SECOND SESSION PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING HELD AT THE PARQUE CENTRAL, CARACAS, ON MONDAY, 5 AUGUST 1974, AT 3.20 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 25
• Publication Date: August 7, 1974
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
UPiITED NATIONS
For participants on1Y_
"HWR CONFERENCE
THE LAW OF THE SEA
Second Session
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
7 August 1974
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE rB+E TTY-SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Monday, 5 August 1974, at 3.20 p.m.
President: Mr. NJENGA
.Rapporteur? Mr. NANDAN
CONTENTS.
Exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial sea
Kenya
Fiji
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 7 AUGUST 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 14 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation*of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5345
/?.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 2
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, BEYOND THE TERRTTO IAL SEA (A/CONF.62/L.4+, A/CONF.62/C.2/L.17,
L.18, L.21, L.22, L.28, L.30 and L.32) (continued)
Mr. VOHAU (Poland), maintaining that the maximum breadth of the territorial
sea should be 12 nautical miles, said that his delega-;ion's position on the question of
the rights of the coastal State beyond the territorial sea was flexible. On the question
of fishing beyond the territorial sea, he urged delegations to be guided by the principle
of mutual benefits and to take account of the facts of geography, economics and other
relevant factors. The fishery resources of the world were distributed unevenly, and
while a few coastal States might satisfy their demand for protein by engaging in coastal
fishing, other geographically disadvantaged States, both developing and developed, could
obtain the necessary protein only through distant water fishing. Although it had been
argued that the unilateral appropriation of fish resources in a wide coastal zone would
serve the interests of all developing States, he pointed out that more than 50 developing
coastal States could be regarded as geographically disadvantaged, while 19 developing
States were land-locked. Granting unconditional rights in major fishing grounds to
coastal States would mean giving geographically privileged States additional privileges
under international law. He therefore hoped that the Conference would decide that it
would not be consistent with the principle of equity recognized by contemporary
international law if additional privileges were granted to a few States, while the rest
of the world was deprived of an important part of its food supply. In seeking a
reasonable solution that would safeguard the interests of the international community and
the special needs of developing countries, account should be taken of the fact that the
only justification for granting special rights was the existence of a special economic
situation.
Poland, despite its distant water fishing interests, was prepared to acknowledge
that developing coastal States and States whose economy depended mainly on coastal
fisheries should have the right to establish an economic zone in which they would be
entitled to exercise special rights with respect to living marine resources. Those
special rights should depend upon the fishing capacity of the coastal State, so that it
could reserve for itself the exploitation of any specific stock it could utilize fully
and part of the maximum allowable catch, corresponding to the capacity of its fishing
fleet, of other stocks which it could not fully utilize. Other States would then have
the right to exploit the unreserved fishery resources in the economic zone of the
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
English
Page 3
(lair. Vonau, Poland)
coastal State so that those resources would not be underfished. If other States were
not given that right, there could be a decline in the world supply of protein from the
sea,'iriternational conflicts could arise if distant water fishermen were forced to seek
access to the economic zone contrary to the regulations of the geographically privileged
coastal State, and the cost of protein from the sea would rise, so that geographically
disadvantaged States would be unable to secure adequate fish protein supplies.
His delegation would recognize the economic zone beyond the 12-mile territorial sea
only if the right of innocent fishing within the zone was accepted. adhere the coastal
State entitled to establish an economic zone did not fish for some stocks found in the
zone'or did not catch the maximum allowable yield of those stocks, nationals of other
States should have the right of innocent fishing. Fishing within the economic zone would
be regarded as innocent if hit did not interfere with the exploitation of stocks which were
:fully or partially utilized by the coastal State by disturbing the ecological balance or
by reducing the amount of the allowable catch reserved for the coastal State. The
conditions for the exercise of the right of innocent fishing could. be defined by regional
`fishery organizations composed of all interested States in the region and other States
?fishing`there. Regional fishery organizations should also be competent to make
recommendations in all matters connected with the conservation of living resources in the
economic zone or beyond it. The Food and-Agriculture Organization should co-ordinate
the activities of the regional fishery organizations.
Mr. MAROTTA RANGEL (Brazil) reaffirmed his delegation's support,. for the
200-mile territorial sea, the most logical expression of the irreversible trend towards
a new legal order for the oceans. However, in view of the wide acceptance of the concept
of the exclusive economic zone and the patrimonial sea, his delegation was willing to
consider those concepts, particularly as interpreted by African delegations to mean full
sovereignty over the resources of the zoneand.sov$reign rights for the purpose-of..:
exploration of the resources therein.
Referring to document.A/C.ONF.62/L.4, he said he would wait for further provisions
to be presented to complement and clarify the original draft, as he had. some difficulty
with it as it stood. One of the sponsors of the draft had stressed the, difference between
the rights of the coastal State in the economic zone and the rights of the same State in
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/c.2/SR.26
English
Page 4
(Mr. Marotta Rangel, Brazil)
the continental shelf as expressed in the Geneva Convention and in article 19 of the
draft (A/CONF.62/L.4). He failed to understand why the rights of the coastal State in
the economic zone should be defined in narrower terms than those admitted in the
continental shelf.
As it would be almost impossible to enumerate exhaustively the rights and duties
of coastal States and third States in the economic zone, it should be clearly stated
that the residual competence belonged to the coastal State in recognition of the
priority of the interests of the coastal State. Under the draft articles (A/CONF.62/L.4),
coastal States would have, in the economic zone, the right to explore and exploit
natural resources, rights, not specified, with regard to the preservation of the marine
environment and the conduct of scientific research, and the right to authorize and
regulate artificial installations. Third States, on the other hand, would enjoy freedom
of navigation and overflight and the right to other legitimate uses of the sea:',
including the laying of cables and pipelines. Each party should ensure that it did not
interfere with the rights of the other party in exercising its rights. Although coastal
States and third States thus seemed to be placed on an equal footing, doubts might arise
over what rights derived to third States from the brca' concepts of freedom of
navigation and other legitimate uses of the sea. For example, would ships of third
States, in the economic zone, have the right to engage in naval exercises, launch
missiles or aircraft, load or unload cargo, embark or disembark persons, establish
floating casinos or television stations? Mose actions were not, in his opinion,
permissible, and he raised the question of who should decide that they did not fall
under the broad category of legitimate uses of the sea.
