THIRD SESSION SECOND COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING HELD AT THE PALAIS DES NATIONS, GENEVA, ON FRIDAY, 2 MAY 1975, AT 3.30 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000400030015-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 15, 2002
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: May 7, 1975
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
PROVISIONAL: FOR PARTICIPANTS ONLY
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Third Session
SECOND COMMITTEE
Distr.
RESTRICTED
7 May 1975
Original: ENGLISH
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 2 May 1.9759 at 3.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. GALINDO--POHL El Salvador
Rapporteur: Mr. NANDAN Fiji
CONTENTS
Territorial sea
Draft statement on the work of the Second Committee
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,
within five working days of receiving the provisional record in their working
language
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.48.
GE.75-65101
Approved For- Releaee 2002708114: CIA-RDP82S00697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
TERRITORIAL SEA
Draft articles on the territorial sea (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.88)
Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ (Ecuador) :,aid that his delegation's draft articles
(A/CONF.62/C.2/L.88) were a technical presentation of the concept of the territorial
sea. They took account of the developing countries, desire and right to exploit the
resources of the sea and to put an end to the illegitimate practices of the great
Powers in the seas belonging to the peoples of the third world.
The key provision of the text was that under which the coastal State had the right
to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a distance of 200 nautical miles;
in doing so, it would take into account specific factors and interests. That was the
principle which Ecuador had consistently advocated at the conference and had applied
in determining its territorial sea of 200 miles, in which it had exercised full
sovereignty for many years. Not all States should have a 200-mile territorial sea:
its breadth would be dependent on the factors and interests referred to in draft
article 10, since it would be as absurd to claim that all States should have a
territorial sea of the same breadth as to say that geographical conditions were uniform
for all countries. Draft article 9, under which the breadth of the territorial sea
might be established by regional or sub-regional agreements, was based on the same
reasoning.
The concept of the territorial sea embodied in the draft articles responded to the
modern concept of sovereignty whereby the State had not only the right but the duty to
declare where the limits of its sovereignty lay. It was in that context that draft
article laid down that the rights of the coastal State would be exercised without
prejudice to the limitations established by the Convention in favour of the
international community. The draft articles also provided that two regimes - that of
innocent passage and that of freedom of passage - could co-exist in the territorial sea.
and gave detailed specifications for the exercise of States' rights under those regimes.
Without prejudice to the plurality of regimes, the coastal State could regulate all
activities concerned with resources lying within its territorial sea and might allow the
nationals of other States to exploit the living resources.
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.48
Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
The resulting harmonization of two regimes - the sovereignty of the coastal State
and the rights of the international community - constituted the only rational means of
protecting the resources of the seas adjacent to the countries of the third world.
The draft articles not only embodied the essential principle that the coastal State
exercised sovereignty in the territorial sea, but also took account of the situation
of the land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States and provided for the
necessary co-operation of the coastal State with other States and with the competent
international organizations.
For many countries, and certainly for Ecuador, the concept of a territorial sea
of the nature and breadth outlined in the draft articles was not an aspiration but an
existing right which could not and should not be renounced. That concept was naturally
opposed by the great Powers accustomed as they were to establishing unilaterally maritime
law that enabled them to exploit the seas of the world. The draft articles were
designed to put an end to that situation and to safeguard the rights of the developing
countries in a territorial sea of.up to 200 miles.
Mr. GHARBI (Morocco) said that, although the draft articles . submitted. by
the de.egation of Ecuador (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.88) did not reflect Morocco's position on
the limits of national maritime jurisdiction, they had the advantage of clearly stating
one extreme position on the subject. His delegation intended to take no formal stand
on the issue of the plurality of regimes in the territorial sea. His Government had
acted on the recommendation of the Organization of African Unity for a territorial
sea of 12 miles on the understanding that a final decision would depend on how the
3oncept of an exclusive economic zone was fined in the Con,,_ntion.
