LAW OF THE SEA COUNTRY STUDY JAPAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 51
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 28, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 1, 1974
• Content Type: STUDY

Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
Secret
No Foreign Dissent
Law of the Sea Country Study
Japan
Secret
BGI LOS 74-12
May 1974
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions
Classified by 019641
Exempt from general declassification schedule
of E.O. 11652, exemption category:
?5B(1), (2), and (3)
Automatically declassified on:
Date Impossible to Determine
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
25X1 B
SECRET
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
The Law of the Sea Country
Studies are prepared to support
the NSC Interagency Task Force
on
the Law of the Sea. The
countries to be included in
the
series are selected on the
basis of priorities suggested
by
the chairman of the Task
Force.
Each study has two parts. Part I is an analysis of the
primary geographic, economic, and political factors that
might influence the country's law of the sea policy, the
public and private expressions of that policy,
Part II provides
basic data and information bearing on law of the sea matters.
This study was prepared by the office of Basic and
Geographic Intelligence. Biographic support was provided by
the Central Reference Service. The study was coordinated
within the Directorate of Intelligence and with the Depart-
ment of State. Comments and questions may be directed to the
LOS Country Studies Working Group, Code 143, Extension 2257.
SECRET
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
25X1 B
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
CONTENTS
Part I - Law of the Sea Analysis
Summary 1
Factors Influencing Policy. 3
Law of the Sea Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Ke Polic Makers LOS NeNegotiators and Advisers . 18
X113
Part II - Background Information
Basic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 33
Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Present Ocean Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Action on Significant UNResolutions . . . . . . . . . . 36
Membership in Organizations Related to LOS Interests ...... 37
Draft articles submitted by Japan to the Seabed Committee
Maps: Regional map
Theoretical Division of the World Seabed
SECRET
NO FOREIGN DISSEM
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A0001001209p141
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Law of the Sea Country Study
Supplement
BGI LOS 74-12 SUPP
January 1976
Japan
Japan remains vitally interested in the outcome of the Law
of the Sea Conference, heavily dependent as that island nation
is on all phases of ocean activity. Overall, Japan's stand on LOS
matters is now closer than ever to that of the United States,
although some minor differences still exist. The Japanese
government has been able to reconcile earlier bureaucratic
differences over several controversial aspects of its LOS
policies, but now faces vexing new problems in this field.
As anticipated, Japan's initial opposition to the concept
of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone has given way to a more
pragmatic conditional approval. Japan originally opposed the
concept because of the anticipated adverse impact on its important
distant-water fishing operations, but came to realize that its
complete isolation on this foregone issue would only hamper the
working out of ad hoc arrangements with the coastal states for
continued fishing rights. Japan's strategy now is to rely on
economic and technological aid offers to help secure such rights,
while insisting on provisions in the LOS Treaty guaranteeing the
principle of full utilization of living resources in the economic
zone and protection for the established fishing rights of outside
states. Vital to Japan in this regard is continued access to its
most important traditional fishing grounds, the north Pacific.
Reflecting its basic view that coastal state rights in the economic
zone should be limited, Japan also supports a 200-mile outer limit
for the continental shelf.
This supplement was prepared by the Office of Geographic and
Cartographic Research to support the NSC Interagency Task Force
on the Law of the Sea. The supplement updates, but is not a
replacement for, BGI LOS 74-12. Comments and questions may be
directed to Code 143, Extension 2257.
Approved For Release 200j 36,e.I I R 79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Paradoxically, while decrying the actions or contemplated
actions of other nations to extend their fishing or territorial
seas unilaterally, Japan is now talking about possibly taking
such action itself. Increased Soviet fishing operations off
Japan's Pacific coastline in recent years has brought heavy
political pressure on Tokyo to protect Japanese coastal fisheries
either by extending the territorial waters to 12 miles from the
present three, or by declaring an exclusive fishing zone of
similar extent. Although the latter action would present fewer
diplomatic and security headaches, the Japanese feel that it
would not be as effective because the Soviets could press their
traditional fishing rights in such a zone. Extension to a
12-mile territorial sea, however, would bring three important
Japanese straits used by world maritime traffic -- including
the Soviet Far East Fleet -- within Japan's territorial waters,
raising serious political and security problems that would be
compounded if this step were taken unilaterally. The Japanese
government clearly would prefer to solve this dilemma by means
of an LOS Treaty specifying a 12-mile territorial sea and a
200-mile economic zone, but fears that it may not be able to
parry internal pressures until a treaty comes into existence.
If the Japanese straits were to come within the territorial
waters of Japan, either through unilateral action or under an
LOS Treaty, a conflict would arise with Japan's so-called three
non-nuclear principles which preclude the making, possession, or
presence of nuclear weapons in that country. Because of this
inherent problem, and also because of security concerns over the
growing strength of the Soviet fleet, Japan was opposed at the
time of the Caracas session to the concept of unimpeded transit of
straits within territorial waters, preferring instead the regime
of innocent passage. Various factors, including the overriding
importance to maritime Japan of the principle of freedom of
navigation and the strong feelings of its treaty ally, the
United States, on the straits issue, led the Japanese government
to reach a consensus on unimpeded passage.
Despite expected heavy criticism of this stand by the
opposition parties, the government is prepared to finesse the
apparent contradiction with the non-nuclear principles on the
grounds that international law takes precedence over state
policy. Since this argument would be difficult to defend if
Japan's territorial waters were extended unilaterally, this
amounts to a strong deterrent against such action.
Approved For Release 200M9 giAp F P79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/(P/3,a~#TPtP~9-01054A000100120001-7
JAPAN
Part I - Law of the Sea Analysis
A. SUMMARY CH;NAE II
As a maritime nation and a treaty ally of
the United States, Japan's basic outlook on
Law of the Sea (LOS) issues coincides with U.S.
views in most respects. Japan, like the
United States, sees the successful achievement
of a comprehensive law of the sea regime as
imperative to end current unilateral actions
by various states that threaten freedom of
navigation and other traditional uses of the
sea. Collaboration with the United States
on LOS matters has been close, and coordination of effort can be
expected to continue in the conference despite some differences.
Certain ambiguities in Japan's position -- particularly concerning
fishery and transit matters -- result from domestic political
pressures and Japan's desire to enhance its image of impartiality,
thereby promoting Japanese worldwide trade interests.
Japan is prepared to support the 12-mile* limit as the maximum
breadth of the territorial sea, provided related matters concerning
navigation and fisheries are satisfactorily resolved. Essentially,
it supports the objective of reinforcing the law of the sea on the
basis of the widest possible area of the high seas and the narrowest
possible territorial seas. As regards the straits issue, despite
its basic views on freedom of navigation, Japan has reservations
concerning the free transit of warships, particularly those with
nuclear weapons; it also has problems with the concept of submerged
transit through straits and unrestricted overflights by aircraft.
On the question of archipelagos, Japan has a fairly sympathetic
and relaxed attitude, but conditions its support for this principle
on maintaining freedom of navigation in archipelago waters and on
achieving agreement on a reasonable phase-out period for foreign
fisheries. Japan sees a consensus emerging for a 200-mile-distance
* All distances are in nautical miles unless otherwise specified.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/0g/22PFFIA4 UP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 200132 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
criterion for the outer limit of a nation's continental shelf
and appears willing to accept this. Japan supports coastal
state jurisdiction over mineral resources in its economic zone,
but opposes proposals for establishing exclusive rights over
living resources therein.
Japan attaches great importance to the question of fisheries,
traditionally a fundamental industry although comprising only a
fraction of the GNP. Given its special role, fisheries will be
a key and delicate issue for Japan at the LOS Conference because
of domestic political considerations. Historically interested
in free access to fisheries, and as a principal distant-water
fishing nation, Japan is distressed by the trend toward ever
greater unilateral extensions of jurisdiction by coastal states.
While opposing the concept that coastal states alone have special
interests with respect to coastal species, Japan realistically
assumes that some accommodation to that viewpoint is inevitable.
Japan seeks to prevent coastal states from claiming broad
exclusive fishery zones by proposing certain preferential fishing
rights for developing nations.
Japan sees the benefits in acting in concert with the United
States on fishery questions, but especially opposes the U.S.
position on coastal state control over anadromous species,
preferring to handle this problem through regional arrangements
rather than including it in the overall LOS regime. In a
broader sense also, Japan espouses international fishery commissions
as the best instruments for protecting its diversified fishing
interests.
Japan's stand on an international Authority for the deep
seabed is compatible with U.S. views. At least initially, Japan
advocates keeping the machinery uncomplicated; it sees the
Authority as a regulatory body for licensing exploitation activities,
not an operating entity itself.
The issue of marine pollution is another important one for
Japan; as in the case of fisheries, there are domestic political
considerations. Japan concedes that coastal states have certain
special interests in pollution control, but insists on the
importance of applying international standards in order to protect
navigation from arbitrary interference. Japan urges a global
approach to deal with marine pollution, and, as regards enforcement,
it feels that the principle of flag-state jurisdiction should
continue to be applicable pending the international establishment
of standardized enforcement regulations.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 sPJ-; tDP79-01054A000100120001-7
As an advance nation with extensive marine interests, Japan
strongly supports the principle of freedom of peaceful scientific
research in the high seas. Nevertheless, it admits the need for
some international standards to be applied, and also concedes
that coastal states have certain rights in connection with research
conducted in waters under their jurisdiction.
