SECOND SESSION PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-NINTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040028-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 28
• Publication Date: August 8, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040028-3
PROVISIONAL
For participants only
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
8 August 1974
Second Session
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-NINTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Tuesday, 6 August 1974, et 3.15 p.m.
President:
Rapporteur:
CONTENTS
Mr. AGUILAR. Venezuela
Mr. NANDAN Fiji
Exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial sea (continued)
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the four working-language s
(English,, French, Russian or Spanish), preferably in the same language as the text to
which they refer. Corrections should be sent in quadruplicate within five working days
to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, Nivel Lacuna, Edificio Anauco, and also
incorporated in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 8 AUGUST 1974,.THE TIME-LIMIT,FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 15 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would
be greatly appreciated.
C-5365
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040028-3
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040028-3
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
English
Page 2
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL SEA (continued)
Mr. KYAW MIN (Burma) said that political, economic and technological
developments since World War II had introduced certain qualitative changes in the
traditional law of the sea which could be described as resource-prompted and resource-
oriented. The traditional law of the sea based on the doctrine of freedom of the seas
had resulted in a regime of laissez-faire under which the natural resources of the
oceans had benefited only those capable of exploiting them at the expense of the
international community as a whole. That regime had become inadequate and should be
replaced by a new legal system which would assure the right of all States to share in
ocean resources.
The aim of the exclusive economic zone and the complementary concept-of the common
heritage of mankind, was to establish clearly defined legal rights of coastal State
ownership and jurisdiction in clearly demarcated areas of ocean space. In the view of
his delegation a future Convention should preserve the essential distinction between
those two concepts in order adequately to meet the needs of States. To blur that
distinction, let alone destroy it, would undermine the very basis of the Convention and
thus jeopardize its viability.
Certain proposals such as preferential rights only for coastal States in their
economic zones, legalization of what their proponents described as traditional fishing
rights but which were essentially prescriptive rights, compensatory rights, compulsory
sharing of revenue or the designation of the sea-bed resources of a continent as the
common property of that continent, constituted an attempt to graft the.concept of the
common heritage of man on to the concept of the exclusive economic zone, which would
create legal confusion in the seas and sow the seeds of conflict between States. It
could also have dangerous consequences for coastal States, particularly those lacking
the physical power to defend their rights. A great deal had been said about the
so-called process of creeping jurisdiction, but the possibility of that. process working
in reverse was seldom mentioned.
The essential principle of the exclusive economic zone, namely, exclusive coastal
State sovereignty over the resources of maritime zones, was not new to international
maritime law. It was already embodied in the concept of the territorial sea and
explicitly sanctioned under the Convention on the Continer`al Shelf.
His delegation firmly believed that the rights and powers of the coastal State in
the economic zone should be upheld in law as supreme. It shared the view that the
economic zone should extend to an outer limit of 200 nautical miles measured from
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040028-3 ~.. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
English
Page 3
(Mr. Kyaw Min, Burma)
territorial sea baselines and that within that limit, the coastal State should have
exclusive sovereign rights over all living and mineral resources. Those rights should
be coupled with exclusive'regulatory, control and management powers over resource
conservation, protection of the environment and scientific research. The provisions of
the regiie`of the continental shelf should be made applicable to the subjacent sea-bed
of the zone regardless of depth. and to that part of the continental margin extending
beyond the outer limit of the zone.
His delegation was sympathetic to the requirements of those States whose economies
were largely-dependent on sea fisheries and was aware of the need to ensure optimum
utilization.of fishery resources in the economic zone. However, it considered that
coastal-States should have the legal right of decision with regard to practical
arrangements in`respect of those matters.
Referring to the delimitation of the boundaries of exclusive economic zones between
States, he expressed the view that equidistant boundaries were by definition arbitrary
and did not take account of the physical features of the sea-bed. The principle"of the
natural prolongation of the land territory into the sea should be applied where'irerl
possible and the epi-,continental sea concept might be applied to determine the boundaries
of?:.the water column in ?order.`to ensure that the jurisdictional boundary of the sea-bed
coincided with that of the water column, thereby obviating disputes, particularly over
the. ownership of bottom fish.
