SECOND SESSION THIRD COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTH MEETING HELD AT THE PARQUE CENTRAL, CARACAS, ON WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY 1974, AT 3.15 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 4, 2001
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: July 19, 1974
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PROVISIONAL
For participants only
A/CONF.62/C.31SR.6
19 July 1974
Second Session
Third Committee
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Wednesday, 17 July 1974, at 3.15 p.m.
Chairman: Mr, YANKOV
CONTENTS
Bulgaria
Statements on'item 12 (preservation of the marine environment)
and review of the work of Sub-Committee III of the Sea-Bed Committee
Corrections 'to this record should be submitted in one of the four working languages
(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 Lecuna, Edificio Anauco, and also
incorporated in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 19 JULY 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 26 JULY 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this. time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5209
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/C0NF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 2
STATEMENTS ON ITEM 12 (PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT) AND REVIEW OF THE
WORK OF SUB-CON ITTEE III OF THE SEA-BED COMMITTEE
Mr. LO (China) said that his delegation resolutely supported the many
representatives who had set forth their solemn and just stand in defence of State
Sovereignty against maritime hegemony.
The increasingly serious pollution found in some sea areas was mainly the
consequence of the policies of aggression and plunder pursued by imperialism and
especially by the super-Powers, and the victims of their policies were the numerous
developing countries. Proceeding from their rapacious and egoistical position, the
super-Powers and monopoly capitalist groups obdurately sought high profits and,
disregarding the safety of the people of their own countries and of the world as a
'hole, discharged large quantities of industrial wastes and fluids and toxic, harmful
and even highly poisonous substances into the seas, thereby poisoning sea waters,
c.=aging living resources, and seriously endangering the health and safety of the
peoples of the world.
In such circumstances, it was absolutely just that the coastal States should rise
in self-defence and take measures to protect their marine environment and natural
resources against pollution from outside sources. Prompted by the urge to maintain
their maritime hegemony, however, the super-Powers, frenziedly opposed the legitimate
rights of coastal States, and attempted under the pretexts of "international standards"
and "global measures", to deny the jurisdiction of those States and their role in the
prevention and control of marine pollution. It was only natural that such attempts
should have met with firm opposition by the numerous developing countries.
It was admittedly necessary to establish, through joint consultations on the basis
of equality of all countries, big and small, an international or regional regime for
the preservation of the environment and the prevention of pollution. But that could
in no way substitute for anti-pollution regulation by coastal States. It was
impermissible to use so-called "international standards" and "global measures" to oppose
/.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 3
(Mr. Lo, China)
or weaken the jurisdiction of the coastal States and to restrict the economic and
industrial development of the developing countries.
:achcoastal State had the right to formulate, its: environmental policy and take
all necessary measures to protect its marine environment and prevent, pollution in the
sea area under its national jurisdiction. In doing so, the coastal State should, of
course, have regard to the interests of all, including-those of its neighbouring
countries.
All States, especially the industrially developed countries, had the duty to take
all effective measures to solve their problem of the discharge of harmful substances,
and to prevent pollution of the sea areas under their jurisdiction from spreading to,
and damaging, the marine environment of sea areas under the national jurisdiction of
other States, or of international sea areas.
International anti-pollution measures and standards should be adopted, and
appropriate international regulation should be enforced, for the marine-environment of
the international sea area. Discharge of radio-active and other harmful substances
into that area must be strictly prohibited.
Finally, all States and concerned international organizations should strengthen
their co-operation in conducting anti-pollution research, following the principles of
respect for sovereignty, equality, and mutual benefit, so as to promote the exchange
and the utilization of anti-pollution technology and, data.
Mr. SADEGH2 (Iran) said that despite action by States at the national,
regional and international levels and work by United I.Tations agencies,'the urine
environment,continued to be threatened.. Areas close, to the coast) under' national
Jurisdiction were, particularly in danger, and marine' pollution was therefore best
controlled by poastal States.
Iran was adjacent to.one of the bodies of water , which' the 1973 IMCO Convention
had decl.gred a 'special area" requiring more stringent protective measures.' He had
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 4
(Mr. S.adeghi? Iran)
therefore listened with particular interest to those representatives, particularly
the representative of Finland, who had stressed the need for adequate regional and
international action against marine pollution in enclosed seas. The Helsinki Convention
was a good model of a regional agreement, and he hoped that similar regional
arrangements could be made in the region to which Iran belonged. He was therefore
encouraged to note that the Kuwaiti Government had invited coastal States to a
conference in the near future, and hoped that that conference would be the first step
toward a regional agreement.
Such a regional agreement should not necessarily be confined to preservation of
the marine environment and could also provide, for example, for the establishment of
a regional fund to cover accidental or inadvertent damage to coastal States. The
1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for
Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, should, in Iran's area, be supplemented by
agreements between coastal States.
Pending the entry in force of recent international agreements, Iran had considered
it necessary to extend temporarily its domestic regulations on the prevention of
marine pollution in the area adjacent to its coast, up to the outer limit of its
continental shelf. He hoped that the conference of coastal States which he had
mentioned would find regional solutions to that problem.
His delegation's co-sponsorship of the proposals contained in document
A/AC.138/SC.III/L.56 reflected its belief that more stringent rules should be
established for special areas adjacent to coasts, particularly with regard to
pollution arising from exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed. However, that did
not mean that the responsibility of flag States should be reduced; they should
remain responsible for any infringements of international anti-pollution rules.
