SECOND SESSION SECOND COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTY-FOURTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040042-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 42
• Publication Date: August 29, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

.J 1.. tn. L.L D.L P.....,IJ L V s
.OcL..._. ...._.i. ~r..-. L:. ])C'C'
U 4F
002/04/01: CIA-RDP82SO0697g0bb30b0'4ti1042-'
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PROVISIONAL
For participants only
A/CONF.52/C.2/SR.h1
29 August 1974
Second Session
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL M WARY RECORD OF THE FORTY--FOURTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Tuesday, 27 August 1974, at 10.50 a.m..
Chairman: 114'r. AGUILAR Venezuela
] j orteur: ttr. NANDAN Fiji
Consideration of subjects and issues and related items: introduction
of draft proposals (continued)
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the four working language:
(English, French, Russian or Spanish), preferably in the same language as the text to
which t17.ey refer. Corrections should be sent in cu,adr licate within fifteen workin
d_ay-s to the Chief of the Official Records Editing ;section, Department of Conference
Services, room L'?1--2332, United Nations, New York N.Y. 10017, USA, and also incorporated
in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON Z;' :?':; 2 1,07h, T TE TIPS -a~LIMIT FOR CORRECTION i
WILL BE 26 SLPT'J{VNiBR 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-;5465
74-39`A5 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7
 -A/CONF.62/C.2p(ppu ed For Release 2002/04/01: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7
English
Page 2
CONSIDERATION OF SUBJECTS AND ISSUES AND RELATED ITEMS: INTRODUCTION OF DRAFT
PROPOSALS (continued)
Mr. ItAZEI?I, (Iran) said that, despite his two interventions on the question
of the continental shelf, the trend to which his delegation subscribed had not been
reflected in provision XIII of the formulation. of main trends (Informal Working
Paper No. 3/Rev.2) which had been prepared on that subject. Since the Chairman had
ruled that all new proposals must be submitted to the Committee in writing, his
delegation was constrained to submit the draft article in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.84.
It stipulated that the sovereigi rights of the coastal State over its continental
shelf were exclusive and that revenues derived from the exploitation of the natural
resources of the continental shelf should not be subject to any revenue sharing.
Although it was already too late to include the Iranian draft article in
Informal Working Paper No. 3/Rev.2, his delegation hoped that a way could be found to
include it in the final consolidated document the Committee intended to produce,
since the draft article he had just submitted represented .a main trend supported
by many delegations, including Canada and Chile.
The ClAIR-M J explained that it would be difficult if not impossible to
meet the request made by the representative of Iran owing to the fact that the
Committee had decided to limit the number of revisions of the informal working
papers to two. The contemplated consolidated document would therefore contain the
second revision of all informal working papers. The consolidated document should be
considered as a tool designed simply to give an idea of what had been said and done
at the present session of the. Conference. Those proposals made by delegations
after the second revision of the informal working papers would of course become part
of the documentation of the Committee which could then be taken up again at any
moment at the next session of the Conference. The summary records of the.Committee.'s
meetings would also reflect such proposals. 'Furthermore the enumeration of trends in
the informal working Papers was not exclusive and did not imply that there were no
other trends.
Mr. 1iARIOBA (United Republic of Tanzania), introducing document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.32, said it would be incorrect to say he was speaking on behalf of
all the sponsors, since they had had no time to consult on the introduction of
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7 /.. .
 A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.1+4
(Mr. GTarioba, Tanzania)
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R0003
'02-7
3
those draft articles to the Committee. The views he would express therefore were
mainly those of his own delegation.
The sponsors of that document had been pressed for time in preparing it and
it should therefore be, regarded as a provisional draft. Revisions would be made and
issued in due course. Nevertheless the document was an embodiment of the basic
views of its sponsors on the question of the economic zone.
Article I recognized the right of the coastal State to establish an exclusive
economic zone beyond its territorial sea.
