THIRD SESSION PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PLENARY MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 22, 2002
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: April 18, 1975
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved ForASkepIT /06 :pQIAp@EIMM6 M000300120004-0
.THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Distr.
RESTRICTED
18 April 1975
ENGLISH
Original: FRENCH
Third Session
PROVISIONAL S1IMMAR.Y RECORD OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PLENARY MEETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 18 April 1975, at 10 a.m.
President: Mr. AM ZASINCHE Sri Lanka
Rapporteur.-General: Mr. RATTRAY Jamaica
CONTENTS
Evaluation by the President of the progress of work of the Conference and
Report on the proceedings of the eleventh meeting of the General Committee,
held on 15 April.
N.B. Participants wishing to have corrections to this provisional summary record
incorporated in the final summary record of the meeting are requested to
submit them in writing in quadruplicate, preferably on a copy of the record
itself, to the Official Records Editing Section, room E.4108, Palais des Nations,
Geneva, t& qb" ?6/ 4 otAj 2g-061 430'6*-20 Md in their
working language.
A/CONF. 62/SR . 54
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14 :.CIA-RD.Q82aQD697R000300120D04-0
EVALUATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PROGRESS OF WORK OF THE CONFERENCE and
REPORT ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING OF THE GENERAL COMITTEE, HELD OF,
15 APRIL
The PRESIDENT said that he had held the usual consultations with the C11aii-men
of the three Main Committees in order to ascertain the status of the work end to
determine whether the procedures and methods of work being employed satisfied the needs
of the occasion.
In the First Committee a text of article 9 - the key article which covered the
questions who might exploit the Area and what the basic conditions of exploration and
exploitation should be - was being worked on and might possibly be available at the end
of the week. A unified text covering the entire scope of the First Committee's mandate
would probably be ready by the end of the sixth week.
In the Second Committee groups with common interests and other groups continued
to function, but the very fact that they were limited in size made it imperative to
prepare,'with the least possible delay, some text that would form the basis for that
kind of negotiation, even if it was an informal one. Groups, both: formal and informal,
were dealing with the most critical issues before that Committee. The small groups
with common interests within the Committee were proceeding with their work, and a
procedure had been adopted which would minimize duplication of the work being done in
other formal and informal groups, for example, with regard to the question of the
economic zone.
The work of the Third Committee depended very heavily on the resolution of the
essentially jurisdictional issues being examined in the Second Committee. With regard
to scientific research, for example, the Second Committee had to'decide whether the
coastal State had an exclusive right; the idea had been put forward that the coastal
State should exercise exclusive rights over applied research and that pure research
might be undertaken after notification to the coastal State. Similarly, in the area
beyond national jurisdiction, the question of pollution and scientific research involved
the International Authority and the powers to be granted to it. Hitherto, the Third
Committee had been considering the question of monitoring pollution without examining
matters of jurisdiction. Scientific research, the regime of artificial islands and
installations, and the matter of responsibility and liability for damage resulting from
scientific research were questions which appeared to involve more than one Committee.
Those examples clearly demonstrated the interdependence of all the issues.
A,/C O1TF. 62/SR . 54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-FjDP82SQ0697R0003001200Q4-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
-3_
.Two vital questions had to be settled before the Conference went any further. The
first related to the initiation of the process of negotiation involving all participants.
He reminded members that, early on in the session, he had said that negotiations
,involving all the participants should be based on a unified text, reflecting all the
current positions, to be prepared by the Chairman of each Committee in consultation with
his fellow-officers. A text of that kind, which might be informal, seemed to be
particularly indispensable in the case of the Second Committee; the First and Third
Committees were already drafting unified texts? During the negotiations on the unified
text, each delegation world be free to propose amendments, but it would be advisable to
avoid the pitfall of protracted monologues and dialogues at cross-purposes. Furthermore,
provision had been made for joint meetings of Committees - a procedure that might be
useful in the case of the issues for which the Third Committee was awaiting the outcome
of the Second Committee's negotiations. In order to ensure proper co-ordination, the
negotiations would have to be conducted by the President in association with the Chairmen
of the three Committees.
The second question wa.s that of the time--schedule for the remainder of the
Conference. He suggested that the unified texts should be ready by the end of the week
so that the sixth and seventh weeks might be.devoted to negotiations in plenary meetings
of the Committees, which might be informal. The unified texts need not initially cover
the full range of issues falling within a Committee's purview, but each should include
sufficient material on closely related issues for the Committee to consider it in
informal plenary meetings. The final week of the session should "be devoted to plenary
meetings of the Conference and would provide the indispensable link in the co-ordination
of the work of the three Main Committees.
At that stage it would be possible for the Conference to decide whether or not
another short. session should be held during 1975. Whatever the degree of progress
achieved, another session of four weeks during the summer might prove extremely
valuable. If there was agreement to that effect, the current session would not be
closed but would be adjourned. Since there was a very heavy calendar of conferences
for the current year, the Secretariat had been asked to be prepared to furnish all the
relevant information if it should be necessary.
A/CONF.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
- 4-
At the beginning of the sessior, he had stated that at the end of the first thr
weeks he would present to a plenary meeting; of the ;Conference an evaluation of the
progress achieved up to that -pint. His expectation had turned out to be unduly
optimistic. At the end of the fifth week, however, he found that there was sufficient
material to justify an evaluation of the progress made. He would deal with each of
the Main Committees in turn.
On the opening day of the Conference, he had appealed to the Main Committees to
start work as soon as possible. The First Committee had accordingly met on the
following day. At that firs '61 meeting, it had decided to reconvene the 50 nember
open-ended Working Grou c; aui i&hed in Caracas in order to facilitate ncgotiati ons
on articles 1 to 21, on he b sic provisions of the r gime for the sea-bed beyond
the limits of national jurisdiction - and particularly on article 9, entitled
'Who may exploit the ?rec.: red other basic conditions of exploration and exploitation
of the resources of the .sea. The Committee had felt that its work could not begin
until substantial pro, cc,- had been made in the negotiations pursued in the Wori:ing
Group. It had therefore c'.ecided not to meet as whole, but rather to give as much
time as possible to the titori:ing Group, which had reconvened on the following; day.
