SECOND COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: July 26, 1974
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
UNITED NATIONS
PROVISIONAL
For participants only
A/COIN. 62/C. 2/SR.13
26 July 1974
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Second Session
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD, OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Tuesday, 23 July 1974, at 10.50,.a.m.
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Chairman: Mr. AGUILAR Venezuela
Rapporteur: Mr. NANDAN Fiji
CONTENTS
Consideration of subjects and issues and related items: straits used for
international navigation (continued)
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the four working languages
(English, French, Russian or Spanish), preferably in the'same language as the text to
which they refer... Corrections should be sent in quadruplicate within five working days
to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, Nivel Lecuna, Edificio Anauco, and also
incorporated in one-copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 26 JULY 1914, THE TIME-LIMIT'FOR CORRECTIONS WILL
BE 2 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5261
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.13
English
Page 2
CONSIDERATION OF SUBJECTS AND ISSUES AND RELATED ITEMS: STRAITS USED FOR INTERNATIONAL.
1AVIGATION (A/9021; A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3 and Corr.1 (Spanish only), L.11) (continued)
Mr. BEESLEY (Canada) said that he hoped that the preliminary remarks he was
about to make on the proposals submitted so far would indicate his delegation's
willingness to enter into serious negotiations. He shared the view that the subject
under discussion was one of the fundamental issues of the Conference which would influence
the solution of many interrelated problems. His delegation therefore attached great
importance to the need to accommodate the interests not only of the coastal and straits
States in question but also of the international community as a whole. The matters
involved were the maintenance of freedom of navigation, the preservation of the marine
environment and the development of regulations which would enable those aims to be
achieved peacefully, rather than become an encouragement for disputes.
All the proposals submitted so far assumed a plurality of r6gimes - that of the
territorial sea, that of straits customarily used for international passage, the
possibility of alternative routes and the problem of straits less than 24 miles wide.
While care must be taken not to create systems of discrimination, the establishment of
world-wide regulations did not preclude the establishment of special regimes for
particular straits.
While the definition of a "strait used for international navigation" must take
into account its geographical aspects, many straits which appeared suitable for
international navigation on charts were not so used for very good reasons. In the
judgement rendered by the International Court of Justice in the Corfu channel case, the
Court had adopted as a criterion of the strait's actual use for international navigation
the number of ships using it and the number of flags represented.
The statement by the United States representative at the preceding meeting had
drawn attention to problems of safety and pollution.
While his delegation considered that the proposals submitted so far, and in
particular those of six socialist States of Eastern Europe (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.11) and the
United Kingdom (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3), were moving in the right direction, it had
reservations about all of them and considered that none properly accommodated the
interests of all States. Both the proposals mentioned included the idea that the
management of ocean space recommended at the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment was even more necessary for narrow straits.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0 /..
 A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.13
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040919ZD 3
(Mr. Beesley,Caneda)
The growing recognition that the concept of the jurisdiction of the flag State
implied also its responsibility in case of disaster caused by the passage of a ship was
an encouraging development.
However, he requested clarification of various points in the United Kingdom proposal
(A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3). For instance, in chapter two, part III, article 15 seemed to imply
that passage must always be presumed to be, innocent unless the coastal State claimed
otherwise. Article 1.6 did not seem to take sufficient account of the fact that the
coastal State's security could be threatened as much by environmental as by military
problems. Paragraph 3 of that article tended to strengthen the presumption of innocence
because it left the judgement as to the prejudicial nature of passage to the discretion
of the ship's captain. Care should, however, be taken regarding the extent of that
discretion, especially if it implied a right to override the coastal State's laws and
regulations. It might be necessary to give a list of the matters over which the coastal
State might make laws and regulations as proposed in article 18 in order to ensure
that new regulations were not suddenly introduced to the detriment of the interests of
flag States.
The question of the shipowner's liability for damage caused by the passage of
ships and compensation for that damage had been raised in both proposals, but his
delegation had reservations:, on those proposals because it did not consider them
sufficiently comprehensive.