B. FACTORS INFLUENCING LOS POLICY
Special Geographic Features
The Japanese arc of islands, comprising the four main islands
and about 3,000 smaller ones, extends some 1,700 miles from north
to south off the eastern coast of Asia. At its closest point
to the mainland, Japan is about 95 miles from the Korean peninsula.
The Japanese islands, for the most part, have a fairly extensive
shelf out to the 200-meter isobath, and the continental margin
extends well seaward in certain portions of both coasts of the
principal islands. To the west, Japan shares the continental
shelf with the U.S.S.R., South Korea, and People's Republic of China.
Uses of the Sea
Coastal Area Mineral Resources -- Japan already is engaged in
limited oil production and exploration close off its coasts, and
some of the world's richest deposits of petroleum are believed
located on the continental shelf shared with China and Korea.
However, exploration and exploitation in many of these areas
awaits agreement on jurisdictional lines, particularly in the
case of China.
Living Resources -- In terms of annual catch (approximately
10 million metric tons) Japan ranks with Peru among the world's
leading fishing countries, but Japanese fishing activities
overall are the most diversified, extensive, and important of any
nation. More than 90% of Japan's total catch is taken from the
Pacific. Notwithstanding Japan's considerable distant water
operations, coastal and inland fisheries account for nearly 30%
of total Japanese fishing products by weight and over 50% by
value. These fisheries are scattered all along the coasts of
the Japanese islands and include traditional pearl, oyster, and
seaweed cultures. Coastal species include herring, cod, salmon,
saury, crab, sardines, mackerel, and croakers.
Offshore trawl and purse seine fisheries, particularly in the
East China Sea and Yellow Sea, together with salmon and crab
fisheries, produce well over 3 million tons of fish annually.
Approved For Release 2001/03/2'1 A-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 20(~J 22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
The north Pacific salmon and king crab fisheries, regulated by
Japan-Soviet and Japan-U.S. agreements, are operated by catcher
vessels associated with factory ships. Distant-water activities
by trawlers and seiners have considerably increased, particularly
in the north Pacific; otter-trawl, factory ship operations range
from New Zealand to Africa.
In addition to skipjack, pole, and line fisheries in the
western Pacific, Japanese tuna long-line operations are virtually
worldwide, covering the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans and
supported by a network of foreign bases and transshipment centers.
Japan is also the world's leading whaling nation, with Antarctic
and north Pacific expeditions producing some 120,000 tons of whale
meat and coastal whaling activities adding an additional 36,000
annually.
Over 20% of the Japanese fish catch is converted into fishmeal
to meet the rapidly growing demands for animal and poultry feeds.
Additionally, Japanese annual exports of fish and fish products,
particularly canned tuna and salmon, exceed $330 million in value.
There are about 400,000 Japanese fishing craft -- more than
the number registered in any other nation. Nearly 95% of the more
than 2 million registered tons of fishing vessels are powered-craft.
Despite constant modernization and increasing catches, the relative
importance of the fishing industry in the total GNP, as well as in
foreign trade, is diminishing as a result of the more rapid growth
of other industrial sectors.
Deep Seabed Capabilities and Interests -- Japan is one of the
few nations in the world capable of attempting deep seabed mining
activities on a commercial scale. As a resource poor nation, there
is considerable interest in this new field, and various experiments
with equipment and techniques have been conducted in recent years.
Although such activities ostensibly are being carried out by
private Japanese enterprises, administrative guidance and some
financial help is being provided by the Ministry of International
Trade and Industry. At this formative juncture, considerable
rivalry exists among the Japanese big business interests involved.
Thus far at least one collective group has been organized to conduct
seabed mining operations, but individual Japanese firms are also
forming consortiums with large mining companies in the United
States (e.g. Kennecott Copper) and elsewhere. Basically, Japan's
views on the projected deep seabed Authority and related matters
closely parallel those of the United States.
Approved For Release 20OT 2 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/2g- -RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
Marine Transportation -- Merchant shipping is vitally important
to Japan because its economy is so dependent on foreign trade. The
Japanese merchant fleet is approaching the 9,000 mark, the largest
nationally owned fleet in the world. As of 1 July 1973, the number
of vessels 100 gross registered tons (g.r.t.) and over owned by the
Japanese was 8,540, totaling 37,500,000 g.r.t. or 58,300,000
deadweight tons (d.w.t.). Of the total tonnage, 43.6% are tankers,
19.5% are ore/bulk carriers, and 14.6% are general cargo carriers.
A major number of the tankers are in the 200,000 d.w.t. class.
Japan is also engaged in an ambitious container-ship construction
program.
The Japanese oceangoing merchant fleet is heavily engaged in
worldwide long-haul service, operating on both a scheduled and
tramp basis. Coastal shipping is the primary long-distance freight
carrier in Japan, accounting for over 40% of the total volume of
domestic transport carried by all modes.
Japan has some 50 major ports and more than 2,000 minor
ports. With the exception of Sasebo and Yokosuka, where there
are U.S. naval bases, the major ports are fundamentally commercial.
Naval and Air Transportation Considerations -- Japan's Maritime
Self-Defense Force comprises only about 37,000 personnel and approxi-
mately 200 combatant ships, including 44 destroyer types and 14
submarines. The primary mission is defense of coastal waters and
close-in sea approaches to Japan. With its limited resources
Japan is fundamentally dependent on U.S. naval forces for protection
of its maritime interests. Japan's military air arm is relatively
parallel to that of the naval force as regards smallness of size
and limited capabilities. In terms of civil air, however, Japan
is a .major world aviation power, with international routes circling
the globe.
Political and Other Factors
As a maritime power (Japan is a member of the LOS "Group of
Five" along with the United States, U.S.S.R., Britain, and France)
and as a military and economic treaty ally of the United States,
Japan's basic outlook on LOS issues coincides with American views
in most respects. Collaboration and coordination with the United
States on LOS matters has been close over the years, and this can
be expected to continue through the actual conference sessions.
Still, there are some divergencies and ambiguities in Japan's
overall LOS stand, particularly concerning fisheries and strait
transit aspects. Such differences arise from a combination of
Approved For Release 2001/03/22S"-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 200132 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
domestic political pressures and Japan's desire to enhance its
neutral image, especially among the lesser developed countries,
thereby protecting and promoting vital Japanese trading interests.
C. LAW OF THE SEA POLICY
Territorial Seas
Japan is fully prepared to support the 12-mile limit as the
maximum breadth of the territorial sea, provided related matters
concerning navigation are satisfactorily resolved. Also,
international agreement on the nature and extent of special
advantages to be accorded to coastal fisheries apparently will
be a sine qua non for Japan's agreement to the 12-mile limit.
Japan feels strongly that such special rights should be defined
in clear and precise terms so that they will not leave the way
open for unlimited and unjustified claims.
In any event, Japan feels that agreement on a standard limit
of the territorial sea is of fundamental importance. It deplores
the rash of unilateral claims made in recent years, and sees this
process as eroding the legal order of the sea to the detriment of
all nations. Japan, which presently holds to a 3-mile limit, views
broad territorial seas or jurisdictional zones as having serious
implications for world trade, conservation of fish resources, and
preservation of the marine environment. Essentially, it supports
the objective of reinforcing the law of the sea on the basis of
the widest possible area of the high seas and the narrowest possible
territorial seas.
Japan concedes the possibility that the concept of innocent
passage in territorial seas may need redefinition. For instance,
it recognizes that the question of the pollution threat from large
oil tankers may well require an updating of the innocent passage
principle. However, Japan feels strongly that internationally
agreed standards on pollution control, prevention of accidents, and
damage liability should be applied in the territorial sea to the
exclusion of coastal state standards. In this connection, Japan
sees as particularly helpful relevant conventions of the Inter-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO).
Strai is
As a maritime nation, Japan naturally is attracted to the
principle of free transit through international straits, but its
position on this aspect is also being influenced by other national
interests. For example, the passage of nuclear-powered vessels,
Approved For Release 2001I ` 1 2 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 5IP}ATRDP79-01054A000100120001-7
much less that of warships equipped with nuclear weapons, is a
sensitive matter for the Japanese. The concept of submerged
transit and that of unrestricted overflight also present problems.
Japan recognizes that the right of innocent passage as codified
in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone is ambiguous as the term "innocent" is susceptible to narrow
and arbitrary interpretation by coastal states. In view of the
crucial importance of straits for international navigation, the
Japanese government feels that the proposal for guaranteed freedom
of transit for all ordinary merchant ships merits international
support. In peacetime, the same freedom could be enjoyed by
warships. Additionally, free transit of nuclear-powered ships
might also be feasible provided a widely accepted international
regime concerning civil liabilities of such ships could be
established.
However, as regards the transit of warships equipped with
nuclear weapons, Japan feels that coastal states should have the
right to require their prior approval. Japan also feels that
exemption of submarines from the requirement of navigating on
the surface might create security problems for coastal states.
Similarly, for reasons of security and public safety, Japan
feels that there should be no derogation from existing rights of
states to regulate aircraft flights over their territory,
including territorial waters. If the regulation of flights over
territorial straits is to be different from International Civil
Aviation Organization regulations, then the rights and limitations
must be spelled out. Japan believes that unrestricted overflight
for military aircraft of narrow straits would be particularly
hazardous. In any event, the idea of separate regimes for
vessels and aircraft in connection with straits passage is
appealing to Japan.
Although Japan does have these reservations on straits passage,
it has taken pains thus far to avoid stressing them publically in
deference to U.S. efforts to promote the concept of unrestricted
passage. In the final analysis, Japan's position on a straits
regime appears somewhat flexible, and amenable to compromise.