The Working Grou) had devoted its first meeting to an appraisal of its proG ess
in Caracas and the tasks cli-zad of it. !.s a thorou and fruitful debate on article
had taken place during; its ci:: meeting in Caracas, the Working Group had decided to
begin discussions on the conditions of exploration and exploitation. It had had
before it at that time fou )ro-posals, which had been incorporated in a comparative
table as a way of isola tn;; the various points at issue. The Chairman of the Grou:
had briefly introduces, each )rovision, noted the differences between proposals and
assessed possibilities for r.conciling the prevailing divergencies. Finally, the
Chairman had categorize. the ~)rovisions according to their relative importance for an
agreement on the basic e.onditii or_s of exploration and exploitation as a whole. The
Chairman's assessment Iic.C. :received su- port froi:i all sides in the t1orkin;; Group, and
his classification of to ,rovisions into two categories, namely, fundamental items
for immediate negotia-ci-on? and items of a subsidiary character', had served as a
guide in arranging the ::4ru~ nee in which subjects c'ere to be discussed a -V subsequent
meetings of the WorkinG Grou_).
A/C 01T. 62/SR. 54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
_5_
The next subject discussed had beer., the stages of operation which should be under
some method of choosing among equally qualified applicants seeking mining rights was
necessary in order to secure ma.::imum benefits for the Authority, although the e::act
nature of the criteria,-;o govern selection had remained unsettled. There had been
some semblance of agreement on the practical need for priority to be accorded to an
entity that had been involved in earlier stages of operations when it came to the
award of a contract for a?. eubsequent stage of operations. The possibility of
contractual relations covering more than one stage had been accepted by all sides.
Thereafter the Working Group had met on four consecutive working days to discuss
in detail the provisions doomed to be of fundamental importance. Those provisions
could be characterized as basic matters of principle, as distinct from .gu ely
technical matters, which had been deemed to be of subsidiary importance.
Specifically, the issues of fundamental importance included those relating co the
scope of the Authority's over, the method of entering into arrangements tiith
entities for the conduct of activities in the Area and the basic principles of such
arrangements, and the settlement of disputes.
The Working Group had be un its work by discussing the detailed provisions
concerning the method of entering into arrangements with entities for the conduct of
exploration and exploitation activities and the basic principles of such arrangements.
In particular, it had discussed such topics as criteria for the selection of
contractors and their particiy.~a~ion in subsequent stages of operations, and the nature
of the financial arrangements; delegations had frequently referred to other related
topics in the course of the debate.
Those discussions had produced encouraging results. Delegations had agreed that
the Authority's control. Disagreement had persisted over whether the lu 1iority
could control such stages 'as scientific research, marketing and processing, although,
having regard to the fact that tle Authority's contractual relationship might cover
more than one stage of the operations, the differences of opinion had been reduced
to one issue that related. )rimarily to technical considerations. Those technical
issues had in,turn raised questions about the types of arrangements into which the
Authority might enter. Dy the beginning of the third week; no opposition had been
raised in the Working G oup to the decision to discuss the joint venture as a possible
arrangement.
A/GONF.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 20026/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
As divergent positions had manifested themselves at Caracas, agreement to discuss
one possible system could be regarded as a significant step towards the solution of
what had seemed to .e a difficult issue. rn view of that important development, the,
Chairman of the Working Group had cancelled a meeting of the Group for the first time
in order to permit informal consultations in smaller groups to be held. Those
informal consultations had continued for the rest of the week and had been
:,,;; plen? need by further meetings of the Working Group. Different types of joint
venture had been analysed in those forums, the discussions being facilitated by
informal technical papers on joint ventures prepared by the Secretariat and by
several delegations. The discussions had identified two primary but different types
of joint venture, namely, contractual joint ventures,in which all the details of the
arrangements would have to be specified in a contract, and equity joint ventures,
in which a new legal entity would be formed and the element of control would be
established by the Authority through equity participation in the venture. Evaluation
of the alternative systems had revealed that the following points were of particular
concern; the degree of financial and administrative control to be exercised by the
Authority over its partners in joint ventures; direct exploitation of the Area by
he Authority; the nature of the Authority's contribution to the venture;
incentives for private or State operators; and the legal problems, especially the
applicable law, affecting different types of entities in the joint venture.
Lelegations had exchanged views on all of those complex matters in an endeavour to
understand the implications of each possible arrangement and had ultimately
concentrated on a system that would satisfy the basic interests of all sides. The
discussions held during the third week had been so constructive as to lead to the
production of a single text on the basic conditions of exploration and exploitation,
pica was to serve as the basis for further negotiations.
After three days of intensive informal consultations, the Chairman had
presented an anonymous pa--)er to the Worming Group to serve as a single negotiating
text. The paper outlined the basic conditions for a contractual joint venture.
lb was not in any way a negotiated or "compromise" paper. Since no delegations were
committed to any part of the text, it served purely as a basis for negotiation; in
p
of ar words, the entire paper was negotiable. Concentration in the first instance on
A!CO'W.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
-7-
aspect of the problem would not prejudice subsequent discussion of any other system
of exploitation. Nevertheless, it had been felt that should common agreement on a
contractual joint venture system be reached by all sides, negotiations on other
types of system would move forward quickly and an over-all agreement on the basic
conditions governing exploration and exploitation would be within sight: 'In that
spirit the Working Group had begun its consideration of that single text on Monday,
14 April, and hoped to complete it as soon as possible since negotiations had-still
to take place on the closely related question of the structure and functions'of the
international machinery to be established for the exploitation of sea-bed resources.