Pollution originating beyond areas of national jurisdiction should be within
the competence of the international authority which he hoped would be established.
That authority should also have regulatory powers over pollution caused by
exploitation and exploration of the sea-bed under national jurisdiction, excluding
the territorial sea.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 5
Ms. EMICH (Austria) said that the 1958 Geneva Conventions had dealt with only
a few aspects of marine pollution, and were particularly inadequate with regard to
pollutants other than oil and radio-active wastes, and with regard to questions of
enforcement and compensation. His delegation welcomed the international activities
which had taken place since 1958, and felt that the establishment of a global pollutant
monitoring programme and of co-operation in identification and control of pollutants
were particularly important. Existing law on the prevention of marine pollution had
proven to be inadequate, and it was therefore essential that'the present Conference
should establish new international norms.
Austria, like all other land-'locked countries whose ecological security was not
immediately threatened by marine pollution, was nevertheless highly interested in
marine pollution probleins,'since'the global character of the oceans made marine pollution
potentially' catastrophic to all countries. All countries had to co-operate, at the
local, national, regional and global levels in finding adequate solutions. However,
those solutions must not impede international navigation, to which his country
attached great importance.
A useful start in controlling land-based pollution, which was the largest source
.ofpollutants., had been made by the Stockholm Conference in its recommendation-forthe
speedy enactment of national regulations. Pollution resulting from sea-bed
exploitation, although now minor, would increase, and it was therefore appropriate to
protect against it now through regulations drawn up by an international authority.
Those regulations should cover the-high seas and an area outside territorial waters but,
in the latter area,. stricter rules, . elaborated at the international ?level, could be
applied by coastal States. - ,.
His delegation shared the view expressed.by others that vessel-based pollution was
best controlled through a single set of uniform international regulations observed by
all States, so that vessels would not have to comply with. different standards in
different areas. There was, however, a need for international regulations to cope with
the special ecolcy ical circumstances of particular regions. Those could be worked out
either by an already existing, technically competent, international organization or by
a newly-established international authority. Control of vessel-caused pollution on the
high seas should be exercised by the international authority, whereas in the area outside
territorial waters a balanced system should be established which took into account the
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
A/COIF. 62/C . 3/Sfl. 6
English
Page 6
(Mr,. Enrich, Austria)
interests of the coastal State, the flag State, and the international community. The
international authority should be responsible for the settlement of disputes and for
compensation claims arising from pollution damage.
His delegation had difficulties with some of the ideas in the proposals contained
in documents A/AC.138/SC.III/L.27, L.28 and L.56 in their present form. It was
prepared to support some of the ideas expressed in documents A/AC.138/SC.III/L.32,
L.33, L.35 and L.1+O, but could not support the "zonal approach", as it felt that the
goal of implementing the common heritage of mankind could not be achieved through
accumulated national jurisdictions. His delegation believed that the various draft
articles prepared in working group 2 of Sub-Committee III of the Sea-Bed Committee
showed a great deal of similarity, and that the remaining differences could be worked
out in informal meetings. The Committee should begin its work with problems which
had not been discussed in the Sea-Bed Committee.
Mr. LEON (Ecuador) said that the statement by the Canadian representative
the previous day had been a particularly valuable contribution to the work of the
Committee. He regretted only that that representative had failed to refer to the
concept of a broad territorial sea in mentioning areas of agreement and disagreement
in the work of the Conference.
Ecuador believed that all States had a duty to prevent and control pollution,
and a legitimate interest in doing so, in order to preserve the.marine environment as
a basic tool of subsistance and economic development. That principle had led
Ecuador to co-sponsor the proposals submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee in
document A/AC.138/SC.113/L.47.
Since pollution was a problem which affected all States, all States should
enact national legislation to combat it, taking into account their degree of development
and ensuring that the measures they took did not shift the effects of pollution from
one area to another. States likewise should be held responsible for damage to the
marine environment of other States or to the high seas caused by dumping from their
territory, in waters under their jurisdiction, or from ships flying their flag.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR6
English
rya , 'r
(Mr. Leon, Ecuador)
A coastal State's right`to define the limits of its territorial sea up to 200 miles
entailed the right to enact necessary provisions for preservation of the marine
environment in the area under its sovereignty and national jurisdiction, taking into
account its own interests and those of the international community. However, action by
Individual States did not rule out broad international co-operation, which should
establish regional bodies in areas with geographical similarities to centralize and
co-ordinate preservation and protection of the marine environment. Both regional
bodies and=individual-States should seek the co-operation of competent international
organs in drafting and implementing rules for areas outside national-jurisdiction,
and in.making recommendations concerning areas within national jurisdiction. Such
co-operation should. be channelled through the centralized international authority that
was under study in the First' Committee.
Mr. JEANNEL (France) said that the Conference should confine itself to
elaborating general principles for protection of the marine environment, and leave
detailed rules to specialized bodies which had the prepar techr:cal facilities.
The Conference should, however, examine jurisdictional problems relating to marine
pollution, i.e. the allocation of powers between the international community.on the
one hand, and various categories of States, such as flag and coastal States, on the
other.-"In teat regard, the texts prepared by the Preparatory Committee, although they
could be improved, seemed to be a good beginning.