The Conference must decide whether it would apply, in the economic zone, a regime
of complete freedom, as had traditionally existed in the high seas, limited only by the
obligation not to fish, mine, pollute or conduct research without authorization from the
coastal State, or if it would create a regime in which foreign vessels would have the
right only to free, unhindered and unimpeded transit. The Conference must also decide
who was to enforce the provisions of the Convention in the economic zone, the coastal
State or the international community which under the present decentralized system of
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 5
(Mr. Marotta Range, 1, Brazil)
international law,,: should mean every single State but in practice meant the big
maritime Powers. The answers to those two questions would depend on whether the
Conference decided that the economic zone should be recognized as part of the high seas
in which coastal States would have only certain specified rights, or that it should be
recognized as falling clearly under the sway of coastal States, with proper guarantees
being given to third States. His delegation supported the second of those two approaches.
Mr. ZEGERS (Chile) said that the economic zone could be defined legally as a
jurisdictional zone over which the coastal State exercised sovereign rights of a
primarily economic nature, without prejudice to the freedoms of.navigation and
overflight, up to a distance of 200 miles. That definition was no longer an abstract
concept; it'had been supported in the general debate by more than 100 States.
Turning to document A/C0NF.62/L.4, of which Chile was a sponsor, he observed that
article 12 defined similar rights to those in existence for the continental shelf.
Mention was made in articles. l1 and 15 of the freedoms of navigation, overflight and the
laying of cables and pipelines, and article 16 defined the discretionary power of the
coastal State to. authorize the emplacement and use of artificial islands and
installations. Thus it could be, seen that the competences or powers. of the coastal
State were all directly or indirectly related to its resources and their use and
preservation, while the rights of third States were directly linked with the
requirements of international communication.
Summing up the response in the Committee to the working paper (A/C:_)NF.62/L.4), he
observed that the representatives of Tanzania and Kenya, in accordance with the position
of the majority of countries on the African continent, had interpreted the definition
of the economic zone as being of a primarily "national" character, i.e. one
unmistakably under the jurisdiction of the coastal State, in which the international
community was entitled to exercise the three freedoms to which he had referred earlier.
They had explained why the weakening of the legal concept of the economic zone and its
equation with the theory. of preferential.rights..we.re not acceptable to them. That
position in fact: -coincided: with the.views expressed by delegations from other
continents.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6 /? ? ?
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 6
(Mr. Zegers, Chile)
The representatives of Kenya and El Salvador had both been of the opinion that the
definition in the working paper should be couched in stronger language. The
representative of El Salvador had felt that the wording should be even closer to
that in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. His delegation agreed that
such wording - which emphasized the "spatial" aspect of the economic zone - was
more favourable to the coastal State than the wording employed in the definition
prepared by the Organization of African Unity.
The representative of El Salvador had suggested the addition of the words
SPother economic uses of the sea" in the article relating to the competences of the
coastal State. Although he could not speak.on behalf of the other sponsors of the
working paper, his delegation was amenable to their inclusion.
The representative of El Salvador, who wished to emphasize the national character
of the economic zone, and the representative of the United States, who, on the contrary,
favoured a more international definition, had referred to the problem of residual
powers. The representative of El Salvador had suggested that such powers should be
vested in the coastal State, while the representative of the United States preferred
that they should be vested in the international community - which was tantamount to
granting them to the major maritime Powers. His delegation preferred the wording
proposed by the representative of El Salvador because it was more consistent with the
legal nature of the zone and with the political and economic solutions it was intended
to provide. However, if, as a basis for negotiation, agreement could be reached on
the five areas of competence of the coastal State to which he had referred earlier
and on the three freedoms or powers of third States, that would reduce the importance
of the residual element and might facilitate consensus.
Many delegations had shown an eagerness to discuss fisheries problems in their
statements on the economic zone, thereby raising the question of the relationship
between the economic zone and the regime for the high seas. He agreed that the duties
of the coastal State in the economic zone could not be discussed without taking into
account the obligations of the great maritime Powers in the international area.
Unrestricted freedom had led to the pollution of the high seas, the extinction or
debilitation of many species of fish and the monopolization of scientific knowledge.
It was therefore essential to discuss ways of subjecting such freedoms to
international regulation.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 7
(Mr..Zegerso Chile)
in conclusion, he expressed regret at a sta'." -,at heard at the preceding meeting,
which had no bearing on the deliberations of the Gcnference'and in which the
representative concerned had referred, in terms which were not historically accurate,
to events which had occurred a century earlier and for which, in any event,a solution
had been found through the diplomatic channel. Such statements fell outside the
scope of the Conference and placed unnecessary obstacles in the path of international
negotiation.
Mr. BEN MAYA (Tuni:sia.) said that, since the principle of the exclusive
economic zone s.emed to have been accepted by almost all delegations, the Conference
should now consid .r exactly wbb.?: t wao r eant by the e oncriic zone. His delegation
supported the position talon by the Organization of African Unity as set forth in
document A/CONIF.6213:. Accordingly, he supported an :::xcl.usive economic zone in which the
coastal State Wild have the exclusive r tight to exploit the renewable and non-renewable
resources up to a limit of 200 Kies, participate in controlling pollution and
to undertake scientific research. Pollution in the zone would affect primarily the
i uterests of the coastal State, but would also 1 of concern to mankind as a whole;
inter. stir- . many cc~a~.ftr:ies to fulfil their
ob .._igat en..: 4r~. _ rega d to controlling pollution.. In the case o ' scientific research,
coast a]. States sh.oulld 1Z es ti.t .ed to authorize other countries to carry out basic or
applies Aiantific r ss ^ch under reasonable conditions, including scientific and
technolox icai co-operation with the coastal State, so that not only would the results
of the research be made availah.e to tat State bra:,; it would also benefit from having
at e
some of its n :Licn,.is di:?e?^?t '_y itxvolve?{: in the
Tunisia had no land mineral or oil resource?, and was concentrating on
agriculture and fishing for development. .;.?:?ent IQ-year development plan gave top
pri Ji;?Y'-;y to the x-: ?el.rspt.e_nt of fi sherie . `rav alve training personnel and
establishing the necessary .ndusty ial, part and tra-:ispcrt Fishing would
take pla, e in the economic zone: which, in the case of Tunisia, could extend for Qnly
120 nautical miles for geographical rev;-ons. A:ithcugh there was legislation in force
to prevent am,y?? irrational exploitation of the fish resources of that zone, considerable
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A.-
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/COIJF. 62/C . 2/Sn . 26
English
Page 8
(Mr. Ben Aleya. Tunisia)
difficulties were experienced in trying to apply those laws to foreign fishing fleets.
That was why his delegation attached vital importance to the concept of the exclusive
economic zone.