In view of the vital importance of the issues involved to coastal States, to
countries with large maritime fleets and to those which, although not possessing such
fleets, were vitally concerned with passage through straits, the Conference might not be
able to reach an immediate solution to the problem. The articles to be drafted should
set forth preventive as well as remedial measures against pollution of the marine
environment, and their general provisions should take into account special situations,
customary uses of straits, the needs and interests of coastal States bordering on
straits used for international navigation, and those of the international community as
a whole. If they contained a clear statement of the rights and duties of flag and
coastal States, those interests need not conflict. It would also be necessary to
propose an international machinery for the settlement of disputes arising from
implementation of those provisions.
Mr. ABDEL IIAMID (Egypt) welcomed the fact that the discussion so far was
proceeding on a serious level, as evidenced by the statement of the representative of
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
.a/CUNF.62/C. 2/SR.l3
ngli sh
age 4
(Mr. Abdel Ilamid, Egypt)
,he United States at the preceding meeting confirming the need to ensure the security
t)f the coastal State, safety of navigation and the prevention of pollution - three
?tspects of the question which were of prixdary importance to all States. The Egyptian
delegation's statement in the general debate had recognized the international importance
,if passage through straits and the desirability of maintaining such passage in order to
aromote international prosperity.
While he welcomed the attention drawn by the United States representative to the
~juestion of the security of the coastal State, he wished to ask him two questions.
'he first was why his country did not respect the requirement that prior authorization
:hould be given by the coastal State for passage of warships or at least that the
,oastal State should be notified of such passage and the second was how the coastal State
,ould verify whether a submarine refrained from testing weapons of any kind during its
passage through straits if it remained submerged.
With regard to the proposal submitted by the United Kingdom (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3),
article 1, paragraph 3, recognized the sovereignty of the coastal State and article 18
confirmed that sovereignty with regard to a long list of objectives. Those provisions
;night be valid if they appl4ed to some high seas area in which the coastal State could
exercise a certain jurisc.iction, but if they referred to the area under national
;overeignty, the complexity of the marine environment might require the coastal State
'-o co-operate with the international community in order to facilitate navigation.
Again, although there was general agreem^nt that such passage must be peaceful,
,-he various proposals did not indicate how the coastal State could exercise any
Supervisory powers granted to it.
The United Kingdom representative had referred to his country's global commitments.
Surely the matter under discussion was not Military commitments but the peaceful ube
of the seas, and extra-legal issues could not be injected into the legal provisions
for the regime.
Mir. SYMONIDES (Poland) said that his country attached particular importance
to the maintenance of the right of unimpeded passage through straits because it
)ordered on the Baltic Sea, from which the way to other seas and oceans led through the
3altic Straits. The traditional routes of its merchant fleet also passed through
other straits.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
A/COi11F.62/C.2/S t,.13
English
Page 5
',r. Symonides, Poland)
The question of what straits should be subject to the principle of free transit
had been answered by the sponsors of document A/CONF.62/C.2/Lell.. in article 1,
paragraph 1, which obviously applied to straits of a with not exceeding 24 miles.
straits exceeding 24 miles created no problems since the waters beyond the 12-mile
limit constituted part o the open sea and allowed for unrestricted free passage.
It was, however, unjustified in terms of international law to classify straits into
those up to six miles wide and those from six to 24 miles wide, especially since an
overwhelming majority of delegations recognized a 12-mile territorial sea. In both
cases, the legal status. was identical and the waters of such straits were territorial
waters.
That did not, however, mean that transit through straits up to 24 miles wide
could be based on the principle of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
Passage through straits must be subject to separate rules because both the law of
the sea now in force and the draft proposals submitted to the Conference underlined
that passae.through straits used for international navigation'could not be--suspended.
It was possible to bypass a territorial sea by extending navigation routes but it
was impossible to avoid passage through certain straits. If the decision to grant
or refuse passage could be taken arbitrarily on the basis of the still not well defined
notion of "innocent passage`', it might lead to discrimination against some States
and to the limitation of the right of navigation for subjective reasons due to
existing alliances, political ties and particular interests of coastal States. That
was especially applicable to the passage of warships.