Different approaches should be taken to different 'rinds of pollution. Land-based
pollution required commitments by States to enact measures which took into account
?.nt4rnational standards.' Regional co-operation clearly permitted the most effective
type of action for that kind of pollution, as was shown in particular by the 1971+ Paris
and the Helsinki Conventions. The encouragement of regional agreements was also the
most effective way of combating pollution resulting from exploitation of portions of the
sea-bed under naticw l jurisdiction, although for that type it might be useful to allow
for n nimal international regulations, leaving States free to adopt, individually or
collectively, stricter rules applicable to activities carried out in their jurisdictions.
Pollution arising from exploitation of the sea-bed outside the jurisdiction of coastal
States should be examined in close connexion with the question of an international
regime.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
inglish
Page 8
(Mr. Jeannel, France)
The prevention of pollution arising from dumping from ships and aircraft called for .
both an international and regional approach. The 1972 London and Oslo Dumping
Conventions provided good examples of the method that could be followed. Accession
to existing conventions should be encouraged, as they contained a wealth of useful
provisions.
Rules concerning pollution resulting from deliberate acts on board ships must be
international, since uniformity was indispensable in order to prevent ships from being
subject to a multiplicity of rules. Unilateral coastal-State regulations against
vessel-based pollution, such as prohibitions against discharging certain substances or
rules concerning tanker construction, would interfere unjustifiably with freedom of
international communication. That did not mean that regional agreements, applicable
only to ships of the States which were parties to them, could not lay down stricter
requirements. Moreover, certain particularly sensitive regions - such as enclosed,
semi-enclosed and Arctic areas - could be declared special areas, as had been done in
the 1973 London Convention adopted under the aegis of IMCO. That should be done within
the framework of an international agreement, and measures taken jy coastal States should
be approved by an international body, as the London.-Convention provided with regard
to certain areas.
The enforcement of international regulations in waters outside the territorial
sea but within national jurisdictions posed a different problem. Rather than applying
only the law of the flag State, leaving the coastal State helpless in the face of
violations committed near its territory, the coastal State should have the right of
intervention to enforce international rules in a specified zone adjacent to its
territorial sea, under specific conditions. That was the solution proposed in the
draft articles contained in document A/AC.138/SC.III/L.1+6, submitted to the Sea-Bed
Committee in 1973.
His delegation believed that there should be two well-defined exceptions to
application of law of the flag State: the coastal State should be entitled to verify
the violation and report it to the courts of the flag State if it had serious reason
to believe that the violation had been committed. It should also be entitled to
prosecute the offender in its own courts if the flag State failed to do so. That
solution was an effective one, since the flag State often had no interest in prosecuting
the offender, and the coastal State was often in the best position to verify commission
of the offence. It was also a solution which preserved freedom of communication, since
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05: CIA-RDP82S00697R0003066%066~/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 9
(Mr. Jeannel, France)
the ship should be stopped only during the time strictly necessary to verify commission
of the offence. Since such provisions could lead to disputes, a compulsory settlement
procedure for disputes between coastal States and flag States or States of registry had
.been proposed in the document to which he had referred.
Prevention of accidental pollution caused by ships required improvement of marine
transport regulations and of the technology of construction and use of ships. That kind
of pollution could also call for intervention by coastal States outside their area of
sovereignty, if there was an imminent and certain danger to their coast. Thus, the
1969 Brussels Convention set forth well-defined conditions in which the coastal State
could intervene on the high seas, and IMCO was studying the extension of the provisions
of that Convention to harmful substances other than hydrocarbons.
Warships and other State-owned ships should enjoy the same immunities that they
always had in the past.'
His delegation saw no reason to depart from the conventional rules on State
liability in international law, particularly civil liability for acts of nationals
performing State functions. That problem should be dealt with in specific conventions
which, like the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution
Damage, ensured victims the compensation they needed to repair the damage, without
implicating the State.
Mr.. BARRA (Chile.) said that, while his country was fully aware of the need to
reach agreement on pollution control measures, it was seriously concerned lest an
indiscriminate policy of applying general rules ; without taking account of:the level
of development of individual countries, might hinder their progress..
His delegation.: considered that the item of marine pollution should be divided into
aspects relating to the high seas, and those relating to the territorial sea. and the;4.
200-mile economic zone. Views of delegations appeared to-have become polarized in
accordance with two opposing principles - the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the.,coastal
State and of the flag State respectively.
The other important issue was whether the same anti-pollution standards should
apply to. both :developed and developing countries.
The traditional idea of accepting the jurisdiction of the flag State was apparently
being. abandoned in favour of a new formula permitting the coastal State to exercise
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Alcoi. 62/c. 3/.11.6
English Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
P 10
(Mr. Barra, Chile)
jurisdiction in the areas under its sovereignty or control, while at the same time
accepting certain, sufficiently wide, international pollution control measures. His
country's position on that point dated back to 1947, as confirmed in 1952, to the effect
that it exercised jurisdiction over a zone 200 miles wide adjacent to its coast, within
which it exercised exclusive jurisdiction over resources, scientific research, pollution
control and marine installations, without prejudice to freedom of navigation and
overflight. Consequently, jurisdiction with regard to pollution was an integral part of
the concept of the economic zone. Hence his country's opposition to the attitude within
certain international organizations taken by the great maritime Powers which sought to
deny coastal States their jurisdiction beyond the territorial sea.