Archipelagos
Japan, as part of its calculated effort to accommodate the
LOS viewpoints of other nations short of detriment to its own
basic interests, has a fairly sympathetic attitude toward the
archipelago concept. While stressing the need to keep in mind
Approved For Release 2001/03/299114-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 200Q2 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
those aspects relating to legitimate uses of the sea -- such as
freedom of navigation -- Japan feels that the fundamental problem
connected with the question of archipelagos is in determining the
baselines for measuring the extent of the territorial sea. Japan
believes that the essential principle in this regard is that the
baselines be drawn in such a way so as not to exceed 100 miles
in length between any two points. Japan feels that this approach
would allow the application of the archipelago concept to both
the Philippines and Indonesia, even though these states might
not be wholly satisfied.
Another concern of Japan as regards the archipelago concept
is that of fishing rights. Japan will seek protection for its
traditional fishing rights in archipelagic waters, possibly in
the form of a reasonable phase-out period. This phase-out
concept, together with enactment of Japan's expressed wish that
there be no effect at all on fisheries in any archipelago until
after a LOS convention enters into force, could assure Japanese
fishing rights in archipelagos for a long time.
Coastal State Jurisdiction Beyond the Territorial Sea
Japan sees its interests largely as a maritime country, and
hence tends to favor narrow limits of exclusive coastal state
jurisdiction and the widest possible international seabed area.
However, it has some reservations because of certain offshore
seabed areas of special interest, i.e., the potentially oil and
gas rich East China Sea continental shelf that extends in a long
arc off Japan's western coasts.
Japan sees a consensus emerging for a 200-mile-distance
criterion for the outer limit of a nation's continental shelf,
and appears able to accept this. Whatever the final decision,
it advocates the application of a single, uniform criterion of
distance. On the question of delimitation of a continental shelf
between opposite and adjacent states, Japan favors the principle
of equidistance as an equitable method that should be adopted
as a general rule. In this connection, Japan has had considerable
success in reaching agreement with South Korea over apportionment
of the potentially oil rich shelf between the two countries.
Japan fears that if coastal states are allowed to define
arbitrarily the extent of the continental shelf over which they
claim jurisdiction, the deep seabed area may cease to be of any
economic interests from the viewpoint of the international
Authority. Such a development, Japan argues, would be detrimental
to the entire international community. Japan has been distressed
Approved For Release 20019S/: CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22sh RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
by instances of unilateral extensions of jurisdictional claims
by various countries in recent years, but has protested only a
few of these actions, and has not had a uniform policy in this
regard. The problem lies in Japan's desire to appear evenhanded
in dealing with the various developing countries so as not to be
accused of favoritism or prejudice.
Japan's views on coastal state jurisdictional matters were
submitted to the Seabed Committee in August 1973 in its "Principles
on the Delimitation of the Coastal Seabed Area" (see Annex). The
principles, inter alia, stated the right of a coastal state to
establish beyond its territorial sea a coastal seabed area -- extent
to be determined by international agreement -- within which it would
exercise sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of
mineral resources.
Japan opposes proposals designed to establish exclusive rights
of coastal states over living resources on the basis of patrimonial
sea or exclusive economic zones. It argues that the extension of
national sovereignty into the high seas would increase rather than
decrease existing inequities; furthermore, it would prevent effective
international control and management of living resources. Basically,
Japan feels that freedom of the high seas should be limited and
rectified where necessary, rather than having the entire concept
replaced by a poor substitute, i.e., extensive coastal state
jurisdiction.
Fisheries
Japan attaches great importance to the question of fisheries,
traditionally a basic industry of the Japanese. Because of its
limited agricultural potential, Japan has long relied on fish as
an indispensable source of food and protein. Fish and fish products,
much of it now imported, provide well over half of the total animal
protein available.
Given the special role of fisheries in Japan, and partly as a
result of foreign pressures and restrictions imposed on Japanese
fishermen (fishing negotiations with the U.S.S.R. traditionally
have been most difficult), the issue of fisheries will be an
extremely important and delicate one for Japan at the LOS Conference.
Even though fisheries represent only a tiny percentage of Japan's
total GNP, there are important domestic political considerations
involved.
Historically interested in free access to fisheries, and, as a
principal distant-water fishing nation, Japan is distressed by the
trend toward ever greater unilateral extensions of jurisdiction by
Approved For Release 2001 /03/22'? 1 RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001) J : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
coastal states. At the same time, Japan takes a realistic view
of the inevitability of change, and its efforts in this respect
have been directed at minimizing the impact on Japanese fishing
interests. At LOS preparatory sessions, Japanese representatives
have argued the importance of avoiding the two extremes of
status quo and exclusive fishery zones. However, again in prag-
matic fashion, they have stressed that whatever the final outcome
on fisheries may be, the rights of those nations now engaged in
fishing on the high seas must be taken into consideration, and
no steps taken to cut off such rights preci pi ti ously.
Japan counters the argument that coastal states solely have
special interests and responsibilities with respect to coastal
species by pointing out that distant-water fishing states also
have such interests and responsibilities, i.e., coastal species
have a relationship with the entire ecosystem of the seas, of
which they form a part. Moreover, distant-water fishing states
may equally be economically dependent on fishing for coastal
species.
In response to the demands of certain coastal states at the
Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee meeting in Nigeria
in January 1972, Japan made a compromise proposal for a regime
of fisheries on the high seas which it submitted in modified form
to the UN Seabed Committee in August (see Annex). Japan proposed
that a coastal state -- particularly a developing one -- be
granted certain preferential fishing rights in waters adjacent
to its territorial sea; the limits of these adjacent waters would
be agreed upon internationally. In essence, such fishing rights
would ensure the coastal states an allocation of the living
resources in terms of the maximum annual catch obtainable on the
basis of their individual fishing capacities.
The general rules for the protection of such preferential
rights of coastal states should be flexible enough to take
individual cases into account, and should be the subject of
negotiation between the coastal and other states concerned. If
such negotiations failed, the dispute should be referred to a
body of experts for a binding decision, unless settled by other
means agreed upon by the two parties. Until the dispute is
settled, other states should restrain their fishing efforts in
accordance with agreed interim measures. As regards highly
migratory and anadromous stocks of fish, no preferential rights
of catch should be recognized for coastal states.
Japan feels that it is not appropriate for a coastal nation to
enforce its fishery claims by unilateral action, but instead
should rely on agreement between the states concerned and with
Approved For Release 200 16 2 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001 /03/2Zj i -RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
disputes settled by arbitration. Enforcement jurisdiction under
the agreed rules should be retained by the flag states, although
coastal states would have the right to inspect foreign vessels
and to inform the flag state of any violations.
Japan believes that preferential fishing rights are justified
only when a developing state is unable to compete with developed
countries in fishing in adjacent coastal waters. Also, such
preferential rights are to be temporary and are not to be
considered a special right of a coastal state. Generally
speaking, Japan feels that there is no need to accord preferential
fishing rights to developed countries, which have sufficient
financial and technological resources to make their fishing
industries competitive. However, it grants that certain
fisheries -- usually smallscale -- in developed countries do
deserve some degree of protection in terms of the minimum annual
catch required for their continued operation on existing scales.
In making its proposals, a basic aim of the Japanese is to
establish the right of all nations to fish on the high seas, even
though granting that some regulation is necessary because the
living resources are not inexhaustible. To line up support for
its views, Japan argues that broad exclusive fishing zones would
harm the legitimate interests of noncoastal states, and would
militate against the sound conservation and management of fish
species. In this connection, Japan points out that the living
resources of the high seas are not evenly distributed -- even
among coastal states -- and that this makes it even more important
to consider the interests of all states. Japan notes, moreover,
that many developing countries are making great efforts to expand
their fishing industries, and that this fact must also be considered.
Japan agrees with the United States that the regulation of
highly migratory species should be entrusted to appropriate
international organizations. As regards anadromous stocks, however,
Japan feels that they should be regulated by special agreements,
or through international or regional fishery commissions. Japan
argues that the yield of anadromous species should not be reserved
for particular countries since the major part of their life cycle
is spent in mid-ocean, far from any coast. Japan notes that the
problem of anadromous stocks is one which mainly affects the
northern hemisphere, and is already being dealt with by a number
of organizations, particularly with respect to salmon. Hence,
it feels that the question of anadromous species should not be
discussed at all in the LOS Conference. Concerning the cost of
measures to conserve anadromous species, Japan feels that all
interested states should share the burden of such expenses as
appropriate according to individual circumstances. It cites the
Approved For Release 2001/03/2f" FA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001//i CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
efforts of the joint U.S.-Canada Commission for the protection
and improvement of spawning grounds of the red salmon resources
on the Pacific Northwest coast as a good example of how effective
protection can be assured through the cooperation of interested
states.
A basic viewpoint of Japan is that the question of conservation
should not be treated as an allocation problem. Broadly speaking,
Japan feels that all states must cooperate in the formulation and
adoption of necessary conservation measures, based on many varied
factors such as ecological conditions, biological characteristics
of the stock concerned, etc. While endorsing the efforts of the
Food and-Agricultural Organization (FAO) in this complex field,
Japan holds that there is, in fact, no universal solution for the
problem of conserving living resources. For this reason, Japan
also favors regional approaches wherein individual conservation
problems can be handled flexibly through regional fishery
commissions. In short, Japan urges that states make maximum
use of both international and regional organizations in undertaking
conservation measures; states should also strengthen the functions
of existing commissions and cooperate in the establishment of new
ones as needed. Of the more than twenty international or regional
fishery commissions already in existence, Japan is a member of
more than half of them.
