UNITED NATIONS, THIRD CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, SECOND SESSION, SECOND COMMITTEE, PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 3, 2001
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: July 22, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8.
UNITED NATIONS
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
PROVISIONAL
For. partic;iparxts only
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.7
22 J.UlY 1971+
ENGLISH
ORIGINAL:'. FRENCH
Second. Session
SECOND COM14ITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTH.MEETING
Held.at.the Parque:Central, Caracas,
on. Wednesday, 17 July 1971+,. at_ .3.25 : p.m.
e
record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 22 JULY 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 29 JULY 1974.
CONTENTS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THEW OF'THE SEA
Chairman:
later:
Rapporteur
'Territorial sea (continued)
Mr. TUNCEL Turkey
Mr. AGUILAR Venezuela
Mr. NANDAN Fiji
Correction`s to this record should be submitted in one of the four working
languages'.{vanglish, French, Russian or8Danish), preferably in the same language as the
text to which cney refer.. Corrections shoula be sent in
working days to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, qu Lecuicatewithin five
and also incorporated in one co Nive1 Lecuna,;Edificio Anauco,
py of th
C-5201
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
 L1ppr..oved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
English
Page 2
TERRITORIAL SEA (A/9021, A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3 to L.10) (continued)
Mrs. WARIER (Trinidad and Tobago) said she wished to make some comments on
item 2, concerning the territorial sea, and more particularly on documents
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3 to L.6. The proposals submitted by Guyana (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.5) and
Spain (A/CONF.-62/C.,2/L.6) were a praiseworthy attempt to identify the main trends which
had emerged from the discussion. Her delegation would, however, have preferred to see
the retention of the classical concept of the territorial sea and would therefore
favour the formulation introduced by the delegation of India (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.4).
With regard to document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3, the United Kingdom delegation was to be
commended on its effort to present a concise treaty on the territorial sea and, in
part III of that draft, to provide a more precise definition of the expression "'innocent
passage". Her delegation, however, shared the fears of the delegation of the Republic
of Korea that the formulation of article 16 was too restrictive and might therefore'
be dangerous. It was not inconceivable that the activities of a foreign ship traversing
territorial waters might well be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of a
coastal State and might not fall within the scope of those provisions, for example, the
launching of an aircraft from a non-military vessel. For the same reasons, article 1$g..
was also too restrictive. A general saving clause should therefore be added which
would confer on the coastal State the power to enact laws relating to innocent
passage through its territorial sea. Such laws should not, however, in any way impede
the passage of commercial and trading vessels. Her delegation, like that of Pakistan,
had some reservations with regard to article 18, paragraph 5. She wondered on which
authority responsibility would rest for determining the liability of a coastal State
in cases where the owners of a foreign ship claimed that loss or damage had resulted
from the action of a coastal State in the exercise of its sovereignty over its
territorial sea. It must be made clear that that was not a matter.for arbitration but
for decisions in the courts of the coastal State concerned in accordance with its
own laws and regulations. Although it was not explicitly stated, that was the proper
inference to be drawn from the proposal.
She supported the provisions in article 19, but suggested that the word "may"
in the second line should be replaced by the word "shall".
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
A/CONP.62/C.2/SR.7
English
Page 3
(Mrs. Warner, Trinidad and Tobago)
With respect to article 20, the passage of submarines or other underwater vessels
which did not navigate on the surface of territorial waters could not be considered
innocent. She would therefore prefer to see the formulation set forth in the
1958 Geneva Convention retained, namely, "submarines are required to navigate on the
surface and show their flag", and the United Kingdom proposal amended to read
"submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate' on the surface and
show their flag".
She supported the 12 nautical mile limit for the territorial sea, provided, however.:
an exclusive economic zone was accepted together with the retention of the concept
of the continental shelf. As her delegation had stated in the plenary Conference, it
saw an organic link between the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and
regional or other arrangements concerning preferential rights of access to the
exclusive economic zones and zones of national jurisdiction. It would comment later
on the issues of the exclusive economic zone, regional and subregional arrangements :for
access to the living resources and continental shelf and on the issue of islands and
the proposals submitted thereon.
Mr. ARIAS-SCHREIBER.(Peru) drew the Committee's attention to a very important
question raised during the discussion which had not been brought to its logical
conclusion;. It was common knowledge that the territorial sea had in the past been
considered to be a narrow zone under the sovereignty of the coastal State for. purposes
mainly connected with neutrality and military defence. Modern industrial development
and scientific and technological progress led countries to assume responsibility for
what had been called the economic,protection of States and ecological protection of the
marine.. environment. Those opposing the territorial sea of 200 sea miles advanced in
support of their argument the contention that, in the era of intercontinental,
missiles, it was useless to extend the limit of the territorial sea for military defence
reasons, while they themselves sought to establish a territorial sea of 12 miles wide
on the.pretext of. national security. It was necessary to be logical and to discard the
old concept of territorial sea in favour of a new concept adapted to contemporary reality.