From his country's point of view, a jurisdiction extending outwards for 200 miles
for the purpcses of pollution control was very important; and could be compatible with
international standards, provided different criteria were formulated with regard to the
developing countries so as not to hinder their progress. Such international standards
must clearly be acceptable to the developing countries and, to that end, they must be
adopted in an appropriate international forum. While LMCO was undoubtedly technically
competent to consider the question of pollution, it should be pointed out that, for the
purposes of negotiating conventions, that body was insufficiently representative, since
it consisted of few developing countries and was largely controlled by the great
maritime Powers. There was accordingly a need - without affecting its technical
competence or trying to convert it into a political forum - to modify its statutes by
making it more representative for the purposes of preparing the relevant conventions,
Any standards adopted, particularly those relating to ship design, should take
account of the capabilities of the developing countries, which should not be required
to meet the same standards as did the developed countries - which, in the final
analysis, had caused the existing pollution.
As to the area beyond the limits of the 200-mile patrimonial sea, international
agreements should ensure the utmost degree of pollution control, to be exercised by a
duly representative international body. His country supported the struggle against
pollution in all its forms and was ready to adopt national measures to that end within
the limits of its national jurisdiction, on the basis of regional or international
agreements.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 11
(Mr. Barra, Chile)
There must be no freedom to pollute the high seas, they must not be used for
carrying out nuclear tests and discharging toxic gases. Drastic sanctions must be
imposed in the case of pollution by tankers, such as those from which his country had
suffered.
The law of the sea was an integral whole and its elements could not be separated.
His delegation therefore opposed the elaboration of general principles of marine
pollution-control'in a forum other than the current. Conference.
Mr. IORDANESCU (Romania) said that, in its efforts to combat pollution, his
country . had. adopted national measures, including the establishment of special bodies.
It took the view that urgent action must be taken at both the national and international
levels, otherwise the seas and oceans could not absorb the increasing level of pollution.
The subject was, however, extremely complex, since a wide range of geographical
characteristics, the existence~of special zones, and the vital interests of individual
countries, particularly those of the,developing countries, all had to be taken into
account.
The work of Sub-Committee ITI:of the Sea-Bed Committee provided the basic
principles and variants'of draft articles which would facilitate the Third Committee?s
In order to ensure the effectiveness of any rules adopted, States must be obliged
to take all measures necessary to prevent marine pollution, whatever its source, such
measures, depending on the circumstances, to be adopted either individually or jointly.
At the same time, States must ensure that activities pursued within the limits of their
jurisdiction did not constitute a source of pollution harmful to-another State. His
country supported the incorporation of provisions for that purpose in the variants of
the text proposed or supported by other developing countries. For the purpose of
pollution control, world and regional co-operation and technical assistance were
essential.
With regard to continued surveillance, his delegation supported the proposal
whereby,;in order to determine whether a State had discharged its obligations in
connexion with terrestrial sources of marine pollution, due account must be taken of
all pertinent factors, particularly the economic and financial ability of that State
to provide the necessary resources to fulfil those obligations.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
lish
Page 12
(Mr. Iordanescu, Romania}
A question of particular interest to his country, since the Black Sea, for various
reasons, was extremely susceptible to pollution, was the prevention of pollution in
closed or semi-closed seas - for which special rules were required, including the
designation of such seas as special zones. The special status of the Black Sea had been
recognized in other international conventions, the provisions of which should be
reflected in the convention to be elaborated by the Conference.
The powers of coastal States, based on general international rules, could ensure
the harmonization of interests with regard to both the protection of the marine
environment and international shipping.
His delegation pledged its active co-operation in elaborating acceptable rules for
all countries.
Mr. BUSTA1II (Brazil) said that his delegation fully subscribed to the guiding
principles on marine pollution adopted by the 1972 Stockholm Conference, which should
be incorporated in the convention to be drafted by the Conference. There was an
unquestionable need to adopt national protection measures to prevent pollution in
accordance with individual capabilities and national environmental policies and through
co-operation with other States and international bodies in developing minimum
international anti-pollution standards.
As to pollution arising from activities both on land and on the sea-bed under
national sovereignty, his Government had adopted adequate measures and sanctions against
the infringement of existing regulations. Aware of the need to preserve its own
environment and that of its neighbours, Brazil exercised its sovereign competence to
establish, enforce and control the application of pollution-prevention standards.
Turning to pollution from ships, he said that his delegation favoured the adoption
of international standards for vessel-source pollution relating to ship design,
construction, equipment, operation, etc., to the extent that they were not detrimental -
by being too sophisticated - to the development of the merchant marine of developing
countries. He welcomed IMCO's work in drafting the 1973 International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Nevertheless, certain aspects remained to be
resolved; one of them related to the concept of "new ship" which determined to which
vessels the new requirements would apply. His delegation would prefer the adoption of
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 13
(Mr. Bustani, Brazil)
more extended and flexible deadlines or-schedules for the implementation of such new
standards, especially by ships of the developing countries.
The enforcement of such standards should fall primarily within the competence of
the coastal State itself in areas adjacent to its coast and within its jurisdiction
and sovereignty.
His delegation accepted the concept of special areas where, for recognized
technical reasons, the adoption of special anti-pollution methods were required. That
was coherent with principle 11 of the Stockholm Declaration, which held that
internationally agreed criteria and standards should provide for regional and local
variations in the effects of pollution and in their evaluation.
As to the pollution arising from the exploitation of the international ocean
floor, the competent authority to be established should have full competence to
legislate on the matter as well as an important degree of competence with regard to
pollution arising from navigation on the high seas.