In conclusion, it was hoped that the First Committee would make sufficient
headway in its work on the basic conditions of exploration and exploitation and'
the machinery for the international sea-bed to enable it to produce a single
negotiating text covering its entire mandate at the end of the current session.
The Second 'Committee, whose mandate covered almost the entirety of the
existing international law of the sea, was the pivot and centre of the Conference.
In a general way, and in a real sense, it might be said that no major issue
had yet been solved within the Second Committee. As decided at Caracas, the Committee
had not heard general statements. It'had undertaken a second reading of the
"main tre%.ds" document (A/COAil.62/C.2/WP.l); issues had been identified once
more and well-known positions restated. Delegations had freely commented on the
specific formulations in the document and had expressed preferences for one or more
of them. Questions of real substance, such as those concerning land-locked
countries and straits States, were at the heart of the problem in that Committee.
Although it had touched on every issue while making a second reading of the
document (A/CONF.62/C.2/11P.l) at its informal meetings, it had not concentrated
on any of the major issues which were considered to be essential elements of a
"package deal".
Those issues had been left to small informal working groups constituted mainly
by special interests. They had examined such items as the territorial 'sea, baselines,
the contiguous zone, transit, and the high seas. The major purpose of" the
establishment of,those small informal working groups was to .allow delegations with
a special interest in a particular subject to try to reduce the alternatives and,
if possible, to produce a single text. Those groups were still carrying out informal
A/CONP.62/SR. 54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00.697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
consultations and, except in a few cases, their work could not yet be assessed.
The informal workin group on baselines had produced a revised consolidated text
(C.2/Blue Paper No. 4). The informal working group on the high seas was preparing
a text which seemed to command wide support among its members. The subject-matter
before those two groups was less controversial than other issues, and most of the
texts discussed were drawn from the Geneva Convention of 1958, which might explain
the progress achieved on those subjects.
The informal working group on the territorial sea had not been able to arrive
at any result and had decided to suspend its meetings. The informal working group
on historic bays and waters had before it a number of informal blue papers
(C.2/Blue Papers Nos. 1/Rev. 1, 2, 3 and 3/Rev. I), but so far no consensus had
been reached on those texts. The informal working group or. the contiguous zone,
which had held only one meeting, seemed to have reached some degree of agreement
on the content of the contiguous zone jurisdiction. The members of that group
had also shown a degree of agreement that a State which chose not to extend its
territorial sea to a 12-mile limit might have a contiguous zone up to that limit.
The main issues in that respect remained the interrelationship between the
contiguous zone and the economic zone, and the plurality of regimes.
The informal working group on transit had held only one meeting. The Chairman
of the Second Committee, having in mind the complexity of the matter and considering
that its resolution would facilitate the task of the Conference, had decided to
hold a preliminary meetinC first with a small group of delegations from both sides
to assess the prospects for initiating negotiations between them and for establishing
a working group on the subject. The meeting having definitely revealed the
willingness of delegations to engage in such negotiations, the Chairman had
established a working group on the subject.
Other groups which were already in existence but had not yet met included the
informal working groups on archipelagos, the continental shelf, delimitation and
innocent passage. Groups on such important matters as.straits, islands and the
economic zone would probably begin meeting the following week.
A/CONP.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
9-
Another private group was working on the problems of land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged States. There had been only slow progress on the question of whether
there should be equal rights for exploring and exploiting the living and non-living
resources of the zone.
The main purpose of the work of the private group on settlement of disputes had
been to prepare single texts from. the alternatives in document A/CONF.6?/L.7. The
issues that had so far proved to be the most controversial were: the establishment
of a system of compulsory jurisdiction for all disputes arising out of the Convention
and the creation of a law of the sea tribunal; the relationship between special
procedures and the over-all machinery for the settlement of disputes; plurality of
jurisdiction (International Court of Justice, law of the sea tribunal and arbitration
tribunals); exclusive national jurisdiction in the economic zone and, in particular,
delimitation between national and international jurisdiction; and the establishment
of a compulsory conciliation procedure as a preliminary stage.
Several draft texts had been produced in an effort to reconcile different views
expressed by participants on those issues, and it was hoped that a document could be
produced by the middle of the following week.
Other questions that had been the subject of informal or private negotiations
were: general provisions for the economic zone; artificial islands and installations
in the economic zone; living resources of the economic zone; optimum utilization
of the resources of the economic zone; conservation-and management of such resources;
fishing agreements with neighbouring States; geographically disadvantaged States;
land-locked States; highly migratory species; anadromous stocks; catadromous species.
Certain issues had not been considered by the Second Committee as yet in order
to enable the informal groups to produce some results which would contribute to
constructive negotiation in. the Committee as a whole.
There was still a marked division regarding the rights of land-locked and other
geographically disadvantaged countries in the economic zone. No real agreement
seemed near, although much of the controversy centred around other geographically
disadvantaged States.
The Group of 77 had held several meetings under the chairmanship of Mr. Kedadi
(Tunisia). That Group co-ordinated the work of the three oontact groups of the
Group of_77. The Chairman of the Contact Group of the Group of 77 on Second Committee
matters, Mr. Njenga (Kenya), was preparing a paper on the economic zone. The results
of the discussions in the Group of 77 were awaited.
A/CONE. 62/SR roved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
The Third Committee had held four formal meetings, during which several proposal-s
had been introduced (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.24, L.25, L.26 and L.27). The United Nations
Secretariat had submitted to the Committee ?i study on certain aspects of the transfer
of technology (A/CONP.62/C.3/L.22) which the Committee had requested during the
Caracas session.. The United Nations Environment Programme, in response to a request
by the Third Committee during the Caracas session, had submitted a study on the
Global Environmental Monitoring System of UNEP (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.23)?