His delegation was, however, aware of the concerns of land-locked and
geographically disadvantaged developing countries and of the interests of the
international community with regard to the peaceful uses of the sea, freedom of
navigation and overflight, and freedom to lay pipelines and cables. With regard to
the exploitation of the living resources of the .sea by land-locked or geographically
disadvantaged countries, he said that, in the case of developing African countries,
the Organization of African Unity should provide the institutional framework for
working out regional, subregional and bilateral agreements. In the case of developed
countries, the right to engage in fishing in the economic zone should be linked to the
transfer of technology and technical assistance. Care should also be taken to prevent
over-fishing, as foreign fishing fleets did not always respect the need for rational
exploitation.
Any hasty or insufficiently thought-out decision concerning the facilities to
be granted to land-locked or geographically disadvantaged countries could lead to
confusion in inter-State relations. For example, there was a question whether a
coastal State which had exhausted its resources through bad management would be
regarded as geographically disadvantaged, and whether a rich land-locked country
should be entitled to share in the fish resources of coastal States which depended
heavily on fishing, without any compensation to or control by the coastal State. Such
matters must be resolved to avoid confusion.
His delegation could not accept the argument of under-fishing put forward by
certain delegations in support of rights for third countries in the economic zone.
The argument was fallacious: in the Mediterranean there were two categories of
zones that could be regarded as over-fished, the first more severely than the second,
so that the second zone could be considered to beunder-fished by comparison with
the first. Moreover, if the same argument was applied to land resources, excess
food resources which certain countries enjoyed and sold at high prices to others,
should also be shared.
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 9
(Mr. Ben Aleya, Tunisia)
Turning to the question of the regime of islands, he said that island States should
have the'.same rights as continental States. In the case of other islands, and where.
there was a'problem of overlapping of economic zones, the median line should not
nec'essari'ly be the'only method of delimitation. Further study was needed in the case,of
islands and islets, which should not automatically have the same exclusive economic
zones as island'States. In that connexion, he referred to document A/AC.138/SC..II/L.40,
article XII of which set forth criteria for determining the economic zone of islands. He
also drew attention to document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.28, sponsored by his delegation, which
dealt with the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between adjacent and opposite
States.
Mr. ABDEL HAMID (Egypt) observed that although one of the main purposes of the
United Nations was to achieve co-operation between nations by solving international
problems of an economic nature, neither the United Nations nor any of its agencies had
so far been able to meet the challenge which the problems of economic development
currently posed. Consequently, and as a result of the growing scarcity of land-based
resources and total exclusion of developing countries from the benefits of the
exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed, those countries had turned to the resources
of the sea areas adjacent to their territorial sea, as vital sources for economic
development and even survival. Their claims in that regard were based, first, on the
traditional concept of sovereignty and the residual rights it entailed, and, second, on
a legitimate concern to narrow the gap between developing and developed countries. No
country could remain indifferent any longer to the pressing needs of its population;
consequently, whatever jurisdiction was eventually given to the coastal State, there
should be safeguards to ensure that national programmes of development were note
frustrated.
The concept of the exclusive economic zone or patrimonial'sea, as embodied in the
Declarations of Santo Domingo and the Organization of African Unity, was'a natural
outcome of the developing countries' philosophy and.was designed to overcome the
numerous shortcomings of the regime of the continental shelf as prescribed in the
1958 Geneva Convention.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF. 62/C. 2/SR. 26
(Mr. Abdel Hamid,Egypt)
Both the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States had issued
Declarations in 1973 and 1074 in which they firmly supported the concept of an exclusive
economic zone. It wis gratifying to note that that concept was now accepted by an
overwhelming majority of nations. Both approaches one based on sovereignty and
the one based on tree concept of the economic zone or patrimonial sea - had certain
fundamentals in craumon. A precise determination of the rights and duties of coastal
St?.te and third parties, particularly in respect of the legitimate uses of the sea, was
a first and important step in rer-.chiiig a rapprochement between the two schools of
-thought.
In defining the concept of the economic zone, account must be taken of the interests
of the international cc?mmun t;,r and of the land-locked or geographically disadvantaged
developing countries, which should be entitled to participate in the exploitation of
the living resources of neighbouring accnomic zones on an equal footing with the
nationals of coastal States. Such participations should be regulated by regional or
bilateral a eements, in accordance with the new law of the sea.
Thy suceeve of the future Loo-itiations depended on the many details to be worked
out. To endorse the concept and at the sane time to seek to denude it of its substance
.was meaningless. if the countries of the th..rd world found that their aspirations were
not being considered in a spirit. of understarid;~ng, their only option would be to take
unilateral action.
Egyptian authorities exerci.s::l jurisdiction with regard to national security,
custot:s and fist-,1 control, sf-nitaticn and immigration regulations in a six-mile
contiguous zone map,.u cd from the seaward limit of its 12-mile territorial sea. The
right to exercise such jurisdiction derived from customary international law and
had the positiia elect 'o? ex ed:'.`ci.ng transit navigation and safeguarding the security
of the coastal State. Egypt h.:_ieved that the functions exercised in the contiguous
zone derived from the residual rights of the coastal State and were different in nature
from the jurisdiction to be exercised in the exclusive economic zone, but that both
areas were compatible. Thus, his delegation firmly believed that the concept of the
contiguous zone should be adopted simultaneously with that of the 12-mile territorial
sea. While his delegation was open to suggestions regarding the breadth of the ocean
space over which jurisdiction would be exercised, it would insist on a differentiation
between a State bordering an ocean and a State bordering a narrow semi-enclosed sea.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 11
Mr. HARRY (Austs?alia) said that his delegation welcomed the almost general
acceptance of the concept of a 200-mile .economic zone and looked. forward to drafting
articles defining the legal content of the concept.
The economic zone should not be. regarded merely as a special zone of the high seas
in which the coastal State had certain preferential or exclusive.rights. In order for
the concept to be meaningful, the coastal State must have sovereign rights in relation
to the natural resources. It should also have.a defined jurisdiction and specified
rights to enforce international standards - and, in certain circumstances, to make
supplementary regulations designed to prevent pollution of the marine environment and the jurisdiction necessary to ensure orderly and responsible scientific research.
However,, in the interests of the world community, the newly acquired rights of the
coastal State should be accompanied by duties - for instance the duty to ensure the
rational utilization of renewable resources and to respect the freedoms of navigation,
overflight, and. the laying of cables and pipelines. There should be a fairly direct
connexion between the need to protect resources and the jurisdiction claimed. For
example,.. there was a direct connexion between discharge from ships and protection of
living resources.