The new concept, that of the national sea, should lay stress on economic and socia.]
.requirements and be based on the need to promote the well-being of mankind. Territory
per se did not give rise to rights which, on the other hand, derived'from the presence
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
A/COriF. 62/c . 2/SR. 7
English
Page 4
(Mr. Arias-Schreiber, Peru)
of a population whose needs should be satisfied; and, as the territory and population
together constituted a nation, it was rational that the name "national sea" should be
given to the sea area of the coastal State. Only a national sea of that kind would
make it possible to arrive at an agreement reconciling the sovereignty of coastal
States over the seas adjacent to their coasts with the interests of other States, in
respect both c international communications and of the right of access of land-locked
States and other geographically disadvantaged countries.
The classical concept of the territorial sea would restrict national sovereignty
to a very limited area of the adjacent sea and, in the final analysis, would be of
benefit only to the great Powers which had adopted an adamant position on that subject
for purposes of domination and maritime hegemony. Such an attitude would preclude a
consensus and could, on the contrary, only result in similar intransigence from many
other countries. Surely the peoples of the world expected their representatives to
show imagination, goodwill and a spirit of justice in order to establish, for the
utilization and exploitation of the seas, a legal order which would reconcile the
rights and interests of the different nations instead of setting them against each
other-as had been the case in the past. He was gratified that other delegations,
including those of Guyana, Madagascar and El Salvador, shared his point of view.
Instead of becoming alarmed at the number of proposals in favour of a 200-mile
territorial sea, the developing countries should welcome that trend, because only a
measure of that kind would make it possible to protect their resources from the
depredations of the great Powers. The land-locked and other disadvantaged countries
should not forget that, if they wished to participate in the exploitation of the
territorial sea, some resources must still exist, in other words, the territorial sea
must be exploited rationally. Any other solution would only benefit the common
adversaries of the developing countries.
His delegation supported the Philippine proposal that the 1958 Convention on the
Territorial Sea should not be applicable to countries which had already decided to
extend the limits of the territorial sea to 200 miles on the basis of reasonable
criteria and with due regard to their own requirements.
Mr. Aguilar (Venezuela took the Chair.
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R0003Q00200Q7-$
A//CONF.bb2/C.2/SR.7
English
Page 5
Mr. LE VAN LOI (Republic of Viet-Nam) said he would explain the position
of his Government in the light of some proposals already submitted. Its position was
based on the particular situation of Viet-Nam, which had a coastline extending over
1,300 nautical miles, included 201 islands and archipelagos and bordered on a sea
which could be regarded as a semi-enclosed sea, because, in order to reach the high
seas, it was necessary to pass through straits. The Viet-Namese coast was very
diversified: in the north and centre it was particularly indented and embraced many
strings of islands, whereas it was very different in the south and south-east,-with the
Mekong delta, one of the largest rivers in Asia which left heavy alluvial deposits on
the coast. Those details showed that the Republic of Viet-Nam had. important rights
and obligations.
His delegation had given close attention to all the proposals submitted to the
Committee and it supported the Guyanan proposal (A/CO?4F.62/.C.2/L.5) which, however,
would be improved by being made more specific; in particular, the "other applicable
rules of international law', referred to in article 1, should be made more precise.
The baselines should be drawn between the outermost points of the national territory,
whether continental or insular. On that subject his delegation supported the
statement made by the. representative of Bangladesh, a country in a situation rather
similar to that of Viet-Nam, on the methods to be used for drawing the baselines.
In conclusion, his delegation was prepared to participate in the informal
consultations proposed and would certainly hake its contribution.
Mr. TSHERING (Bhutan) recalled that, as his delegation had already stated, it
was. important to reach broad agreement on the question of the territorial sea. Some
States had set the limits of their territorial seas unilaterally. As the international
area began precisely where the national zone ended, the extension of the limits of
the territorial sea to 200 nautical miles could only be of benefit to coastal States
or geographically well-situated countries, and such a measure was inconsistent with
the ideals of international co-operation, because the resources of the sea ought to
benefit all members of the international community without exception. The provisions
of article 4 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
provided a reasonable basis for delimiting the territorial sea. His delegation was
also prepared to support the establishment of a generally acceptable regime for the sea
and the sea-bed and joint jurisdiction at the regional or subregional level.
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
A/C0NF.62/C.2/SR.7
English
Page 6
Mr. CORI (Chile) recalled that it had been decided at the first meeting of
the Committee to focus efforts on drafting the key articles of the Convention. On that
occasion his delegation had inter alia proposed that the length of statements should
be limited and it was particularly gratified that the Venezuelan representative shared
those views. Two weeks had elapsed and the Committee had made little headway in its
work. Delegations should consider the specific proposals without restating 'already
defined general positions or elaborating on details which could not be dealt with at
the current stage or raising matters which should be settled on a bilateral basis.