Japan concedes that there are certain weaknesses in the fishery
commissions in terms of ensuring effective conservation measures.
For example, not all countries active in a given fishery are
necessarily members of a relevant commission. Japan holds that
this problem can be overcome by requiring all such countries to
become members or at least comply with the conservation measures
taken by that commission. Japan notes, for example, that the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has solved this problem
by convening intergovernmental meetings outside the commission
so that nonmembers also can become involved in the commission's
regulations. As regards the argument that international regulations
often have been too few and too late because of the difficulty
in obtaining acceptance of scientific evaluations, Japan believes
that there should be acceptance of the principle that conservation
measures must be adopted on the basis of the best evidence available,
and that no state should be exempt from the obligation to take con-
servation measures on the ground that insufficient scientific
findings are lacking.
Deep Seabed
Because of the as yet many unknowns concerning the economic
potential of the deep seabed, Japan cautions against establishing
at the outset an elaborate international machinery, or Authority,
Approved For Release 2001 /T CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/228RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
that might be out of proportion to actual needs, or an expensive
machinery that might absorb all or most of the revenues accruing
from the exploitation of the seabed resources. In short, the
machinery should be both effective and practical. Japan also
opposes any interim moratorium on exploratory or experimental
activities, arguing that such advance work is vital to the
development of an adequate technology by the time the inter-
national machinery is established.
Japan sees the role of the Authority as a regulatory body for
licensing the development activities of the international seabed.
In addition, the Authority should be truly international in
nature, and organized in such a way as to accommodate the interests
of all member states in an equitable manner. Japan believes that
benefit sharing criteria should be specified in the treaty that
establishes the Authority.
The principal organs of the machinery should be so composed
as to make it possible for the views of member states at varying
stages of economic development and with diverse economic interests
to be reflected in a fair and balanced manner. With such considera-
tions in mind, the Japanese draft, "Outline of a Convention on the
International Seabed Regime and Machinery," (see Annex) presented
in November 1971, suggests the establishment of four principal
organs within the International Seabed Authority: an Assembly,
Council, Tribunal, and Secretariat. As in other draft proposals
on this subject, the Assembly would include all members, the
Council would have limited membership, and the Secretariat would
have a permanent staff.
In the Assembly, each member state would have one vote, and
decisions would be on the basis of a majority of those present.
The Assembly would exercise general supervision over the work of
the machinery and would elect Council members, in addition to
having other powers.
The Council would be composed of 24 members: six nations with
advanced technology would be designated; the other 18 would be
elected, of which at least 12 would be developing countries, and
three landlocked nations. Each member would have an equal vote.
Voting on procedural questions would be by majority of those
present, and by a two-thirds majority on other matters. The
Council would have the important powers and functions, inter alia,
of establishing rules and procedures in respect of such matters
as the issuance of exploration and exploitation licenses; collec-
tion and distribution of revenues from license fees, rental fees,
and royalties; prevention of pollution resulting from the
Approved For Release 2001/03/22. 5I RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03JUr: CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
exploration and exploitation of the seabed resources; supervision
of resource development activities in coordination with national
authorities; and any other matter necessary for the development
of the seabed resources. Japan supports the idea of limiting
each state to a certain number of mining sites. Presumably, the
determination of site quotas would also be a function of the
Council.
While recognizing the need to establish a competent and
independent Tribunal, the Japanese proposal seeks to avoid the
premature establishment of an elaborate institution to settle
disputes. Therefore, it suggests the establishment of an ad hoc
Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, of which one each -shall
be designated by the respective parties to a dispute, and the
third member -- who would act as chairman -- to be chosen jointly
by them. Decisions of the Tribunal shall be by majority vote.
Japan also has privately put forth the idea of some possible
role in this for the International Court of Justice.
Japan views the Secretariat as an important organ of the
international machinery, and suggests that the Secretary-General
be appointed by the Council and entrusted with certain specified
functions, possibly including involvement in the issuance and
revocation of licenses.
In its proposed method of operations, the Authority would issue
licenses only to member states, but members could then issue
sublicenses to operators. The Authority would not be involved in
actual operations, but would confine itself to a supervisory and
regulartory role. The Authority would submit periodic reports
of its activities to the appropriate organs of the UN.
Pollution
Japan accords high priority to environmental pollution control,
and has been in close consultation with the United States on this
subject over the past several years. The problem of marine
pollution is of special concern to Japan in view of its heavy
dependence on the sea as a source of foodstuffs. In particular,
the Japanese government has long been sensitive to the problems
of oil spillage from ships and the release of radio-active
materials in the sea. In 1970, Japan enacted marine pollution
prevention legislation that not only enforces the strict controls
over oil discharge by ships adopted by IMCO in 1969, but also
prohibits the discharge in Japanese waters of all kinds of harmful
wastes by ships and marine installations.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22: CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22s--RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
In the larger sense, Japan feels that the only effective way
to deal with marine pollution is through a global approach, in
which all nations would observe internationally set rules and
standards in every part of the world ocean. While willing to
grant coastal states certain powers of investigation and prosecu-
tion concerning pollution trespasses in an area -- to be delimited
by international agreement -- adjacent to their territorial seas,
Japan insists that applicable standards be international, not
unilaterally fixed by individual states. Japan argues that the
latter case would result in a confusing array of inconsistent
and arbitrary controls which would not only prove ineffective
in dealing with marine pollution -- which knows no zonal
boundaries -- but also would pose a threat to freedom of naviga-
tion.
Even after international rules are agreed upon, Japan holds that
the powers of enforcement should not be delegated entirely to the
coastal states. The proposal submitted by Japan to the Seabed
Committee in August 1973 on enforcement measures by coastal states
for the purpose of preventing marine pollution (see Annex) reflects
in part Japan's appreciation of the desire of coastal states for a
greater role in the preservation of the marine environment. How-
ever, another important factor behind Japan's proposal is strong
domestic pressure, as focused by the Environment Ministry, for
combating marine pollution. Ministry spokesmen have argued the
need for the enforcement of discharge standards within set
pollution control zones in order to protect Japan's coasts. But
this argument is also a tactical ploy to encourage broad agreement
on international standards for vessels.
Japan feels that the most clear-cut solution for the elimination
of marine pollution is the control of pollutants at their source.
From this viewpoint, the LOS Conference should endeavor to agree
upon a set of rules and standards in the form of a treaty to be
applied universally to control the sources of pollution regardless
of location; such international pollution standards, however,
should take into account special areas. For the comprehensive
measures needed to preserve the marine environment, Japan feels
that national, regional, and global approaches must be coordinated
so as to provide a basis for mutual assistance in data acquisition,
exchange of information, and monitoring. While recognizing that
measures for the control of land-based pollution should be taken
primarily at the national level, Japanese representatives have
expressed the hope that the LOS Conference might agree on basic
guidelines for rules to combat this major source of marine pollution
in order to reduce the present lack of uniformity in national legis-
lation.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 sFdfATRDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001~9~13? : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
Japan also believes that the serious problem of marine
pollution highlights the need for promoting marine scientific
research, since this can help identify pollutants and their
sources, and aid in analyzing the effects on all forms of marine
life. It is also essential in Japan's view, that in preparing
a universal treaty on the prevention and control of marine
pollution, the LOS Conference utilize fully the various-studies
and proposals on pollution control made by such international
bodies as IMCO, FAO, UNESCO, WHO, and IAEA. In particular,
Japan feels that the contributions of IMCO in this field should
not be undervalued. Japan suggests that a good starting point
for tackling the pollution problem on an international level
would be the Declaration on the Human Environment and the General
Guidelines and Principles for the Preservation of the Marine
Environment adopted by the Conference on the Human Environment
in Stockholm in 1972. The concept of joint responsibility
of states embodied in that declaration coincides with Japan's
view that close cooperation among nations is essential for the
prevention and control of marine pollution.
Japan is of the opinion that freedom of navigation can be
maintained while attacking the problem of marine pollution by
agreement on universal rules and standards to be applied by each
state to its vessels. In the matter of enforcement, Japan feels
that the principle of flag-state jurisdiction should continue to
be applied until such time as detailed enforcement regulations
can be standardized concerning judicial proceedings and punitive
measures. Port state enforcement is considered by Japan to be
inadequate. Japan feels that however complicated the problem
of establishing a liability regime may be, such a legal framework
is a basic requirement for the protection of the marine environ-
ment. Japan has suggested that a basis for the development of
international rules of law relating to liability and compensation
for marine pollution might well be the International Convention
on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage adopted at Brussels
in 1969 and the supplementary Convention of 1971. On the problem
of oil pollution, Japan feels that a number of pertinent inter-
national instruments already exist, including the fixing of
civil liability for oil pollution damage; what is now needed is
full implementation of the applicable provisions of these
instruments.
Research
For Japan, with its advanced technology and extensive marine
interests, scientific research in the high seas is of fundamental
importance. Japan feels strongly that there is a need to guarantee
Approved For Release 2001' : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 -RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
freedom to engage in scientific research for peaceful purposes in
as wide a marine environment as possible. It takes the stand that
all nations -- regardless of geographic location -- as well as
international organizations, should have the right to engage in,
or to cooperate with others in, scientific research in the marine
environment provided it is carried out in an orderly and rational
manner; these views closely parallel those of the United States.