It was therefore necessary to resolve separately the question of the right of
passage through and above straits. The rules governing transit through straits were
enumerated in. article 1, paragraph 2 of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.11. In the case
of narrow straits, the coastal State would also have the right to trace out special
corridors for transit purposes.
With regard to the obligations imposed not only on ships in transit but also on
the coastal State,. one question required clarification. The right.of transit would
only be theoretical and transit would not be unimpeded if the coastal State was
allowed to build structures and installations which could in fact lead to the closing
of a narrow strait.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
A/CONF.0'-2/C.2/SR.13
English
Page 6
(Mr. Syraonic e:: , Poland)
While n.3 one wished to deprive coastal Ltat.!s of their sovereign right to fish,
explore the area or exploit natural resources, as explicitly stated in article 1,
paragraph 3 (b) of the draft proposal, coastal States should take into account the
interests of international navigation when undertaking such activities.
Rules concerning the exercise of unimpeded transit through straits obviously
did not mean ti-.e abrogation of existing international agreements in that respect.
The task of the Conference was to .:raft rules to encourage the present and future
development of international relations in accordance with the requirements of
international co-operation and security which were met by the principle of free
transit.
-,;r. ARIAS SCIIicEIBER (Peru) said that the views of his delegation were
very largely the same as those expressed by the representative of Tanzania at the
previous meeting; a distinction had to be me.de between the interests of humanity
in general and those of certain States.
The passage of merchant vessels through straits used for international navigation
was a peaceful use of the seas which was considered innocent and which was of
benefit to all countries. It should be preserved without discrimination; straits
States mus- facilitate the rapid and safe passage of such vessels. merchant vessels
must comply with the regulat4ons laid down by the coastal States so as to avoid
damage to the marine env;.ronment and danger to shipping. The passage of warships
was not in the general interest, nor was it a peaceful and innocent use of the seas.
it served the strategic and military interests of a small number of maritime=Powers.
While it might, in certain cases, serveother States, it should be looked upon as
a necessary evil so long as there were still possibilities of conflict between
nations. It was only reasonable that warships should respect the rights and
legitimate interests of coastal States. The only suitable way to reach'a satisfactory
agreement between States using straits and States bordering on straits was to
revise and define the coLcept of innocent passage throug'i the territorial sea,
specifying what vessels in transit could or could not do.
The proposal submitted by the United Kingdom and that submitted by a group df
socialist countries were based on a principle that was not in keeping with the
nature of marine space or with the development of the law of the sea. Instead of
referring to t2*pppAB"j:g20t12T&tfA-~$900~( used for
/...
 $ Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
A/CONF.62/C.2/0R.13
English
Page' 7
(Mr. Arias Schreiber, Peru)
international navigation, the proposals spoke of straits linking one part of the
high seas with another part of the high seas whereas the likelihood was that in future
they would link not two parts of the high seas.. but the economic zones of one or more
coastal States. The definition must therefore be amended. The essential point
was that the area involved was territorial sea; consequently, the provisions
governing its use could nct disregard the rights and jurisdiction which the coastal
State exercised within tha? area.
As part of those rights and jurisdiction, it was logical that the coastal States
should require notification of. the passage of vessels with special status; it was
even more logical to xeauire authorization for the passage of warships. If, as the
great Powers maintained, the passage was innocent, warships must prove their
innocence in compliance with the Convention. The same was true for the passage of
submarincs, whose concealment could only be for far from innocent reasons. Like
other delegations, he hoped that further explanations would be forthcoming on the
subject of submarines.
He did not see why the coastal State should be denied the possibility of taking
precautions if it felt that there was a serious threat to its legitimate interests.
from. the passage of any kind of vessel through straits within its territorial sea.
The draft Convention submitted by Malta covered that point: the draft articles
submitted by the United Kingdom and those submitted by the socialist countries
excluded it, inJceed, the lpttter would even prohibit stopping vessels in transit or
requests for. information.