As to the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of
a future convention on the prevention of marine pollution, his delegation would favour
general provisions on peaceful settlement through negotiation, conciliation and the like.
While his country could not regret having accepted, in the past, compulsory settlement
of disputes, recent experience, had shown that such a procedure had not proved adequate.
Further study of the matter was required before an adequate and just solution was found.
Mr.. cMITIE (Barbados) said that the prevention of marine' pollution was essential
to the very survival of the people of Barbados. The island of Barbados, because of its
geographical situation, was particularly vulnerable to the effects of pollution arising
in mid-Atlantic and, furthermore, was well placed to monitor pollution levels. The
alarming levels of pollution in mid-Atlantic constituted a potentially serious threat
to the fisheries and tourist industry of the island. Indeed, while certain areas of
the world were, because of various factors, much more vulnerable than others, the very
survival of mankind was ultimately at stake. Accordingly, it was his delegation's
fervent hope that positive pollution control measures would emerge from the current
session.
Marine pollution did not respect national boundaries and his country therefore
supported.the establishment of certain minimal international measures for pollution
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
tiiCi17 ,.62/c.3/s .t,
English
Page 14
(per. McComie, Barbados)
r_ye--ention and control to protect While recognizing that weak measures
-were pointless, Barbados, as a developing country, could not be party to standards so
high that they impeded its industrial development or that of other States of the third
Tvorld. It was a'-so necesFary to take account of the essential service provided by
world shipping, which could `.5e seri,~Pusly hampered by any radical tightening of standards.
Nevertheless, the gravity of the marine pollution problem demanded sacrifice., from
all: any victory for freedom of navigation would be a hollow one if it meant freedom to
navigate in sewers. The only viable solution was the adoption of effective control
measures on a universal basis as soon as possible.
His delegation supported the zonal approach set forth in document
A/:1C.=i -$/Sc.lII/r,.56, to w:aieh the representative of Canada had referred. As the
:'.i_^.` ter for !Poreign Affairs of Barbados had stated during the general debate, the
ccas u3 Cate must hr.-re sovereign powers in respect of marine pollution in its zones
n.::i? a.L and economic jurisdiction.
l =^:?~ Vc:~ arose in connexion with liability, one of i.hich was identification of the
:zcilty party, especia1l;, in the case of pollution from land-based sources. Moreover,
even J if c? _~a',_3 ity w::.s establ i:hed, the offender might be unable to make full
-cast.'.tution. His comtntrv therefore supported the draft articles on responsibility
:,., it'_abi1ity eubm`.tted by Trinidad and Tobago in document A/AC.138/SC.III/L.5l+.
ills de_egatio. :r.*_sh -!d to congratulate the Executive Director of UNEP for his
' xcellert resiun : of the _~rc tle 9 of marine pjUution and for the. proposals which he
laad placed befcr t '-c 13onfezence. While his delegation could agree with many of those
proposals, it cc-old uc . support p:'opos,,-.l 6, under which States would be liable for
dame caused t, h' r~ ir7 er viron...,ent. by their can activities, those of their nationals
or othe;s under t r r contrci or registration. His delegation did not believe that
exclusive liability s.ou:t.d rest with the States concerned since, in many cases, the
State would hart, to aas'rne 2~r gross negligence by a private concern and
the effects therefrom, and there were fundamental moral and legal objections to such
a principle.
Mr.HERiWA`7DEZ (Cffaa) said that the preservation of the marine environment was
-re of t}e central tasks feting the Conference. If the world were transformed into a
desez~t. few countries would retain the militant attitude with which they
-:uT-ren'Lly defended their positions.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/5R?6:
English
Page 15
(MMr. Hernandez, Cuba}..
Pollution was undoubtedly the most recent outcome of the long process of development
of industrial society.,. All were partly responsible for the preservation of the marine
environment, there was no doubt, however, that the current situation was the outcome of
the unfettered development `of capitalist 'ind'ustrial' society. In addition to marine
pollution `from`land-based sources in the' developed countries, pollution was also caused
by installations` in the,under-developed areas of`the world operated by.transnational
imperialist `corporations For. example, in the colony of Puerto Rico, with its atomic
and petrochemical installations,-the vegetation of Vast'areas had been destroyed and an
alarming level of genet_ic'''mutations was affecting new ge ei rations . The high level of
pollution in the United. States,-.a fact acknowledg'ed1y'"its` President himself'- had even
affected the neighbouring States of Canada and Mekico, to that must be added the pollution
produced by its ships and aircraft, and by its policies of ecocide:.and biocide pursued
in Indo-China.
In the light .of theforegoing'9 the responsibility` of the developing countries was
very limited. While their share 'in responsibility for combating pollution could not 'be`'`
denied, they were not` principally responsible and should not therefore be required to
impede their own development by specific pollution control measures
.His delegation took the view that, general pollution control measures should be
primarily of an international nature, mandatory upon all States irrespective of their
geographical situation,'and.aimed specifically at preventing and avoiding pollution
from land-based sources, which was the most prevalent. The relevant standards should be:
contained in an, international convention, account being taken of the special
characteristics of various States.
Turning to the question of vessel-source pollution, he commended the specialized
work carried out by IMCO which, in the view of his and many other delegations, should be"
recognized as the competent international organization on the subject for the preparation
of international conventions.for the prevention of pollution from ships. Similarly,
mandatory international rules should be adopted with a view to avoiding a proliferation of`~
national laws on the subject; thus helping to combat certain discriminary or unrestricted`'
practices.