Without levelling criticism at anyone in particular, he proposed that the officers
should take steps to prevent all statements from being made which were not relevant
to the subject so that the Conference could complete the great amount of work that lay
before it. That was the best way of thanking the host country for its cordial welcome.
ir. ROBLEH (Somalia) said he had already explained his country's position
in the plenary. He merely wished to express his full support of the statement made on
the previous day by the representative of Ecuador. With regard to the territorial sea,
two trends could be noted, one favouring the 12-mile limit and the other the
200-mile limit. The coastal States that had deemed it necessary to extend their limit
to 200 miles had done so for economic and security reasons.
The CHAIRMAN announced that a non-governmental organization, the International
Chamber of Shipping, had asked to speak in the Second Committee. Referring to rule 65
of the rules of procedure, he said that the text of the statement was very short and
concerned the item before the Committee. If there were no objections, he would take it
that the Committee authorized him to invite the representative of the International
Chamber of Shipping to address the meeting.
Mr. OGISO (Japan) pointed out that at the preceding meeting,_his delegation
had asked to be included in the list of speakers, but the Secretary of.the Committee
had said that the list was closed, despite the explanations given to the Nigerian
delegation at the previous meeting. The Chairman was now proposing to allow a
/.
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.7
English
Page 7
(Mr. Ogiso., Japan
non-governmental organization to speak on the same item. If the list of speakers was
closed, he had no recollection that it included the organization in question.
Furthermore, he wished to know whether some delegations were proposing to comment on
the documents that had been submitted.'
The CHAIRMAN recalled that it had been decided to close the discussion on
item 2 and in general to limit participation in the discussion to countries that had not
been members of the Sea-Bed Committee or to countries which, though members of that
Committee., had submitted new proposals. Furthermore, in accordance with the suggestion
made by the, representative of Nigeria it had been agreed that delegations might also
make: comments on statements made by countries belonging to one or other of the two
categories he had mentioned.
Accordingly, if there was no objection, he would call first on the representative
of Japan to speak, and then on the representative of the International Chamber of
Shipping.
Mr. OGISO (Japan) emphasized that much of what had been achieved in Geneva
on the question of the territorial sea remained valid. The provisions of those
texts could either be preserved or could at any rate serve as a basis for discussion,.
subject, if necessary, to changes of form. Consequently his delegation supported the
first two articles of the text proposed by the United Kingdom (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3)?
Similarly, with regard to the delimitation of the territorial sea in the case of two
States opposite or adjacent to each other, article 12 of the Geneva Convention on
the, Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone provided a balanced solution since it contained
the?objective criterion of the median line, while being sufficiently flexible to allow
for special cases. For the same reasons, his delegation thought that the drafts
submitted in documents A/CONF.62/C.2/L.8 and L.9 were somewhat ambiguous and did not
deal with the problem adequately.
Miss CALDER (International Chamber of Shipping), speaking at the invitation
of the Chairman, said that the International Chamber of Shipping comprised the
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300020007-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.7
English
Page *8
(Miss Calder, International Chamber of Shippin&)
national associations of shipowners of 23 countries and attached special importance to
the question of the breadth of the territorial sea and the right of innocent passage.
It appeared that the majority of delegations were in favour of a 12-mile
territorial limit. It was certainly essential to have a uniform breadth, but as the
limits of national jurisdiction increased, so did the importance of safeguarding the
interests of ships passing through territorial waters. If only for security reasons,
it would in many cases be inconvenient for ships to sail more than 12 miles off-shore.
With regard to the right of innocent passage, the Geneva Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone gave a generally satisfactory definition, but
it might be desirable to clarify it. The basic principle could be retained while it
was clearly specified that, save in a certain number of specific cases, such as the
exercise of a warlike act, the take-off or landing of aircraft, all passage was
innocent. Draft articles to that effect had already been submitted to the Committee.
Mr. GALINDO POHL (El Salvador) said he had listened with close attention to
the statement of the representative of the International Chamber of Shipping. Since
the ICS was an important body comprising shipowners of-23 countries, and since the
concern it felt with regard to international navigation was of general interest, he
thought he should make some clarifications without delay to dispel what might be a
misunderstanding. The representative of the ICS had pointed to the need for ships
enjoying the right of innocent passage to navigate as close to shore as possible. That
was a matter that had been discussed at length when the 1958 Convention had been drafted.
None of the proposals submitted to the Conference questioned the principles adopted at
the time and according to which vessels exercising the right of innocent passage could
navigate as close to shore as they wished and put into ports other than their port of
destination in cases of danger or when the circumstances required it.