It was clear that certa:Ln maritime Powers intended to. use the law of the sea
as an instrument of their noiicy of freedom of action and to serve their plans for
hegemony, ..tnd they expectcd other States to serve as accomplices in achieving those
aims. They even went so far as to make recognition of. large areas of national
jurisdiction for mainly economic purposes conditional on the simultaneous acceptance
of free passage rough straits for mainly. aggressive purposes in the vain hope
that non-straits States would accept such a deal. His country would not be,a party
to that manoeuvre. He was certain that there would be a similar response from those
States that opposed the claims of a minority of maritime Powers and wished to
establish a new legal order governing the use of the seas based on the principles of
peace and justice for all nations of the world. It appeared from an initial
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0 /..
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
A/(:(11+t' . c 2/~ . 2,3f. 13
rnglish
Page 8
(Mr. Arias Schreiber, Peru)
examination that the proposals submitted by the delegation of Oman were a step in the
right direction.
1,1r. EL KOHEN (Morocco) said that he wished to clear up a misunderstanding
that had arisen over his delegation's position on the question of straits. His
delegation was in favour of the application of the principle of innocent passage, which
was the traditional basis for navigation in the territorial see. The application of
that principle had allowed the development of international trade and of co-operation
between nations and had never harmed international navigation in any way. Indeed, it
had become a practice of international society and had proved entirely satisfactory.
There was therefore no need to change the rule of innocent passage for something that
might prove less certain, at a time when traffic had become heavier and the risk of
accidents of all kinds greater than ever before. He reminded the Committee that Morocco
was one of the sponsors of the draft appearing in document A/AC.138/SC?II/L.18, in which
there was a very accurate balance between the elements of the concept of innocent
passage. That document could serve as a useful basis for the work of the Committee.
A Moroccan law of 2 March 1973 provided that navigation through and overflight of
straits were permitted on the conditions set out in the international agreements to
which Morocco was a party and in accordance with the principle of innocent passage as
defined in international law. As a member of OAU, Morocco supported the declarations
appearing in document A/CONF.62/33, which endorsed the regime of innocent passage in
straits used for international navigation.
Mr. PARASZTI (Hungary) said that, as a land--locked country engaged in
considerable international trade, Hungary had a particular interest in free access to the
seas and attached great importance to freedom of passage for all States without
discrimination through straits used for international navigation, whether or not the
straits lay within the territorial sea of a coastal State or contained areas of high seas.
That well-established rule of international law should be embodied in the Convention on
the Law of the Sea.
The doctrine of innocent passage was not sufficient for passage between parts of the
nigh seas, despite the provisions of the 1958 Geneva Convention. The doctrine could still
i)e used by a coastal State ar a pretext to impede free transit. His delegation therefore
:supported the draft articles in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.11, which set out clearly the
concept of freedom of navigation. The doctrine of innocent passage should apply only to
straits providing access from the high sea to territorial sea in which the principle of
innocent passage4p ove**I&eRele i200QA/04f (Z"RP82Sb 03otU4001 Oin article 2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.13
n5],i sh
(Mr. Harasztti, Hungary)
The right of free passage did not affect the right of coastal States to regulate the
pas sage of ships through straits within their territorial waters in the interests of safety
of navigation. Regulation should not, of course, interfere with freedom of navigation.
The right of freedom of overflight should also be recognized in the new Convention.
He could not agree with those delegations that maintained that overflight should, be
v. ,
regulated by air law conventions. The sovereignty of a coastal State extended to the
air spa overits territorial waters; the Convention must recognize that and the
right to overflight.
The draft articles.conrained in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.ll could serve as a useful
basis for the elaboration of articles establishing. the legal regime of straits used for
international navigation.
PIr. TUNCF,L (Turkey), in his preliminary comments on the draft articles
(A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3 and L.ll), said that the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union had taken
a very similar attitude to pollution from ships in international straits. They seemed
to feel that the coastal State should have no jurisdiction in the matter and that
vessels should comply with international regulations. There was a complementary
view that the coastal State should bear responsibility, but should act in the light of
international recommendations so as to ensure a uniform regime applicable to straits.
