassification
schedule of E.O. 11652, exemption categorl
5B 0, (g) , , or (4) ( circle one or more;
Automatically declassified on
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDp79-01054A00MQPNA1lib1e to Determine
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Secret
No Foreign Dissem
Law of the Sea Country Study
Canada
Secret
GCR LOS 75-8
May 1975
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions
Classified by 019641
Exempt from General Declassification Schedule
of E.O. 11652, exemption category:
?513(1), (2), and (3)
Automatically declassified on:
date impossible to determine
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CHtlit13,P79-01054A000300070001-1
No Foreign Dissein
FOREWORD
The Law of the Sea Country Studies are prepared to support
the NSC Interagency Task Force on the Law of the Sea. The
countries to be included in the series are selected on the
basis of priorities suggested by the Chairman of the Task
Force.
Each study has two parts. Part I is an analysis of the
primary geographic, economic, and political factors that
might influence the country's law of the sea policy, the
public and private expressions of that policy,
25X1B involved. Part II provides
basic data and information bearing on law of the sea matters.
This study was prepared by the Office of Geographic
and Cartographic Research. was provided by
the Central Reference Service. The stucmy was coordinated
within the Directorate of Intelligence and with the Depart-
ment of State. Comments and questions may be directed to the
LOS Country Studies Working Group, Code 143, Extension 2257.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
25X1B
25X1B
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDSFE'RET1054A000300070001-1
No Foreign Di.isenr
CONTENTS
Part I - Law of the Sea Analysis
Summary 1
Factors Influencing LOS Policy 2
Law of the Sea Policy 5
Key Policy Makers, LOS Negotiators and Advisers 17
Part II - Background Information
Basic Data 33
Conventions 35
Present Ocean Claims 37
Action on Significant UN Resolutions 39
Membership in Organizations Related to LOS Interests 40
ANNEX
UN LOS draft articles submitted by Canada
Maps: Theoretical Division of the World Seabed
Canada
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-Ikt503t-01054A000300070001-1
25X1 B
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : ClWr79-01054A000300070001-1
CANADA
Part I - Law of the Sea Analysis
A. SUMMARY (C)
Canada sees the concept
of the freedom of the high seas
as having been transformed by
modern developments and tech-
nology. These developments
and technological advances have
created a serious pollution
threat to Canada's coasts and
fishing resources. Canada hopes
that the Law of the Sea (LOS)
Conference will recognize the
need to depart from antiquated laissez-faire concepts and acknowledge
the necessity to regulate the uses of the seas on the basis of
functional management concepts founded on scientific principles.
Canada, as a coastal state without perceived major maritime
interests, can be expected to support LOS positions which primarily
reflect the interests and concerns of the coastal states in oceans
usage.
Ottawa wants a 12-mile* limit as the maximum breadth of the
territorial sea. It will support unimpeded transit through and
over international straits wider than 6 miles that connect two
parts of the high seas if it succeeds in obtaining U.S. support for
a liberal coastal state pollution control regime in ice-covered
Arctic waters. The Canadians remain adamant in their demand for
a coastal state right to impose vessel-source pollution controls
in straits connecting the high seas with the territorial seas
of another state. Attainment of the latter goal will enable
Canada to exercise control over tanker traffic moving through
Head Harbour Passage and through their side of Juan de Fuca and
the Strait of Georgia (see map) to petroleum refineries in the
United States.
Canada desires coastal state control over fisheries in a
200-mile economic zone, but argues that its jurisdiction over
seabed resources should extend beyond 200 miles to the outer
edge of the continental margin. The fisheries regime favored
* Distances and areas throughout this study are in nautical miles
unless specified otherwise.
-1 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
by Canada is similar to the U.S. proposal; i.e., coastal state
management of coastal species, exclusive host state control of
salmon and other anadromous species, and international management
of highly migratory fish stocks.
Ottawa prefers a system of joint ventures between private
firms and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for the mining
of deep seabed minerals. It feels that the lesser-developed-
countries (LDC) will agree to a viable seabed regime only if the
ISA is somehow permitted to engage in exploitation.
The coastal states, Canada argues, should be empowered to
promulgate and enforce vessel-source pollution control standards
in the territorial sea and granted authority to enforce inter-
national standards in the economic zone. Scientific research
should be subject to coastal state consent in the economic zone
and on the continental shelf.
Canada will resume its aggressive coastal state posture
at Geneva, hoping to gain the support of LDC coastal states for
its view that the economic zone is not merely an area of
resources jurisdiction, but is also a management zone where the
coastal state protects the marine environment and controls
scientific research.
B. FACTORS INFLUENCING LOS POLICY
Special Geographic Features (U)
The second largest nation in the world, Canada faces three
oceans and possesses one of the longest coastlines. It is one
of five nations that hold jurisdiction over lands that border
the Arctic Ocean. The continental margin east and southeast of
Newfoundland extends 400 miles offshore. The Denmark/Canada
Continental Shelf Agreement of 1973 demarcates the shelf boundary
equidistantly between Greenland and Canada from 610 N. to the
mouth of the Lincoln Sea. No agreements have yet been reached
between the United States and Canada on delimitation of the
shelf boundaries in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans.
Nor have Canada and France been able to decide upon an acceptable
formula for constructing a shelf boundary in the vicinity of
Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Hudson Bay was declared internal
waters by the Fisheries Act of May 27, 1914.
Statements of Canadian parliamentarians and officials have
asserted certain rights for Canada within a Canadian Arctic
"sector." However, a sector claim to sovereignty over Arctic
-2-
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
ice and waters beyond the territorial sea has never been formally
made. The presence on official Canadian maps of sector lines
drawn along the 60th and 141st west meridians to the North Pole
(see map) probably indicates that Canada is reserving its options
for the water-and ice-covered areas beyond its Arctic Archipelago.
Uses of the Sea
Mineral Resources -- Significant sedimentary basins underlie
Canada's continental margins. There are estimated offshore
reserves of 56 billion barrels of crude oil and 457 trillion cubic
feet of recoverable gas. Offshore wells in the Beaufort Sea and
Arctic Archipelago have confirmed the continuation of onshore
hydrocarbon deposits. Exploration on the broad continental
margin off Newfoundland, however, has yet to reveal commercial
quantities. (U)
Living Resources -- Rich fisheries adjoin Canada's coasts
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Bay of Fundy, Grand Banks, Labrador
Sea, and Pacific Ocean. Approximately 80 percent of the Canadian
fishing effort occurs on the Atlantic Coast and 20 percent in
Pacific waters. About 95 percent of the catch is from coastal
waters. Canada's small distant-water fishing fleet operates in
the eastern Pacific tropical tuna fishery off Ecuador and Peru.
While the total volume of landings has been declining in recent
years, substantial increases in the general level of prices have
produced record earnings for fishermen on both coasts. Two-thirds
of Canada's 1972 export of $332 million of fish and fish products
went to the United States. (U)
East coast landings are mostly herring, codfish and other
demersal species, and lobster. The principal species landed in
British Columbia are salmon and halibut. (U)
The fishing industry is a significant element in the
economies of several coastal communities. The fisheries of Nova
Scotia in 1974 provided direct employment for 16,000 people,
contributed $175 million in household income, and were responsible
for approximately 32 percent of the province's total exports. (U)
In recent years, some of Canada's coastal fisheries have
been seriously depleted by the distant-water fishing fleets of
other countries. Ottawa has, in response, initiated several
unilateral conservation measures. Foremost among these was the
establishment in 1970 of fisheries closing lines across the
entrances to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen
Charlotte Sound, and Dixon Entrance, that closed these waters
- 3 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
to all foreign fishing vessels except U.S. ships. Concern over
the low level of adult salmon escapement in the major producing
rivers of New Brunswick and Quebec has led the government to
periodically close salmon fisheries in these areas and the Port
aux Basques fishery in Newfoundland. Ottawa has banned Canadian
commercial whaling in the Atlantic and has prohibited the develop-
ment of a commercial tuna fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in
order to conserve the stock of this species. (U)
The Canadians have reached agreement with France, Denmark,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom on phasing out
their fishing activities within Canada's territorial seas and the
Gulf of St. Lawrence. (U)
Deep Seabed Capabilities and Interests -- Canada ranks fifth
in world mineral production -- nickel, 41 percent (1st); copper, 10
percent (3rd); and cobalt, 7 percent. Manganese is the only
component metal of the deep seabed nodules that Canada must
import. Although Canada is self-sufficient in 3 of the 4 basic
nodule metals, the International Nickel Company feels the firm
must develop the technology of deep seabed mining to remain
competitive in the future. (U)
Marine Transportation -- Canada does not have an extensive
merchant marine. With only 88 ships (1,000 GRT or over) registered,
Canada is dependent upon foreign flag vessels for the transportation
of most of its imports and exports. Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec
have been dependent on Venezuelan and Persian Gulf crude oil moved
by pipeline from Portland, Maine to Montreal for refining. (U)
Naval Considerations -- Destroyer escorts are the largest
class of vessels in the Royal Canadian Navy. The primary mission
of the fleet is to defend Canada's coastal waters. The fleet's
few combatant vessels do not have a high seas responsibility. (C)
Scientific Research -- Oceanographic research is of considerable
interest to the Canadian Government's Science Council. Most
scientific research in the oceans is conducted by government or
university laboratories and institutes, whereas marine research
for commercial purposes is financed and managed by the international
energy companies. (U)
Political and Other Factors (C)
Canada cooperated closely with the United States at the 1958
and 1960 United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Seas and
supported the U.S. position on narrow territorial seas and straits
passage.