Nevertheless, his delegation found it easy to sympathize with the preoccupation
with national sovereignty and security whici had inspired the draft articles, on the
territorial sea. For his country, indeed, the threat to national sovereignty over the
territorial sea was not just a possibility but a-reality. In fact, he had been
instructed by his Government formally to bring to the notice of the Conference its
position on an issue which involved its sovereignty over its maritime space and which
was closely bound up with Morocco's approach to a number of subjects before the
Conference - the territorial sea, and passage through straits used for international
navigation and lying witht.n the territorial seas of more -than one State, for example.
His Government's reasons for making a formal statement on the subject to the Conference
were, first, to safeguard itself against any attempt to usurp its sovereign rights
A/COt1F.62/C.2/SR. 48
Approved for Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697ROO0400030015-7
over its maritime space and, secondly, to explain the position it was taking in the
current negotiations and thus to make a useful contribution to the progress of the
Conference.
In a letter dated 26 January 1975 addressed to thc: Chairman of the Special
'1-:mmittee on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/AC.109/475), the Government of Morocco had requested
that the question of the "Spanish presidios" still existing on the north coast of
Morocco should be placed on the agenda of that Committee. Spain's response, which
occurred in February 1975, was considerably to strengthen its naval forces within
Moroccan territorial waters. Moreover, in April 1975 Spanish warships had deliberately
attacked Moroccan patrol vessels within a few miles of the Moroccan coast.
It would be recalled that parts of the Moroccan coast near the Straits of Gibraltar
and its approaches had been occupied by Spain during that period of its colonial
expansion when it had established colonies all along the coast of North Africa.
Gibraltar itself had, of course, been ceded to the British Crown under the Treaty of
Utrecht of 1713. The colonial status of the enclaves which Spain still occupied
within Morocco had always been acknowledged by the Spanish authorities; the Spanish
Constitution of 1931, for example, had provided for them to have an autonomous
administration directly subordinate to the central authorities. It should be noted
that Morocco ha never abandoned its struggle for the liberation of its national
territory. Moreover, its claim had been recognized by the Council of Ministers of
-,he Organization of African Unity in a resolution of 21 February 1975.
Apart from its legitimate desire to enjoy full sovereignty over the whole of its
national territory, however, his Government had good reason to be concerned about the
use to which Spain intended to put its colonial enclaves on the northern coast of
Morocco. As recently as July 1965, the periodical "Africa", an official publication
of the Spanish Government, had published a strategic plan providing for "barriers",
"lines of interception" and "naval defence" in the region surrounding the Straits of
Gibraltar and for the "control of sea traffic" in that region, in which the enclaves of
Ceuta and Mlilla and Moroccan islands were assigned a most important and a most
dangerous role. That official Spanish statement of the bellicose use which Spain
intended to assign to its colonial enclaves in Morocco was a direct infringement of
Moroccan sovereignty over its maritime space.
A/CONF.62-'C.2/SR.40
Approved Far- Release-2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
The friendly relations between his country and Spain had stood the test of history.
It was regrettable, therefore, that the attitude adopted by Spain should _.rvs co~p 11:x1
Morocco to denounce its policy of imperial.domirndtion. Morocco could not agree to allow
parts of its national territory to serve as points of polarization or to.be.used for any
policy with which his Government could not associate itself. His Government supported
the principle of innocent passage through international straits, but its national
interests as a riparian country of one of the most important international straits
required it to interpret that freedom as no longer being absolute, unconditional and
unrestrained. That freedom had, in fact, become a right limited by obligations, in
conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter and its aims, which
prohibited any domination by one State over another. Accordingly, his Government
contended that the new law of the sea should be whollyconsistent with the principles and
aims of the United Nations and should therefore exclude the persistence of colonialism
in any form and, in the case of which he was speaking, the colonial occupation of
certain Moroccan territories, in particular those overlooking the Straits of Gibraltar.