His delegation reserved its position on the matter. -
The issue of traffic separation had been the subject of considerable discussion
in the Sea-Bed Committee. His delegation had not taken a-position on the issue. It
would be advisable to consider carefully whether the recommendations of the competent
international organization should be given the status of compulsory treaty law.
Articles 19 and 20 of the 1958 Geneva Convention were incorporated in the draft
articles submitted by the United Kingdom. They seemed to be applicable to criminal
and civil responsibility in respect of merchant vessels and navigation incidents. in
straits. The responsibility of non-commercial vessels was set out in chapter three,
article,? of the United Kingdom draft articles. The definition employed in that article
was not the same as that. used in chapter two, article 25; he hoped the representative
of the United Kingdom would be able to clarify that point. The Soviet proposal did
not mention non-commercial vessels, and did not state whether the liability mentioned
in article 1, paragraph 2 (d) was criminal or civil. It was not clear whether the
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0 /...
 A/CONF. 62,/C. 2/C?i.3i$pproved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
1nglish
Page 10
(Mr. Tune el, Turkey)
definition of the term "warship" given in chapter two, article 26, of the United Kingdom
draft articles was applicable to passage through straits. His delegation reserved its
position on the matter and would consider the implications of a definition in the
context of the rules governing passage through the territorial sea and through straits.
His delegation welcomed the fact that most of the proposals made recognized the
validity of treaty law. The Convention being drafted should recognize the legal regime
applied in all the previous relevant conventions. Chapter three, article 10 of the
United Kingdom draft articles covered multilateral conventions, including the United
Nations Charter, while the draft articles submitted by the Soviet Union did not
mention the United Nations Charter. The United Kingdom's article 10 should be split
into two subparagraphs, one dealing with the legal regime based on treaty law and one
providing a more detailed description of the regime based on the United Nations Charter.
As far as treaty law was concerned, his delegation preferred the wording used in
article 1, paragraph 3 (c) of the USSR draft articles, which used the term "legal
regime" rather than the term "obligations".
Pilotage and assistance in the event of collision or other incidents were two
issues that should be covered by the Convention. Provisions should be made for boats
to be piloted by pilots from the coastal State, especially where passage was through
narrow straits or straits subject to heavy traffic. The coastal State should have the
right to come to the aid of vessels involved in accidents, because channels must be
cleared for passage as quickly as possible.
He had noted with considerable interest'the suggestion by the delegations of
Denmark and Finland that a distinction should be made between traditional straits and
those created by the extension of the territorial sea.
Mr. ANDERSEN (Iceland) said that the questions of a territorial sea of
12 miles, an economic zone of up to 200 miles, and unimpeded passage through straits used
for international navigation were closely linked and must be resolved together. Since
consensus had been reached on the first two points, the straits issue was of crucial
importance. Mutual distrust and suspicion should be set aside so as to safeguard
freedom of navigation through straits and in the economic zone.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R00OA3 O. .2/sRa3
English
Page 11
(Mr. Andersen, Iceland
The right of unimpeded passage and adequate protection of the interests of the
coastal State must be balanced. In that connexion he supported the United Kingdom
proposals (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3), which had been supplemented by the proposals of Denmark
and Finland (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.15) and similar proposals such as those in document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.11.
An agreement along those lines would greatly facilitate the. work of the Conference
on the economic zone. He hoped that the straits. issue would not become a stumbling
block but rather a catalyzing factor in ensuring the successful treatment of the economic
zone.
Mr. LING CHING (China), commenting on the proposals of Oman (A/CONF.62/C.?/IL.16)
and the Soviet Union (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.ll),said that the, legal status of the territorial
sea differed from that of the high.seas. The territorial sea was undeniably an
inseparable part of the territory of the coastal State, which exercised full sovereignty
over it. A strait lying within the limits of the territorial sea could hardly change
its status and become part of the high seas simply because it was normally used for
international navigation. It stood to reason that the strait State exercised
sovereignty and jurisdiction over such a strait,.and had the right to make all the
necessary laws and regulations governing it, The very title of the draft articles
submitted by Oman, "Navigation through the territorial sea, including straits used for
international navigation", showed that such straits remained part of the territoriaE
sea of the coastal State.and retained their legal status as such.. Moreover, the Oman
proposal explicitly provided for a number of specific rights of the coastal State in
its regulation of such a strait. The Soviet proposal, however, while placing
restrictions on the sovereignty and rights of the-coastal State, demanded the right of
equal freedom of navigation for all ships, including warships, That, in essence, was a
denial of the status of such straits as territorial sea and of the coastal State's
sovereignty and jurisdiction over them. Such contempt for the sovereignty of. the
strait State was unacceptable to his delegation.