Most of the work of. the Third Committee had been conducted at informal meetings
on item 12 (preservation of the marine environment) and on items 13 and 14
(scientific research and transfer of technology); The informal meetings were held
alternately during the mornings, while the afternoons had been put at the disposal
of delegations for conducting negotiations. Those arrangements had so far been
satisfactory in advancing the work of the Committee, but certain difficulties had
recently arisen because meetings of regional groups conflicted with meetings convened
by the chairmen of the informal sessions. In that connexion, he appealed to the
chairmen and conveners of all groups - regional, formal or informal - to arrange
their meetings in consultation with the Chairman of the Main Committee concerned.
The Chairman of the Third Committee, in a statement in the General Committee on
15 April 1975, had proposed that every opportunity should be given to the chairmen
of the informal sessions to carry out whatever negotiations they considered necessary
to the progress of the work of the Committee.
With regard to what had been accomplished at the informal meetings of the
Third Committee, the Committee had resumed its informal meetings on item 12
(preservation of the marine environment) at its 12th meeting, the first of the Geneva
session. The Chairman had made a statement summarizing the results achieved at
Caracas (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.15). He had outlined the organization of work for the
current session, which was designed to advance the work accomplished at Caracas.
arrangement proposed that common texts would be prepared for the items listed in
document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.14/Add.l, which set out proposals or amendments which had
been introduced but not yet discussed. Accordingly, work had begun with the text
relating to monitoring, which was to be followed by texts relating to the question
of putting "an end to violations and to the effects thereof" and to standards. As
at Caracas, the actual work was being carried out at two levels, the informal
meetings on item 12 and the drafting and negotiating group. At the suggestion of
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
A/COL'F. 62/SR. 54
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
- 11 -
the Chairman of the Committee, most of the current work had been taking place at the
level of the drafting and negotiating group, which had clearly been the most efficient
medium for the preparation of common texts. To date the group had prepared and
approved a common text on monitoring (CRP/MP/16).
The group had begun consideration of the crucial question of standards. For that
purpose, it was following the method of work approved at Caracas (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.14),
which was based on considering various sources of marine pollution in turn. The
first question under that method of work, marine pollution from land-based sources,
had already been discussed and a text has been approved by the informal meeting on
the basis of a.draft presented by its Chairman (CRP/1P/17/Add.2).
A proposal dealing with the preparation of assessments of the potential effects
on the marine environment of planned activities (CRP/MP/18) had been approved
at the most recent informal meeting. The subject being discussed by the group was
"marine pollution from activities concerning exploration and exploitation of the
sea-bed within the areas of national jurisdiction".
The subject "obligation to put an end to violations and to the effects thereof"
would be taken up in connexion with the questions of "responsibility and liability",
and the settlement of disputes.
During the period 17 March to 12 April 1975, there had been six informal meetings
of the Third Committee dealing with items 1.3 and 14 (scientific research and transfer
of technology). Smaller drafting and negotiating groups composed of the delegations
most closely concerned, under the chairmanship of Mr. Metternich, had held 11 meetings
on the same subjects. It had been decided at the informal meetings to start
discussion of items which had been left over from Caracas, the status of scientific
equipment in the marine environment had therefore been dealt with first. The
debate had been exhaustive, both in informal plenary meetings and in drafting and
negotiating groups. A number of delegations had submitted new texts, which were
reproduced in document CRP.1. Two further texts which attempted to reach a compromise
had been submitted to the chairman of the informal meetings as the result of the
intensive negotiations; they were reproduced in document CRP.2. It had not,
however, been possible, to reach agreement on any single compromise text, despite the
three attempts subsequently made by the Chairman to consolidate in one text all the
views expressed in the course of the negotiations. Finally, it had been decided to
"freeze" for the time being the two alternative texts contained in document CRP.2.
A/CONF.62/SR roved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
- 12 -
Thereafter the item "responsibility and liability" had been discussed at the
informal meetings. That discussion was continuing. A number of delegations had
submitted new texts (CR?.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). An attempt to draft a single compromise
text had been made at the level of the drafting and negotiating group. Tentative
agreement had been reached on a text of a general nature (CRP.8). Some delegations,
however, still seemed to believe that that compromise text was not sufficient and
should be supplemented.
When the discussion on responsibility and liability had been completed, the
informal meetings would presumably turn to the subject of "conduct of marine
scientific research", which constituted the crucial issue within the group's
competence. Two meetings of the delegations most closely concerned had so far taken
place on the subject. It had been suggested that the outline submitted by a group of
socialist countries (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.26) should be taken as a framework for discussion,
as the text appeared to be quite comprehensive. At the suggestion of the chairman
of the meetings, delegations had already been discussing the question among
themselves.
The subject of the transfer and development of technology had not yet been
dealt with, although some delegations had at the outset expressed the view that the
subject should be discussed as soon as possible. An appeal had been made to all
delegations to submit draft proposals on the matter, but no new text had yet been
submitted, and the only text carried over from Caracas (A/C0NF.62/C.3/L.12) was being
discussed by its own sponsors with a view to making a revision.
Various comments were relevant with regard to the organization of work and the
progress achieved in the Third Committee. The pattern of meetings established at
Caracas had proved to be adequate for the negotiating process. The most fruitful
negotiations were taking place on the initiative of the Chairman of the Committee,
who was bringing together delegations from the various interest groups and trying
to present amalgamated compromise texts to them. On the other hand, there seemed to
be too little readiness on the part of the individual interest groups to negotiate
with one another, while a disproportionate amount of time was probably being spent
by some groups in discussing and defining their own position.
It appeared that the decision to leave the afternoons free from general
meetings, both formal and informal, had not proved as satisfactory an arrangement
as had been expected, owing to the fact that the time had been utilized mainly by
regional groups, whose discussions sometimes tended to harden the original positions
rather than to stimulate negotiation with other groups.