Japan, in fact, has stated that it prefers the U.S. notification
proposal to the consent regime of the Convention on the Continental
Shelf. The U.S. proposal permits the researcher to carry out
scientific research in a coastal state's economic zone without
the prior consent of the coastal state; but it obligates the
researcher to provide the coastal state with: 1) prior notifica-
tion of plans to conduct surveys, 2) the opportunity to participate,
and 3) a share in and an understanding of the resulting data. A
consent regime, on the other hand, would require the researcher
to secure the consent of the coastal state before conducting the
surveys.
In view of greatly increased world interests, and the rather
fragmentary understanding of the ocean environment, Japan feels
that there is a compelling need for more extensive marine
scientific research in territorial waters as well as in the high
seas. For example, Japan points out that the battle against
marine pollution can be most effectively assisted by the progress
of scientific research in identifying pollutants and their
sources and in analyzing their effects on all forms of marine
life.
Japan supports the concept of the transfer of technology to
developing nations, but draws a distinction between research done
in the high seas and that conducted in areas within the jurisdiction
of coastal states. Japanese representatives have pointed out that
publication of the results of scientific research has never been
a condition for freedom of such research under existing interna-
tional law of the high seas. As concerns scientific research
conducted within the waters adjacent to coastal states, Japan
agrees that adequate information on any such research project
should be supplied to the coastal state in advance, and that partici-
pation in the research work and access to the results should be
guaranteed to the coastal state.
In sum, the Japanese delegation to the LOS Conference will
be concerned with protecting the basic concept of freedom of
marine research, while respecting certain rights of coastal
states as concerns scientific research conducted in waters under
their jurisdiction and recognizing the need for some interna-
tional standards to apply overall.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22sEeY -RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001@44g: CIA-RDP79,01054A000100120001-7
D. KEY POLICY MAKERS, LOS NEGOTIATORS AND ADVISERS
Japan, a constitutional monarchy under parliamentary control,
is a major independent power with a viable and expanding economy,
a relatively stable political and social structure, and an
increasingly important world role. Executive powers are vested
in the Cabinet, where the Prime Minister acts more as a mediator
among competing political factions and viewpoints than as an
innovative leader. Particularly as regards such a broad and
complex subject as the LOS, full range of debate among the various
ministries and departments -- each supported by a powerful pro-
fessional bureaucracy and influenced by business tie-ins -- must
occur before a consensus emerges on which eventual policy is
based; this is a time-consuming process. In addition to the
Foreign Affairs Ministry, other principally concerned ministries
include Agriculture and Forestry (Fisheries), International Trade
and Industry, Finance, Transportation, and Environment.
Japan has been extremely active in preparations for the LOS
Conference; its delegation is competent and well-versed in all
aspects. Japanese representatives at preparatory sessions are
as follows:
Approved For Release 2001 93122 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Name and Title (as they ap ear
on the latest UN listing)
Seabed Com ittee Session
Org.
Conf .
Dec
73
Mr. Kenshiroh AKIMOTO
Deputy Head
International Economy Division
Economic Affairs Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Tetsuto AKUTAGAWA
Staff, Office of the Legal Counsel
Defense Agency
Mr. Shiro EBISAWA
International Affairs Division
Fisheries Agency
Mr. Hiroaki FUJII
Deputy Head, Scientific Affairs
Division
United Nations Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Takashi HASEGAWA
Deputy Head
International Affairs Division
Secretariat to the Minister
Environment Agency
Mr. Takumi HOSAKI
Deputy Director-General
Treaties Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
*Mr. Takeo IGUCI
Counsellor
Permanent Mission to the UN
*Mr. Ryuichi ISHII
Office for the Law of the Sea
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
X
x
x
X
X
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
19
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Name and Title
Mr. Toshio ISOGAI
International Economy Division
Economic Affairs Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Kunio KATAKURA
Second Secretary
Permanent Mission to the UN
Mr. Hiroshi KAWAGUCHI
Deputy Head, Legal Affairs
Division
Treaties Bureau, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Kenzo KAWAKAMI
Counsellor
Embassy of Japan in USSR
Mr. Seiro KAWASAKI
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Japan to
the International Organizations
Mr. Atsushi KAWASHIMA
Secretary Marine Development
Division
Mineral, Oil and Coal Mining Bureau
Ministry of International Trade and
Industry
Mr. Yutaka KAWASHIMA
First Secretary
Permanent Mission to the UN
Mr. Hirotsune KOIDE
Researcher
Scientific Affairs Division
United Nations Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Conf.
Dec
73
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
Seabed Committee Session
Org.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Name and Title
*Mr. Naohiro KUMAGAI
Head
Legal Affairs Division
Treaties Bureau
Ministry. of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Takakazu KURIYAMA
Head of Legal Affairs Division
Treaties Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Keiichi NAKAJIMA
Counsellor
Production Department
Fisheries Agency
Mr. Jun-ichi NAKAMURA
Deputy Head
Legal Division
United Nations Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Chusaku NOMURA
Deputy Chief
Science Division
United Nations Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Tohsihiko OBA
Director
Production Department
Fisheries Agency
*Dr. Shigeru ODA
Professor of International Law,
Tohuku University
Special Assistant to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Conf.
Dec
73
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
F
11
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
Seabed Committee Session
O rg .
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
25X1 B
Name and Title
*H.E. Mr. Motoo OGISO
Ambassador Extraordinary and
Pleni potentiary
Deputy Permanent Representative
to the UN
Mr. Chun-ichi OGUCHI
Special Adviser to the Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry
Mr. Toshihiko OHBA
Director Marine Fisheries
Department
Fisheries Agency
Mr. Sozaburo OKAMATSU
Deputy Head
Marine Development Division
Mineral, Oil and Coal Mining Bureau
Ministry of International Trade and
Industry
Mr. Iwao OKAMOTO
Official
Marine Development Division
Mineral, Oil and Coal Mining Bureau
Ministry of International Trade and
Industry
Mr. Y. OKAWA
Minister
Permanent Mission to the UN
*Mr. Kenzo OSHIMA
Official for the Law of the Sea
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Koji OTA
Adviser to the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry
Seabed Committee Session
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Conf.
Dec
73
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Org.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
25X1 B
Name and Title
Mr. Hisashi OWADA
Head of the Political Affairs
Division
United Nations Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Tatsuo SAITO
First Secretary
Embassy of Japan, Rome
Mr. Takuji SHINDO
Head
Marine Development Division
Ministry of Transport
*H.E. Mr. Shinichi SUGIHARA
Ambassador
Director-General
Office for the Law of the Sea
Conference
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Yoji SUGIYAMA
Deputy Head
International Resources Division
Economic Affairs Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Katsunari SUZUKI
First Secretary
Permanent Mission to the UN
Mr. Michinao TAKAHASHI
Deputy Head
Marine Development Division
Mineral, Oil and Coal Mining Bureau
Ministry of International Trade and
Industry
Seabed Committee Session
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Conf.
Dec
73
X
X
x
x
X
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
X
x
Org.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
25X1 B
Name and Title
Mr. Kojero TAKANO
Second Secretary
Permanent Mission to the UN
*Mr. Ryuichi TANABE
Deputy Head
International Affairs Division
Fisheries Agency
Mr. T. TANAKA
Vice-Director
International Economic Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
*Mr. Yoshitomo TANAKA
Head, Scientific Affairs Division
United Nations Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Shunji YANAI
First Secretary
Permanent Mission to the UN
Mr. Mitsuo YOSHIDA
Official
Specialized Agencies Division
United Nations Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Seabed Committee Session
24
Mar
71
Jul
Aug
71
Feb
Mar
72
Jul
Aug
72
Mar
Apr
73
Jul
Aug
73
Conf
.
Dec
73
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
Org.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 25X1 B
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
Next 7 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Part II - Background Information
Geography
World region: East Asia
Category: Island
Bordering bodies of water: Sea of Japan, Pacific Ocean, Sea of Okhotsk,
Philippine Sea, East China Sea, Korea Strait, Inland Sea
Bordering semienclosed sea: Sea of Japan, Sea of Okhotsk, East China
Sea, Inland Sea
Bordering straits: Soya Kaikyo or La Perouse Strait, Notsuke Strait,
Tsugaru Kaikyo, Osumi Kaikho or Ban Diemen Strait, Tanegashima Kaikyo
or Vincennes Strait, Suwanose Suido, Anami Strait, Nakanoshima Suido,
Tokapa Kaikho, Yakushima Kaikyo, Western Chosen or West Korea Strait,
Strait between Oki Gunto Dogo and Honshu, Sado Kaikyo, Okushiri Kaikyo,
Rishiri Suido
Area of continental shelf: 140,100 sq. n. mi. (includes insular
dependencies); shared with U.S.S.R., South Korea, People's Republic of
China, Republic of China
Area to 200 n. mi. limit: 1,126,000 sq. n. mi. (includes insular
dependencies); shared with U.S.S.R., South Korea, People's Republic
of China, Republic of China
Area to edge of continental margin: 440,900 sq. n. mi.
Coastline: 7,500 mi.
Land: 143,000 sq. mi.