His delegation believed that articles 10-18 of document A/C0NF.62/L.4 formed a
good framework.for a chapter on the economic zone in the Convention. They contained a
careful balance between the specified rights of the coastal State in respect of
the exploitation of natural resources, the protection and preservation of the marine
environment and the conduct of scientific research, on the one hand, and the rights of
the international community to the other,J.egitimate uses of the sea, on the other.
Moreover, the articles did not prejudice.,,the rights of a coastal State over the natural
resources of its continental margin. There was. a need for further articles on
fisheries, the development of which could probably be assisted by the Australian-
New Zealand paper now under revision._.,
Broadly speaking, the Australian approach to the management of fisheries in the
economic zone was that a coastal State should have the right and duty to conserve and
manage stocks of fish in the 200-mile zone. The coastal State should have the exclusive
right to determine the allowable catch and the proportion of that catch, up to
100 per cent, which its own fishermen had the capacity to harvest. If a State's own
fishermen were not in a position to take the full optimum yield, then the coastal
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 12
(Mr. Harry, Australia)
State should have a duty to grant fishermen from other countries permission, under
equitable conditions, to take the balance of the allowable catch. The extent to which
preferences might be given to fishermen of countries which-had traditionally fished in
those waters or to neighbouring States would need careful definition.
The Nigerian articles in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.21 and Corr.l reflected a
systematic approach to the subject and should be of considerable use in future
negotiations.
Mr. KORCHEVSKIY (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) expressed sympathy
to the delegation of Bangladesh in connexion with the recent catastrophic floods.
Byelorussia was a land-locked socialist State and attached special importance to-
the exploitation of the living and mineral resources of the world ocean. Other aspects
of the law of the sea were also important, however, and the Conference could be
successful only if it considered all problems of ocean space as a whole.
On the question of the economic zone, the position of his delegation was similar to
that of many other States which were land-locked, had narrow shelves or short coastlines.
Extending the rights of coastal States beyond the territorial sea would seriously
interfere with the interests of geographically disadvantaged States. Some
representatives of land-locked countries had already said that the concept of an
exclusive economic zone was similar to the concept of the annexation or nationalization
of the seas. He agreed with those who had claimed that developing coastal States which
had unilaterally extended their national jurisdiction to wide zones had themselves
undermined the principle of the common heritage of mankind adopted in General Assembly
resolution 2749 (XXV), as their action reduced the size of the international area. Such
unilateral action also increased the imbalance between the economic situation of coastal
States and land-locked States, which was not in accordance with the objective of the
United ?rations to close the -%Igap between different groups of States.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300RP 5A2/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 13
(Mfr. Korchevskiy, Byelorussian SSR)
His delegation approached the matter from a position of principle to justify its
view that the rights of coastal States over 200-mile economic zones should be subject to
certain conditions to ensure that the legitimate interests of third States, including
land-locked States would be protected in the zone, together with the right of all members
of the international community to freedom of navigation, freedom of laying cables and
pipelines, freedom of overflight, freedom of scientific research, and freedom of access
to the high seas and the international sea-bed area through straits used for
international navigation. He opposed the view that coastal States should be entitled
to unlimited' rights in the economic zone and agreed. with other delegations who had
interpreted sovereignty, not as absolute sovereignty, but as sovereignty with due
respect for the rights of other States. Accordingly, he believed that coastal States
should have sovereign rights only over the resources of the economic zone. He had no
objection to proposals that the coastal State should have competence with respect to the
'mineral resources of the economic zone, the conservation and rational exploitation of
the living resources, and the right to reserve, for itself, in the economic zone, as much
.of the maximum allowable catch as it had the capacity to fish. The coastal State should
not, however, disregard the interests of other members of the international community,
particularly land-locked countries. Where a coastal State could not fully utilize the
fish resources in its economic zone, it should grant access to its zone to nationals of
other States, such as geographically disadvantaged States, States which had spent
considerable amounts on research, exploration and evaluation of the living resources of
the zone, and States which had traditionally fished in that zone.
His delegation fully supported the more detailed proposals made by the
representatives of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria and. other countries, which were fully in
accordance with the interests of all States, particularly developing coastal and land-
locked States
Referring to document A/AC41:38/SC.II/L.ll, he noted that the sponsors had tried to
provide for distribution of the living resources of the economic zone in accordance with
the principle of. regional solidarity., That approach did not take account of the
interests of all land-locked States and other members of the international community,
particularly those which were not able to resolve the fisheries problem on a regional or
subregional level. He shared the views of those geographically disadvantaged States
that felt that the question of the exploitation of the living resources of the economic
zone should not be settled by bilateral, regional or subregional agreement, but should be
resolved in a universal international instrument.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
English
Page 14
Mr. UPADHYAY (Nepal) said that the concept of the economic zone had been born
of an awareness on the part of the developing countries that they had to protect their
interests against the onslaught of technically developed countries if they were to
maintain their political 4.ndependence and ensure economic progress.
The growing realization that many land-based resources would be exhausted within a
short time had led scientists to look towards the sea as a potential source of food,
energy and minerals for the whole world. Later, however, when it had been discovered
that the living resources of the sea were diminishing fast and were not inexhaustible,
it had been deemed necessary to arrange for the scientific management of marine
resources. One school of thought, regarding the sea as "res communis",.had advocated
entrusting such management to an international organization, while another, maintaining
that the sea was "res nullius", had suggested that exploration and exploitation should
be left to whomever would undertake it. The developing countries were naturally alarmed
by the second approach, which could further widen the gap between them and the developed
countries. With the rise of nationalism and in their growing determination to defend
political freedom, they had reaolved to examine past norms of international conduct with
P. view to setting the world on a right path of even development.
The concept of the economic zone was designed to protect developing countries from
further exploitation. Nepal visualized the economic zone as a zone of resource
jurisdiction, extending beyond the territorial sea up to a fixed limit, and comprising
the water column, the sea-bed and subsoil. It should safeguard the interests of the
developing countries, which would not be in a position to compete with the developed
countries without it. In fixing the limits of the zone, full account should be taken of
the Declaration of Principles governing the sea-bed and the ocean floor and also the
report of the Secretary-General contained in document A/AC.138/37. Since the economic
zone would have the sole purpose of protecting the interests of all developing countries
and would be created out of the area that belonged to all mankind, it should be under the
common jurisdiction of all neighbouring States, whether coastal or land-locked. The
modalities of such jurisdiction would, of course, be decided by the States themselves on
a regional or subregional basis. All States exercising jurisdiction should. also share in
the responsibilities.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 15
(Mr.- Upadhyay,- Nepal)
His delegation welcomed A/C0NF.62/L 4 because it represented`a co-operative effort
between developed and developing countries. It was particularly reassuring to note that
some developitiga'countries no longer feared that the developing countries were intent on
undermining :feelings of solidarity between nations of the `third world.