- 4 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
In the political climate of the time, strategic deterrence, naval
mobility, and other NATO concerns were given higher priority by
the Canadian Government than they are today. Discovery of oil
at Prudhoe Bay was a decade away and no potential pollution threat
to Canada's Arctic waters and straits existed. With the reorienta-
tion of Canadian foreign policy under Prime Minister Trudeau,
Canada has come to view itself as a coastal state, sharing many
developing state's LOS interests.
The cvitical break in U.S.-Canadian LOS relations came in 1970
when the country extended its territorial sea from 3 to 12 miles
and established a 100-mile-wide pollution control zone in its Arctic
waters north of the 60th parallel. The United States strongly
protested both of these actions.
C. LAW OF THE SEA POLICY
Territorial Seas (U)
Canada extended its territorial sea from 3 to 12 miles in
1970 and is seeking international acceptance of a maximum breadth
of 12 miles in LOS negotiations. The territorial sea limits are
drawn from straight baselines along much of the coast. Canada
feels that straight baselines should be employed only to the
extent sanctioned by the International Court of Justice in the
1951 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case.
Straits (C)
The Canadians feel that a "special regime" should be recognized
in straits overlapped by territorial seas in deference to navigation,
but caution that restrictions on freedom in straits are warranted by
such circumstances as security concerns and pollution threats.
They believe that the United States cannot successfully press for
policies that are contrary to the security, economic, and environ-
mental needs of strait states. Ottawa argues that coastal states
do not wish to interfere with the free transit of commercial vessels
but do desire authority for potential control if certain types of
problems arise. The Canadians fear the potential environmental
dangers of transporting Alaskan and other crude oil to refineries
in the conterminous United States through the Northwest Passage,
the Strait of Juan de Fuca-Strait of Georgia complex, and Head
Harbour Passage (see map). They feel the coastal states that
border straits should be allowed to retain and/or impose some
manner of control over vessel-source pollution. They urge that
the new LOS Convention should set forth preventive as well as
remedial measures against pollution of the marine environment
in straits.
-5-
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Canada believes that the coastal states should accept the
thesis that their sovereignty over the territorial sea is allied
with a positive duty to ensure free, safe, secure, and uninterrupted
passage through straits overlapped by territorial seas. The
Canadians feel it will be necessary to modernize the concept of
"innocence" with a view to protecting both maritime community
interests in the freedom of navigation and coastal state interests
in territorial and environmental integrity. They seek a better
definition of international straits and a clarification of what
coastal states and flag states were or were not entitled to do
in straits. The Canadians note that the United Kingdom's draft
articles on straits (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3) provide reasonable
guidance, but do not take sufficient account of the fact that a
coastal state's security could be threatened as much by environmental
as by military problems. Canada proposes a Straits Commission
be established to settle any disputes that could arise from the
implementation of treaty articles to govern transit through straits.
Canada is publicly reserving its definitive position on
straits pending resolution of its bilateral difficulties with the
United States. Recent discussions between the two have greatly
narrowed their differences. In a tentative trade-off agreement,
Canada has indicated its willingness to support unimpeded transit
of straits used for international navigation connecting two parts
of the high seas and to consent to coastal state non-involvement
in setting vessel-source pollution standards in the economic
zone or straits used for international navigation connecting
two parts of the high seas except within ice-covered areas in
return for U.S. support for a regime for environmental protection
in ice-covered areas (with a military exemption). This agreement
would shelter the Northwest Passage against pollution threats and
probably assure Canadian support for submerged transit and over-
flight in straits wider than 6 miles that have been traditionally
used for international navigation.
This package agreement with Ottawa does not resolve, however,
the issue of a pollution control regime for straits used for
international navigation that connect the high seas with the
territorial seas of another state. The Canadians state that both
Head Harbour Passage, the entrance to Eastport, Maine, and the
Canadian side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca-Strait of Georgia complex
connecting Puget Sound with the Pacific Ocean contain internal waters
and thus do not fall within the purview of the UN LOS Conference.
They imply that the Canadian position on the Arctic could be less
severe if the United States would make some bilateral accommodation
on these straits. The Canadians, meanwhile, have announced that,
should the Maine Environmental Protection Board approve the construction
-6 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79MMA000300070001-1
of an oil refinery at Eastport, Maine, Ottawa will promulgate
regulations under the Canada Shipping Act to limit the amount of
"pollutants" that can be carried by vessels using Head Harbour
Passage. An official Canadian representative indicated that such
restrictions could be designed to render the refinery operation
uneconomical.
Islands (U)
Canada notes that the basic principle that islands have a
territorial sea and continental shelf was established by previous
LOS conventions, and it feels that the principle should be retained
in a future oceans treaty. Problems of shelf delimitation in the
vicinity of islands should be taken up in bilateral or multilateral
negotiations since the LOS Convention could not be expected to
provide rules that would be applicable universally.
Archipelagos (C)
Canadians feel that the unique characteristics of the Arctic
waters and ice give their northern regions a distinctive status which
implies special rights and responsibilities for Canada. This
principle has been specifically applied to the waters of the Arctic
Archipelago, which Ottawa has repeatedly claimed to be "Canadian
waters." Canada, however, has stopped short of making a formal
claim to an Arctic Archipelago and drawing base lines around its
large cluster of northern islands.
At the Caracas Session of the LOS Conference, Canada maintained
that the concept of an archipelagic legal regime should be extended
to include those coastal archipelagos that form part of a mainland
state. The Canadians warned the LOS delegates, when defining the
concept of an archipelago, against violating that area of existing
law relating to fringes of islands that dates back to Norwegian
practice, as upheld in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, and
reiterated in the straight baseline provisions of Article 4 of the
1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.
They feel that the overriding issue in the archipelago discussions
is the question of passage through straits used for international
navigation within the archipelagos. Once accommodation is reached
on this issue, such factors as length of archipelagic baselines 25X6
and the ratio of land to water would diminish in importance.
-7 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
25X6 Continental Shelf (C)
On February 6, 1970 Canada ratified the Convention on the
Continental Shelf with the Reservation that "... the presence of
an accidental feature such as a depression or a channel in a
submerged area should not be regarded as constituting an interruption
in the natural prolongation of the land territory of the coastal
state into and under the sea." The United States noted in the UN
that it does not find the Canadian reservation acceptable.
The Canadians believe that the sovereign rights of coastal
states to the natural resources of the seabed, as defined in the
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and confirmed by the
International Court of Justice and in State practice, extend to
the limit of the continental margin. They do not want to relinquish
the language of the Shelf Convention. Canada has issued oil and
gas exploration permits for shelf areas east and southeast of
Newfoundland that are 400 miles offshore and far beyond the 200-
meter depth. Ottawa feels these concessions were made in good
faith on the legal basis of the exploitability clause of the
Shelf Convention and it cannot renege on these contracts. A Canadian
representative has stated that his Government does not favor
compulsory dispute settlement to adjudicate controversies on the
shelf since it believes that the coastal state should have legal
jurisdiction over shelf matters.
Canada and the United States have been unable to agree on the
establishment of the continental shelf boundaries in any of the
four areas where their international boundaries meet the seas.
Canada has proposed the use of the equidistance principle in con-
structing a shelf boundary in the Gulf of Maine. The United
States finds this unacceptable because the geographical configura-
tion of the coast would give Canada a disproportionate share of
the shelf off New England (see map). It cites an International
Court of Justice ruling (1969 North Sea Case) that says the use
of the equidistance method of delimitation outlined in the 1958
Convention on the Continental Shelf is not obligatory in dividing
a shelf among bordering states. Washington feels that the Court's
recommendation that the parties to the North Sea Case resolve the
issue "in accordance with equitable principles" provides a strand
of guidance for establishing a shelf boundary in the Atlantic,
giving additional measure to the length of the American coastline
in the region.
- 8 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/2Y%TA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Both nations agree that the equidistance formula would equitably
partition the Pacific shelf between Washington State and British
Columbia, but the Canadians tie the delimitation there to United
States acceptance of an Atlantic shelf divided on the basis of
equidistance.
Solutions are equally elusive in the case of the two Alaskan-
Canadian shelf boundaries. Disagreement on the location of the
international boundary in Dixon Entrance forestalls any discussion
of the offshore shelf boundary as the two states cannot agree on
the starting point. The apportionment of the Beaufort Sea shelf
remains unresolved. Ottawa most likely will suggest that a
boundary follow the Canadian sector line drawn along the 141st
meridian.