The Conference should therefore. endorse the conventions on marine pollution and on
the safety of human life f3.t _v.ea which had been prepared under the auspi:ces"of IMCO, and
which could constitute principles Wiihi i the full meanie.{; of international"public law,
with provision for sanctions against the violation of its provisions.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 16
(Mr. Hernandez, Cuba)
The new convention on pollution currently being drafted must guarantee freedom of
navigation beyond the limits of territorial waters and through straits used by
international shipping. In that connexion, the rights of States to ensure the prevention
of pollution that might harm their interests should be exercised within their territorial
waters; beyond those limits, their interest in the application of international pollution
control measures should not hamper freedom of navigation; nor should it enable an
individual State to apply restrictive or repressive measures against a ship, thus impeding
its free passage. The unlimited extension of the right to prevent pollution beyond the
limits of the territorial waters would affect a large number of international straits and
channels which Would thereby fall under national jurisdiction, to the detriment of
international shipping. If freedom of navigation through international straits and canals
were to be restricted, there would be an increase in areas of conflict and sources of
tension.
With a view to preventing pollution within their waters, States should be empowered
to apply numerous measures, including fines and preventive inspection measures; States
should, however, respect the principle of sovereignty of flag States under which, in the
interests of the international community, no members of the crew of a foreign vessel
should be detained; in the event that sanctions that were stricter than fines were called
for, the flag State should be informed so that it could impose stricter penalties, such
as deprivation of liberty, it being required to communicate the nature of the sanction in
question to the other State.
His delegation also took the view that preventive inspection measures should not
unduly delay or endanger the vessel. States should also be required to respect the
principle of the sovereign immunity of vessels, in accordance with international law and
practice.
Control measures imposed to prevent pollution from land-based sources, which gave
rise to the greatest number of conflicts, were related to the sovereignty of States;
most of those conflicts were caused by the developed capitalist States, which failed to
take account of the interests of other States.
The Conference should seek to establish a body that would regulate maritime
activities, including pollution. Such an authority should have the necessary competence
to investigate and resolve conflicts arising among States, or between States-and
international organizations such as IMCO and UN P, in waters under the jurisdiction of
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300R7~@A.4S2/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 17
Mr. YTURRIAGA BARBERAN (Spain) said that the new Convention should contain
not merely a statement of principles on the marine environment but a series of basic
articles on pollution control and the preservation of the marine environment, which
could later be supplemented and developed by regional or specialized agencies.
His delegation believed that the Committee was 'competent to discuss all matters
of pollution in all marine areas. It rejected the idea of postponing discussion of
substantive matters such as the jurisdiction of States to yet another conference,
The articles in the Convention should be based on four principles: the duty of
States to protect the marine environment-and avoid'pollution, described by the Spanish
delegation to the Sea-Bed Committee as a rule of jus co ens; the duty of States to
co-operate at the international level; the right of coastal States to self-protection;
and international liability.
The first two principles had been adequately covered by the texts prepared by the
Working:Group of'1the Sea-Bed Committee.
At the Ottawa meeting the responsibility of the coastal State for preventing
pollution had been acknowledged, but the meeting had been unable, because of lack of
time, to conclude its work by establishing the rights of the coastal State in carrying
out that responsibility. The principal right of the coastal State in that connexion
was the establishment of special pollution control areas adjacent to its coast. Spain
favoured the zonal approach to that questi"on.. The duties of coastal States must be
coupled with international responsibility, but international regulations on the
protection of the marine environment. must. be supplemented, by national regulations, and
the coastal State must be protected by the recognition of certain residual rights. He
recalled that at.the Ottawa meeting his delegation had put 'forward a text to the effect
that States must adopt suitable anti-pollution measures in accordance with
internationally-recognized standards, in the absence of which coastal States might adopt
reasonable and non-discriminatory measures. On that subject, a suitable text had been
submitted at the Ottawa Conference by the delegation of Canada.
With regard to implementation, he endorsed the Tanzanian delegation's view that
international standards must be accompanied by sanctions to cover cases of violation.
He found it difficult-to understand why certain delegations, while agreeing to the need
for international standards, opposed the application of them by coastal States.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 A/CONF.62/C.3/SBA proved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
English
Page 18
(Mr. Yturriaga Barberan, Spain)
His delegation opposed the idea of the jurisdiction of port States with regard to
those standards, for such States could have no influence over incidents that occurred
many miles away.
His delegation believed that there must be internationally agreed standards to
cover all sources of marine pollution. Good work on vessel based pollution had already
been done, notably by IMCO.
As far as pollution from exploitation of the sea-bed was concerned, a distinction
must be drawn between the sea-bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, which was
also being dealt with by the First Committee, and the sea-bed within the limits of
national jurisdiction. For both areas international regulations would have to be
adopted.
With respect to land-based pollution, his delegation understood the anxieties of
the developing countries, whose industrialization would necessarily involve a certain
amount of pollution. A regional approach should therefore be adopted on that subject,
as in the 1974 Helsinki and Paris Conventions.
As for the matter of competences it was essential to co-ordinate the activities
of the various international and regional bodies concerned with pollution, and in that
connexion his delegation endorsed principle 25 of the Stockholm Declaration. It
believed that the most appropriate organization to carry out the co-ordination work
was the United Nations Environment Programme.