In his Government's view the new law of the sea which was being drafted by the
Conference should contain objective rules making as clear a delimitation as possible
of the responsibilities of the user States of international straits and their rights,
and of the responsibilities and rights - including the right to territorial integrity -
of riparian States of such straits. The general purpose of those rules would be to
safeguard the riparian State, under the protection of the international community, from
all danger and all harm, so that no riparian State would need to legislate itself on
matters concerning international navigatic_i in those of its .erritorial waters which
coincided with international straits. It was in that spirit that his delegation would
continue negotiations within the Conference.
In conclusion, he said that the new law of the sea should in all its parts give
expression to the principle of peaceful co-existence. Maritime space could link or
separate, depending on whether it was used for domination or in a spirit of mutual
respect. The international community had surely learned the limits of resort to
force and, could legitimately expect some improvement of the rules governing the conduct
of international affairs.
Mr. ROIAMH (Somalia), supporting the draft articles submitted by Ecuador
(A/CONF.62/C.2/h.88), said that since 1972 his country had had a 200-mile territorial
sea. The concept of the territorial sea implied that since, in international law, the
territorial sea was an integral part of the territory of a State, the coastal State had
A/CUNP.62/C.2/SR.48
Approved For Release -2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
the inalienable right to exercise sovereignty over it. i considerable number of
States - the overwhelming majority of them vulnerable developing coastal States -
supported that concepte it enjoyed widespread support in Latin hmerica, and the
majority of African coastal States already had territorial seas Extending beyond
12 miles. That trend was reflected in Provision 22, formula B, in the document on
main trends (A/C0NF.62/C.2/WP.l). Since the Caracas session, nothing had happened
to alter that situation. Under the draft articles submitted by Ecuador, the
sovereignty of the coastal State would not be absolute, but would be exercised subject
to the other provisions of the future Convention. Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 fully
provided for the legitimate interests of both the international community and the
land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States.
There was widespread support for the concept of the territorial sea among an
increasing number of developing coastal States, which justifiably felt that no other
system wuld sufficiently protect their meagre marine resources and their security.
It was his hope that the position held by the :territorialist" group would be reflected
in the single text currently being prepared.
Mr. LUPINACCI (Uruguay) expressed his delegation's support for the concept
underlying the draft articles submitted by Ecuador (A/CODTF .62/C. 2/L.88). His country,
too, held that States held sovereignty over the sea adjacent to their coasts up to a
maximum of 200 miles, without prejudice to the freedom of international navigation.
In the case of Uruguay, that freedom was defined in such a. way an to ensure a proper
balance between the interests of coastal States and those of third States and to
enable the coastal State's sovereignty to co-exist with freedom for certain. legitimate
uses of the sea in the interests of all States and. the international community as a
whole.
The affirmation and consolidation of the sovereignty of States in the seas
adjacent to their coasts was at the very heart of the current crisis concerning the
law of the sea, which did not meet the new requirements of the peoples of the world
and was strongly influenced by the interests of the big maritime Powers. The main
consequences of the exercise of naval power in.1,eacetime by the big maritime Powers
were clear; it was as if the coastal States were neighbours of the big naval Powers,
their frontier with those Powers being determined by the external limit of their zone
i/C0NF.62/C.2/SR.48
Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
of maritime sovereignty. The confrontation between, on. the one hand, small and
medium-sized coastal States, which extended their sovereignty over the adjacent sea
and, on the other, the big maritime Powers, which sought to restrict that sovereignty,
should be seer in that light.
His delegation therefore considered that, although the draft articles submitted
by Ecuador did not fully reflect his country's position, they made an. important
contribution to the discussion of the subject and to the establishment of a new legal
order for the seas based on justice and respect for the rights of all peoples..
blr. LI In Gyu (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that the question
of the territorial sea was of vital concern. to coastal States in the defence of their
national independence, security and resources. The demand of the countries of the
third world for the establishment of a territorial sea was a consequence of their
bitter experience at the hands of the imperialists and colonialists. That was why
the question. of a 200-mile territorial sea had first been raised by the countries of
Latin America, which had endured incessant provocation. and plunder on the part of the
United States: It also explained why the question of a 200-mile economic zone had
been raised by the African countries, which had seen their marine resources plundered
by the imperialists and colonialists. In his delegation's view, those claims were
justified, as a means of enabling the countries of the third world to safeguard their
national sovereignty from imperialist aggression..