Population: 109,022,000
Industry and Trade
GNP: $293.8 billion (1972, at 309 yen=US$1); $2,770 per capita
Major industries: metallurgical and engineering industries, electrical
and electronic industries, textiles, chemicals
Exports: $28.6 billion (f.o.b., 1972); machinery and equipment, metals
and metal products, textiles (79%)
Imports: $19.1 billion (f.o.b., 1972); fossil fuels, metal ore and other
raw products, foodstuffs, machinery and equipment (76%)
Major trade partners: exports - 31% U.S., 8% EC, 6% EFTA, 5% Communist
countries, 4% Middle East, 19% Far East; imports - 25% U.S., 6% EC,
4% EFTA, 14% Far East, 5% Communist countries, 15% Middle East (1972)
Merchant marine: 8,540 ships (100 GRT or over) totaling 37,500,000 GRT or
58,300,000 DWT; percentage of total tonnage - 43.6% tankers, 19.5%
ore/bulk carriers, 14.6% general cargo
Tanker fleet: 377 tankers
33
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Catch: 9.9 million metric tons (1971) valued at $2.77 billion (1970)
Economic importance: national significance (supplies over half the
available animal protein); over $330 million export value; 1.37%
of GNP (1969)
Ranking: 1st in diversification value and total tonnage (1972)
Nature: diversified, primarily distant-water fishing, but coastal
fisheries also important
Other fishing areas: worldwide
Species: Alaska pollack, mackerel, tuna, squid, and anchovy
Marine fisheries techniques: modern, predominantly mechanized
Other. countries fishing off coast: U.S.S.R. and South Korea
Petroleum Resources
Petroleum: production - onshore 4.7 million 42-gal. bbl., offshore .8
million 42-gal. bbl. (onshore .6 million metric-tons, offshore .1
million metric tons); proved recoverable reserves - onshore 14 million
42-gal. bbl., offshore 15 million 42-gal. bbl. (onshore 2 million
metric tons, offshore 2 million metric tons) (1971)
Natural as: production - 85.4 billion cubic feet (2.4 billion cubic
meters); proved recoverable reserves - onshore 400 billion cubic
feet (10 billion cubic meters) (1971)
Navy
Ships: 44 destroyer-type ships, 14 submarines, 31 coastal patrol ships
and craft, 46 mine warfare ships and craft, 5 amphibious ships, 8
auxiliary ships, 48 amphibious craft, and 296 service craft (an
additional force of over 400 patrol and service craft operates under
the jurisdiction of the Maritime Safety Agency)
Government Leaders
Kakuei Tanaka, Prime Minister; Masayoshi Ohira, Foreign Minister
Bilateral Conventions
Japan-New Zealand, Fisheries Agreement, 12 July 1967
Japan-Mexico, Fisheries Agreement, 7 March 1968
Japan-Australia, Fisheries Agreement, 27 November 1968
Japan-U.S.S.R., Fisheries Agreement, Northwest Pacific Ocean, 14 May 1956
Japan-U.S.S.R., King Crabs Agreement, 16 April 1970
Japan-U.S., Fisheries Agreement, 11 December 1970
Japan-U.S., Salmon Fisheries Agreement, 11 December 1970
Japan-U.S., King and Tanner Crabs Agreement, 11 December 1970
Japan-Republic of Korea, Fisheries Agreement, 22 June 1965
34
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Multilateral Conventions
Japan-U.S.-Canada, International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries
of the North Pacific Ocean, 9 May 1952
Japan-Norway-U.S.S.R., Antarctic Pelagic Whaling Agreement, 29 September
1971
Japan-U.S.S.R.-U.S., North Pacific Whaling Agreement, 30 July 1971
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 10 June 1968
Convention on the High Seas, 10 June 1968
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by
Oil, 21 August 1967
Public Law Convention, 6 April 1971
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 15 June 1964
Seabed Arms Limitation Treaty, 21 June 1971
IMCO Convention, 17 March 1958
IHO Convention, 12 June 1969
Type Date Terms Source/Notes
Territorial 1870 3 n. mi. Party to Convention on the
Sea Territorial Sea (June 10, 1968)
Continental Mining Law of 1950
Shelf
Exclusive 1967 3 n. mi. Law 60 of July 14, 1967
Fishing GOJ Gazette of July 14, 1967
Neutrality 1870 3 n. mi.
*Principal source: Limits in the Seas, National Claims to Maritime
Jurisdiction, State Dept./INR, March 1973, and Revisions.
35
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Action on Significant UN Resolutions
Moratorium Resolution
(A/RES/2574 D, XXIV, 12/15/69)
Pending establishment of international regime,
States and persons are bound to refrain from
exploiting resources of or laying claim to any
part of the seabed and ocean floor beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction.
LOS Conference
(A/RES/2750 C, XXV, 12/17/70)
Convene in 1973 a Conference on Law of the Sea
to deal with establishment of international
regime for the seabed and ocean floor, and
enlarge Seabed Committee by 44 members and
instruct it to prepare for the conference draft
treaty articles embodying international regime.
Agai nst
LOS Conference, Timing and Site Adopted w/o vote
(A/RES/3029 A, XXVII, 12/18/72)
Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace
(A/RES/2992, XXVII, 12/15/72)
Called upon littoral and hinterland states of
Indian Ocean area, permanent members of the
Security Council and other major maritime users
of Indian Ocean to support concept that Indian
Ocean should be zone of peace.
Landlocked/Shelf-Locked Study Resolution
(A/RES/3029 B, XXVII, 12/18/72)
Called for study of extent and economic signifi-
cance in terms of resources, of international
area resulting from each proposal of limits of
national jurisdiction presented to Seabed Committee.
Peruvian Coastal State Study Resolution
(A/RES/3029 C, XXVII, 12/18/72)
Called for study of potential economic signifi-
cance for riparian states, in terms of resources,
of each of the proposals on limits of national
jurisdiction presented to Seabed Committee.
In favor
Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources Abstain
(A/RES/3016 XXVII, 12/18/72)
Reaffirmed right of states to permanent sovereignty
over all their natural resources, wherever found.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
SECRET
Membership in Organizations Related to LOS Interests
ADB. . . . . . . . . . Asian Development Bank
ASPAC. . . . . . . . . Asian and Pacific Council
ECAFE. . . . . . . . . Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East
FAO. . . . . . . . . . Food and Agriculture Organization
GATT . . . . . . . . . General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
IAEA . . . . . . . . . International Atomic Energy Agency
IBRD . . . . . . . International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (World Bank)
ICAO . . . . . . . . . International Civil Aviation Organization
IDA. . . . . . . . . . International Development Association
(IBRD affiliate)
IFC. . . . . . . . . . International Finance Corporation
(IBRD affiliate)
IHB. . . . . . . . . . International Hydrographic Bureau
ILO. . . . . . . . . . International Labor Office
IMCO . . . . . . . . . Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organization
IMF (FUND) . . . . . . International Monetary Fund
IRC. . . . . . . . . . International Red Cross
ITU. . . . . . . . . . International Telecommunications Union
OECD . . . . . . . Organization of Central American States
Seabed Committee . . . United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of the Seabed and Ocean Floor Beyond the
Limits of National Jurisdiction
UN . . . . . . . . . United Nations
UNESCO . . . . . . . . United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization
UPU. . . . . . . . . . Universal Postal Union
WHO. . . . . . . . . . World Health Organization
WMO. . . . . . . . . . World Meteorological Organization
37
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
Distr.
LIMITED
A/AC.138/ScII/L.12
14 August 1972
Original: , ENGLISH
C(MITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OP THE
SEA-BED AND THE OCEAN FLOOR DEYOND THE
LL?%.'T3 CF NITIONAL JURISDICTION
Proposals for a Regime of Fisheries
on the High Seas
Submitted by Japan
Summary of the nroLosals
This paper, which contains, inter alia, a set of proposals on preferential rights
of coastal States in fishing on the high seas, attempts.to formulate a broad and
equitable accommodation of interests of States in the exploitation and,use of the
living resources of the high seas, taking into account the dependence on fishing of
both coastal and of -r Rt,,Ap p- 1dhilq according a preferential right of catch to
developing coastal States corresponding to their harvesting capacities and a
differentiated preferential right to developed coastal States, the proposals also take
into consideration the legitimate interests of.'other States. Time, they seek to ensure
that a gradual accommodation of'interests can be brought about in the expanding
exploitation ~.,id use of fishery resources of the high seas, without causing any abrupt
change in the present order in fishing which might result in disturbing the economic
and social structures of States. The proposals may be summarized as follows:
(i) The proposed general rules concerning preferential rights of coastal
States are intended to ensure sufficient protection for coastal
fisheries of States, particularly of developing coastal States, in
relation to the activities ofdistant water fisheries of.other States,
in areas of the sea adjacent to their 12-mile limit;
(ii) Preferential rights shall entitle a developing coastal State annually
to an allocation of resources that corresponds to its harvesting
capacity; the rate of growth of the fishing capacity of that developing
GE.72-14686
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/A C .15 a/S C,i I/ L .12
page 2
coastal State shall be duly taken into 'account to the extent. that it is
able to catch a major portion of the allowable catch. They shall entitle
a developed coastal State to an'a;location of resources necessary for the
Maintenance of its locally conducted small-scale coastal fishery; the
interests of traditionally established fisheries of other States shall
be duly taken into account in determining the part of the allowable catch
thus reserved.
(iii) Since situations vary greatly according to areas of the sea, the general
rules for protection of coastal States interests shall be flexible enough;
as regards the methods to be employed to? safeguard such interests, to, allow
the parties to adopt any measures which are effective and suited to the
individual cases. The substance of protection, i.e. concrete applicable
measures implementing preferential rights of coastal States, shall be the
subject of negotiation between the coastal and other-States concerned and
shall, be finalized in agreement;
(iv) .If negotiation fails, the case in dispute shall be referred to a body of
experts for ,a binding decision unless settled by?any.other means to? be
agreed upon between the parties concerned. During the period of dispute,
distant water fishing.States shall assume obligations to restrain their
fishing efforts according to specific plans provided for in interim measures
(6.1 of the. propgsal).