Coastal State Jurisdiction Beyond the Territorial Sea
Canada seeks control over living resources in a 200-mile
economic zone and over mineral resources in a zone extending to
the outer edge of the continental margin. The economic zone should
extend beyond the territorial sea to a distance of 200 miles from
the applicable baselines and throughout the natural prolongation
of the coastal state's land territory where such prolongation
extends beyond 200 miles. The draft articles submitted by Canada
at the Caracas Session of the LOS Conference do not provide a
precise demarcation of the limits of the continental margin
beyond 200 miles. (U)
Canada strongly defends its rights as a coastal state, asserting
that nations cannot be expected to relinquish these rights to an
international seabed regime. Ottawa believes that it would be
unrealistic and inequitable to ignore the legal position of
coastal states that had established their sovereign rights to
the edge of the continental margin through state practice, legisla-
tion, issuance of permits, bilateral agreements, and even incorpora-
tion into their constitution. (U)
The Canadians state that the economic zone is not an inter-
national zone within which the coastal state is allocated certain
privileges. It is, instead, the zone of national jurisdiction
where the acquired rights of the coastal state over the mineral
resources of the continental shelf, and, so far as possible,
certain rights and privileges which vessels had previously enjoyed
on the high seas, must be maintained. Furthermore, the exclusive
economic zone is not just an area of resources jurisdiction but
is also a management zone where the coastal states protect the
marine environment and control scientific research. (U)
- 9 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Canada joined many of the lesser-developed-countries at
Caracas in accelerating the trend toward territorializing the
economic zone, probably hoping to strengthen its pollution position
and display its independence of the United States and other maritime
states. Ottawa was successful in maintaining its coastal state
credentials in Caracas and in avoiding being labeled as an
industrialized power. (C)
Revenue sharing, the Canadians feel, is essential to bridging
the gap between the views of those who espouse 200 miles as the
outer limit of the economic zone and those who seek the edge of
the continental margin. It will be needed to obtain the required
support from the developing countries for coastal state resource
jurisdiction beyond 200 miles. Further Canadian flexibility is
evidenced by comments that use of the continental slope as a base
line with an additional specified area of coastal state jurisdiction
beyond might prove to be an acceptable fallback. (C)
In recent years, the Canadian position has markedly shifted
away from the principle of non-interference with the freedom of
the high seas in the economic zone, subject only to the strict
requirements essential for effective exploitation, to one that
favors a more comprehensive bundle of coastal state functional
jurisdictions in an offshore zone. Canada believes that, in
actual practice, coastal states will not excessively interfere
with international shipping when enforcing pollution standards
in the economic zone. They feel there is no need to be overly
sensitive on this issue since coastal states realize that enforce-
ment abuses would invite some form of retaliation. (U)
Fisheries (C)
Ottawa claims that the growing demand for fish, coupled
with advances in technology, could possibly reduce fish stocks to
extinction. Meanwhile, international regulations are still more
oriented towards the freedom to fish than towards the need for
conservation. The Canadians strongly feel that a more rational
fishery management regime is urgently needed. Canada initially
favored a species approach to fisheries regulation that would
emphasize separate management schemes for coastal, anadromous,
and highly migratory species. In essence, Ottawa was seeking
control over fishing to the outer edge of the continental margin.
The Canadians now realize that 200 miles will be the maximum
dimension of any internationally approved coastal state zone of
fisheries jurisdiction. They feel that a sensible management regime
would include provisions for:
- 10 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
a. scientific management of coastal stocks as a whole;
b. prohibition of fishing for anadromous stocks beyond the
economic zone, with recognition of the primary interest
of the states of origin throughout the migratory range of
such stocks;
c. comprehensive international management of highly migratory
stocks, with accommodation of coastal state authority when
such stocks are present in the economic zone; and
d. optimum utilization of fish stocks, with foreign state
access to stocks in the economic zone for the surplus
beyond coastal state capacity, subject to coastal state
authority and regulations.
The Canadians stress that the coastal state right must be primary
over the distant-water right so that as coastal state fishing
capacity increases, the distant-water catch must decrease. They
also endorse a coastal state obligation to assure that fishing
does not exceed the level that ensures maximum procreation of
future generations.
Canada submitted a working paper on anadromous species at
Caracas for the purpose of illustrating the peculiarities of
salmon and the need for special provisions in an LOS Convention.
It feels that a more solid and permanent base for the conservation
of salmon must emerge from the LOS Conference. The Canadians view
existing bilateral and multilateral treaties as inadequate for the
appropriate management of anadromous resources. They note that
the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries'
(ICNAF) ban on salmon fishing in the Atlantic is not applicable
to countries that are not signatories of the treaty. While
appreciative of Japan's cooperation in the preservation of salmon
through participation in the International North Pacific Fisheries
Convention (INPFC), Canada observes that Japan does catch salmon
in the North Pacific that originate in Canadian rivers, chiefly
the Yukon. The INPFC calls for Japanese abstention from catching
salmon east of the 175th West meridian.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Canadian LOS representatives have stated that if they are
forced into a trade-off situation Canada would sacrifice its
position on highly migratory species in order to obtain the
results they desire for coastal stocks. They also indicate
that Canada supports compulsory dispute settlement on fisheries.
High Seas (U)
Canada supports the U.S. position on all aspects of high
seas navigation, including freedom of movement for warships.
Deep Seabed (C)
The Canadians believe it is imperative to ensure full and
genuine participation by the LDCs in the exploration and exploita-
tion of deep seabed resources and that joint ventures involving
competent entities and the International Seabed Authority could
be one method of attaining that objective. They feel that LDC
agreement on a viable seabed regime will be forthcoming only if
the ISA is granted the authority to engage in exploitation.
Ottawa thinks that the single most important factor in promoting
resource exploration and exploitation in the seabed area beyond
national jurisdiction would be the adoption of a seabed resource
management system designed to encourage and maintain investment on
a continuing and orderly basis. Without such a system there will
be no mining of manganese nodules and thus no benefits for the
developing countries. Canada notes that it is essential to strike
a balance between maximum benefits for the international community
and adequate returns for entrepreneurs. Private investors could
be benefited by keeping pre-exploitation costs at a reasonable
level and by having payments made either in the form of rentals
or royalties on production.
Monopolization of the richest seabed areas could be prevented,
Canada advises, if the ISA were to reserve portions of the sea
floor, including a proportion of the areas made available to
developers under contractual arrangements, for the Authority's
later use.
-12 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Canada views proposals for weighted voting in the ISA Council
as being incompatible with the fundamental principle of the
sovereign equality of states and the concept of the common
heritage of mankind. It believes that the ISA Tribunal should
be empowered to seek advisory opinions from the International
Court of Justice and that consideration should be given to
allowing appeals from the Tribunal to the World Court on questions
of international law.
Ottawa stated in 1971 that it fully agreed that regulation
of the international seabed area must preclude exploitation of
the seabed resources to the detriment of states already producing
such metals. It has more recently expressed its concern for the
impact of ocean mining on land-based producers by stating that
it cannot rule out consideration of some manner of ISA-managed
price and production controls to protect Canada's hard minerals
industry.
The creation of an International Seabed Authority, the
Canadians plead, should not affect the legal status of the waters
superjacent to the international seabed area or that of the
airspace above those waters. They believe that the ISA should not
be empowered to promulgate vessel-source pollution control
standards or to conduct scientific research. Ottawa does not
want a consent mechanism for research in the international area,
but it feels there should be an obligation for the researcher
to freely disseminate the results.
Noting the plans of several private enterprises to conduct
deep seabed mining, Canada endorses the establishment of some form
of transitional regime and machinery that would provide firms with
the necessary guidance on licensing and conduct of operations.
Marine Pollution
The protection of the marine environment may be Canada's
most important objective in the LOS Conference. The Canadians
feel that future conventional law will have to provide adequate
recognition of the fundamental right of coastal states to protect
themselves against marine pollution threats to their environment.
They have long sought a system of stringent international pollu-
tion prevention regulations with enforcement throughout the economic
zone being the responsibility of the coastal state. The coastal
state should be empowered with authority to prescribe and enforce
stricter vessel design and construction standards in waters where
rigid standards are rendered essential by exceptional hazards
to navigation or the special vulnerability of the marine environ-
- 13 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
ment. They envisage a requirement for ships to possess an
international pollution prevention certificate in order to qualify
for innocent passage through areas of national jurisdiction. (U)
Ottawa considers adequate vessel construction standards as
being essential to the elimination of pollution from ships. It
feels that the threat to the marine environment would be greatly
reduced if all tankers were built with double hulls and segregated
ballast tanks. Furthermore, conventions dealing with pollution
from ships should cover all suffocating and toxic substances;
light, processed-petroleum products, as well as crude oil. The
Canadians are disturbed by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Con-
sultative Organization's (IMCO) slow progress in establishing
strong international standards and its domination by maritime
states. (U)
The Canadian desire for the right to establish and enforce
unilateral vessel-source pollution control standards in a wide
area beyond the territorial sea springs from their fear of the
environmental dangers of transporting oil (mainly Alaskan) to
the lower 48 states through waters adjacent to Canada's coasts.
Spurred by the first voyage of the S.S. Manhattan through the
Northwest Passage to Prudhoe Bay in 1969, the Canadian Parliament
enacted the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in
1970. It is the most ambitious and far-reaching pollution control
action taken by any of the circumpolar countries in the Arctic.
(U)
Officially proclaimed in August 1972, the Act asserts Canada's
right to shield the Arctic waters against vessel pollution for a
distance of 100 miles offshore north of the 60th parallel (see
map). The only stated geographic modification is that the 100-
mile zone does not extend beyond the line of equidistance between
the islands of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland. The Arctic
Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations, specified in the Act,
cover classification, construction, and certification of ships;
navigating equipment, charts, and publications; reporting pro-
cedures; pollution prevention certificates; enforcement of pollu-
tion prevention measures; numbers and qualifications of navigation
and radio personnel; and fuel and water requirements. The regula-
tions relating to the deposit of wastes came into force immediately,
while the regulations requiring changes in ship construction and
equipment became effective on 1 January 1973. The rules are to
be used in conjunction with the Shipping Safety Control Zones Order
under which the waters of the Canadian Arctic were divided into
16 safety control zones, each classified according to the degree
- 14 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
of ice hazards present. Limits of liability under the Act have
been set to conform with the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (1956). (U)
A 1971 Amendment to the Canada Shipping Act extends pollution
control to Canada's territorial seas south of the 60th parallel
and to all fishing zones. The Canadian Government collects a levy
of fifteen cents per ton on oil shipped in bulk as cargo into, out of,
and between two points in the country. Monies collected are paid
into the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund for use in reimbursing
fishing and other maritime activities that have been damaged by
oil pollution from shipping. (U)
Canada earlier opposed loopholes in an LOS Convention that
would consider the stage of economic development of individual
states in formulating and enforcing marine pollution control
standards. The Canadians stated that pollution abatement obliga-
tions should be absolute; to allow developing states to qualify
pollution prevention requirements in accordance with their eco-
nomic capabilities would, in essence, be a license to pollute.