Since the imperialist powers were still seeking to rule the seas, the developing
countries had to determine the breadth of their territorial sea in such a way as to
defend their national dignity, interests and security. Their sovereignty could not
be sacrificed to the interests of the imperialist powe:r.s. It followed that, under
the new law of the sea, each country should be entitled to determine the breadth of
its territorial sea or of its economic zone, up to a distance of 200 miles, independently
and rationally, taking account of social, economic and geographical conditions, its
security and defence, the rational utilization of the sea, and the interests of other
countries.
A/CQNF.62/C.2/SR.48
Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
In the past, his country had been attacked from the sea by Japan and by the
United States and was still being subjected to aggression and provocation, also
carried out by sea, fron the united States troops which were occupying South Korea.
At the same time, his country's marine resources were being plundered by the
United States and Japan. Iioreover, even during the period of the Conference the
United States had committed acts of provocation against passenger vessels of his
country.
His delegation supported the draft articles submitted by Ecuador, since they
reflected the will of the countries of the third world to safeguard their
sovereignty, national in~.e_~endence and security.
Mr. BAKULA 'Pere; said that Peru had decided in 1947 to exercise full
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to its coast up to a distance
of 200 miles. It was nob the first or the only State to do so: the right had been
recognized as legitimate by the International Court of Justice. Such acts of
sovereignty obviously had an influence on the development of the law of the sea.
Some 30 developing countries were already exercising -their right to safeguard their
natural resources, economic independence and sovereignty by similar measures. The
stand taken by his own and other countries enjoyed firm support from the third world
countries; their supyorc had been reaffirmed in recent years at meetings in Lusaka,
Algiers and Lima.
There were points in common between his country's position and that of Ecuador
and also some differences, but the latter did not prevent him from supporting Ecuador's
proposals.
For the reasons he had outlined, the Conference would obviously fall into two
very definite camps. On the one side would be those holding the "territorialist"
position, which advocated full sovereignty and jurisdiction over a territorial sea of
200 miles, as the best inoti-w.ient for supporting a, country's full right to safeguard
the wealth and natural recourses of its seas and thereby its economic independence,
for the benefit of its peo)le. On the other side would be those who wished to
maintain the existing law of the sea to serve monopolistic interests.
Mr. RODRIGUES Brazil) said that all countries, whether `territorialist" or
not, should be grateful to the representative of Ecuador for submitting his draft
articles. His own de1.c,,;a.bion had earlier expresoed the view that the territorial
sea was the simplest, r,icet lo,_cal and most coherent expression of what the basis of
the new order of the seas that the Conference was trying to prepare should be. The
Ecuadorian proposals should {,Teatly contribute to that work.
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR,48
Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
Unfortunately, the position of the countries which advocated a 200-mile.
territorial sea was often distorted, so that those countries appeared to be asking for
more and more and seeking to keep others out of their territorial waters. In fact, none
of those countries wanted a mareclausum, and the territorial sea described in the draft
articles was one in which all interests were acommodated. If representatives considered
the document carefully and objectively, he was sure they would realize that the
territorial sea did not imply exclusive power for the coastal States. The Convention
would provide safeguards for the essential interests of every State. The proposals were
an attempt to establish, not an artificial and unilateral system,: but a system that
would be of benefit to all countries, both coastal and non-coastal.
Mr. BANGOUAA (Guinea) said that his delegation appreciated the efforts of the
representative of Ecuador in preparing the draft articles before the Committee. At the
most recent plenary. meeting the President had asked delegations to make every effort to
agree on a negotiating document, but there seemed to be no prospect of agreement when
the discussions consistently ignored the developing countries' need for sovereignty and
while some States continued.to take advantage of other States. His Government had always
insisted that there could be no development without sovereignty; in order to safeguard
its interests it had always firmly supported the idea of a territorial sea rather than
the idea of the economic zone. He wished to make it clear, however, that as his
Government understood it, the territorial sea in no way excluded the exploitation of
biological resources by and for the benefit of neighbouring land-locked States. His
Government's support for the new draft articles was, in short, based on the fact that
they came closer than any other proposal to serving the interests of countries which
had always been victimized.