Hss `delegation could not endorse article 10 of the nine-'Power draft (A.1CONF.62/L.4)
since it spoke of the sovereign rights of the coastal States over the zone, thus
conflicting with the philosophy on whidh the Declaration of Principles was based.
Furthermore, article 13, which provided for an outer limit of 200 miles, was totally,
incompatible with the concept' of the`comuoiri heritage of mankind. In'the bracketed text
following article ~..3, the obvious reliietance df the sponsors to accord land-locked and
geographically disadvantaged States"`hy'i~orth-while rights augured ill for constructive
.negotiations. In short, the draft suffered from 'seio~s drawbacks, was regressive and,
in his delegation's opinion, could not provide 'a basis for'sstarting negotiations.
Mr. van der ESSEN (Belgium)'said that Belgian fishermen depended for their
living on the traditional practice of fishing off the coast of other States.. Although
Belgium was a maritime country it was not oceanic - an important distinction, since
coastal States were divided into a small group of oceanic.States and a large group of
maritime States most of which adjoined closed, semi-closed or narrow seas.
The concept of a 200-mile economic zone appeared attractive at first sight, because
of its simplicity. However, such a formula did not take account of the interests of all
States, and it was therefore unreasonable to try to apply it universally. Any attempt to
do so would give rise to more problems than it would solve.
His country accepted the trend towards increased rights and obligations for the
coastal State. Instead of the coastal State having absolute rights, however, it was
better to emphasize the rational exploitation and conservation of'fishery resources for
the..benefi''of-gall. His delegation acknowledged that 'the coastal State should determine
within ,.reasonable limits:the extent'~of a zone adjacent to its territorial sea where it
would exercise fisheries jurisdiction enabling it, for' example','to'fix the maximum
permissible catch, after consultation 'with the regional-fisheries organizations.
His delegation agreed that the coastal State could reserve for ships flying its
flag the maximum'catch 'of which they were capable, but on the condition = which seemed
equitable - that account was taken on a regional basis of the rights of States that
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
115
C
E
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/COIF. 62/C. 2/SR. 26
English
Page 17
(14.r. Plaka, Albania)
wished to impose inequitable economic. relations on the world`to-the detriment, of the
interests of the developing countrimonopolize raw materials and fix world prices for
them with a view to controlling the world economy. Furthermore, zones adjacent to the
coasts'-of sovereign countries were often used as naval exercise areas or centres for:
massing the navies.of the super-Powers, which had created permanent tension in the.,seas.
and oceans particularly through their policy of hegemony.
In'those-circumstances, sovereign coastal States had the right to adopt appropriate
measures with a view to defending their sovereign economic rights over the resources in
their marine zone-.. The coastal State had the right to establish an exclusive-economic-
zone o'r an exclusive fishery zone of reasonable extent, with due respect for the rights
of international shipping and the interests of neighbouring countries. His delegation
shared the point of view expressed,by a large majority of delegations that the economic
zone-should extend to a limit of 200 nautical miles from the baselines. International
navigation and overflight should not interfere with the sovereign rights of the 'coastal.
State in that zone.
The creation of such-a,,,zone, based on the distance criterion, would represent an
equitable solution for.all:countries, since the depth and exploitability criteria were
no longer adequate. Coastal States should retain their' sovereign rights over the
resources of their continental shelf even when the continental margin lay beyond the
200 mile'-limit; the outside limits of the shelf itself would be established by'regional
agreement.
His country,; supported those coastal States which had extended their territorial
waters to 200 miles and exercised economic and political sovereignty over that zone.
The coastal State should exercise permanent sovereignty and jurisdiction over all
natural resources: in the sea, sea-bed and subsoil of the economic zone adjacent to'its
coast. Most participating States recognized the right of the coastal State to establish
sucha zone; but the United States of America and the Soviet Union obstinately opposed
that general trend. Their obstructive attitude was quite unjustified. The establishment'
of an exclusive economic zone would not prejudice their national rights; on the contrary,
they'would be among the countries most favoured by the establishment of such a zone.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 18
(s? , Albania)
Their attitude stemmed from Choir de4armination to oontinuc their expeneionist policy in
the seas and oceans and to go on plundering the living resources of sovereign coastal
States on the pretext that the sea was a resnullius and that freedom of navigation and
freedom of fishing were rights, or by calling for the application in the exclusive
economic zone, of so-called preferential rights, maximum exploitation and international
conservation of living and other resources, or talking sententiously about the "balance
of interests" and "freedom of research".
The argument of preferential rights and maximum exploitation put forward by the
United States and the Soviet Union would reduce the sovereign rights of coastal States
and enable the fishing fleets of the two super-Powers to pillage the major part of their
fishery resources. The '`maximum exploitation" argument had the same aim. Conservation
of such resources could no longer be used as a pretext for limiting the rights of coastal
States. The coastal State should have the exclusive right to lay down rules for the
protection and management of the zone, and to take anti-pollution measures and control
fishing methods. Scientific research in the exclusive economic zone should be subject to
the prior consent of the coastal State, particularly since the two super-Powers used
humanitarian pretexts to ensure their military presence in marine zones adjacent to
sovereign States and to gather military information concerning those countries or the
subsoil of the zone. Furthermore, their evil air. of using their science and technology
as an instrument of their neo-colonialist policy must also be borne in mind.
In order to maintain their privileged position, the two super-Powers resorted to
economic pressure and threats to sovereign countries, at the present Conference and
elsewhere, in an attempt to make those countries back down on the important issues before
the Conference and fall in with their imperialist designs, so as to ensure the failure
of the Conference. The coastal States should guard against efforts by the United States
and the Soviet Union to internationalize the exclusive economic zone and to substitute
a pitifully reduced regime of competences for the sovereign rights and exclusive national
jurisdiction of coastal States in order to perpetuate the infamous freedom of fishing
in the zone.
His delegation emphasized that the concept of the exclusive economic zone should
be embodied in concrete terms in the convention to be adopted to ensure that coastal
States would have international legal protection of their sovereign rights in the marine
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
/...