(v) In concluding agreement on the preferential right of a developing coastal
State, international co-operation shall be carried out in the field of
fisheries and other related industries. between the developing coastal State
and other fishing States concerned with a view to improving the
effectiveness of-protection of the.irterests of that developing coastal
State;
(vi) No special status in respect of conservation and no preferential rights of
catch shall be recognized to coastal States with regard to the harvesting
of highly migratory, including anadromous stocks of fish. The conservation
and regulation of these stocks shall be"made pursuant to international or
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/AC.138/SC.II/L.12
page 3
regional consultations or agreements, or should such be already the case,
through the existing regional fishery commissions.
(vii) Enforcement jurisdiction under the rules shall be retained by flag States
though the right of coastal States to inspect foreign vessels to identify
violation, and to arrest vessels in violation for prompt delivery to the
flag States, shall be recognized.
The problem of conservation and regulation of anadromous stocks (e.g. salmon)
is a limited one affecting a few countries in certain regions and, as such, it is
already dealt. with by the existing fishery bodies such as: Japan-USSR Fisheries
Commission for the Northwest Pacific;, International North Pacific Fisheries
Commission (INPFC); International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
(ICNAF); North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NE9FC); US-Canada International
Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/AC.138/SC.II/L.12
page 4
1.1 The proposed regime applies to fisheries on the high seas in the.areas adjacent to
the limit of 12 miles from the coast of a State, measured in accordance. with the relevant
rules of,international law (such areas hereinafter shall be referred to as "adjacent
waters").
1.2 All States have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high
seas, subject to the present regime and to their existing treaty obligations.
1.3 The proposed regime shall not affect the rights and obligations of States under
existing international agreements relating to specific fisheries on the high seas.
2.1 Objective of Conservation measures
The objective of conservation measures is to achieve the maximum sustainable yields
of fishery resources and thereby to secure and maintain a maximum supply of food and
other marine products.
2.2 Obligations to adopt conservation measures
(1) In cases where nationals of one State are exclusively engaged in fishing a
particular stock of fish, that State shall adopt, when necessary, appropriate
conservation measures.
In cases where' nationals of two or more States are engaged in fishing a particular
stock of fish, these States shall, at the request of any of them, negotiate and conclude
arrangements which will provide for appropriate conservation measures.
These conservation measures shall be consistent with the objective of conservation
referred to in para. 2.1 above and shall be adopted having regard to the principles
referred to in para. 2.3 below.
(2) In cases where conservation measures have already been adopted by States with
respect to a particular stock of fish which is exploited by their nationals, a new-comer
State shall adopt its own conservation measures which should be as restrictive as.the
existing measures until new arrangements are concluded among all the States concerned.
If the existing conservation measures include a catch limitation or some' other regulations
not permitting.nationals of the new-comer State to engage in fishing the. stock of fish
concerned, the States applying the existing conservation measures shall immediately
enter into negotiation with the new-comer State for the purpose of concluding new
arrangements. Pending such arrangements, nationals of the new-comet State shall not
engage in fishing the stock concerned.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/AC.138/SC.II/L.12
page 5
(3) States shall make use of the international or regional fishery organizations, as
far as possible, to adopt appropriate conservation measures.
2.3 Basic principles relating to conservation measures
(1) Conservation measures must be adopted on the basis of the best scientific evidence
available. If the States concerned cannot reach agreement on the assessment of the
conditions of the stock to which conservation measures are to be applied, they shall
request an appropriate international body or other impartial third party to undertake
the assessment. In order to obtain the fairest possible assessment of the stock
conditions, the States concerned shall co-operate in the establishment of regional
institutions for surveying and research into fishery resources.
(2) No conservation measure shall discriminate in form or fact between fishermen of.
one State from those of other States.
(3) Conservation measures shall be determined, to the extent possible, on the basis of
the allowable catch estimated with respect to the individual stocks of fish. The
foregoing principle however shall not preclude conservation measures from being
determined on some other bases in cases where, due to lack of sufficient data, an
estimate of the allowable catch is not possible with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
(4) No State can be exempted from the obligation to adopt conservation measures on the
ground that sufficient scientific findings are lacking.
(5) The conservation measures adopted shall be designed so as to,minimize interference
with fishing activities relating to stocks of fish, if any, which are not the object of
such measures.
(6) Conservation measures and the data on the basis of which such measures are adopted
shall be subject to review at appropriate intervals.
2.4 Special status of coastal States in conservation of resources
A coastal State shall be recognized as having special status with respect to the
conservation of fishery resources in its adjacent waters. Thus, the coastal State will
have the right of participating, on an equal footing, in any survey on fishery resources
conducted in its adjacent waters for conservation purposes, whether or not nationals of
that coastal State are actually engaged in fishing the particular stocks concerned.
Non-coastal States conducting the survey shall, at the request of the coastal State,
make available to the coastal State the findings of their surveys and researches
concerning such stocks.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/AC.138/SC.II/L.12
page 6
Also, except for interim measures (6.1 below), no conservation measure may be
adopted with respect to any stock of fish, without the consent of the coastal State
whose nationals are engaged in fishing the particular stock concerned (or the majority
of the coastal States in cases where there are three or more such coastal States)'.
A coastal State shall at the same time have the obligation to take, in co-operation
with other States, necessary measures with a view to maintaining the productivity of
fishery resources in its adjacent. waters at a level that will enable an effective and
rational utilization of such resources.
.]?REFERENTIAL RIGHTS OF COASTAL STATES
3.1 Preferential rights
To the extent consistent with the objective of conservation, a coastal State shall
have a preferential right to ensure adequate protection-to its coastal fisheries
conducted in its adjacent waters.
(i) In the case of a developing coastal State:
The coastal State is entitled annually to reserve for its flag vessels
that portion of the allowable catch of a stock of fish it can harvest on
the'basis of the fishing capacity of its coastal fisheries. In determining
the part of the allowable catch to be reserved for the developing coastal.
State, the rate of growth of the fishing capacity of that State shall be
duly taken into account until it has developed that capacity to the extent
of being able to fish for a major portio of the allowable catch of the
stock of fish.
(ii) In the case of a developed coastal State:
The coastal State is entitled annually to reserve for its flag vessels
that portion of the allowable catch of a stock offish which is necessary
to maintain its locally conducted small-scale coastal fisheries. The
interests of traditionally' established fisheries of other States shall be
duly taken into account in determining the catch to be reserved for such
small-scale coastal fisheries.
Y e.g. Approximately 50 per cent.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 :.CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/AC.136/SC.II/L.12
page 7
3.2 Implementation of preferential rights
(1) Measures to implement the preferential rights shall be, determined by agreement
among the coastal and non-coastal States concerned on the basis of the proposals made
by the coastal State. For the purpose of such proposals, the coastal State may seek
technical assistance from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
or such other appropriate organs.
(2) The size of the preferential right of a coastal State shall be fixed within the
limit of the allowable catch of the stock of fish subject, to allocation, if the
allowable catch for that stock is already estimated for conservation purposes. In
cases where the estimate of the allowable catch is not available, the coastal and
non-coastal States concerned shall agree on necessary measures in a manner which will
best enable the coastal State to benefit fully from its preferential right.
(3) The regulatory measures adopted to implement the preferential right of a coastal
State may include catch allocation (quota by country) and/or such other supplementary
measures that will be made applicable to vessels of non-coastal States engaged in
fishing in the adjacent waters of the coastal 6tate, including:
(a) the establishment of open and closed seasons during which fish may or
may not be harvested,
(b) the closing of specific areas to fishing,
(c) the regulation of gear or equipment that may be used,
(d) the limitation of catch of a particular stock of fish that may be
harvested.
(4) The regulatory measures adopted shall be so designed as to minimize interference
with the fishing of non-coastal States directed to stocks of fish, if any, which are
not covered by such measures.
(5) Non-coastal States shall co-operate with coastal States in the exchange of
available scientific information, catch and effort statistics and other relevant data.
(6) In cases where nationals of two or more coastal States which are entitled to
preferential rights are engaged in fishing a common stock of fish, no coastal States
may invoke their preferential right with respect to such stock without the consent of
the other coastal State or States concerned. In such a case, those coastal States
shall enter into regional consultations with the other States concerned with a view to
implementing their preferential rights.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
. A/AC,.138/SC..II/L.12
page 8
(7) The measures adopted under this paragraph...shall.--be..subjeot to review, at such
intervals as maybe agreed upon by the. States concerned.
3.3 International Co-operation
In order to assist in.the.development of-the fishing capacity of a developing
coastal'State.. and.thereby?to:facilitate the full enjoyment bf its preferential right,
international co-operation shall be carried out in the field of fisheries and related
industries between the developing coastal State and other fishing States in concluding
agreement?on.the preferential right of that developing coastal State.
4.1 No special status in the conservation of resources (2.4) and no preferential
rights (3.s) shall..be.recognized to a coastal State in respect of highly migratory,
including anadromous, stocks of fish. The conservation and regulation of such stocks
shall be carried out pursuant to international consultations or agreements in which all
interested States shall participate, or through the existing international or regional
fishery organizations should such be the case.