Mr. KE Tsai-shuo (China) said that the draft articles submitted by
Ecuador (A/CONP.62/C.2/L.68) were of positive significance. to the,work of the Committee.
The Chinese Government and people had always firmly supported the struggle of the
third world countries to safeguard their rights in a 200-mile maritime zone for the
purpose of preserving national resources, developing the national: economy and defending
State sovereignty. That just struggle against maritime hegemony, begun by Latin America,
had gained the support of many small and medium-sized countries and had become the
essence of the new law of the sea which was being formulated by the Conference. The new
draft articles included some important principles that should be embodied in the new law
of the sea.
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.48
Approved-For'Release 2002/08%14 CIA-RDP82S00697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
His delegation had always held that a coastal State was entitled, within reason, to
define the breadth and limits of its territorial sea according to its geographical
features and its economic development and national security needs, with due regard to
the legitimate interests of neighbouring States and. to the convenience of international
navigation. A reasonable maximum breadth, with general international applicability,
should be determined by the countries of .the world through consultations. on the basis of
equality. The spirit of the relevant provisions of the Ecuadorian proposal. was identical
with that position.
The majority of developing and other countries favoured an exclusive economic zone
not exceeding 200 miles and measured from the baseline of the territorial sea, to be
delimited by each country in accordance with its :Legitimate needs and for the purpose of
defending its national sovereignty, independence and resources. Some other developing
countries favoured', for the same purposes, the establishrncont of a 200-mile territorial
sea with different regulations for individual sectors of it. The proposals stemmed, in
each case, from the same position, namely, the need to safeguard State sovereignty,
oppose aggression, expansion and plunder by the hegemonic Powers, and defend maritime
rights within a 200-mile zone. The differences could certainly be resolved through
consultations.
A serious question arose, however, when the super-Powers tried to impose a strict
limitation on the breadth of the territorial sea. To them, the narrower the territorial
sea and the wider the so-called high seas, the better, so that they could do as they
pleased in the open sea. They had not only continued by all possible means to negate
the essence of the exclusive zone, but had also sought to separate from the territorial
sea straits lying within it which were used for international navigation, and to turn
them into part of the high seas. The developing and other small and medium-sized
countries would have to intensify their unity and persist in their just struggle if they
wanted a new law of the sea that conformed to the needs of the times.
The super-Powers were still claiming that there could be no agreement so long; as
the developing and other small and medium-sized countries refused to abandon their
maritime rights within a 200-mile maritime zone. Owing to their truculent attitude, the
Conference had failed to achieve the expected progress. It -.rag to be hoped that the
situation would be rectified in the near future.
A/C02TF. 62/C . 2/SR . 48
-Approved For--Release-2002/08144: Cho-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
Mr. LAURENZA (Panama) said that his delegation supported the draft articles
submitted by Ecuador (A/CONP.62/C.2/L.88), which clearly expressed his own delegation's
views. A new era had dawned in which all people had the right to share ocean space
so that the wealth of the world would be better distributed in the interests of
universal social. justice.
Mr. YOLGA (Turkey) said that the establishment of a territorial sea up to
a distance of 200 nautical miles, as proposed in document A/CONP.62/C.2/L.88, was
designed to suit certain geographical situations which were not universal or even
respresentative; a 200-mile limit was of interest only to countries which had a
sufficient breadth of sea. There were some narrow seas, however, where the distance
between neighbouring coastal States was less than 20-miles and in such cases a
distance of 12 nautical miles should be the absolute maximum.