As the Caracas session progressed, however, it became evident
that Canada was abandoning its earlier position on the so-called
"double standard" issue and was accepting the LDC thesis that
national environmental and development policies should be weighed
when determining states' international pollution control obliga-
tions. (C)
Canada believes that all states interested in combating
marine pollution -- port, flag, and coastal -- should be permitted
to enforce vessel-source pollution standards. It feels that a
port state's powers to enforce international discharge standards
will have to be somewhat restricted to gain LOS approval. Port
state enforcement action against illegal discharges in the economic
zone of another state could be brought only upon the request of
that state or the flag state. The request of the flag state
would be required for enforcement action in the instance of
illegal discharges beyond the economic zone. The Canadians
suggest that only monetary penalties be imposed, that there be a
six-month statute of limitations, and that vessels be promptly
released under bond. (U)
Ottawa believes the LOS Convention should feature a strong
obligation for the flag state to enforce international pollution
standards and to accept documentary evidence of violations
presented by another state. (U)
-15-
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RD)59gb1054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
The coastal state, in Canada's view, should have the right
to enforce all types of standards in its territorial sea and
should be empowered to either arrest or expel the offending
vessel. Within the economic zone, the coastal state should be
able to stop and inspect vessels for discharge violations, and
to expel them from the zone. The Canadians feel that arrest and
prosecution should only be authorized for flagrant violations
that threaten the coastal state's waters with severe damage. When
violations of standards for "dangerous and vulnerable" areas occur,
the coastal state ought to be able to arrest or expel the offender.
Such safeguards as monetary penalities, six-month statute of
limitations, and prompt release of vessels under bond would prevent
enforcement abuses. (U)
Canada's coments on the enforcement of construction standards
indicate that they might be willing to rely on a right to verify
the possession of certificates required by international mandate.
(U)
The Canadians agree with the U.S. position that the provisions
on vessel-source pollution control should not apply to ships
entitled to sovereign immunity. They state that pollution disputes
between states ought to be resolved through compulsory means, either
by arbitration or through a tribunal. (U)
Just as Canada appears to have agreed to certain modifications
on straits issues during recent bilateral discussions with the
United States, it has tentatively agreed to limit a special marine
pollution control regime to ice-covered waters and to forego coastal
state pollution control standards in the economic zone and in
straits connecting two parts of the high seas. The Arctic pollu-
tion regime would apply to the Northwest Passage but would be sub-
ject to an exemption for military vessels. Canada remains reluctant
to submit any coastal state standards for ice-covered areas to
review (and possible rejection) by the Marine Environment Protection
Committee of IMCO. The two nations agree that Canada (and all
other coastal states) should have the right to enforce international
discharge standards in an ice-covered area and to prescribe and
enforce both discharge and construction standards within the
territorial sea outside of straits. (C)
Disagreement remains, however, on two other aspects of the
marine pollution question. Canada continues to insist on a
coastal state right to establish pollution control standards
for straits connecting the high seas with the territorial seas
of another state and to enforce international vessel-source
pollution control standards in the economic zone. (C)
- 16 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 :e1AARDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Scientific Research (U)
Canada favors a consent regime for scientific research in
the economic zone and continued adherence to the pertinent
articles of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention for research
where the coastal state has jurisdiction over resources beyond
200 miles. It also supports a requirement that consent for
scientific research in the economic zone should normally not
be withheld by the coastal states.
Settlement of Disputes (U)
Canada generally favors compulsory settlement of oceans
disputes but endorses an exception for disputes involving
territorial sea and continental shelf boundaries between neighboring
states. It is opposed to the proposed U.S. exception for military
activities, particularly on the question of liability for damage.
Peaceful Uses of the Seas (U)
The Canadians resist any ban on the installation of surveillance
devices by a coastal state in its economic zone or on its continental
shelf. They contend that the coastal states should not be prohibited
from emplacing limited defensive mechanisms on the seabed within
the economic zone.
D. KEY POLICY MAKERS, LOS NEGOTIATORS AND ADVISERS
The Canadian Government is parliamentary in form with
political power held by the Prime Minister, his Cabinet, and the
Parliament. The Department of the Environment, Department of
External Affairs, and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
are the ministries most concerned with LOS matters. Ambassador
(John) Alan Beesley, Dr. Alfred Needler, Mr. Paul LaPointe,
Mr. Donald Crosby, Mr. Leonard Legault, and Minister Romeo LeBlanc
have been the principal spokesmen for Ottawa in recent LOS sessions.
(U)
There is not unanimous support for Canada's position on LOS
issues. The university and governmental oceanographic research
community has lobbied in Ottawa for a more liberal stand on
scientific research. Senior Royal Canadian Naval officers and
merchant marine interests were not pleased with Canada's position
on residual coastal state competence to prescribe vessel-source
pollution control standards in a coastal zone. Their views,
however, were stilled within the Inter-departmental Committee on
Law of the Sea (ICLOS), the expert body that handles maritime
- 17 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CR3P79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
issues. The policymaking process within ICLOS has, to a con-
siderable degree, been controlled by Amsassador Beesley, former
Legal Advisor to the Department of External Affairs, and his
colleagues from the Department's Legal Operations Division.
They have been successful in satisfying, or suppressing, the
divergent interests of ICLOS members that conflict with the
central coastal state theme of Canadian LOS policy. The
preeminence of the Department of External Affairs in LOS policy
formulation primarily results from it being, with the exception
of the Department of Justice, the only Canadian ministry to possess
a legal bureau. The Justice Department has not been heavily
involved in LOS matters; its representation on the LOS delegation
dates back only to 1972. (C)
Canada's representatives at the preparatory sessions for
the Third UN Conference on LOS and the organizational (December
1973), Caracas (June-August 1974)3 and Geneva (March-May 1975)
sessions of the Conference follow. (U)
- 18 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
25X1B
Now'
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
LOS Conference Attendees (Ti)
Professor G. ALEXANDROWICZ
Resource and Environmental Law
Division
Department of the Environment
Mr. Robert D. AUGER
Law of the Sea Section
Legal Operations Division
Department of External Affairs
Mr. Terence C. BACON
Head of Environmental Law Section,
Legal Operations Division
Department of External Affairs
Mr. James S. BECKETT
International Fisheries Branch
International Fisheries and Marine
Directorate
Department of the Environment
*H.E. Mr. J.A. BEESLEY
Ambassador to Austria and Special
Advisor on LOS to the Secretary
of State for External Affairs
Mr. Jacques BERGERON
Ministry of Intergovernmental
Affairs
Quebec
Mr. Lloyd BROOKS
Deputy Minister
Department of Recreation and
Conservation
Victoria, British Columbia
Miss M. Jane CASKEY
Resource and Environmental Law
Division
Department of the Environment
Seabed Committee Session
Third
LOS Conference
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Dec
73
Jun-
Aug
74
Mar
May
75
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
- 19 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CRCFR3P79-01054A000300070001-1
25X1B
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
LOS Conference Attendees (U)
Mr. Leonce CHENARD
Deputy Minister of Fisheries and
the Environment
Fredericton, New Brunswick
Mr. G.W.N. COCKBURN
Minister of the Environment and
Fisheries
Fredericton, New Brunswick
Mr. R. Gerald CONRAD
Director, Legal Administration,
Department of the Attorney Genera
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Mr. E. John COOPER
Canadian Hydrographic Service
Department of Environment
*Dr. Donald G. CROSBY
Director, Resource Management
and Conservation Branch
Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources
H.E. The Honourable Jack DAVIS
P. C. M. P.
Minister of the Environment
Cdr. Roger A. EVANS
Directorate of Sovereignty Planni
Department of National Defence
Mr. Melville M. GOLDBERG
Director, Legal Services
Ministry of State for Science
and Technology
Mr. E.M. GORMAN
Deputy Minister of Fisheries
Charlottetown, Prince Edward
Island
Seabed Committee Session
Third
LOS Conference
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Dec
73
Jun
Aug
74
Mar
May
75
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
ig
X
X
X
X
X
- 20 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/1EXIMIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
25X1B
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CA&WP79-01054A000300070001-1
LOS Conference Attendees (U)
Mr. Geoffrey HOLLAND
Oceanography Branch
Marine Sciences Directorate
Department of the Environment
Mr. C. Thomas W. HYSLOP
Northern Affairs Branch
Department of Indian and Northern
Affairs
H.E. Mr. Donald C. JAMIESON
P.C. M.P.
Minister of Regional Economic
Expansion
Mr. J.W. KAVANAUGH
Director, Civil Law Administration
Department of the Attorney General
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Dr. Keith KETCHEN
Fisheries Research Establishment
Mr. James D. KINGHAM
Oceanography Branch
Marine Sciences Directorate
Department of the Environment
Mr. Philippe KIRSCH
Second Secretary and Vice-Consul,
Canadian Embassy, Lima, Peru,
(Press and Liaison Officer)
*Mr. Paul A. LAPOINTE
Head of Law of the Sea Section
Legal Operations Division
Department of External Affairs
*H.E. Mr. Romeo LEBLANC
P.C. M.P.
Minister of State for Fisheries
Seabed Committee Session
Third
LOS Conference .
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Dec
73
Jun-
Aug
74
Mar
May
75
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-21 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
25X1B
Approved For Release 2001/04/27691A-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
LOS Conference Attendees (U)
Mr. Edward G. LEE
Legal Advisor
Department of External Affairs
*Mr. Leonard H.J. LEGAULT
Director, International Fisheries
Branch
Department of the Environment
Mr. K.C. LUCAS
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister
Fisheries and Marine Service
Department of the Environment
H.E. Mr. Donald S. MACDONALD
Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources
H.E. Mr. Allan J. MACEACHEN
P.C. M.P.