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
A/C0NF.62/SR.54
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
13
The officers of the Third Committee had met on Wednesday, 16 April 1975, and
had.decided that for the moment the working arrangements of the Committee should be
kept intact. The officers, had felt that the progress the Committee had so far achieved,
although slow, had been comparatively satisfactory.
In conclusion, he said that the Chairmen of the Committees would keep in close
touch with delegations when. considering any future changes.
Mr. COSTELLO (Ireland) pointed out that many representatives had
expressed the view that it would not be possible to draft a Treaty of a universal
character on the Law of the Sea at the current session of the Conference and that it
might be necessary to convene a further session. If such turned out to be the case,
the session should. be held at the earliest possible date, since everyone was well
aware of the serious results which might follow a break-down of the Conference or
even any delay in its work.
His government hoped that the Conference would result in the creation of a
200--mile-economic zone in the waters adjacent to coastal States. Until the rights
of fishermen in those zones were clearly established, they would be uncertain as to
their future; Governments had a duty to dispel that uncertainty in the minds of those
who lived in the most disadvantaged areas. Furthermore, uncertainty regarding the
rights of States on the continental shelf, the extent of their jurisdiction both on
the shelf and in the economic zone, the delimitation of areas of jurisdiction of
individual States and between States and the international authority, and the role
to be played in those delimitations by rocks and small islands could result in
international difficulties as well as hindering the development of natural resources
which the world urgently needed.
In addition, delays in the work of the Conference might well result in
unilateral action being taken by States which would not only adversely affect the
interests of other States but would endanger the future of the.Conference itself,
thereby nullifying some results already achieved. If an early resumption of the
Conference was not practicable, his delegation urged that informal negotiations
should continue in the intersessional period.
With regard to the future work of the current session, he suggested that
the chairmen of the three Main Committees should each submit single negotiating
texts concerning the matters which came within their respective mandates; the texts
could be drafted as work proceeded and in the light of the progress made. Secondly,
it should be recognized that the Conference could not provide a definitive solution
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
A/CONF. 62/SR. 54
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
- 14-
to all the problems raised by its mandate and that an attempt to do so could well
frustrate its work. On the other hand, it should prove possible to agree upon
machinery for the Lettlement of disputes and to reach agreement in certain areas on
general principles of the future law of the sea. Those principles could evolve in
the same way as international law had in other fields, and differences could be
settled in the manner provided for by the Convention. In addition,'the Conference
should consider broadening the scope of General Assembly resolution 2574 (XXIV) so
as to express the view that participating States should not take unilateral action
on the matters included in its mandate pending the outcome of the Conference.
Finally, his delegation considered that the Conference was at a critical point;
it would work, in conjunction with all other dole?ations, for the achievement
of the goals which had been set.
Mr. CASTANNEDA (Mexico) said that his delegation was concerned by what was
happening at the Conference, and found the outlook discouracing. Although the main
reason for delays in the work of the Conference was the difficulty of the problems
at issue, the fact remained that it was being impeded by problems of organization
and method. The main difficulty undoubtedly stemmed from the fact that the
Conference had no single text which reflected or summarized the main trends as a
basis for its work. tt was true that three or four years earlier the Conference
would not have been able to agree on a single text and that it had had to discuss
the issues so that each delegation could make its position known, but over the years
certain trends had emerged and differences had in some cases narrowed, particularly
with regard to the idea of the economic zone, which was at the heart of the
questions dealt with by the Second Committee. Not all States,'of course, had been
equally enthusiastic about the texts which had been the outcome of informal
negotiations, but those texts could still serve as a basis for negotiation. The
Second Committee had made progress in its consideration of substantive issues but
had become bogged down in the search for ways of adapting agreement on basic
principles to the machinery and organization of the Conference; both the First and
Third Committees had developed devices which enabled delegations to negotiate, but
that had not been the case in the Second Committee.
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
A/CONF.62/SR.54
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
3,5-
touches to the text from the legal point of view, and the conference. would have served no
purpose. It was therefore essential, in his view,. that the proposals made should be
open to amendment and should not necessarily be voted on. It should also be borne in
mind that a consolidated text would not emerge from the void, would not reflect the
personal opinions of its sponsor and would take into account the conclusions reached
after five years' work. The negotiations in the numerous unofficial groups had
unquestionably shown the existence of elements which would make it possible to draft
texts of that kind. Furthermore, if the Chairman of the Second Committee did take such
action, he would do so after consulting the officers of the Committee who formed a
representative entity.
In fact, if the Conference was to make progress, it was essential that the
discussions should centre on a single blueprint for negotiations, because it was not
possible for 150 delegations to negotiate an agreement with no basic text before them.
A number of delegations had suggested that all participants should continue their
consultations and negotiations with a view to drafting single texts, but if the Conference
Governments would not understand why, in the course of five years, participants in
the Conference had failed to produce texts which might at least serve as a basis for an
agreement. At the Caracas session the Second Committee had rode considerable progress,
but such had not been the case at the current session, at which debate had been
completely unproductive. During the first three weeks the Conference had considered a
document drawn up at Caracas with a view to combining the variants it contained, but. it
had been unable to take any decision with regard to the 243 provisions in the document.
It could only be concluded that the method being used was unsatisfactory.
The immediate need was to submit consolidated draft articles to be used as a basis
for negotiation; there was, of course, no question of producing definitive legal,texts.
Certain delegations had opposed that course, contending that such texts could not take
account of the interests of all the States. It was true that it was impossible to
draft a single text which would reflect all points of view; indeed, if that had been
possible, it would have sufficed to establish a drafting committee to put the final
followed that method, it would find itself in a vicious circle, since the self-same
delegations would then embark on negotiations on those texts.. On the other hand,
A/coNF.62/SR?54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
-16-
negotiating without a basic text was tantamount to foredooming the Conference to
failure. If the procedure which had been suggested by some speakers, namely, that the
Committee Chairmen should each draft single texts by the end of the current session
and send them to Governments, was adopted, Governments might well propose variants.