With respect to the regime of innocent passage, his delegation believed that while
the sovereignty of the strait State must be fully respected the needs of international
navigation must be taken into account and all necessary measures adopted to ensure
unimpeded international trade. That was a very important point on which many countries
had understandably expressed concern. In principle innocent passage meant passage
granted tABV i Fv rs lfrRPAW41at 1 R?893?) 1 a.ce, good order
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR,13
English
Page 12
(Mr. Ling Ching, China)
and security of the coastal State and that they observed the relevant laws and
regulations of that State. The draft articles submitted by Oman not only safeguarded
the sovereign security and interests of the coastal State but also took into account
the convenience of international navigation. They set forth a number of reasonable
objective criteria permitting unimpeded passage for foreign merchant vessels, and
providing ample guarantees to such vessels engaging in normal international transport.
His delegation believed that those proposals could be taken as the basis for the
Committee's discussion.
The passage of foreign military vessels was, however, an entirely different matter,
and must be clearly distinguished from that of foreign merchant vessels, as had rightly
been pointed out by the representatives of Sri Lanka-and Tanzania. The super Powers had
always tried to obliterate that distinction under the smoke-screen of "all ships",
and had adopted pretexts of all kinds in an attempt to impose free passage through
straits by warships.
One super-Power had asserted that its insistence on freedom of navigation through
straits was aimed at deval:)ping international trade. It was the legitimate desire of
the peoples of the world to develop such trade; but that had nothing to do with warships
and nuclear submarines. Moreover, the free passage of such vessels through straits in
itself posed a threat to the strait State or to others. The Soviet representative had
quoted figures showing the increase in the voluu-e of international trade. That increase
could hardly have been brought about by the free passage of warships and nuclear
submarines through straits.
The Soviet Union was also peddling its claim for free passage of warships through
straits under the label of safeguarding collective security. But the Soviet Union had
substantially increased its fleet in the Mediterranean and in the Indian Ocean, thus
directly threatening the security of the countries in those regions, infringing their
sovereignty and interfering in their internal affairs. That action could in no way be
described as a measure of collective security; on the contrary it had greatly
aggravated insecurity in the world.
The Soviet Union was also flaunting the ideas of peace and disarmament to cover
up the expansion of its naval force. Facts showed that the very power that had-been
talking glibly about disarmament had in reality greatly expanded its naval force and
strengthened its strategic position in the world. One of its representatives had in fact
confessed that tap c9~~`1~ t ,40&i, 3 P8pQp?93 ffiVgOand
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
A/(JO1b21.2~8Rr ~..
English y ,.:.
(Mr. Lin & Ching, C
Thus, talc' ideas of "all ships"'and "freee- _?assa It. as. ?d'~o~ aV..ed b. t e super-Powers
were designed to enable their warships and nuclear - submarines, to,crpss.the.oce s-.of
the world in implementation of their. expansionist policies and tl}eir,;.;strategy Sid: world
hegemony. If that design were carried out, not only would the sover:eignty.of the strait
States be infringed, but the peace and security of the world as a whole wou.Zd.be
threatened. his country could not accept that approach. The draft.articles submitted
by Oman provided that the coastal State might require prior notification to or
authorization by its competent authorities for the passage of foreign warships through its
territorial sea, in conformity with regulations in force in such a State. His delegation
considered that requirement to be the undeniable right of a sovereign State and firmly
supported its inclusion in the Convention,.