Mr. ALTAIF (Libyan Arab Republic) said that his country, which had a
coastline 2,000 kilometres long, took marine pollution problems very seriously,
especially because it was planning the use of seawater for drinking and agriculture to
compensate for its shortage of fresh water.
Co-operation among all States was necessary in order to prevent marine pollution,
and national laws were needed which gave States the right to intervene in order to
prevent pollution.
Checking points should be set up in order to verify that ships were complying with
international regulations concerning pollution. Regional conferences should be held to
reach agreement on pollution problems. Further, all States should try their best to
finance the construction of tanks to receive waste material from ships. Libya's
petroleum port Marsa El Brega was already equipped with such tanks, and other Libyan
petroleum and commercial ports were constructing them.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
.A/CO 'F 62/c 3/SR.6
English
Page 19
(Mr. _'1J taif, Libyan Arab Republic)
Libya had acceded to a number of major anti--poll-otion conventions and had enacted
domestic laws in accordance with them. It had also organized scientific training
courses on pollution problems. His delegation was thus prepared in every respect to
co-operate in reaching successful results in the fight against pollution.
Mr. KAKODKAR (India) ;_;:yc1 that the Committee's mandate was a crucial one,
since most of mvnkind's environment related to the sea. India itself had a long
coastline, and a gbeat deal of international navigation engaged in the carriage of oil
and other pollutants passed near to its shores. Its merchant fleet was steadily
growing. It therefore viewed the problem of prevention and control of marine pollution
not only as a coastal State but also as a steadily growing maritime State. Those two
aspects'of, the problem needed to be reconciled, and the Indian proposals would attempt
to hhxnoni,ze them.
His delegation believed that the problem of marine pollution should be tackled
with refe}enee to its source and at the regional level, particularly in critical
regions, althoiig the importance of the global aspects must not be under-rated.
For land- s.sed pollution as well as for the prevention and control of marine
pollution In the po 1,lution-control zone coextensive with t": e economic of a coastal
State, standards should be natal :i: i~., on a , wnieh ;; Cu into nt, and as far as possible
incorporated, intern:: tiona.l standards on the s:abjeo t, so as to promote uniformity. In
that connexion he suggres;,ed tha should draw up two sets of
standards : (i) marrdatc,ry standards which would be applicable in any State accepting
them, and (ii) reco :ended p:racbices of persuasive value, witdue regard to the
economics burdens for developing countries and. the probleus of sensitive regions or
areas. With regard to vessel-based pollution, including the discharge or dumping of
sewage, gal bage or pollutants, IMCO should be given competence to establish standards
and recommended practices on the pattern of ICAO. It night also formulate standards
and recommended practices for aircraft-based pollution. The question of enforcing
standards as clo ;eJ..y connected with the concept of the pollution-control zone, which
his delegation supported. The limits of the zone should be coextensive with those of
the economic zone of a coastal State. Within the zone, the coastal State should have
exclusive coxiizjetence to enforce the standards, national or international, and to stop
a transit ship, investigatethe violation and take suitable e'1i'orceY..:..t action. In the
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4 / ` .
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 20
(Mr. Kakodkar, India}
international zone, beyond the economic zone/pollution-control zone, the application of
standards might be left to the flag State, subject to such powers of-supervision,
direction and control of the international sea-bed authority as might be agreed at the
Conference.
Moreover, a State facing the danger or occurrence of marine pollution and a State
in the sensitive regional areas in which pollution had assumed critical proportions
should be able, individually or collectively with other States of the region, to take
appropriate measures of self-protection against intenticnal discharges or dumping as
well as accidental discharges through collision, stranding or fire, for example. With
regard to land-based and vessel-based pollution, the State concerned or the flag State,
as the case might be, while enjoying complete competence in formulating and enforcing
standards after taking into consideration the applicable standards or recommended
practices, should be ruder an obligation to take adequate measures to deal with pollution
from those sources. The obligation of those States and that of other entities
responsible for marine pollution should be coupled with an appropriate concept of
international liability and responsibility, so as to ensure that those States and
entities took appropriate action to prevent and control marine pollution.
With respect to those aspects which were of importance to the developing countries,
his delegation felt that the international standards or other regulations should not
impose economic burdens on such countries that they might find difficult to bear. Nor
should environmental costs be passed on to them without their consent. Further, adequate
financial and technical assistance and training, and the necessary equipment and
facilities should be made available to them to deal with the problem of preventing and
combating marine pollution through programmes of international co-operation and by the
international organizations concerned. All States should be kept fully informed of the
results of monitoring, data collecting and other information, as well as the likely
danger or actual occurrence of pollution in the marine areas or regions adjacent to them.
Much useful preparatory work had been done by Working Group 2 of Sub-Committee III
of the Sea-Bed Committee. The Third. Committee should bear in mind the alternative
formulations prepared by that Working Group as well as any new proposals submitted at
the current session. The Committee might also like to consider the following items in
that connexion:
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
A/CONF. 62/C . 3/SR .6, .
English
Page 21
(Mr. Kakodkar, India.)
,;(i), The. right of States to exploit their resources pursuant to their
environmental policies!
(ii) Coastal State jurisdiction in pollution-control zones. The right to take
measures'of self-protection;
(iii) International machinery for preserving the marine environment.
Co.ordination of activities,of organizations having competence in that field, and
(iv) Promotion of regional agreements.