ENFORCEMENT
5.1 Right of control by coastal States
With respect to regulatory measures adopted pursuant to the present regime, those
coastal States which are entitled to preferential rights, and/or special status with
respect to conservation, have the right to control the fishing activities in their
respective adjacent waters. In the exercise of such"right, the coastal States may
inspect vessels of other States and arrest those vessels violating the regulatory
measures adopted. The arrested vessels shall however be promptly delivered to the flag
States concerned. The coastal States may not refuse the participation of other States
in controlling the operation, including boarding officials of the other States on the
coastal States patrol vessels at the request of the latter States. Details of control.,
measures shall be agreed upon among the parties concerned.
5.2 Jurisdiction
(a) Each State shall make it an offence for its nationals to violate any
regulatory measures adopted pursuant to the present regime.
(b) Nationals on board a vessel violating the regulatory measures in force shall,
be duly prosecuted by the flag State concerned..
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/AC.130C.II/L.12
page 9
(0)
.Reports prepared by the officials of a coastal State on the offence committed
by~a'vesselof a non-coastal State shall be fully respected by that non-coastal
State, whi..h.shall.notify'the coastal State of the disposition of the case
as soon as possible.
INTERIM MEASURES AND DISPUTES SETTL 1IT
6.1 Interim measures
If the States concerned fail to'reach,agreement.within six months of negotiations
on measures concerning preferential rights under para. 3.1 and/or on arrangements
concerning conservation measures under.para. 2.2, any of the States may initiate the
procedure for the settlement of disputes. Pending the settlement of disputes, the
States concerned shall adopt interim measures. Such interim measures shall in no way
prejudice.the respective positions of any States.conoerned.with respect to the dispute
in question.
(a) In cases where the limitation of catch,is disputed, each State in dispute
shall take necessary measures to ensurethat its catch of. the stock
concerned will not exceed on an annual basis its average annual catch of
the preceding [five] year period.
(b) In cases where some other factors are in dispute, e.g. fishing grounds,
fishing gear or fishing seasons, in connexion with measures to implement
the preferential right of a coastal Stc.te, or with arrangements concerning
conservation measures, the other States concerned shall adopt the latest
proposals c,f the coastal State witl, respect to the ma's'ter in dispute.
However, the other States shall be exempted from such obligation if the
adoption of the proposal of the coastal State would seriously affect either
its.. catch permitted under sub-para. (a) above, or its catch of some other
stock not related to the. preferential right of a coastal State which it is
substantially exploiting. In such a case, those other States shall take all
possible measures which'they consider appropriate for the protection of the
coastal fisheries concerned.
(c) Any of the parties to the dispute may request'the special..Commission to
.decide on provisional measures regarding the matter in dispute.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
A/AC.138/SC.II/L.12
page 10
(d) Each State shall inform the special Commission established in accordance with
para. 6.2 as well as all other States concerned of the specific interim
measures it has taken in accordance with any of the preceding provisions.
6.2 Procedure for disputes settlement (special Commission)
Any dispute which may arise between States under the present regime shall be
referred by any of the States concerned to a special Commission of five members in
accordance with the following procedure, unless the parties concerned agree to settle
the dispute by some other method provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the
United Nations.
(a) Not more than two members may be named from among nationals of the parties,
one each from among nationals of the coastal and the non-coastal State
respectively.
(b) Decisions of the special Commission shall be by majority vote and shall be
binding upon the parties.
(c) The special Commission shall render its decision within a period of six
months from the time it is constituted.
(d) Notwithstanding the interim measures taken by the parties under para. 6.1,
the special Commission may, at the request of any of the parties or at its
own initiative, decide on provisional measures to be applied if the Commission
deems it necessary. The Commission shall render its final decision within a.
further period of six months from its decision on such provisional measures.
7.1 Co:.gpne a.tion frith d_evetopin Stw tes
For the purpose of promoting the development of fishing industries and the domestic
consumption and exports of fishery products of developing States, including land-locked
States,, developed non-coastal States shall co-operate with developing States with every
possible means in such fields as survey of fishery resources, expansion of fishing
capacity, construction of storage and processing facilities and improvements in
marketing systems.
7.2 Co--o,Peration within regionca fishery commissions
Co-operation between cocct,,.l and non-coastal States under the present regime shall
be carried out, as far as possible, through regional fishery commissions. For this
purpose, the States concerned shall endeavour to strengthen'the existing commissions
and shall co-operate in establishing new commissions whenever desirable and feasible.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
CO12h1ITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USE" OF THE
SEA-BED AND THE OCEAN FLOOR BEYOND
THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL JURISDICTION
SUB-COMAIITTEE II
Distr.
LII.1ITLD
A/AC.138/SC.II/L.56
15 August 1973
Original: ENGLISH
Principle_ on the Delimitation of Coastal Seabed Area
submitted by Japan
1. The coastal State ,;hp-].l have the right to establish, beyond its territorial
sea, a coastal seabed area up to a maximum distance of ..... nautical miles from the
applicable baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea. The coastal
State exercises sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the coastal seabed area
and exploiting its mineral resources.
2. In cases where the coasts of two or more coastal States are adjacent or opposite
to each other, the boundary of the coastal seabed areas appertaining to such States
shall be determined by agreement in accordance with the principle of equidistance.
3. Nothing herein shall prejudice the existing agreements between the coastal States
concerned relating to the delimitation of their respective coastal seabed areas.
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
Distr.
LIMITED
A/AC.138/SC.III/L.22
31 July 1972
Original: ENGLISH
COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OF THE
SEA-BED AND THE OCEAN FLOOR BEYOND THE
LIMITS OF NATIONAL JURISDICTION
SUB-COMMITTEE
Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand: draft resolution
The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond
the Limits of National Jurisdiction,
Recalling the suggested statement of views submitted to Sub-Committee III at the
8th meeting of that Sub-Committee,'
Further recalling the resolution on the subject of nuclear testing adopted by the
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, as well as Principle 26 of the
Declaration on the Human Environment adopted by the same Conference,
Acting in furtherance of the principles of the partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
Having noted the concern of the nations and peoples of the Pacific at, and their
opposition to, the conduct of the nuclear weapon tests in that region,.
Bearing in mind its obligation to propose legal norms for the preservation of
the marine environ..:ent and the prevention of marine pollutio-,;
1. Declares that no further nuclear weapons tests likely to contribute to the
contamination of the marine environment should be carried out;
2. Requests its Chairman to forward this resolution to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations for referral to the appropriate United Nations bodies,
including the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament.
*/ (A/8421, Annex V)
Approved For Release 2001/03/22 : CIA-RDP79-01054A000100120001-7
 Approved For Release 2001103122 : CIA-RDP79-01 054A0001 00120001-7
::. 5: . o - ':L JG*f
c
OF H BED
w
A
Pr
A (-
' ~ Seabed ea e# ~ 1~ iTINC.x '. _ x;
,. v L
,
i ? PU.S. MR'S T 1R3F#~ i ~,AD .f'~i
ion#inenfad p1aT,~rr~ ~+~epe~ -~ ~,, ~ ~ E N r '
or ses steeer ttlan 3.;4J
s _ EDE
COntlne&1EH rae, W?th s}tape ;
ad step \
?
r
a;? _;i-c- ~.,"; ;~ ? ~ ~ oL ~ 'r..~ DNION of sowEr soanusr REPUBUCS~~
CANADA ~ i .~~ I ~ NmAU ~ ?+ ;
_
1 rAPbe v`~
a ~t ser t ~ ~ - ~,? ~ C
-. ?T~.,~e 5..+~b~'ti ,u r.S i r
/ nmofGF ANAA ' . ;. Yai; F \' - - ~ fit! t ?t
.... g R GEA
- T a Ra h, s-,~ ~irz
USSR -.. :
T
MONGOLIA f~r* ,? 7fga v '~.1 iari AIA ~~ ',:? :T ~/ ` r' ',~ ~,....
F ,
3 N'TEC STATES //
.~, ~ ): '~~---' TURKEY k
.i--.. PEOPLES REPUBLIC
t S r - ,-
t
,,._
ORT~I6AL ~ , \~
_ PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA ' - I
f" ,~AP~, : 4 ?S'. ...__. ~/ I ROCCO .J; \ ?O,. ~ i5W{. - ,, IRAN ~ -'
s , U,K: ppt Tx a-~A
x ,
a. ,.~_-. .,ALGERIA ~?~'~?~ ~.:rJ~
~-
p
' LP:TED STATES SHAMS e
? _ - .. s. ; ~ ~'~ , p~~~ . ~ " ~,, r` i ',\ % .-? - ;--F v. ~' SAUDI ARABIA v
/ J
~ G! EiC0 - Adelravl ~, /
~ ~i, 9 r' k " ` a~ _~ _ .~ ~?~~? ~ INDIA f U a~~RmA
v.. ' t,~'~ ..
~`< ~ ~-~,~_ ~< t ~ Lam: ~ I -,y ` ~ SAE - - f` ?"~1sa,a ~ a;> ~ '>>NOLd, a: t?
\t? // ,..... ~~:,, ,~' ~ h __. ~.. A ., .7ne, M' ~_a`, ., GFAD SUDAN ;
, ~~ / ,."~, ~ ~- }I"r d~ u ,~ I yA ~ AMC ~ :a Af - ~. ? '?'~ ~' PERU ol A IL U H ~' PORTk1GAL ,t ;- ANGOLA ,_. ~'a? t. : `-gyp
,
RALi
\y'' Zaa1BIA~ AUS
~; ~ ~. ~1 > A . s,ha - r=arv~ ~~' RITIUS
_ ..,?_.~ ~