Secretary of State for External
Affairs
Mr. Ronald R. MACGILLIVRAY
Director, Marine Legislation Bran
Ministry of Transport
Mr. W.C. MACKENZIE
Strategic Planning Branch
Fisheries and Marine Service
Department of the Environment
Dr. W.R. MARTIN
Director-General
Program Integration and Developme
Fisheries and Marine Service
Department of the Environment
Seabed Committee Session
Third
LOS Conference
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Dec ,Aug
73
Jun-
74
Mar
May
75
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
h
X
,
- 22 -
UCRET
Approved For Release 2001/04izi : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
LOS Conference Attendees (U)
Dr. M.E. MATTHEWS
A/Chief Resource and Environmental
Law Division
International Programs Branch
Department of Environment
Dr. Arthur W. MAY
International Relations Branch
Department of Environment
Mr. Robert MCMYNN
Director, Marine Resources Branch,
Department of Recreation and
Conservation
Victoria, British Colombia
Mr. Armand de MESTRAL
Advisory and International Law
Section
Department of Justice
Dr. D.A. MUNRO
Director-General of Intergovern-
mental Affairs
Department of Environment
Mr. Roland W. MURRAY
Environment Section
Bureau of International and
Environmental Affairs
Ministry of Transport
*Dr. Alfred W.H. NEEDLER
Special Adviser to the Minister
of Environment
Mr. S.V. MERE
Assistant Deputy Minister (Retd.)
25X1 B Fisheries and Forestry
Seabed Committee Session
Third
LOS Conference,
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Dec
73
Jun-
Aug
74
Mar
May
75
X
X
XXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXX
X
X
X
- 23 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
LOS Conference Attendees (U)
Mr. Michael B. PHILLIPS
Head, Environmental Law Section,
Legal Operations Division,
Department of External Affairs
Mr. Rupert PRINCE
Deputy Minister of Fisheries
St. John's, Newfoundland
Madame Jeanne SAUVE
Minister of Environment
H.E. The Honourable Mitchell SHARP
P.C. M.P.
Secretary of State for External
Affairs
Mr. Robert F. SHAW
Deputy Minister
Department of the Environment
Dr. Michael P. SHEPARD
Fisheries Service
Department of Environment
Mr. Donald F. SHERWIN
Resource Management and Conserva-
tion Brandi
Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources
Dr. George SMITH
Fisheries Research Board
Mr. H. Leslie SMITH
Policy Branch
Ministry of State for Science an
Technology
Seabed Committee Session
Third
LOS Conference
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Dec
73
Jun-
Aug
74
Mar
May
75
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
x
X
X
- 24 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27sECWRDP79-01054A000300070001-1
,fte
LOS Conference Attendees (U)
Lt. Commander Allen D. TAYLOR
Lau of the Sea Section
Legal Operations Division
Department of External Affairs
Mr. Thor THORGRIMSSON
Resource Management and Conserva-
tion Branch
Department of Energy, Mines &
Resources
Mr. E.D. VERNON
Associate Deputy Minister
Department of Recreation and
Conservation
Victoria, British Columbia
Miss Mary WALSH
International Marine Branch
International Fisheries and Marin
mime Directorate
Department of the Environment
Mr. Erik B. WANG
Counsellor
Permanent Mission to the UN
Seabed Committee Session
Third
LOS Conference
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Dec
73
Jun-
Aug
74
Mar
May
75
XXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!
X
X
,
X
X
X
X
-25 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
25X6
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Next 6 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
CANADA
Part II ? Background Information*
Geography
World region: North America
Category: coastal
Bordering states: United States
Bordering bodies of water: Arctic Ocean, Beaufort Sea, Kane Basin,
Baffin Bay, Labrador Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of St. Lawrence,
Bay of Fundy, Pacific Ocean, Queen Charlotte Sound
Bordering straits: Northwest Passages (Lancaster Sound, Barrow
Strait, Viscount Melville Sound, MIClure Strait, Prince of
Wales Strait, and Amundsen Gulf), Robeson Channel, Kennedy
Channel, Davis Strait, Hudson Strait (28.0 mi.), Strait of
Belle Isle (9.0 mi), Jacques Cartier (Mingan) Passage,
Cabot Strait (41.5 mi.), Northumberland Strait, Strait of Juan
de Fuca (9.0 mi), Strait of Georgia, Hecate Strait, Dixon
Entrance
Area of continental shelf: 846,500 sq. mi. (excludes Hudson Bay);
shared with U.S., Greenland, France
Area to 200 mi. limit: 1,370,000 sq. mi. (excludes Hudson Bay);
shared with U.S., Greenland, France
Area to edge of continental margin: 1,240,000 sq. mi. (excludes
Hudson Bay)
Coastline: 12,650 mi.
Land: 3,850,000 sq. statute mi.
Population: 22,600,000
Industry and Trade
GNP: $111.6 billion (1973); $5,030 per capita
Major industries: mining, metals, food products, wood and paper
products, transportation equipment, chemicals
Exports: $26,309 million (f.o.b., 1973); transportation equipment,
wood and wood products, ferrous and nonferrous ores, crude
petroleum, wheat; Canada is a major food exporter
Imports: $24,918 million (f.o.b., 1973); transportation equipment,
machinery, crude petroleum, communication equipment, textiles,
steel, fabricated metals, office machines, fruits and vegetables
Major trade partners: 69% U.S., 17% EC, 5% Japan (1973)
* WARNING -- Unless otherwise indicated, individual items are
unclassified/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Classification designations
are (C) Confidential and (S) Secret.
- 33 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-64KIA000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Industry and Trade (contid)
Merchant marine: 88 ships (1,000 GRT or over) totaling 398,000
GRT; 5 passenger, 38 cargo, 4 container, 2 roll-on/roll-off
cargo, 22 tanker, 9 bulk, 1 combination ore/oil, 7 specialized
carrier; in addition there are 157 ships of over 1,000 GRT used
in Great Lakes trade and 38 coastal ferries, a number of which
are designed for deep-draft operation (C)
Marine Fisheries
Catch: 1.2 million metric tons; exports -- $332 million, imports--
$80 million (1972)
Economic importance: limited national importance, significant
locally
Nature: coastal, limited distant-water
Other fishing areas: U.S., Peru, Ecuador
Species: salmon, cod, lobster, scallops, herring, halibut, flounder,
sole
Marine fisheries techniques: primarily modern
Other countries fishing off coast: Japan, Denmark, Norway, France,
Portugal, U.K., Spain, U.S.S.R., U.S.
Extent of foreign offshore fishing: significant
Petroleum Resources
Petroleum: production -- 560.7 million 42-gal. bbl. (75.8 million
metric tons) onshore; proved recoverable reserves -- 10,200
million 42-gal. bbl. (1,378 million metric tons) onshore, some
offshore wells shut in (1972)
Natural gas: production -- 2,913 billion cubic feet (82.5 billion
cubic meters) onshore; proved recoverable reserves -- 55,462
billion cubic feet (1,570 billion cubic meters) onshore, offshore
reserves not available (1972)
Navy
Ships: 4 destroyers, 20 destroyer escorts, 3 submarines, 1 auxiliary
submarine, 3 small submarine Chasers, 6 coastal minesweepers, 30
auxiliaries, 43 service craft (S)
Government Leaders
Prime Minister: Pierre-Elliott Trudeau
Secretary of State: Hugh Faulkner
Secretary of State for External Affairs: Allan MacEachen
- 34 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/23MA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Multilateral Conventions
United States-Japan-Canada. International Convention for the High
Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. In force June 12, 1953.
United States-Japan-Canada. Exchange of Notes Constituting an
Agreement relating to Scientific Investigation of Fur Seals in
the North Pacific Ocean. In force February 8, 1952 (for Japan
and U.S.A.) and March 1, 1952 (Canada).
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, February 6, 1970.
International Convention for the
Sea by Oil, December 19, 1956.
International Convention for the
April
1966 Amendments accepted
June 2, 1969.
Regulations for the
March 24, 1963.
Convention on Facilitation
1967.
International Convention on Load Lines, January 14, 1970.
International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries,
July 3, 1950.
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, February 25,
1949. Protocol to the Convention, June 14, 1957.
Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission, October 3, 1967.
International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas,
August 20, 1968.
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, January 28, 1964.
Seabed Arms Limitation Treaty, May 17, 1972.
Convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organiza-
tion, October 15, 1948.
Convention on the International Hydrographic Organization, August 26,
1968.
Convention on the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea, June 22, 1967.
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and other Matter. Signed February 9, 1973.
Prevention of Pollution of the
Safety of Life at Sea, May 26, 1965.
23, 1968; 1967 Amendments accepted
Prevention of Collisions of Vessels at Sea,
of International Maritime Traffic, July 18,
Bilateral Conventions
United States-Canada. Agreement on Reciprocal Fishing Privileges in
Certain Areas off their coasts. In force April 24, 1970. Renewed
June 15, 1973.
U.S.S.R.-Canada. Agreement on Co-operation in Fisheries off the
Coast of Canada in the North-Eastern Pacific Ocean. In force
February 19, 1971.
Norway-Canada. Exchange of Notes concerning Fishing by Norwegian
Nationals off Canada's Atlantic Coast. In force July 15, 1971.
- 35 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Bilateral Conventions (contid)
United Kingdom-Canada. Exchange of Notes concerning Fishing by
British Vessels off the Atlantic Coast of Canada. In force
March. 27, 1972.
France-Canada. Agreement on their mutual Fishing Relations with
annex. In force March 27, 1972.
Portugal-Canada. Agreement concerning Fisheries Relations. In
Force March 27, 1972.