Article II provided for the sovereignty of the coastal State over the living
and non-living resources of the zone and its sovereign rights for the purpose of
regulation, control, exploration, exploitation, protection and preservation of such
resources. No other State had any right to the resources of the exclusive economic
zone with the sole exception of the.landlocked and other geographically disadvantaged
States referred to in article VI.
Article III recognized the exclusive jurisdiction of the coastal State for the
purposes of control, regulation and preservation of the marine environment, control,
authorization and regulation of scientific research, and control and regulation of
customs and fiscal matters related to economic activities in the zone.
Article IV established the exclusive right of the coastal State to make and
enforce regulations in a number of domains.
Article II, III and IV had been conceived to give effect to the basic unity of
the economic zone. As defined in the draft articles, the r6gime of the economic zone
was intended to replace any fishery zones, the contiguous zone and the continental shelfx
Article V while recognizing the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight
and laying of submarine cables and pipelines ensured that in the future they would be
regulated freedoms.
Article VI was the most important in the draft. Paragraph (1) acknowledged the
right of developing landlocked and other geographically disadvantaged States to
explore the living resources of the exclusive economic zone of neighbouring States.
Paragraph (2) defined the scope of that right and paragraph (3)' the modalities of its
exercise. _
The essence of article VLSI was to define a method of delimitation between adjacent
and opposite States. An amendment to that article had been inadvertently left out and.
would appear in a future revision of the document.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7 /.. .
 A./CONF.62/C.2-/*Aved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040042-7
English
Page 4
('Mr. Wariob . Ta,nzanafl )
Article IX stipulated that the activities of the coastal State in'its economic
zone had to be carried out exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Article X prohibited States from constructing, maintaining, deploying or operating
any installations or devices military or otherwise in the exclusive economic zone of
any other State without its express consent.
Article XI which dealt with the situation of peoples not yet fully independent was
not complete. It would be revised and another article dealing with areas under colonial
domination which were not susceptible of becoming independent such as rocks and islets
would be added later to preclude States with such possessions far from their main
territory from benefiting from the provisions of the economic zone in respect of such
rocks and islets.
.1r. ~L3D:CL H ID (Egypt), introducing the draft article on the economic and
contiguous zone in document A/CONT. 62/C. 2/L.73, said that Honduras and Saudi Arabi, had
decided to cosponsor the draft. The intention of the draft was to maintain the
practice under current international law which had proved its utility for many coastal
States. The text of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the draft article was taken from
article 2L. of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
The outer .limits of the economic zone had not yet been established by the Conference,
and the reference to those limits had therefore been left blank in the draft. He
requested that the draft article should be included in the informal working paper on
the economic zone and the contiguous zone.
Mr. KitZDAI (Iran) suggested that, since the draft article in doctwient
A/CONF. 62/C. 2/L. 31..t could not be included in Informal Working Paper No. 3/'Rev. 2, it
should be included in the second revision of Informal Working Paper No. tt.which had not
yet been issued. It could be inserted as Formula B of Provision XXXIII under
item 6.7.3, Sovereign rights over natural resources, on page 25 of Informal Working
Paper No. I /Rev.]..
The CHAIEMAD thanked the representative of Iran for his co-operation and
said that the draft article could be included in the second revision of Informal
Working Paper No. 4.
/
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040042-7
 English
Page 5
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7
Mr.-OM-TAN (United States of America), introducing the draft articles proposed
by his delegation concerning the regime of the high seas, (documents A/CONF.62/C.2/L.79
and L.80) said the purpose of the draft article in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.79 was to
seek a moderate solution to the question of how the regime of the high seas would be
affected by the new treaty being prepared by the Conference, The regime of the high
seas would clearly, at least in certain areas, not continue to exist in its present
form. The concept of the economic zone marked a fundamental change in the international
law applicable to the high seas. His delegation could not, however, agree that the
economic zone should be assimilated to an area that was territorial in character simply
by virtue of the fact that the coastal State would exercise substantial rights in that
economic zone. It had considered many alternative solutions and the draft article in
document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.73 was not the solution he would have preferred, but it had
seemed, after consultation with many delegations, the most promising approach to the
question. Unlike the other 1958 Conventions on the law of the sea, the Convention
on the High Seas stated in the preamble that it was a codification of international law.