In narrow seas, the limited space was used jointly by neighbouring coastal States,
and any extension of thebreadth?of the territorial sea would be tantamount to an
annexation of territory, except when the purpose of the extension was to provide for
innocent passage. The territorial sea was an integral part of a State's territory,
and in some cases if one party extended its territorial sea beyond the existing b-raadth
the balance would be disturbed. Accordingly, the question of the breadth of the
territorial sea should be dealt with in accordance with' the geographical situation of
States.
His delegation had submitted draft articles at the second session of the Conference
providing that the breadth of the territorial sea should be fixed jointly by the coastal
States of the region concerned. He therefore welcomed the inclusion of that principle
in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Ecuadorian proposal. The representative of China had
referred to the need to take account of the legitimate interests of neighbouring States
in fixing the breadth of the territorial sea. He agreed, and suggested that
paragraph 1.0 should be amended to take account of the interests of neighbouring States,
as well as the interests of coastal States.
Mr.RANJEVA (Madagascar) said that he supported both the statement of the
Moroccan representative and the proposals submitted by Ecuador (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.88),
because they highlighted the fact that while the sovereignty of the coastal State
remained the keystone of any politico-legal regime for the seas, international justice
demanded that the security of a coastal State's neighbours should be safeguarded.
A/C0NF.62/C.2/SR.48
Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
The Ecuadorian draft articles provided amasterly definition of territorial
waters; they were at the same time flexible in that they contemplated plurality of
regime for differs.. purposes. An import. it feature was the provision in draft
article 6 whereby coastal States renounced selfish interests for the benefit of
their neighbours. The draft articles were also realistic,sincc.it was clear that
coastal States had to ensure their sovereignty and their development by exercising
their rights. On the other hand, the maximum limit of 200 miles for territorial
waters was optional and was subject to the provisions of draft articles 9 and 10,
which took account of tl^e interests of other parties.
Mr. MAIGA (Mali) said that his delegation could not support the draft
articles in document 1,/0oHF. 62/C. 2A.88, because they took no account of international
realities. The proposed plurality of regimes might well serve to increase international
insecurity, and the concept of the exclusive economic zone was virtually excluded by
the proposal to extend territorial waters up to 200 miles. The main defect of the
proposals, however, was that they accorded no legal recognition to the right of
land-locked and gPopraphically disadvantaged States to share in maritime resources.
The language used in draft article 6 made participation completely dependent upon
the goodwill of the coastal State concerned. Such an approach undermined the basis
of the new economic order, which sought to give to all a fair share of the resources
available and equal. opportunities of development.
Mr_FERNII DES (Guinea-Bissau) said that his delegation supported the
Ecuadorian proposals (i/C01JF.62%C.2/L. 88) which seemed to meet the requirements of
both coastal and other States. He agreed in principle to fixing the limit of
territorial waters at 200 miles; only recently his country had passed a law extending
its territorial waters to 150 miles ?. a figure which was subject to later review - in
order to deal with the large numbers of foreixn fishing vessels operating off its
coast, As a small country, Guinea..Bissau required an international consensus on
the subject in cider to safeguard its national security.
Mr. PLAYA (.Albania.) said that he supported in principle the proposal
submitted. by Ecuador (A/C0NF. 62/C.2/L.80) which marked an advance for progressive
ideac on the law of the sea in a problem involving the rights of sovereign countries.
His Gc.vernment supported the principle that all sovereign Staten had the right to
determine the breadth oC cheir territorial seas reasonably, without prejudice to the
interests of neighbouring States or international navigation, according to specific
A/CONI.62/C.2/SR.48
Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
geographical, biological and oceanographic conditions, taking into account the over--
riding needs of their own national security. Consequently, his Government had
always supported the right of Latin American, African and Asian countries to extend
their territorial seas to a distance of 200 nautical miles.
In the light of the threat presented by the policy of the United States of America
and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whose fleets of warships dominated
the seas, violated the territorial waters of coastal States and plundered the natural
resources of the maritime space of sovereign countries, his country considered that
the breadth of the territorial seas of sovereign countries should not be less than
12 nautical miles.