The super-Powers had advocated free passage through straits for all ships including
warships as a precondition for a package settlement of various issues relating to the
law of the sea. His delegation believed that since there were certain interrelationships
between the various aspects of that law, due consideration should be given, in the course
of dealing with a certain item, to other related items. However, that should never be
done at the expense of.the sovereignty. of the States concerned and the interest of
international peace and security. Any attempt.to exchange recognition of the legitimate
demands of the developing countries for free passage through straits by military vessels
would not be tolerated.
Mr.?TARCICI (Yemen) said that it was. the duty of.the,coastal State to
facilitate as far as possible the passage-of civil-and merchant vessels and aircraft of
all States. The action required for.that purpose made the exercise of sovereignty by
the coastal State over its territorial waters obligatory. It was the duty of a coastal
State not only to facilitate international trade,.but,.also to protect itself against
any attack on or threat to its . national. security and sovereignty. It was therefore
essential for warships and military aircraft. to obtain authorization to pass through
territorial waters. Every State guarded its sovereignty jealously, particularly when it
was small and inadequately armed; no State could tolerate the unnotified presence of
warships, submarines or military aircraft in the area under its jurisdiction. Neverthele;
once a coastal State had assured itself that military vessels or aircraft did not present
any danger to national security, permission for their passage should be granted rapidly.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
/ .. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
AJCONF.62/C.2/SR.13
English
Page 114
(14r. Tarcici, Yemen)
It was not likely that any instrument or treaty drawn up under the influence of
certain Powers and without due regard to the points he had made would be signed by
Governments of countries that felt threatened, and it would certainly not be ratified
by Parliaments that felt responsible for the security of their country and their rising
and future generations.
rir. VANDERPUYE (Ghana) said that the question of establishing a generally
accepted rfigime for straits used for international navigation had long concerned the
international community, as evidenced by the development of the r6gimes of straits such
as those of Gibraltar, Magellan, the Danish Strait, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles,
most of which had been evolved long before many of the countries represented at the
Conference had attained nationhood. The question had been dealt with in international
treaties and conventions and had engaged the consideration of the International Court of
Justice. The fact that the Conference was still examining the issue showed that past
solutions had been unsatisfactory. The Addis Ababa Declaration of the Organization of
African Unity (A/CONF.62/33) had recognized the complexity of the problems of straits
used for international navigation by stating that, in view of the importance of such
navigation, the African States endorsed the r6gime of innocent passage in principle but
recognized the need for further specific provisions governing that r?gime.
His delegation believed that an equitable solution to the problem must attempt
to strike a balance between the international maritime community's interest in
traversing such straits and the interest of the coastal State in its own territorial
sea, anc in particular in the security, safety of navigation and prevention of pollution
in that sea. It was against that yardstick that his delegation would weigh any proposals
before the Conference.
ifis delegation believed that the definition of a strait should be comprehensive
enough to include not only geographical or geomorphologieal characteristics such
as width and depth but also the functional aspects of the strait such as international
maritime traffic and local economic interests.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300Q4001:2- 2/C.2/SR.13
English
Page 15
(Mr. Vanderpuyee fiWa )
With regard to the nature of the ships passing through straits, his delegation
believed that if the width of a strait was such that it fell within the territorial
sea of the strait State or States, innocent passage only should be allowed unless
otherwise provided under treaty. His delegation appreciated the.argument put forward
by the advocates of the concept of freedom of navigation - which was, incidentally,
quite new in its application to straits'- that the application of that concept was
necessitated by the proposed recognition of a 12-mile breadth for the territorial sea,
which would mean that a large number of straits would fall within the territorial sea
of a State of States. His delegation wouldsupport'the application of the concept of
freedom of navigation in respect of straits lying'outside'the territorial sea, but not
its application to areas falling within the territorial sea. It believed that there
should be'different r6gimes for different categories of straits.
In his delegation's view, merchant vessels should enjoy greater facility of passage
than warships, on the understanding that the''new Convention should deal with the passage
of warships only in time of peace. The question of overflight shoulc ,be.regulated
within the framework of the Chicago Convention or another agreement, but not at the
present Conference.