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/COIF. 62/'C. 2/SR. 26
English
Page 19
(Mr. Plaka. Albania.)
space adjacent to their coasts. Coastal States should share the resources of the zone
with land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged countries, on a. reasonable
basis. Precise provisions should be formulated to defend the legitimate rights of such
countries to exploit, on the basis of negotiated agreements, the resources in the
exclusive economic zone of a region, with due respect for the interests and sovereign
rights of'coastal States. The convention should contain precise regulations prohibiting
the massing of foreign fleets and manoeuvres by warships in their zones.
The countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America and other sovereign States should
strengthen their solidarity in order to achieve those results and defeat the concerted
efforts of the two super-Powers to impose their domination.. That solidarity would
enable them to defend the legitimate interests of all peace-loving peoples and countries
against the super-Powers' policy of aggression and enslavement.
His, delegation would support any proposals to codify the rules of international
law in a convention that would strengthen the concept of the exclusive economic zone or
patrimonial`sea.
Mr. DJALAL (Indonesia). outlined the reasons for his country's support of the
concepts of the economic zone and the patrimonial sea. Firstly, it considered that the
ancient freedom of the seas applied only to those who possessed the capacity to deplete
the resources of the,seas adjacent to other countries. Secondly, the resources in the
economic zone might provide the answer, to the development needs of developing countries
which had long been the victims of economic exploitation. Thirdly, from the point of
view of adjacency, coastal States had a better right to the resources in the zone than
distant countries, The problem of.overlapping economic zones was a question of
delimitation which in no way negated the concept of the economic zone. Fourthly, his
delegation did nob agree with the view that the economic zone would result in under-
exploitation of resources. Methods of co-operation could be devised to enable distant
countries to use resources not yet fully exploited by the coastal State.
With regard to the legal regime,in the,.exclusive economic zone, he noted that in
the Declaration of.the Organization-of African Unity (A/COPNF,62/L.33), the proposals
submitted by 11+ African. .c.ountrie .to the Sea-Bed Committee (A/AC.138/SC.II/L.1.o), the
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
AICONNP. 62/C. 2/5 3. 2c
English
Page 20
(Mr. Djalal, Indonesia)
Santo Domingo Declaration (A/AC.138/80), doc,_tment A/CONF.62/L.4 and the statements of
certain delegations at the present Conference, different wordings had been used to
define the nature of the coastal State's rights in the exclusive economic zone.
Since the protection of the marine environment and scientific research were closely
connected with the exploration and exploitation of natural resources, the rights connected
with them should be sovereign rights, on the same footing as sovereignty over natural
resources.
The concept of "sovereignty: or "sovereign rights" should be clearly defined in
order to facilitate the correct choice of words. His delegation considered that if the
term "sovereignty" was used to denote the nature of the right of the coastal State over
its territorial sea, it might be preferable to use the words "sovereign rights" in
relation to the economic zone. However, his delegation could support the terminology
used in the Declaration of the Organization of African Unity, namely, "sovereignty" or
permanent sovereignty'` of the coastal State over the resources of the economic zone, or
the terminology used in the Santo Domingo Declaration, namely "sovereign rights".
The view had been expressed that there was a difference between the nature of the
coastal State's rights over resources, on the one hand, and over the conduct of
scientific research and the protection of the marine environment, on the other, in the
economic zone. His delegation considered that such a distinction was not justified and
that those rights should be parallel.
Whatever terminology was ultimately agreed upon, it was the view of his delegation
that, firstly, the coastal State alone should have competence in the form of "permanent
sovereignty" or "sovereignty" over resources, or "sovereign rights" for the purpose of
exploration and exploitation of those resources in its exclusive economic zone;
secondly, the coastal State alone should have competence which might be classified as
"sovereign rights" or "exclusive jurisdiction" with regard to the regulation of scientific
research and control over the marine environment of the exclusive economic zone. Such
provisions should not prejudice any arrangement which a coastal State, in exercise of
its sovereignty or its sovereign rights over resources, might make with other countries
or international organizations in order to obtain maximum benefits from its economic
zone.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/C,2/SR.26
English
(Mr. Djalal, Indonesia)
His delegation was sympathetic to the position of the land.-locked and geographically
disadvantaged countries in relation to the exclusive economic zone of coastal States'.
Referring to remarks by.the representative of Malaysia, who had seemed to question the
right of an archipelagic State to hatre an economic zone, he emphasized that the concepts
of the economic zone and the archipelagic State were of a different nature and were not
interchangeable. With or without the archipelagic concept, the area which would fall
within the economic zone of an archipelagic State would necessarily cover all areas
within the archipelagic waters.
Mr. STEWART (Guyana) expressed his sympathy to the people of Bangladesh for
the tragic disaster which they had suffered.
His Government was already on record as supporting and undertaking to promote the
doctrine of the patrimonial sea or exclusive economic zone of coastal State
jurisdiction. Its position was based on the conviction that that doctrine offered the
most viable compromise likely to emerge from the current clash of competing claims in
that it accommodated the economic interests of developing coastal States and the vital
strategic and security interests of the developed States while taking account of the
interests of geographically disadvantaged States and the international community.
His delegation viewed with concern and regret the growing propensity to disturb
the consensus emerging around that doctrine by the introduction of outrageous
qualifications which were postulated as prior conditions to the acceptance of that
doctrine by certain States. The most untenable of those qualifications pertained to
the recognition of a right of access by other States to the living resources in the
exclusive economic zone of a coastal. State which might temporarily be incapable of fully
exploiting those resources.
His delegation categorically rejected such qualifications for three principal
reasons. Firstly, they incorporated an unacceptable bias in.favour of technologically
advanced States. Any arrangement that tied control of fisheries by the coastal State
to indigenous exploitative capability discriminated heavily in favour of technologically
advanced States, with probable adverse consequences for the rapid transfer of technology.
Secondly, such qualifications were predicated on certain scientifically unverified
assumptions such as the concept of "maximum sustainable yield",,, and that of the
"underexploitation of a species` which was thought to result in the loss of valuable
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/CONF.62/c.2/SR.2v
English
Page 22
(Mr. Ste-wart, ana)
protein resources of the world community. !a the view of his delegation, it was
virtually impossible to deter-mine with scientific exactitude the maximum sustainable
yield and, a fortiori, the optinum catch of a particular stock. Furthermore, yields
from the vast majority of ma_ine species were limitad by natural conditions over which
man had little or no control, thus rendering only a. few of the species valuable to man
amenable to conservation practices that were economically viable. Thirdly, those
qualifications ignored the vital economic component of opportunity costs, which should
of necessity enter into any determination of the competence of the coastal State in the
management of the living resources in its adjacent ocean space. In implementing
conservation measures, many States including his own, sacrificed projects of value to
them, such as the establishment of industrial complexes that emitted pollutants or the
implementation of hydroelectric schemes for the generation of cheap power, so that
living resources could survive and reproduce. Itwas reasonable therefore that such
States which, by a conscious policy decision, had incurred such opportunity costs should
have the determining voice in the exploitation of such resources.