Denmark-Canada. Exchange of Notes concerning Fisheries Relations.
In force March 27, 1972.
United States-Canada. Convention for the Protection, Preservation
and Extension of the Sockeye Salmon Fisheries in the Fraser River
System. In force July 28, 1937. Supplementary Agreement in
force August 5, 1944. Protocol to the Convention in force
July 3, 1957.
United States-Canada. Convention for the Extension of Port Privileges
to Halibut Fishing Vessels on the Pacific Coasts of the U.S.
and Canada. In force July 13, 1950.
United States-Canada. Convention for the Preservation of the
Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.
In force October 28, 1953.
U.S.S.R.-Canada. Agreement on Provisional Rules of Navigation and
Fisheries Safety in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean off the Coast
of Canada. In force April 15, 1971.
U.S.S.R.-Canada. Agreement on Co-operation in Fisheries off the
Coast of Canada in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean. In force
February 19, 1971.
United States-Canada. Convention on the Great Lakes Fisheries.
In force October 11, 1955.
United States-Canada. Exchange of Notes constituting a Provisional
Agreement relating to Fur Seals. In force May 30, 1944. Agreement
Amended effective December 26, 1947.
Norway-Canada. Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement to ensure
Compliance with Sealing Regulations. In force April 26, 1963.
Norway-Canada. Agreement on Sealing and the Conservation of the
Seal Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic. In force December 22, 1971.
United States-Canada. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In
force April 15, 1972.
Denmark-Canada. Agreement relating to the Delimitation of the
Continental Shelf between Canada and Greenland, 1973.
-36 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Type
Date
Present Ocean ClpimA*
Terms
Source, Notes
Territorial
3mi.
Sea
1970
12 mi.
Revised Territorial Sea and
Fishing Zones Act Dec. 26, 1970.
Continental
1970
Amended Territorial Sea and Fishing
Shelf
Zones Act
Party to the Continental Shelf
Convention (Feb. 6, 1970), with
reservation. Public Lands Grants
Act Order-in-Council P.S. 1965-
150, Apr. 26, 1965
Exclusive
1964
12 mi.
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
Fishing
Act of 1964, Jul. 16, 1964 98
Can. Gaz. PIT, p. 771, p. 4;
Customs
Territorial Sea and Fishing
Zones Act, 1964 and P 5 of the
1964 regulation on the applica-
tion of said act authorize the
vessels of Denmark, France, Italy,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, and U.K.
to fish indefinitely in the
Canadian fishing zones on the
Atlantic coast. Negotiations
have begun to limit these
activities. The same statutory
provisions authorize U.S. vessels
to fish for an unlimited period
in all areas of the Canadian
fishing zones.
1952 9 marine miles beyond Canadian
waters; currently, limit of
customs authority is 12; could
be considered 21 mi.
Criminal 1954 3 mi.
Jurisdiction
* Principal Source: Limits of the Seas, National Claims to Maritime
Jurisdictions, 2d Revision, State Dept./INR, April 1974.
- 37 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
SECRET
Type
Present Ocean Claims (Con't)
Date Terms Source, Notes
Civil 1934 3 mi.
Jurisdiction
Pollution
1970 100 mi. Arctic Pollution Act, June 28, 1970
Lind ted to Arctic region north of
600 North latitude
1971 Shipping Act amended Mar. 30, 1971
Chap. 27, p. 19
Extends pollution control to all
Canadian waters south of 60?
North.. .and to all fishing zones
of Canada.
Straight 1969 Announced June 4, 1969, under
Baselines provisions! of Territorial
Waters Act, 1964
St. Lawrence
Closing Line
1970 Territorial and Fishing Zones
Act of Feb. 25, 1971, Order-in--
Council P.C. 1971-366
Provides for fisheries closing
lines for Fundy, St. Lawrence
and Queen Charlotte regions.
NOTE: Hudson Bay is historic bay
on basis of Fisheries Act
of May 27, 1914; Art. 8,
Sec. 10
1927 Sec. 27, Chap. 186 of Revised
Statutes, 1927
Father Point to Orient Point;
requoted in 1967
1938 Sec. 2, Customs Act, Chap. 42,
RSC 1927
Cape Rosieres to west end of
Anticosti Island to mouth of
St. Johns River. The latter
is considered binding.
- 38 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP7M0A54A000300070001-1
Action on Significant UN Resolutions
Moratorium Resolution
(A/RES/2574 D, XXIV, 12/15/69)
Pending establishment of international regime,
States and persons are bound to refrain from
exploiting resources of or laying claim to any
part of the seabed and ocean floor beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction.
LOS Conference
(A/RES/2750 C, XXV, 12/17/70)
Convene in 1973 a Conference on Law of the Sea
to deal with establishment of international
regime for the seabed and ocean floor, and
enlarge Seabed Committee by 44 members and
instruct it to prepare for the conference draft
treaty articles embodying international regime.
Against
In favor
LOS Conference, Timing and Site Adopted w/o vote
(A/RES/3029 A, XXVII, 12/18/72)
Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace
(A/RES/2992, XXVII, 12/15/72)
Called upon littoral and hinterland states of
Indian Ocean area, permanent members of the
Security Council and other major maritime users
of Indian Ocean to support concept that Indian
Ocean should be zone of peace.
Landlocked/Shelf-Locked Study Resolution
(A/RES/3029 13, XXVII, 12/18/72)
Called for study of extent and economic signifi-
cance in terms of resources, of international
area resulting from each proposal of limitth of
national jurisdiction presented to Seabed Committee.
Peruvian Coastal State Study Resolution
(A/RES/3029 C, XXVII, 12/18/72)
Called for study of potential economic signifi-
cance for riparian states, in terms of resources,
of each of the proposals on limits of national
jurisdiction presented to Seabed Committee.
Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources
(A/RES/3016 XXVII, 12/18/72)
Reaffirmed right of states to permanent sovereignty
over all their natural resources, wherever found.
-39-
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Abstain
Abstain
In favor
In favor
Approved For Release 2001/04/27IEIIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Membership in Organizations Related to LOS Interests
Commonwealth
FAO
IAEA
ICAO
IHB
IMCO
NATO
OAS (observer)
OECD
Seabeds Committee
UN
UNESCO
UNCTAD
WMO
Food and Agriculture Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion
International Hydrographic Bureau
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organization
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Organization of American States
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of the Sea-Bed and Ocean Floor
beyond the Limits of National Jurisdic-
tion
United Nations
United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization
United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development
World Meteorological Organization
- 40-
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : dk-RATDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
Distr.
LIMITED
A/AC.130/SC.III/L.18
25 July 1972
Original: ENGLISH
COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OF
THE SEA-BED AND OCEAN FLOOR BEYOND
TBE LIMITS OF NATIONAL JURISDICTION
Sub-Committee III
Working Paper submitted by the
Canadian Delegation
PRINCIPLES
ON
MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
For the Third Law of the Sea Conference
PREAMBLE
1. All mankind has an interest in the facilitation of marine scientific research and
the publication of its results.
2. Marine scientific research is any study, whether fundamental or applied, intended
to increase knowledge about the marine environment, including all its resources and
living organisms, and embraces all related scientific activity.
3. The objectives of marine scientific research include achievement of a level of
understanding which allows accurate assessment and prediction of oceanic processes and
provide the basis for the development of a management policy which will ensure that the
quality and resources of the marine environment are not impaired, and for the rational
use of this environment, in the service of human welfare, international equity and
economic progress and, in the interest of peace and international co-operation among
States.
PRINCIPLES
1. Knowledge resulting from marine scientific research is part of the common heritage
of all mankind, and such knowledge and information of a non-proprietary or non-military
nature should be exchanged and made available to the whole world.
GE.72-14485
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/Ac.r:;e/sc.III/L.18
page 2
2. Marine scientific research constitutes a legitimate activity within the marine
environment. Every State, whether coastal or not, and every competent international
organization has the right to conduct or authorize the conduct of scientific research
in the marine environment, in accordance with the rules and recognized principles of
international law and subject to the provisions of the present principles.
5. Marine scientific research as such shall not form the legal basis for any claims
of exploitation rights or any other rights in areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction.
4. Enrine scientific research shall be conducted in a reasonable manner, and shall
not result in any unjustifiable interference with other Uses of the marine environment;
nor shall other uses of the marine environment result in any unjustifiable interference
with marine scientific research.
5. Yarine scientific research shall not entail excessive collection of specimens and
samples, nor cause pollution or undue disturbance of the marine environment.
6. The availability to every State of information and knowledge resulting from marine
scientific research shall be facilitated by effective international communication of
proposed major programmes and their objectives, and by publication and dissemination
through international channels of their results.
7. States shall take steps to further the development and growth of marine scientific
research and to obviate interference with its progress, and shall co-operate in the
elaboration of international rules to facilitate such research. States shall promote
arrangements and agreements to advance marine scientific research and the exchange of
data and information on a regional, as well as on a global basis, in co-operation with
other States and with international organizations, whether governmental or
non-governmental.
C. States shall, both individually and in co-operation with other States and with
competent international organizations, promote the flow of scientific data and
information and the transfer of experience resulting from marine scientific research
to developing countries and the strengthening of the marine research capabilities of
these countries to a level corresponding to their needs and resources, including
programmes to provide adequate training of the technical and scientific personnel of
these countries.
9. Marine scientific research in areas within the jurisdiction of a coastal State
shall only be conducted with the consent of the coastal State. If such consent is
granted, the coastal State shall have the right to participate or to be represented in
such marine scientific research and shall have the right of utilizing samples, the
right of access to data, c_ol results, and the right to require that the results be
published.