His delegation felt strongly that the legitimate interests of coastal States in
regulating transit through straits must be recognized and protected, and that any
arrangements must protect the peace and security of the coastal States. It therefore
proposed the following formulations for the consideration of the Committee:
Where a strait used for international navigation between one part of the high seas
and another part of the high seas exceeded 24 miles in width, all ships in transit, should
enjoy the same freedom of navigation as they enjoyed on the high seas for the purpose of
transit over the belt of the waters of the strait which lay outside the territorial, sea
or the internal waters of the coastal State
Freedom of navigation should, however,'b'e exercised with due regard to the interests
of a coastal State in respect of their national security, sanitation and pollution
control, as also conservation and regulation of fisheries.
Passage through straits ' which`fe11 within the territorial sea of one or more States
for ships of all nations shomld.be governed by the principle of innocent passage. as
applicable to passage through the territorial sea of the State. The right of overflight
for an aircraft across the strait should be governed by the same principle as the passage
of ships.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040012-0
y/COIF.6 /C.2/SR.i3
English
Page 16
(Mr. Vanderpuve.- Ghana
Warships should be required to give advance notification to the coastal State of
their intention to transit a strait which lay within the territorial waters of two or
more States. Such warships should not in the area of the strait engage in any exercise
or gunfire, use weapons of any kind, launch aircraft, undertake hydrographical work or
engage in other acts of a nature unrelated to the transit.
Air. STEVENSON (United States of America) in exercise of his right of reply,
explained to the Egyptian representative, who had asked what assurance there would be
that a submerged submarine in transit through a strait would respect the obllgahan not
to threaten the security of that State, that the United States fully expected to comply
with any treaty which it signed and ratified. Clearly, there was always a risk of
States not complying with their legal duties, whether they related to a surface or
submarine vessel; but his country's record in that respect had been a very good one.
Indeed, the fact that it w-is seeking a rule indicated its intention to abide by its
obligations.
A strait was an area of confined waters in which no captain, either of a ship or
a submarine, would choose to take action threatening the security of a strait State.
Moreover, since submarines were equipped to travel submerged, that was the safest way
for them to cross an international strait.
In reply to the question why the United States had not complied with the obligation
of notification or authorization with respect to military vessels crossing the"
territorial sea, including straits overlapped by that sea, he pointed out that there
was no such requirement of notification or authorization under the existing'passage
regime adopted in 1958 with respect to the territorial sea. In fact, the proposals
made at the 1958 Conference to require such notification or authorization had not been
adopted.
His delegation felt that any such requirement for warships would not be desirable,
for it would tend to involve strait States much more directly in transits having nothing
to do with their own interests, and might conceivably expose them to pressures to which
they would not otherwise be subject.
The representative of Egypt and others had suggested that there might be something
illegitimate about the transit of warships or military aircraft through or over straits
without notice 6ppaPzgi?rs Sei'J01ite i7J'qg0igq%Mli Qproposals
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R00030064O W2-052/C.2/SR.l3
English
Page 17
(Mr. Stevenson, United States)
which would discriminate against the navigation rights of warships. or military aircraft.
The exercise of individual and collective defence had been recognized under the United
Nations Charter and in repeated actions of the United Nations. All nations, whether
they bordered straits or not, recognized the importance of maintaining that right for
the protection of their vital territorial and political integrity. The maintenance of
transit. rights for warships and military aircraft was not only consistent with the
Charter but was the only policy consistent with global realities and international
stability.
Mrs. KELLY de GUIBOURG (Argentina) and Mr. PRIETO (Chile) pointed out that
the treaty of 1881 concluded between their countries ensured freedom of navigation
through the Straits of Magellan for ships of all flags.
Mr. ABDEL HAMID (Egypt), having thanked the representative of the United
States for his reply, pointed out that it was precisely becausea risk was involved
that he had raised the ma?,ter. The United States representative had said that the
safest way for a submarine to pass was submerged; but the safety of those on shore must
also be taken into account, and a balance must be struck. He reserved the right to
revert to the matter at a later stage.
The meeting rose at 1.15 P.M.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040012-0