His delegation strongly supported proposals aimed at establishing objective
criteria whereby very small oceanic islands would not be entitled to claim large areas
of mariie'space to the detriment of the interests of neighbouring States. It also
supported the view that isolated islands and outlying` islets should not qualify as
baselines in determining the breadth of the exclusive economic zone and the jurisdictional
boundaries between States. His remarks did not apply to archipelagic or island States
and were not intended to prejudice the rights of those States in any way.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Canada) said he wished to reply to those delegations which had
expressed doubts and fears concerning the possible effect of the exclusive economic zone
on the delicate balance which should be maintained between coastal States and the users
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
Enzlish
Page 4
(Mr. Lapointe, Canada)
The Head of his delegation had outlined his country's position on the concept of
the economic zone when document A/CONF.62/L.4 was tabled. As defined in that document.
the economic zone was not an international zone within which the coastal State was
allocated certain privileges. It was 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 would be maintained. New rules would be formulated
with regard to exclusive coastal State management of the biological resources in the
zone and the participation of non-coastal States in the exploitation of those resources.
The exclusive economic zone was not just a question of resources. It also
included the rights and duties of the coastal States to protect the marine environment
aid control scientific research. It was not merely a matter of bargaining between
rights over resources and navigation rights. The coastal State should have the right
to utilize and preserve resources adjacent to its coasts since the survival or
development of its people depended on those resources and because it was in the best
position to regulate their rational exploitation. That necessarily entailed the
acquisition of rights to protect those resources with regard to pollution and scientific
research. The economic zone further implied that the marine environment of the coastal
St-ate and its security should be adequately protected. The rights of the coastal
State in the economic zone could not therefore be limited exclusively to resources.
The sponsors of document A/CONF.62/L.4 had been criticized for not providing
full details of the practical consequences of the concept of the economic zone. With
regard to fishing in particular, the working document had been expected to spell out
proposals for a definitive solution of the numerous and complex problems relating to
that subject in the future Convention on the law of the sea. While the document was
not so ambitious, it did imply that the exercise by the coastal State of its sovereign
rights in the zone in-respect of fishing should not automatically exclude non-coastal
States. The waste of biological resources which would result from such an
interpretation could not be justified at a time when there was a world shortage of
protein. On the other hand, the exclusive character of the economic zone meant that
the coastal State would henceforth have a decisive voice with regard to the management
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
English
Page 5
(Mr. Lapointe, Canada)
of the biological resources in its zone. It could determine the proportion of the catch
which it should receive and regulate fishing methods to ensure an adequate level of
:production and it could allow others to fish in the zone on equitable conditions which
would take:.due account of its interests.
The provisions of document A/C0NF.62/L.4 did not remove the coastal State's
obligation to. obs'erveoertain management principles with regard to conservation, such
as the,. prairieiple 't f ma ximum utilization of resources. It did not prevent coastal States
from seeking regional or international assistance in certain technical fields such as
the evaluation of'stocks. The economic zone was not a zone of residual rights in
favour of the coastal State.
:The only way out of the present impasse was to engage without delay in genuine
negotiations on the practical problems related to the reasonable exercise by the
coastal State of its rights and not on the rights themselves, as some delegations were
attempting to do in the guise of proposals to establish institutions or multilateral
regulations.
Mr. ZULETA TORRES (Colombia) expressed his condolences to the people
of Bangladesh following the recent flood disaster in that country.
He said that the concept of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, combined with a
12-mile territorial sea, for the purposes of exploring and exploiting the renewable
and non-renewable natural resources of the superjacent waters, the sea-bed and subsoil
thereof had received the support of an overwhelming majority of the international
community; it could accordingly be considered an irreversible trend in the new law
o the sea,`'since it was the only formula that reconciled the interests of the coastal
States with those of the international community.
He wished to respond to certain objections and reject certain conditions
formulated by a number of developed countries, especially in connexion with the
fisheries regime, scientific research and the,. preservation of the marine environment.
With regard to fisheries, it had been stated that the developing countries were
not able to utilize the whole - or in some cases even a part - of the available catch,
and that a regime should accordingly be*established in favour of the developed countries
enabling them either directly or indirectly to indicate to the coastal State its
maximum fishing capacity and to require it to permit fishing by foreign vessels. That
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
English
Page 6
(Mr. Zuleta Torresj-Colombia)
somewhat paternalistic argument was aimed at making the exclusive economic zone a
hollow concept. The fact was that many independent scientific studies had concluded
that only the coastal State was in a position to apply the necessary conservation
measures and plan the development of ocean species.
The developing countries needed to establish and develop their fishing industry,
but in order to do so they must be certain that the fishery resources would remain
theirs and that the fishing fleets of the big Powers would not deplete fish species
by indiscriminate fishing. Only the State that assumed responsibility for fishery
development programmes could have the legal capacity to control fishing in its economic
zone, especially since none of the major fishing Powers were interested in co-operating
in the development of the fishing capacity of the coastal State.