Although that did not, of course, mean that it could not be changed, he felt that, as
many of the matters regulated in that Convention were not of fundamental importance to
the Conference, it would be appropriate to expedite the Conference?s work by
incorporating in the new treaty the provisions of that Convention on the High Seas as
modified by new provisions governing the high seas, the economic zone, the continental
shelf, the protection of the marine .environment, scientific research and the
international sea-bed area. Matters such as piracy, criminal and civil jurisdiction on
ships and the duties of other States could, he felt, continue to be regulated. by the
provisions of the Geneva Convention. There were other international conventions
applicable to the high seas, and care should be taken in the wording used in the draft
articles on the high seas. He hoped that the draft article in document
A/CO.e .62/C.2/L.79 would be considered in the spirit of neutrality in which it had
been submitted.
Introducing the draft article on fisheries management (document A/CObF. 62/C . 2/L. 80) ,
he noted that the first paragraph provided for a flexible approach to management
arrangements reconmsendirg co.-operation om ng States through fisheries manage-vent
agreements or multilateral fisheries organizations, it also provided for recourse to
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7
 English
Page 6
s5elease 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040042-7
nperav ate For
(Mr. Oxman, uA
the Food and Agriculture Organization if the States concerned could not establish a
fisheries organization. The primary thrust of the provision was to place responsibility
for co-operation on the States concerned. The second paragraph dealt with the duty
to conserve the living resources beyond the economic zone. He agreed with those who
maintained. that the conservation duty of the coastal State in the economic zone and of
other States beyond the economic zone was the same. In that connexion be referred to
the proposal on the economic zone submitted by his delegation in document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.1+7. The third paragraph dealt with certain provisions in areas within
and beyond the economic zone with respect to anadromous species and highly migratory
species. His delegation had already stated its views on the management of such species.
He requested that the formulation in paragraph 27 (a) of document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.47, which had been supported by several. delegations, should be
included in the informal working paper on the continental shelf.
The CHHAIRMAN said that no .firther proposals could be included in the informal
working paper on the continental shelf as-the second revision had already been
published.
Mr. SALLAti (Ga bia) announced that his delegation would co-sponsor document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.82.
Mr. BEESLEY (Canada), cor.uienting on his delegation's working paper dealing
with anadromous species (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.81), said that the paper did not contain any
proposal as to the kind of r6gime which should be established for those species.
Its purpose was to illustrate the peculiarities of the annadromous species which required
special provisions in the future convention.
In submitting document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.83, his delegation was concerned with
providing an exact definition of an international strait. The definitions which had
been worked out thus. far left open the possibility that they might equally well be
applied to canals. The Canadian definition therefore specified the natural character
of international straits.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040042-7
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7
A/CONF. 62/C . 2/'SR.41
English
Page 7
I4r. Beesl.eY_2__Canada)
According to the Canadian definitions an international strait lay within the
territorial sea of one or more States, since logically the question of a special regime
for international straits would not even arise if such straits were situated within the
high seas. It was also important to take into account when defining international
straits the extent to which they had traditionally been used for international
navigation and a provision to that effect had been included in the Canadian definition.
Pair. ABBADI (Secretary of the Committee) announced that Swaziland had withdrawn
its sponsorship of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.82. Yemen and Malaysia had requested to be
added to the list of sponsors of document A/CO;'TF.62/C.2/L.i6. Saudi Arabia and
Honduras wished to join the sponsors of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.78.
The
mcetin,rosea I~
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040042-7