Mr. GODOY (Paraguay), referring to the Peruvian representative's-statement
on the misgivings aroused by the many proposals to extend the breadth of the territorial
sea to 200 miles, wished to point out that his delegation thought it was justifiable to
establish a 200-mile economic zone in which navigation would be free and such activities
as the laying of submarine cables could be exercised under the supervision of the coastal
State, while the resources of the sea and of the sea-bed would be protected against any
attempts at depredation harmful to the population of that State. His delegation would
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
A/CONF.62/c.2/SR.7
English
Page 9
(Mr. Godoy, PaxaguekY)
never associate itself with the manoeuvres of Powers who, while seeking to extend the
breadth of their territorial waters to 200 miles, were motivated by their designs on
developing countries.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee had now concluded its general debate
on the agenda item before it. Some further proposals would, however, still be submitted
to it, including those of Nigeria.
r.D
The General Committee was at present preparing a document summarizin the various
trends which had emerged in the course of the preparatory work, the Plenary meetings of
the Conference and the meetings of the Committee. It had been working on the variants
submitted by...delegations to the Sea-Bed Committee (vol. IV of the Report of the Sea-Bed
Committee) while referring to the proposals submitted to.Sub-Committee II (vol.'III of
the Sea-Bed Committee). It had endeavoured to express the various views as clearly as
possible, without making any additions and without attaching undue importalice to
questions.of form.
In reply to a question by Mr. '.!REDIT71.1IK (Bolivia ), the HAIR- 'explained that
that work had been accomplished by the General Committee itself and not by any group of
States.
Reply-*.-.L:' to Mr. P L A R D (Guyana), the CH4IR2AI'T said he had hoped to submit that
document to the Committee during the afternoon meeting. However despite the
collaboration of the..wecretariat, it had not yet been, possible to finish it.
He suggested with the support of Mr. GALINDO POHL (El Salvador) and Mr. FLANGINI
(Uruguay) that in order to expedite the work, the discussion should be held in informal
meetings only when that work was concluded and the document had been translated into
the various working; languages.
Mr. KEDADI_ (Tunisia) expressed his approval of the method of work proposed
by the Chairman, but suggested that the Committee.should take advantage of the delay
to hear speakers entered on the list for the. following agenda item, which concerned
the contiguous zone.
The CHAIRMAN noted that no delegation was ready to speak on the contiguous
zone. In order to expedite the Committee's work, he suggested that it should hear the
representative of Guyana who wished to comment on the draft articles submitted by the
United Kingdom.
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
 A/CONE'. 62/C.2/SR.7
English Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8
Page 10
Mr. POLLARD (Guyana) said his country entertained reservations regarding the
draft articles submitted by the United Kingdom (A/C0NF.62/C.2/L.3), in particular on
article 16. It was not clear to him whether the words "any threat or use of force in
violation of the Charter of the United Nations" in paragraph 2 were meant to be an
objective or a subjective criterion. In his view the provisions of the Charter on the
question of the resort to force were quite clear. Such resort was legitimate only in
cases of aggression and for purposes of legitimate defence. However, other States
maintained that Article 51 of the Charter did not prohibit pre-emptive attacks. In
the same way the use of force in pursuance of a United Nations decision was the subject
of much controversy. In the circumstances the wording of rticle 16 seemed ambiguous
and even dangerous. Similarly it might be wondered whether "justification under
international la?:r", a formula which raised the serious problem of the justification of
any activities carried out in execution of a judgement of an arbitral tribunal, was an
objective or subjective criterion and, in the latter case, what authority would determine
whether there was justification. It would also appear from the text of paragraph 2 that
the enurmcrat4r,n made there was exhaustive. He would have preferred an enumeration that
was merely indicative, for it was not humanly impossible to foresee all the situations
that might arise. The.s=e comment applied to the enumeration in paragraph 3 of the
same article. His delegation would have difficulty in accepting subparagraphs (e) and
(f) of paragraph 2. It might furthermore be wondered whether the acts listed in
paragraph 2 were covered by the provisions of paragraph 3.
He coniidcred tL determination as to whether passage was innocent to be a purely
subjectivc matte-, on which on2y the coastal State was competent to decide. He
therefore preferred the text of t.,e Geneva Convention, which he proposed to support.
rinal;y, he pointed out that whereas paragraph 3 (b) referred to "prior
authorization of the coastal State", paragraph 2 mentioned only "authorization from
the coastal State". He wondered whether that distinction was fortuitous or deliberate.
Would a special prior authorization be required in one case and assumed in the other?
His delegation regarded such an interpretation as inadmissible in view of the serious
nature of the activities mentioned in that paragraph.
The meeting rose at 4.55 .m.
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300020007-8