A number of States had already established their territorial waters at a breadth
of 20, 30, 130 or 200 nautical miles. Other countries were about to extend their
territorial waters since their security was being threatened and their biological
wealth plundered by the large fleets of the two super Powers. No one doubted that
the convention would take account of the sovereign rights of States in that connexion.
There were good reasons why it should provide for an extended territorial sea:
first and foremost national security. International tension was-aggravated by the
aggressive activities of the United States and the Soviet Union, by the concentration
of their vast military forces in Europe, Asia and elsewhere and of their naval
strength in the Mediterranean and the Indian Oceans, their military bases everywhere,
and their military operations close to the frontiers or coasts of peaceful countries.
That situation demanded urgent national defence measures by all peaceful States.
The two super Powers were dividing the world into spheres of influence and
sharing world markets with the aim of dominating the whole world. They were armed
to the teeth, while they sought to disarm others and to reduce the sovereign rights
of peaceful States in the maritime sphere. Although they had fixed the limit of
their territorial seas on the basis of their own interests, they were threatening
sovereign countries which had extended their own territorial waters beyond the 12-mile
limit with a view to protecting their own national security and economic interests.
r_/corm. 62/C. 2/SR. 48
-Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
There was no recognized limit for the breadth of the territorial waters; by
custom and practice each State decided the breadth for itself - a principle recognized
in document A/CONT.62/C.2/WP.l. The two s.aper-Powers had th,-ir reasons for trying
to impose a limit cf 12 miles. They were trying' to get States to accept that limit
in exchange for recognition of an oxclcaive aconcmic zone.. That was not the right
way to approach the question because States could not trade away their Sovereign
rights. In fact, the exclusive economic zone that was being offered was no more
than the high seas in another guise and thereby drastically reduced the rights of
coastal States over their own +.w,eters, particularly with regard to fishing. The
sovereign, freedom-loving countries had become increasingly aware at the current
session that the two imperialist super-Powers were determined to preserve the
privileges acquired by their gunboat policy, and that the only way to secure their
legitimate rights was by uncompromising' straggle to safeguard their national security
and their legitimate economic interests.
Mr. GODOY (Paraguay) said that although he appreciated the reasonable
concern of coastal States to protect their resources, the draft articles in
document A/COT+F.62/C.2/L.88 could not satisfy the needs of land-locked and
geographically disadvantaged States. Under draft article 3, the convention would
impose no limit on the exercise of total sovereignity by coastal Statee up to a
distance of 200 miles: that would be equivalent in many cases to an extension of
their territory by 300 per cent, without any corresponding benefit to land-locked
and geographically disadvantaged countries It was true tha+ draft article 6 made
provision for som.= form of participation, cut only by way of concession on the part
of the coastal State and without any definition of the type of State to which it
might apply. If,. however, the rights of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged
States were not formally recognized, their peoples e'uld not be blamed for failing
to distinguish between large and small coastal States, sinoe all of them would in
effect be exercising a new form of imperialism by alaiming a monopoly of marine
resources.
Mr. PRANDLER (Hungary) said that his delegation had always counselled
moderation at me,atings of the Group of land'-locked and geographically disadvantaged
States, with a view to reaching an accommodation with coastal States. It was therefore
disappointing that there had been no response on the part of the latter, particularly
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.n
Approved For Release-2M/08/14. CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000400030015-7
among those advocating a 200 mile limit for territorial waters. The draft articles
in document A/CONP.62/C.2/L.88 were not new - they were reflected.in A/CONP.62/C.2/WP.l
and had already be i discussed and rejects,. The reasons wh they were unacceptable
had just been reiterated by the representatives of Mall- and Paraguay. If the following
session of the Conference was to produce a, convention, those advocating a 200 mile
limit must recognize, like other deletions, the need to modify their original views.
Yr. T6ULOUP14 (Crceco) sail that his delegation could support the
Ecuadorian proposals, despite its reuervations about some of the provisions concerning
the extension of the territorial ceas beyond 12 nautical miles.. The ideas underlying
the proposals were the freedom of States to establish the breadth of their territorial
sea, and respect for sovereignty. One delegation, however, had stated that in_narrow
seas where two countries faced such other, that right should not exist; he had even
criticized the part of draft article 10 which provided that a State could extend its
territorial waters for reasons of security. He would not comment on that statement,
but would leave it to tha j,udgc:,ent of mewber; of the Committee.