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
VAC.1,4;(2.111A.1d
page 5
10. The coastal State prior to determining whether it will grant consent to marine
scientific research in areas within its jurisdiction, may require information such as
the period, location, nature and purpose of the proposed investigations, the
observations to be made, the proposed disposition of all material collected, the means
to be employed and, where applicable, the name of the ship with its full description,
including tonnage, type and class, the name of the agency sponsoring the investigations,
and the names of the Master of the vessel, the proposed scientific leaders and members
of the scientific party and particulars of any proposed entry into a coastal State port.
The coastal State shall be kept informed of any changes in the above information.
11. The coastal State shall reply promptly to a reaueet accompanied by information
-..equired by it in accordance with the provisions of Principle 10. The coastal State
shall facilitate the conduct of marine scientific research to which it has consented by
e-xtending necessary facilities to ships and scientists while they are operating in areas
within its jurisdiction wherever possible.
12. Marine scientific research shall comply with all the coastal State's laws and
)regulations when carried out in areas within the jurisdiction of the coastal State,
including the resource management regulations and directions in areas where the coastal
State has authority over resources appertaining to its continental shelf, the
environmental protection regulations in areas where the coastal State has a primary
responsibility for environmental protection, the management regulations in areas under
fishery management, where in addition all information resulting from such research shall
L e made available to the authority managing such area, and the regulations and
directions necessary to protect the security of the coastal State.
1. Marine scientific research concerning the sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil
thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction shall comply with any regulations
developed by a competent international organization to minimize disturbance and prevent
pollution of the marine environment and interference with exploration and exploitation
activity.
14. States shall devise means to enable responsibility to be fixed with States or
international organizations that have caused damage in the course of marine scientific
research or where such damage has been caused by the activities of persons under their
jurisdiction, to the marine environment or to any other State or to its nationals.
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Distr.
LIMITED
A/CONF.62/L.4
26 July 1974
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Canada Chile, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Mauritius, Mexico
New Zealand and Norway: working paper
The representatives of Canada, Chile, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Mauritius,
Mexico, New Zealand and Norway have held a number of informal consultations on certain
issues relating to the Law of the Sea. They are presenting the following draft articles
as a possible framework for discussion on those issues by the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea.
Preparation of this informal working paper does not imply withdrawal of the
proposals submitted, individually or jointly, by some of the above-named States, or
substitution of such proposals or stated positions by the present working paper; nor
does the paper necessarily reflect their final positions and is without prejudice to
declared national positions.
C-0599
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
?No
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
English
Page 2
Draft articles
Territorial sea: general provisions
Article 1
1. The soTereignty of a coastal State extends beyond its land territory and internal
waters, and, in the case of archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters, over an
adjacent belt of sea defined as the territorial sea.
2. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends to the air space over the territorial
sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.
3. This sovereignty is exercised subject to the provisions of these articles and to
other rules of international law.
Article 2
The breadth of the territorial sea shall not exceed 12 nautical miles to be
measured from the applicable baseline.
Article 3
Except where otherwise provided in these articles, the normal baseline for
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as
marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.
Article 4
1. In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a
fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight
baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which
the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
2. The drawing of such baselines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general direction of the coast, and the sea areas lying within the lines must be
sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal
waters.
3. Where the method of straight baselines is applicable under the provisions of
paragraph 1, account may be taken, in determining particular baselines, of economie
interests peculiar to the region concerned, the reality and the importance of which are
clearly evidenced by long usage.
4. The system of straight baselines may not be applied by a State in such a manner as
to cut off from the high seas the territorial sea of another State.
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/CONF.6211.4
English
Page 3
Archipelagic States
Articlej.
1. An archipelagic State is a State constituted wholly or mainly by one or more
archipelagos.
2. For the purpose of these articles, an archipelago is a group of islands, including
parts of islands, with interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so
closely interrelated that the component islands, waters and other natural features
form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity or which historically
have been regarded as such.
Article 6
1. An archipelagic State may employ the method of straight baselines joining the
outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago in
drawing the baselines from which the extent of the territorial sea, economic zone and
other special jurisdictions are to be measured.
2. If the drawing of such baselines encloses a part of the sea traditionally used
by an immediate and adjacent neighbouring State for direct communication from one part
of its territory to another part, such communication shall continue to be respected.
Article 7
1. The waters enclosed by the baselines, hereinafter referred to as archipelagic
waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, belong to and are subject
to the sovereignty of the archipelagic State to which they appertain.
2. The sovereignty and rights of the archipelagic State extend to the air space over
its archipelagic waters as well as to the water column, the sea-bed and subsoil
thereof, and to all of the resources contained therein.
3. Innocent passage* of foreign ships shall exist through archipelagic waters.
* /further articles will be required relating to the regime and description of
passage through specified sea lanes of the archipelagic waters./
Article 8
The foregoing provisions regarding archipelagic States shall not affect the
established regime concerning coastlines deeply indented and cut into and to the
waters enclosed by a fringe of islands along the coast, as expressed in article 4.
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/CONF.62/L.4
English
Page 4
Archipelagos forming part of a coastal State
Article 9
1. A coastal State with one or more off lying archipelagos, as defined in article
paragraph 2, which form an integral part of its territory, shall have the right to
apply the provisions of articles 6 and 7 to such archipelagos upon the making of a
declaration to that effect.
5,
2. The territorial sea of a coastal State with one or more off-lying archipelagos
exercising its rights under this article will be measured from the applicable baselines
which enclose its archipelagic waters.
Article 10
The provision regarding archipelagos forming part of a coastal State shall not
affect the established regime concerning coastlines deeply indented and cut into and, to
the waters enclosed by a fringe of islands along the coast, as expressed in article 4.
Article 11
The provision regarding archipelagos forming part of a coastal State shall be
without prejudice to the regime of archipelagic States, as provided for in
articles 5, 6 and 7.
Economic zone
Article la..
The coastal State exercises in and throughout an area beyond and adjacent to its
territorial sea, known as the exclusive economic zone: (a) sovereign rights for the
purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources, whether renewable or
non-renewable, of the sea-bed and subsoil and the superjacent waters; (b) the other
rights and duties specified in these articles with regard to the protection and
preservation of the marine environment and the conduct of scientific research. The
exercise of these rights shall be without prejudice to article 19 of this convention.
Article 13.
The outer limit of the economic zone shall not exceed 200 nautical miles from the
applicable baselines for measuring the territorial sea.
LThe co-sponsors recognize the requirement for equitable rights of access on the
basis of regional, subregional or bilateral agreements, for nationals of
developing land-locked States and developing geographically disadvantaged States
(to be defined) to the living resources of the exclusive economic zones of
neighbouring coastal States. They will shortly be presenting articles to this
effect./
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/CONF.62/L.4
English
Page 5
Article 14
In the economic zone, ships and aircraft of all States, whether coastal or not,
shall enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight subject to the exercise by the coastal
State of its rights within the area, as provided for in this convention.
Article 15
The coastal State shall exercise its rights and perform its duties in the economic
zone without undue interference with other legitimate uses of the sea, including,
subject to the provisions of this convention, the laying of cables and pipelines.
Article 16
The emplacement and use of artificial islands and other installations on the
surface of the sea, in the waters and on the sea-bed and subsoil of the economic zone,
shall be subject to the authorization and regulation of the coastal State.
Article 17
In exercising their rights under this convention, States shall not interfere with
the exercise of the rights or the performance of the duties of the coastal State in the
economic zone.
Article 18
The coastal State shall ensure that any exploration and exploitation activity
within its economic zone is carried out exclusively for peaceful purposes.
LTUrther specific articles will be required in relation to the economic zone,/
Continental shelf
Article 19
1. The coastal State exercises sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the
purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.
2. The continental shelf of a coastal State extends beyond its territorial sea to a
distance of 200 miles from the applicable baselines and throughout the natural
prolongation of its land territory where such natural prolongation extends
beyond 200 miles.
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/CONF.62/L.4
English
Page 6
3. Paragraph 2 of this article shall be without prejudice to the provisions
concerning delimitation between adjacent and opposite States contained in articles and
other rules of international law.
Zyurther provisions will be required on the subject of article 19 including
provisions to cover the precise demarcation of the limits of the continental
margin beyond 200 miles; the use of the shelf for peaceful purposes only;
delimitations between opposite and adjacent States, with retention of existing
rights, including rights under bilateral agreements; and the relationship between
the continental shelf and the economic zone.!
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Distr.
LIMITED
A/CONF.62/C.VL.6
31 July 1974
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
THIRD COZ1IITTEE
Canada, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Iceland, India, Iran, New Zealand,
Philippines and Spain: draft articles on zonal approach to the
Elleervation of the marine environment
These draft articles do not necessarily represent the full or final position of
the co-sponsors, are without prejudice to declared national positions, and do not
imply withdrawal of the proposals submitted, individually or jointly, by some of the
above-named States or substitution of such proposals or national positions by the
present draft articles.
C-0795
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27: CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.6
English
Page.2
States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.
II
1. States shall co-operate on a global basis and as appropriate on a regional
basis, directly or through competent international organizations, global or regional, to
formulate and elaborate treaties, rules, standards and recommended practices and
procedures consistent with this Convention for the prevention of-marine pollution, taking
into account characteristic regional features, the economic capacity of developing
countries and their need for economic development.
2. States with interests in the marine environment of a region or geographically
common area should co-operate in formulating common policies and measures for the
protection of such regions or areas. States should endeavour to act consistently with
the objectives and provisions of such policies and measures.
III
1. States shall take all necessary measures to prevent pollution of the marine
environment from any source, using for this purpose the best practicable means in
accordance with their capabilities, individually or jointly, as appropriate, and
according to their own environmental policies
2. States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that activities under their
jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to areas beyond their national jurisdiction,
including damage to other States and their environment, by pollution of the marine
environment.