His delegation was opposed to any international arrangements for the management of
coastal fisheries along the lines of existing fisheries organizations. Those
organizations; which were de facto exclusionary in nature, represented a convergence of
exaggerated unilateral claims to vast competences regarding the exploitation of fisheries
in ocean space. Their record of achievement in the management and conservation of
fisheries demonstrated their inadequacy in the light of present-day requirements, and
his delegation considered that their structure and manner of functioning were not worthy
of emulation.
Pair. LUPINACCI (Uruguay) reiterated the view expressed by his delegation in the
plenary meeting that the concept of a plurality of territorial sea regimes and that of
an economic zone, or patrimonial sea, with broad sovereign powers for the coastal State
had much in common. Firstly, the territorial sea of 1" miles was intrinsically linked
to the economic zone of 200 miles, the common denominator being the principle of the
sovereignty of coastal States over the whole, though the limits to the exercise of that
sovereignty might vary. Secondly, both were subject to the regulations formulated by
the coastal State in exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction over the entire belt of sea
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/COr1F. 62/C. 2/SR..26
English
Page 23
(Mr. Lupinacci, Uruguay)
within the 200-mile limit. In that connexion, his delegation did not agree with the
definition in article 12 of document A/COiVF.62/L,1. The coastal State should exercise
control over the actual zone and not merely the resources in it. He endorsed the view
expressed by the representativeof Tanzania that the 200-mile limit applied to fishermen
and not to fish. Thus conceived, the economic zone was not part of the high seas. His
delegation shared the view expressed by the representative of Kenya that, instead of
enumerating the rights of the coastal State in the economic zone, the important point
was to establish clearly what rights the international community would have in that zone.
Any regime which might be established and guaranteed freedom to carry out certain,
activities in an area over which a State exercised sovereignty should protect the
legitimate interests of all concerned. The rights of States in respect of freedom of
navigation-and overflight and the laying of pipelines and submarine cables were subject
to limitations deriving from the exercise by the coastal State of its rights with regard
to the exploration, conservation and exploitation of resources, the protection and
preservation of the environment, scientific research and the construction and emplacement
of installations. With the exception of the aforementioned freedoms, the coastal State
should exercise sovereignty over all uses of the sea in the zone.
The term "economic zone" or "territorial sea" embraced different concepts some of
which sought to deprive it of. some of its meaning to the extent of virtually equating
it with the concept of preferential rights. The best means of protecting the legitimate
rights and interests of the coastal State against that risk was to apply the principle
of sovereignty with regard to residual competenc'es. The proposals of certain Powers to
reduce to a minimum the competences of the coastal State beyond the 12-mile limit and to
deny its sovereignty in the 200-mile zone implied'that they suspected that developing
countries lacked a sense-of responsibility. His delegation shared the view, expressed
by the representative of Tanzania, that those who made those veiled accusations had used
the freedom'of the sea in an irresponsible manner to impose their domination over
the seas.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/C0IF.62/C.2/SR.26
English
Page 21+
(fr. Lu iz.az c i , Ur _:;uay )
Sovereignty implied rights and obligations. States., such as Uruguay, which had
proclaimed their sovereignty over zones up to 200 miles were prepared to assume the
obligations devolving from that sovereignty particularly with regard to the protection
of the marine environment, the preservation and rational exploitation of species, the
promotion of scientific research subject to the right to participate in and have access
to the results of such research. They were also prepared to guarantee the legitimate
and normal exercise of the freedom of navigation and overflight, and to assume
responsibility for any damage to vessels of third States that might result from their
activities.
Mr. FARES (Democratic Yemen) said that the seas adjacent to the coast of his
country were rich in living resources that were being depleted without concern for the
need to protect them.
His delegation believed that coastal States should have full sovereign rights over
the seas adjacent to their coasts for the purpose of regulating the exploitation and
conservation of their resources. It firmly supported the concept of the full sovereign
rights and exclusive jurisdiction of coastal States over their economic zones up to
200 miles measured from the appropriate baselines, and was pleased to note the growing
recognition of the concept by a large majority of States, particularly developing
States. It could not accept the argument that the concept of the exclusive economic
zone would leave little for the common heritage of mankind, believing that the two
concepts were complementary.
It was unjust for a few advanced countries to exploitthe seas for their own
benefit: they should provide the assistance needed by the coastal States to utilize
the resources of the sea, which offered an important means of remedying the poverty and
backwardness of many countries of the third world. That did not mean, however, that
land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States would be deprived of the
benefits to be derived from exploiting the living resources in the economic zone. The
developing coastal States had always demonstrated their readiness to give special
consideration to the interests and needs of those States.
On the other hand, in their desire for a package deal, the developed maritime
Powers were trying to impose restrictions of all kinds in order to render the concept
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
AI.r~ .6,11c.2/0.265
e'~,1 English
Page 25
(Mr. Fares, Democratic Yemen)
meaningless. Instead of trying to assist the developing countries, they used their
economic', scientific and political - power. to maintain the status quo, providing;,only
charitable assistance, thus helping to widen the: ever-increasing. gap between,.them and the
developing countries.
His delegation subscribed to the following views on the exclusive economic zone.
Firstly, coastal States should maintain exclusive jurisdiction over the zone up to a
distance of'200 miles in order to protect their legitimate rights, over the renewable
and non-renewable resources, subject to permitting freedom of navigation, overflight
and the laying of cables and pipelines.
Secondly, such jurisdiction would allow coastal States to regulate and control
scientific research, taking into account their need to train personnel, to participate
in such research and to have access to the results thereof. It would also permit the
protection of the marine environment, the prevention of pollution and the preservation
of resources.
Thirdly, for the purpose of delimitation between opposite or adjacent States, the
median line should be used in the absence of any clear agreement.
Fourthly, coastal States should have the right to establish a contiguous zone
bordering the territorial sea for customs and health control and.othe,r such purposes.
Fifthly, all the foregoing principles should be applied to,,the,islands of a coastal
State, since they formed an integral part of the territory of that State.