Mr. JAYAKUWLR (Singapore) said that for rca?3onc which it had stated on
previous occasions, his delegation could not accept the Ecuadorian proposals in
docuL,en.t A/CONr.62/C.2/L.l30, particularly the proposal to extend the territorial
waters of coastal States to 200 miles. Furthermore, the provision in draft article 6
relatinS? to land-looked and geographically disadvc'.ntaged countries was lamentably weak.
Mr. Yr2.'RRI 0.. (Spain), 9prakir.g in exercise of the right of reply, said
that he could only deplore the stat(:went mo.'.z by the reprnsent9,tive of Morocco. The
Conference was alrc dy complicated cnouR,n >?,_;hout having '16o cope with bilateral
questions which should not have been rai.:ied at the Conference and could not be resolved
? oc"n"?^r'r paaitinn a?hc~ r,^ttcr in question, as set forth in a letter
12 P ?b'uc y 1975 a;c a,r n^_~t ?.epreeonta.ti,'e of Spain to the United Natirrs
to the Chairman of the Committee of 3t,,enty-four (A/AC.1.09/477), was well-known, and
ih ir?e van no need for him to repoat I t in dr-tail. He would merely point out that the
?a'3tement he had referred to contained errors and inaccuracies of fact and law, and
iris delegation reserved the right to speak again, if appropriate, to make the necessary
cl.z =.ficitions.
A/C0flL.62/C.2/SR.48
.... ......
Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
 Approved For Release 2002/08/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400030015-7
In his delegation I o view, the Committee should concentrate on the difficult task
of negotiation which had been 'nt:?usted to it, with a view to reaching a just and
equitable solution for all the problems of the law of the sc,.
Mr. Soo Kil PARK (Republic of. Korea) speaking in exercise of the right of
reply, said that the representative of the Democratic ?eople's Republic of Korea had
described his country as being under foreign occupation: that was a complete
distortion of the facts. '.'hen, in 1951, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had
attacked his country,' United Eati.on., forces had been sent to Korea. in conformity with
United Nations resolutions. His Government would be willing to see those forces
depart if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was prepared to renounce its
bellicose policy.
Mr. CFiARBI (Morocco), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that
the point at issue between his country and Spain was closely linked with the question
of territorial waters and, that the e::isting illogical and one-:. ided claims might
cause international complications. His delegation had noted that the Spanish
representative held that the issue should be settled by the parties concerned. His
delegation considered that the Spanish periodical Africa, which it had distributed to
all delegations constituted sufficient evidence in itsoi f of the justice of the
Moroccan came.
DRAFT STATEMENT ON THE WORK t)F THE SECOND COMMITTEE (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.89)
Mr. NANDAN (Fiji), Ripporteur, introducing his draft statement on the work
of the Second Committee (:t/CC'd:,F.62/C.2/L.8q), said that it was modelled on a similar
statement on the www.:rk of th ceeoid oessin:i, He drew attention to drafting changes
in paragraphs 3 and 5. The statement would have two appendices, one listing the
formal documents submit?C; to thc; Cr..ir,rr~tte and the other containing an index to the
summary records of its formal meetings.
Mr. DJALAL (Indonesia) pointed out that archipelagic waters should be
included in the list of aubjects mentioned in paragraph 5. He proposed that the end
of the second line of paragraph 14 should be amended to read "in informal consultative
and other groups".
Mr. NANDAN (Fiji), Rapporteur, accepted those amendments.
1L7ie Comruit ltee-> Look noto of thf L;t I'hr ni'~nt o,n :i. tc; wr,rk.
The meeting rose, at 6.1 p .m.
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.48
--_----Approved For Release-2002/&8/1-4: CIA-RDP8-2SO0697R000400030015--7 - ---