Those who argued in favour of preserving the freedom of scientific research - a
noble aim, at first sight - overlooked one fundamental fact: within its economic zone,
the coastal State must be entitled at least to ascertain the nature of the research
and to participate on an equal basis in the results thereof. The developing countries,
had no wish to hamper research; but neither were they prepared to permit the exploration
of their resources and pollution of their waters on the pretext that it was in the
interests of science. It was almost an insult to the developing countries - a vestige
of the paternalistic mentality of certain great Powers - to attribute to them a
whimsical desire to impede the progress of marine sciences.
As to the preservation of the marine environment, no State claimed to have
absolute control over the pollution of its own waters. A balance must be struck between
the right of the coastal State to prevent pollution and the interests of the
international community. The future Convention must take into account that coastal
States had duties as well as rights.
His delegation therefore took the view that the provisions of document
A/CONF.62/L.1 that related to the economic zone struck a balance between the sovereign
rights of the coastal State over its resources and its rights and duties with regard
to the preservation of the marine environment and scientific research. Those
provisions therefore constituted an acceptable framework for a consensus. However,
unless there was a sincere desire to reach agreement, the next session of the Conference
would be nothing but an academic exercise.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040028-3
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
English
Page 7
Mr. ARAIM (Iraq) expressed his condolences to the Government and people of
Bangladesh following the recent flood disaster in that country.
In connexion with the item under discussion, he noted that the stage had been
reached where all States must try to accommodate the interests of the international
community. At the same time, the interests of the land-locked and other geographically
disadvantaged States must be provided for in the future Convention, since they could
not be safeguarded by bilateral or multilateral agreements alone. He was gratified to
find a growing tendency to recognize that necessity. In the implementation of that
convention, regional arrangements were vital.
He considered t'-at document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39 which his delegation had
co-sponsored, could form a basis for negotiations. He emphasized that the provisions
of article 5 of that document did not apply to those States which were unable to extend
their economic zone to the limit to be agreed upon in the proposed Convention; it
therefore did not apply to the geographically disadvantaged States.
His delegation hoped that the principles embodied in document A/CONF.621'C.2/L.39
would be taken into consideration in the informal working paper setting forth the main
trends with regard to the topic under discussion. As in the case of the continental
shelf, his delegation took the view that the exploration and exploitation of the living
and non-living resources of the economic zone should not affect the freedom of the
high seas.
Mr. MAIGA (Mali), emphasizing the need for international solidarity to
eliminate the growing disparity between the developed countries and those.of the third
world, said that the concept of the exclusive econo:xi.c zone - which had the support of
the large majority of States - could be considered one means of establishing a new
legal order under which the resources of the spa would constitute a new area of
co-operation and economic development.
The economic zone had been conceived with the view to fostering the development
and well-being of`the peoples of the world, particularly those of the developing
countries, whose resources in the zone adjacent to their territorial sea had been
plundered for centuries. The new legal order, based on equity, would eliminate the
inequalities of geography between the coastal and the land-locked States, the intention
being to transform the land-locked developing countries and other geographically
disadvantaged countries into real partners in development. It was logical for those
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040028-3
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.29
English
Page 8
(Mr. Maiga, Mali)
countries to be granted the right to exploit V,ce biological resources of the economic
zones of the coastal States - not in a spirit of paternalism, but rather in the
conviction that the results would be of benefit to all.
For some, the exclusive economic zone was merely a smoke-screen to conceal the
extension of the territorial sea, in contravention of the general principles of
international law. For others, the economic zone was a simplistic formula that did not
take account of the interests of all States. Without wishing to enter into polemics,
his delegation wished to point out co those who held such ideas that international
law must be freed from its shackles in order =-,o take account of the political and social
realities of the time. In a society that knew no special privileges, the law of the
sea must undergo a revolution rather than an evolution. The domination of the big
Powers over the sea, designed to preserve their economic, political and military
interests, must be replaced by a nev order in which the sea would become an instrument
for peace, justice and the welfare )f the economically less advanced countries.
Existing rules and principles that accentuated the gap between the developed and
developing countries must be abolished. Such c. revolution was interpreted by some as
detrimental to their rights; but the task of the Ccnference was to formulate a law
acceptable to all.
Stressing the continuing need .o rt!conciie direr3ent interests, he recalled his
delegation's statement at the 38th plenary meeting, during the general debate. Social
justice and respect for human dignity nest prevail, in accordance with the principles
of the Charter.
In his delegation's view, documcut A'CC;N'.,62/C.,''/L.39 would ccnstitute an
acceptable framework for an agreement.
The CHAIRMAN announced that the general debate on item 6 had been concluded.
Mr. ABBADI (Secretary of the Committee) announced that the delegation of
Mali wished to be added to the list of sponsors of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39.
The meeting rose at l .O5 p.m.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040028-3