Mr. ROBLEH (Somalia) said that near anarchy reigned in the seas and oceans
and, but for General Assembly resolution 2571i D (XXIV), which had imposed a moratorium
on all activities in the international area, the world would today be witness to a wild
scramble by a few highly developed States for the acquisition of ocean space beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction'.
His delegation'fully endorsed the reasons underlying the doctrine of the exclusive
economic zone, the principal aim of which was to introduce social and economic-.justice
into the law of the sea, which had hitherto greatly favoured the.,major maritime Powers.
However, the Committee had heard a multiplicity of different interpretations of the
economic zone concept: for some, it meant control by the coastal State overall the
resources of the sea for the purposes of exploration and exploitation.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/Wii .u2/C.2
English
Page 26
(Mr. Robleh, Somalia)
The draft articles submitted by Nigeria (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.21) would endow the
coastal State with more competence over the economic zone than any other- proposal.
Under the Nigerian proposal, in addition to coastal State jurisdiction over resources,
powers would be conferred upon the coastal State that were usually exercised under the
regime of the contiguous zone.
Certain late converts to the doctrine of the exclusive economic zone would accept
it only if they were guaranteed - under the guise of so-called "maximum utilization of
available living resources." - the right or privilege of access to the fishery zones of
developing coastal States. Other delegations would accept the doctrine only with the
proviso that unfettered freedom of scientific research was permitted within national
ocean. space, subject to prior notification but without the need for the consent of the
coastal State concerned. Others again maintained that the economic zone was an integral
part of the high seas. Yet the doctrine of the freedom of the open sea had never been
an absolute one: rules for the exercise of jurisdiction over vessels at sea had been
universally adopted so as to avert complete anarchy. In any case, the concept must be
radically revised in the light of recent developments concerning the rights of coastal
States over the continental shelf and adjacent underwater areas. It could hardly be
argued that the frantic search for oil on the sea-bed had not unavoidably restricted
the traditional freedom of the high seas.
In his delegation's view, the most logical regime for the national maritime zone
was that of the territorial s'a rather than that of the exclusive economic zone. The
interests of developing States would best be served by a territorial sea of not more
than.200 miles. Those who unreasonably opposed the territorial sea concept did so not
because they believed that freedom of navigation, international trade and communications
would be hampered, but because they feared a Ices of their strategic freedom. It was not
the exclusive economic zone idea but only the territorial sea doctrine that could
effectively meet the serious challenge of distant-water fishing fleets. The major
naval Powers would rather endorse a diluted version of the exclusive economic zone than
the territorial sea doctrine, since the adoption of the latter would jeopardize the
military and strategic interests of a number of States or alliances by the banning of
military installations within the maritime zones of coastal States.
The so-called "package deal" was an undisguised invitation to developing coastal
States to sign away their territorial sovereignty in exchange for lesser rights. His
delegation categorically rejected it.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
A/CONS'. 62/C. 2/SR, 26
Page 2'(
Mr. MOLODTSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), speak ng in exercise .of
his right of reply, said that at the 24th meeting of the Committee one delegation had
again sought to sow the seeds of discord among participants in the Conference and to
divert them:, along-the. wrong path. That,delegation had repeated baseless stories about
the ,so.--called.. under.i _ of the developing countries by certain su e-Powers.
P1 pet
That delegation,. had tried to prevent the adoption of the concept of an economic
zone in.which,,the coastal State, in cases where it did not take 100 per cent of the
permissible. catch within the zone, would allow the entry o1 foreign vessels. It was
well kno~ax~,,however, that a number of developing countries which, for reasons of logic.,:
supportecl.;.the Concept of the economic zone, held similar views, which'they'lased on the
need, ; to. exploit natural. ;resources in a rational manner. That fact clearly showed that
the statement by the deleaation,in question was based on demagoguery.
The,s,@tane;delegation particularly disliked the determination?of a number of socialist
countries to safeguard their security by maintaining freedom of navigation through
important., aritime zones connecting one part of their territory with another. He
reaffirmed that the countries whose peoples had undergone intolerable suffering in the
cause of freedom would not sign away their vital interests to those who sought to
establish one-sided control over those zones.
Nor could his couritrf 'ignore'either'the?aggressive plans of imperialism or its
international duty wheii'reference was made to the victims of imperialism and,
aggression.
At the current meeting, another delegation had spoken.-against the USSR. In doing
so, it had borrowed ideas taken from the same source and he: would not therefore deign to
refute them. '
Mr. PLAKA (Albania), speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that
the USSR representative had provided clear-proof?of-the chauvinistic policy followed
by the Soviet Union since the betrayal of Marxism-Leninism: it was establishing links
with its satellites on the basis of principles followed by a large chauvinistic Power.
The statement of the representative in question had clearly demonstrated the
imperialist and expansionist policy followed by the USSR, based on the domination and
exploitation of man.
In his own statement earlier in the meeting, he had asked whether the USSR
recognized the sovereign rights of coastal States over the resources of the sea
adjacent to their coast up to a 200-mile limit. Yet the USSR representative had not
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
 A/CONF. 62/C.2/Q pved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6
English
(Mr. Plaka, Albania)
replied. Furthermore, representatives of the both the Ukrainian SSR and the
Byelorussian SSR had spoken in favour of the policy of limited sovereignty of coastal
States.
He had asked the USSR representative to declare that the Soviet Union was ready to
withdraw its warships from the maritime space of other States. The reasons why it would
not doso were clear: it kept them there for the purpose of dominating other peoples.
He had also asked whether the USSR recognized the sovereign rights of coastal
States in respect of scientific research. However, the Ukrainian representative had
demanded freedom of scientific research. It was clear what that freedom entailed -
freedom for the USSR to send warships and reconnaissance vessels in order to obtain
military information and establish military and economic control over other States.
If the USSR really clung to worthy principles, why had the Ukrainian representative
stated that the USSR wanted to impose a package deal on other States?
The USSR representative had said that the manoeuvres of the imperialists had not
been forgotten; that was a statement with which he fully agreed.
Finally, he had asked the USSR whether it was prepared to accept the concept
of the exclusive economic zone. If it did, it should say so.
Mr. LING (China), replying to the USSR representative, said that the facts
spoke for themselves. The USSR had large numbers of fishing vessels which plundered
the fishery resources of other coastal States. The Chinese delegation affirmed that,
within the economic zone, coastal States should have the right to exercise full
sovereignty over their resources.
His delegation resolutely opposed the use of the issue of free passage for
warships as a precondition for a package deal concerning the economic zone.
The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040025-6