3. The measures taken pursuant to these articles shall deal with all sources of
pollution of the marine environment, whether air, land, marine, or any other sources.
They shall include inter alie:
(a) In respect of land-based sources of pollution of thu marine environment,
including rivers, estuaries, pipelines and outfall structures, measures designed to
minimize the release of noxious and harmful substances, especially persistent substances,
into the marine environment, to the fullest possible extent;
(b) In respect of pollution from vessels, measures relating to the prevent Len of
accidents, the safety of operations at sea and intentional or other dischart;cs, irv.luding
measures relating to the design, equipment, operation and maintenance of vessela,
especially of those vessels engaged in the carriage of hazardous substances whose release
into the marine environment, either accidentally or through normal operation of the
vessel, would cause pollution of the marine environment;
(c) In respect of pollution from installations or devites engaged in the exploration
and exploitation of the natural resources of the sea-bed and subsoil, measures for the
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/qPNF.62/C.3/L.6
English
Page i
prevention of accidents an the safety of operations at Leo, and especially measures
related to the design, equipment, operation and maintenance of such installations and
devices; and
(d) In respect of pollution from dumping by vessels, aircraft and rixed or
floating platforms, measures for prohibiting or regulating such dumping.
In taking measures to prevent marine pollution, States shall guard against the
effect of transferring damage or hazard from one area to another.
Nothing in these articles shall derogate from the sovereign right of a State to
exploit its own resources pursuant to its environmental policies and in accordance with
its duty to protect and preserve the marine environment both in its ovn interests and
in the interests of mankind as a whole.
ITT
The coastal State has in and throughout its economic zone (hereinafter referred to
as the "zone") the rights and duties specified in these articles for the purposes of
protecting and preserving the marine environmant and preventing and controlling pollution.
VI
1. Within the zone, the coastel State shall have jurisdiction, in accordance
with these articles, to establish and adopt laws and regulations and to take administrative
and other measures in respect of the activities of all persons, natural and juridical,
vessels, installations and other entities for ne pureoses :;ut out in article VI.
2. The coastal State shall have the right to enforce in the zone laws and
regulations enacted in accordance with pura7Tap71 1 of thiL
3. (a) In respect of pollution of thc rale:me environment from land-based sources
and from installations or devices engaged in the exploration and exIdoitation of the
natural resources of the seabed and subsoil, the laws and ragulations of the coastal
State shall take into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended
practices and procedures.
(b) (i) In respect of ship-generated pollution, the taws and n:gnlaip
of the coastal State shall conform to internationally agreed rules
and standards.
(ii) Where internationally agreed rules and ,,tandards are not in existence
or are inadequate to meet special circapstanees, coastal States may
adopt reasonable and nor-discriminatory laws and regulations
additional to or more stringent than the relevant internationally
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.6
English
Page 4
agreed rules and standards, However, coastal States may apply
stricter design and construction standards to vessels navigating
in their zones only in respect of waters where such stricter
standards are rendered essential by exceptional hazards to
navigation or the special vulnerability of the marine environment,
in accoxdance with accepted scientific criteria. States which
adopt measures in accordance with this subparagr(Th shall notify
the competent international organization without 3' .y, which shall
notify all interested States about these measures,.
VIII
The coastal State shall exercise its rights and perform its duties in the zone
with regard to the preservation of the marine environment without undue interference
with other legitimate uses of the sea, including, subject to the provisions of this
Convention, the laying of cables and pipelines.
IX
In the zone, ships and aircraft of all Statu2, whether coastal or not, sLall
enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight subject to the exercise by the coastal State
of its rights within the zone, as provided for in this convention, with regard to the
preservation of the marine environment.
(Further articles in elaboration of the zonal approach Will be required, including
provision for the peaceful settlement of disputes, special areas, intervention,
liability, the relationship of these articles with other international conventions,
and mechanisms for the establishment of rules and standards.)
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Distr.
LIMITED
7?7_1:_? A
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.81
23 August 1974
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE
WORKING PAPER SUBMITTED BY THE IWIEGATYGN OF CANADA
The special case of salmon - the most important anadromous speci.:s
This paper summarizes the unique position of the various species of salmon in the
world of fisheries management. It is submitted to provide the basis in fact and in
equity for the development of an appropriate regime for the best use of this valuable
resource.
Salmon are unique in returning from the sea to the same fresh waters where they
wore born, to spawn and leave their fertilized eggs to develop in the ';ame gravel beds.
Following hatching, some salmon migrate directly to the sea as small fry; other species
must live for one to several years in fresh water lakes or streams.
While salmon grow and mature in the open sea, they occupy Aic upper layers of cold
northern waters where they are not serious competitors for the food supply of other
valuable species. In the open sea they are found mainly in areas within the proposed
200-mile economic zones, but also, to a considerable degree, in areas beyond national
jurisdiction.
Salmon are tl:e only fish occurring in the open sea which nn can and _do's increase
by ,positive cultural measures. Such measures can be ti11 only by the :tate of origin.
Mixed in distant waters salmon runs solurato to return unrringly -o their home
streams. In distant waters aalman runs vtieh ne:d 1..1.eLlial protection are mixed with
runs which are abundant; onl:r as they approach their home streams (the very streams
where they were bred) can the salmon runs be eroppe,i seprately and in accordance with
the catches each run can support.
Salmon reach their greatest weight as thcy appreach their home streams. During
their migrations from the open sea to the sp,iminc 6round, sullion grow faster than
they die off. The greatest yield can be o'tninccl by fishing the runs close to their
home streams.
Strict regulations are needed to let the riOt lAmber of sp.wners through the
fishery to the spav:ling streams. This muiA be done by ,Lssessments of the runs as they
appear, and prompt and often drastic restriction of fi_.hing to let the optimum spav;uing
run through. This requires costly supervision end enforcem4nt, a,7 well as co-operation
of the fishermen. Only the State of origin of the sa7TJ )n c2n corty out this essential
ful_ction.
C-1780
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.81
English
Page 2
Salmon must have unobstructed access to their spawning grounds, which may be as
much as 1,500 miles inland from the sea. This involves heavy direct expenses in removal
of natural obstructions (e.g. landslides) and construction of fish passes. There is
also much indirect cost to the State of origin in foregoing hydro-electric development,
irrigation projects, flood control and other benefits, all of which would involve dams
obstructing the passage of salmon. For example, power dams of great potential value have
been kept off the Fraser River in British Columbia in order to maintain the productivity
of one of the world's great salmon rivers. The State of origin must also protect salmon
waters from pollution.
Artificial means of increasing salmon production are becoming ever more effective.
Large scale projects to increase salmon production include provision of artificial
channels where natural spawning grounds are inadequate, hatcheries to increase the
numbers and proportions of fry produced from salmon eggs, and associated facilities for
rearing small salmon safe from the enemies and fluctuations in water levels which
threaten them in nature. These salmon culture techniques have, in recent years, passed
the experimental stage to that of demonstrated effectiveness. In North America alone,
hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent in such efforts.
Both the management of the fishery and the development of artificial means of
producing more salmon have required and continue to require intensive scientific
research. The States of origin of salmon have already spent hundreds of millions of
dollars in research on salmon.
Only the State of origin can_protect and culture salmon and effectively manage the
fishery. All the steps noted above can be carried out only by the State in whose
rivers the salmon breed - the State of origin. No other State can see that the right
number of salmon get through the fishery to spawn. No other State can keep salmon
rivers and lakes unobstructed and unpolluted. No other State can take positive measures
to increase salmon production by artificial means such as man-made spawing channels,
hatcheries and rearing facilities. Without these effective and costly actions by the
State of origin, there would be no commercial salmon runs.
A regime must be found which assures for the State of origin the fruits of its
efforts and so encourages it to continue to bear the costs. This requires curtailment
of the fishing of salmon on the open sea outside national jurisdictions and co-operation
with the State of origin by other States through whose zones the salmon may migrate.
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Distr.
LIMITED
A/CONF.62/C.2/L,6:1
26 August 1974
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE
Canada: definition of international strait
Item 4
An international strait is a natural passage between land formations which:
(a) (i) lies within the territorial sea of one or more States at any point in
its length and
(ii) joins ...
(b) has traditionally been used for international navigation.
-1833
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Distr.
LIMITED
A/CONF.62/C.2/L,6:1
26 August 1974
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE
Canada: definition of international strait
Item 4
An international strait is a natural passage between land formations which:
(a) (i) lies within the territorial sea of one or more States at any point in
its length and
(ii) joins ...
(b) has traditionally been used for international navigation.
-1833
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
CANADA
? International boundary
-- Canada-Greenland 1973 Continental
Shelf Agreement line
--- U.S.-Russia 1867 Convention Treaty line
---- Province boundary
----- Equidistant line
Sector line
200 nautical mile limit
Fisheries closing line
Canadian Arctic Waters
Pollution Control Zone
Average extent of permanent polar ice
Bathyrnetry
0 3000
- -----
meters
Devon Island
Baffin
0 500 Statute Miles
0 500 Nautical Miles
Gulf of
Alaska
PA CIFIC
ava
Bay
Labrador S
Hudson Bay
Srrait
Juan de Fuca -
James
r a r
!stand at
Newfoundland
Port ax migueion'''St -Pierre
Basque.-' (ER.) (FR.)
`1 Sana
Gulf of [
St. Lawrence
P.E .1.
Grand Bank
of
Newfoundla d
Quebec
ead
rbour
,Passage
Gulf of
Maine
502439 4-75
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1
Secret
Secret
Approved For Release 2001/04/27 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000300070001-1