In that way, the Conference would find itself in exactly the same position at the
beginning of the following session as it had been at the beginning of the Caracas
session: it would have before it conflicting variants and would therefore have lost
ground instead of making progress.
Mr. TRAORE (Ivory Coast), expressing the opinion of the group of African
countries on the President's proposal, said that those countries were worried by the
direction that the Conference was taking and that they considered that the
establishment of a unified text by each of the three Committees might be satisfactory
provided it really was a single text. It seemed that the production of such a text
might be possible in the case of the First and Third Committees, but not in the case of
the Second Committee. The work of the Second Committee was not progressing: various
interest groups were working on particular subjects and, if the Chairman of the
Committee was to be able to prepare a text, the results of those groups' work would have
to be submitted to the Committee as a whole so that all delegations could be informed
about them. Regional groups were also meeting, and the Chairman should be able to
take their work into account. After all those texts had been submitted to the full
Committee, the Chairman could take into consideration the opinions expressed by
delegations and start to draw up a unified text. Ideally, that text should be
available to delegations before they left the Conference so that they could study it
and be able to start real negotiations at the following session.
Mr. PARSI (Iran) requested that the President's statement on the work of the
Committees should be reproduced in extenso in the summary record of the fifty-fourth
plenary meeting of the Conference. With regard to the report on the proceedings of
the eleventh meeting of the General Committee and, in particular, the establishment of
single negotiating texts, he was concerned about the slow pace of the Conference's
work, but he nevertheless found the progress made in tie working groups of the First
and Third Committees encouraging. It was regrettable that a number of critical
A/CONF.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
- 17 _
questions had not been solved and that the Conference still had a long way to go before
it could settle all the issues relating to the law of the sea. His delegation
considered that the: Conference should*be entering a new phase of its work and it
therefore supported-the President's proposal for the preparation of single negotiating
texts. It also supported. the idea that'those texts should be prepared by the
Chairmen of the three Main Committees in consultation with interested delegations and
.the Committees' officers. The texts should, however, be based on documents before
the Conference and reflect the needs and interests of all countries. They should be
informal texts and be used for negotiating purposes only, without committing States or
delegations.
.His delegation was gratified to learn that the Chairmen of the First and Third
Committees would be in a position to produce their texts before the end of the session,
and it regretted that the Second Committee, the most important organ of the Conference,
was-not in the some position. The document prepared by the Chairman of the Second
Committee at Caracas might be helpful in the preparation of the single text. What
the Second Committee-really needed was to have delegations demonstrate their goodwill,
and it was to be hoped that a spirit of co-operation would prevail in the Committee so
that the Chairman could submit the'text as soon as possible, preferably before the end
of the sessions.
In conclusion, he pointed out that many delegations, in particular those ofthe
developing countries, were anxious to receive the texts before the following session of
the-Conference.
Mr. STAVROPOULOS (Greece) said that the Conference would soon find itself in
the'same situation as it had been in at the end of the Caracas session, and the
question of whether the Conference had-failed would then have to be answered. For
that reason, if the Conference succeeded in defining the economic zone and the
territorial sea it would have made great progress, but he doubted whether it could
achieve that. The fact was that the Conference was making slow progress because the
problems before it were complex and delegations had completely opposed views.
Furthermore, the Conference had before it, not a single text, but 200 separate texts,
and, with the exception of the First Committee, it had been unable to agree on any
single text. His delegation was therefore glad to note that the idea of single texts
was gaining favour. It should be realized, however, that it was impossible to complete
such a task in a few weeks. He hoped that the Chairmen of the Committee, in whom all
A/CONF. 62/Sri. 54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
 Approved, For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
- 16 -
participants had confidence, could, with the help of the secretariat, draw up within
two or three months texts to which participants could submit amendments and
subamendments, without proposing new variants. Finally, he did not think the idea of
establishing further contact groups, working groups and negotiating groups was a useful
one: it seemed more likely to lead to stalemate.
Mr. MALDONADO (Guatemala) said that it had been predictable that the
Conference would not succeed in producing a final document at the third session, given
the many factors complicating the negotiation process. First, the interests of the
great Powers were preponderant because for them the sea was a means of expansion and
hegemony, and their pursuit of expansion clashed with the aspirations for national
liberation of the peoples of the Third World. Secondly, the countries represented at
the Conference were increasingly determined to secure the indispensable conditions for
their political and economic development and, aware that the Conference would be unable
to reach any conclusion without their consent, to have a share in any agreements reached.
His delegation accordingly considered that machinery would have to be devised to
guarantee the legal equality of States and protect them against any underhand
compromises; for that reason it welcomed the method of establishing interest groups
within which agreements of limited scope could be reached. In that connexion, his
delegation understood negotiations to mean not only reciprocal concessions, but
primarily exchanges which were likely to give rise to rules of law.
With regard to the prospect of a further session or of extending the current
session, his delegation supported the President's proposal. Moreover, in its view,
it should be realized that the Conference could make-no progress until an effort was
made to establish a set of rules recognizing the right of States to economic development;
consequently, the continuing denial of the right of -peoples to extend the zone which
provided theiar1 e tr,l food proteins and especially the persistent rejection of the
legitimate rights of land-locked States would have to cease. Finally, the
prerequisite for the convening of afurther session was that every effort should be
made to strengthen the will to negotiate.
A/C0NF.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
_19_
Prolonging the Conference would adversely affect the least developed States, since
their exclusive economic zone remained vulnerable to plundering by foreign enterprises
which. were threatening their living resource, and the, absence of an up-to-date law of
the sea was delaying organized exploitation of nutritional..,.,mineral and other resources
by States. .