His delegation hoped that, in view of the importance of those matters, the
Committee could agree to add them to the list of items already suggested by the
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN? said that the supplementary .items suggested by the
representative of India would be considered during the informal meetings of the
Committee.
Mr'. LADJIMI (Tunisia) said that:his country was particularly interested in
the preservation of the marine' environment, because of the intensive maritime' trade and
off-shore oil activities in?theldediterranean; there was even a grave risk that that
sea would shortly become biologically dead. Tunisia's tourist industry and fisheries
needed protection, There was''`a'permanent risk of pollution from which no country was
immune, and that was because the 'wrong approach had been adopted to solving the
problem. Stringent measures must be adopted and it was natural that those who
polluted should pay. International rules were not sufficient to.protect the marine
environment: national and regional measures were also needed, and all such measures
had to be strictly co-ordinated.
A coastal State had to protect its exclusive economic zone and must therefore
assume full competence over it.
As far as vessel based pollution was concerned, national authorities must lay
down certain standards, including the provision of special equipment and the processing
of oil residues.
He agreed with the delegation of Canada that States should be authorized to apply
the provisions of international conventions to ships in their. harbours, whatever the
area inF::which the violation was committed. That required a redistribution of
competences between coastal States and the various international and regional bodies
/...
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
A/CUNF.621C.3/SIi.6
English
Page 22
(Mr. Ladjimi, Tunisia)
dealing with the protection of the marine environment, and above all respect for the
rules and standards which the Committee would formulate.
Mr. BUSTERUD (United States of America) said that there was a growing
awareness in the world of the dangers of exhausting the resources of the sea. States
must organize themselves internationally to prevent further degradation of the marine
environment. Some organizational difficulties still persisted, but it was clear that
there was no difference about the goal to be achieved.
His delegation had listened with great interest to the helpful summaries of
national positions that had been made, and had been impressed by the spirit of
accommodation demonstrated, which boded well for the success of the Committee's work.
In view of the fact that the Committee had so few working days left his
delegation had decided to defer its substantive comments until the informal meetings
on the subject.
His delegation's position had already been made plain in the Sea-Bed Committee,
to whose report he wished to call the Committee's attention.
He hoped that an early start could be made on the remaining topics before the
Committee, starting with the enforcement articles and the unfinished work left by the
preparatory Committee. The Third Committee could then return to a reading of all the
articles, which could then be considered in detail. That, he felt, would be the most
effective way of proceeding.
Mr. BUHL (Denmark), speaking on behalf of the six States parties to the
Helsinki Convention, proposed that, for the information of the Committee, the preamble,
the 29 articles, annexes 1 to 3, and the headings of annexes 1 to 4 of the Convention,
together with a resolution adopted by the signatories, should be circulated as a
document of the Committee in the original language, English, and later possibly in the
official Russian translation.
The CHAIRMAN said he would take it that the Committee agreed to the
suggestion.
It was so decided.
In response to a question from Mr. YTURRIAGA BERBERAN (Spain), the CHAIRMAN
said that to translate those parts of the Helsinki Convention which it was proposed to
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 23
(The Chairman)
circulate into all the languages of the Cor'erence would be a lengthy and expensive
undertaking. He therefore suggested that the Committee might waive its right to such
translations.
It was so decided.
The CHAIRMAN announced that the Committee had ended its discussion of
item 12, which had been held in an atmosphere of mutual accommodation. Constructive
proposals had emerged from the debate, and although the emphasis laid on priorities
had varied, some very important general trends were discernible.
Clearly all States were gravely concerned about the mounting danger of marine
pollution and the deterioration of the marine environment, and about the urgent need
for effective, co-ordinated action. Moreover,,jt had been pointed out that the scope
and extent of coastal and flag State rights and duties with regard to marine
pollution control were matters of paramount importance. Reference had been made to
the general and particular obligations of States and to the need for an appropriate
balance between coastal State and flag State jurisdiction in marine pollution control.
There had been general emphasis on the interrelationship between global, regional
and national action to prevent or reduce warine pollution, and special reference had
been made to regional arrangements such as those provided for in the Helsinki
Convention, which had been mentioned as a possible model. International and national
regulations or standards had to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
Great stress had been laid on the need for assessment, operational control and
enforcement action with respect to the main sources of pollution, namely, land-based
pollution, pollution deriving from sea-bed exploitation, vessel-based pollution and
dumping. Special refer*ence had been made to particularly hazardous pollutants such as
radio-active substances,
It had been pointed out that the responsibility and liability of States,
particularly flag States, with regard to vessel-based pollution had to be given
special consideration.
A number of delegations had emphasized the need to make greater use of existing
international institutions concerned with the conservation of the marine environment,
and to the need for more co-ordination among them.
Many delegations had underlined the importance of the progressive development and
/...
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.6
English
Page 24
(The Chairman)
codification of international law, with special reference to the need for an
"umbrella" convention.
A number of problems were, however, still outstanding, and differing views had to
be reconciled in the Committee's forthcoming discussions. The main objective was to
embark on meaningful negotiations, particularly during the forthcoming informal
meetings, and to make full use of the preparatory work already done. The Committee
now had to work out draft articles on the basis of existing texts and new proposals,
to reduce the number of alternatives and narrow down existing difficulties. On that
subject he informed the Committee that the Secretariat had now completed the tables of
proposals relating to the items on the Committee's agenda.
The meeting rose at 6.15 p.m.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070006-4