His delegation hoped. that the Conference would reach general basic agreement on the
major issues of the law of the sea, because otherwise the peoples of disadvantaged
countries, afflicted by economic backwardness and the abuses of foreign exploitation,.
would have to revise their domestic legislation and prepare themselves to take
unilateral measures in defence of their sovereignty, independence and right to meet the
requirements of social wellbeing.
Mr. AGUILAR (Venezuela) supported the proposal by the representative of Iran
that, the President's report should be reproduced in extenso in the summary record of
the meeting or distributed as a separate document. With regard to the slow progress in
the work of the Conference, he endorsed the view of the. representatives,of Ireland and
Mexico that time was not on the side-of the. Conference. There had even been talk of-
the possibility that certain States might take unilateral measures and exploit the
sea-bed beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction or extend their national
jurisdiction.; While there was no question of yielding to the pressure represented by
such threats, the Conference should at least declare that it was categorically opposed
to.the implementation of such unilateral measures while negotiations were in progress.
The status quo must not be changed.
The.method proposed by the President for dealing with the situation, namely, the
preparation of a single negotiating text by each of the three Committees, was the only
course which was. possible and logical.: His delegation had some views on the
characteristics and objectives of such a. text and when it should be available. With
regard to its characteristics, the document should contain just one text on each issue,
with no variants, and it should be comprehensive, covering all the issues within the
terms of reference of the Committee in question. It would serve solely as a basis for
negotiation. and subject to all possible kinds of amendment or might even be. changed
completely, but it would not be a text on which delegations would vote. The Chairmen
A/CONF.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
"1-0-
of the Committees would be given the task of compiling the text and would use such means
as they considered appropriate: they might utilize the services of the United Nations
Secretariat and of the officers of the Committees and consult interested delegations;
they would have at their disposal the documents prepared during the preparatory sessions
and at Caracas and could draw on the results of the discussions in Geneva at the current
session. Finally, each text should be completed as early as possible - in other words,
before the end of the session. In that way, States could consider the texts at leisure
and even consult one another - at the regional level, for example. The texts should be
discussed at plenary meetings of the Committees so as to enable all delegations to
participate in the negotiations, on the understanding that a drafting committee might
later put all the proposals made into written form. The essential thing was that there
should be a single text which would serve as a basis for negotiation.
Mr. MOORE (Ghana) said that the difficulties the Conference was experiencing
were due largely to the multitude of texts before the Committees. He therefore supported
the preparation of single negotiating texts. Moreover, it was his view that the
following session of the Conference should be held in 1976. During the intersessional
period all groups could have informal consultations so that the Conference could adopt
the convention at the following session.
Mr. WARIOBA (United Republic of Tanzania) said that at Caracas the
First Committee had made tremendous progress in its work because it had concentrated on
certain basic issues. It had, for example, come near reaching agreement on a definition
of the common heritage. The hope had been that it would continue to make progress at
Geneva and reach agreement on the structure, functions and powers of the proposed
international machinery. However, the First Committee was not following the same method
of work as at Caracas, and the results it had achieved to date were disappointing.
Instead of concentrating on settling basic issues, such as who might exploit the sea-bed,
it appeared to be floundering in unimportant detail and purely theoretical discussions.
Some delegations. were maintaining the positions they had adopted in the Committee on the
Peaceful Uses of the Sea Bed and the Ocean Floor, and the progress made on article 9 at
Caracas appeared to be in danger. Such a trend was discouraging, and the
First Committee appeared to be back where it had started from.
A/COIrF.62/SR. 54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
.-21-
The Second Committee was deadlocked, because the time had. come when it had to adopt
decision based on compromise. Some means would have to be found. of helping it to
break the deadlock. The solution proposed r.;- the President might be useful, as matters
stood, and he was not opposed to the preparation of single negotiating texts. The
President had, however, mentioned progress with regard to some issues on which unified
texts already existed. The deadlock in the Second Committee was not, therefore, due
solely to the lack of a unified text. Furthermore, working groups of that Committee
were still negotiating on unified texts, even if they were not making progress in their
work. The lack of a unified, text was therefore not the only reason for the stalemate.
The Conference was deadlocked. because it was not yet ready to make fundamental
decisions on.matters of principle. Delegations were confining themselves to reiterating
the positions they had held. for years and were not yet prepared to accept a compromise.
In such circumstances, the task of the Committee Chairmen would be extremely difficult
because, in the single text which each of them would. be asked to prepare, they would
have to adopt a position which was equitable and acceptable to all delegations. They
would find it very difficult to assess the positions of all members of the Conference,
since many delegations did. not attend Committee meetings, which often took the form of
discussion groups rather than negotiating bodies. Accordingly, despite their good
faith and their efforts, the Committee Chairmen might well be accused. of lacking
objectivity. It would. therefore be very hard for them to compile single texts as a
basis for negotiation. The preparation of such texts vgould require a certain amount of
co-ordination among all the negotiating bodies of the Conference. Co-ordination was
particularly lacking in the Second Committee, and, until that Committee reached a
decision on the key issues before it, the other two Committees could not progress in
their work.
He considered that it was too early to decide on the date for the following session
of the Conference, since that date would depend on the progress achieved at the current
session. In any case, the Conference should not let the urgency of the situation
govern its decision, since to submit to such pressures would hinder, not accelerate its
work. When adopting its rules of procedure and method. of work, the Conference had. been
aware that it was embarking on a long and. difficult undertaking, and it was too late to
turn back.
A/coirr. 62/SR. 54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
-22-
Mr. KOZYREV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the Conference
had certainly not produced the results anticipated, but that should not give rise to
undue pessimism. If the political will to reach agreement were present, it should
be possible to devise formulas that would provide a basis for negotiation, particularly
if the working method of certain informal groups was employed.
For example, the question of the rights of States to establish an economic zone
extending over a distance of 200 nautical miles was primarily of interest to developing
countries. The Soviet Union had been one of the first to take account of their
aspirations and noted with satisfaction that the idea of a zone had come to be generally
accepted. However, so far there was no article on the subject that was acceptable to
all participants in the Conference.
With regard to the questions of the breadth of the territorial sea and freedom of
passage for ships in straits used for international navigation, his delegation
considered that agreement could be reached on a text providing for a maximum 12-mile
limit for the territorial sea, because most States appeared to favour that limit. If
the States concerned showed goodwill, progress could likewise be made in the
negotiations on straits. Most participants at the Conference probably favoured
decisions, whether in the matter of straits or any other involving the law of the sea,
of the kind desired by all peoples of the world decisions that would promote peace and decisions which did not damage any one State or group of States. In the view of
his delegation, if all States attending the Conference wished it to contribute to
the strengthening of peace and co-operation among States, there should be no
insurmountable difficulty in reaching a concerted decision on the freedom of
navigation in international straits or on other questions. He pointed out that the
General Assembly and the Conference on the Law of the' Sea had both recognized that
questions connected with the law of the sea were interrelated and should be settled
by consensus.
A/CONF.62/SR.54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06114?3C4A-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
He endorsed. the President's views on the organization of work and. believed. that
steps should. be taken to speed. up the work and. to draw up unified texts. They would
have to be prepared by the committee chaira.'ri working with the committee officers and.
in consultation interested. a.,.-Legations. Draft texts on questions of principle or
substance on which there were divergent views might include a few variants; otherwise,
it was difficult to see how the committee chairmen could prepare a unified text.
Whatever the method. adopted., they would have the status of consolidated compromise
texts.
Mr. BEESL Y (Canada), speaking as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, said.
that the Committee had met at Caracas to consider organizational questions but had. not
met at all during tho current se sion, although that had not prevented. it from
following closely the proceedings of the Committees and their working groups. In
order to help the Conference to break the deadlock, the Drafting Committee might
follow the suggestion of some delegations and hold. informal meetings, as other bodies
of the Conference were doing. The matter might be considered at the following meeting
of the General Committee.
Speaking as representative of Canaday he said. that the Conference had. reached. a
turning--point in the negotiating procoss.. It was net surprising that it should. have
run into difficulties since it was engaged. in an intricate, complex and. time-consuming
undertaking and. governments were growing increasingly impatient. The general debate
had. been concluded. and. the Conference had. started negotiations proper and. had already
tackled some key issues. In undertaking a radical restructuring of the law of the
&-ea, it had. embark(-,i. upon an enor .ous to ,'k .nd one which was difficult to accomplish
with 150 States participating. On the other hand., there were difficulties about
delegating nepotiating power to smaller soups, inasmuch as countries w_Zich had not
bean a directly involved Jr th^ nego tia lions mid t not accept the rec?alts. His
w:ia deep?y committed. to a negotiated. solution and an aricemo_:'t accepted.
b * all States, because it could acc-,pt neither the tyranny of the majority nor the veto
of the ;iinority. As the Canadian Minister for the Environment had. stated. on the
l rev:~ous day, the prc.~,,r ess m,-,d.-:3 in drafting treaty articles was encouraging, but mach
rene.ined. to be done. She had. added that the Canadian Government, like all. those
represented. at the Conference, was counting on a negotiated solution and, like them,
was expecting tangible results from the discussionsat Geneva. For that reason his
A/rONF.62/SR,54
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120004-0
 01
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
-delegation believed.--that the Conference should continue its efforts to reach consensus.
tf, after so many months, it failed to agree on a unified negotiating text, the position
would be truly desperate. His delegation w&s convinced that tie preparation of such a
text was feasible. The First Committee was well advanced in detailed. negotiations on
certain specific problems and was very near agreement on some issues. In the
Second. Committee most of the fundamental questions were being dealt with in informal
negotiating groups, and there was ground. for hope that those negotiations would lead
to compromise solutions before the end of the session. Admittedly, the Committee had
not yet disposed of some questions, such as that of straits, but lack of progress on
specific points should. not hold up its general progress. In any event, he was in
favour of. entrusting the Chairman of the Second Committee with the task of drawing up
a unified. text.
The Third Committee was continuing to make progress with draft articles on the
prevention and reduction of marine pollution with the help of informal working groups
and. would probably be able to complete the draft articles at the current session.
A proposal concerning the transfer of technology had already been submitted. to it by
the Group of 77 and it would soon receive another proposal.
In conclusion, he expressed. support for the solution suggested. by the President
because he saw no other way of breaking the current deadlock or of achieving tangible
results before the end of the session.
Mr. ENGO (United Republic of Cameroon), speaking as Chairman of the
First Committee, said that the Conference had reached. a stage when all suggestions
would be welcome. The President had. proposed that the chairman of each committee
should draw up a unified text. The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania
had. pointed out that the more production of a text was not a solution in itself.
As Chairman of the First Committee, he supported the President's suggestion and.
wished to make some comments on it. First, the task to be entrusted to committee
chairmen was a heavy burden, because they would. not be able to work behind. closed.
doors but under the eyes of all. Secondly, in the texts all the outstanding issues
would. have to be put into a suitable form for negotiation purposes. To that end, a
number of conditions would. have to be met: the text would not be discussed in a
preliminary way by delegations with a view to establishing whether or not it was
balanced, and it could not be a mere compilation of irreconcilable provisions drawn from
existing texts. The third requirement was that the text should. not be treated by the
interest groups as an "interloper" that replaced their earlier texts. Finally, the
unified text must be regarded as reflecting the general view of a Chairman whose main
concern was to initiate genuine negotiations.
In conclusion, he urged. the Conference not to give way to despair.
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120004-0
A/CONF.62/SR.54 The meeting rose r;t 1.15 n.m.