PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SECOND MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: August 12, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD. CONFERENCE...-
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PROVISIONAL
For participants only
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
12 August 1974
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SU1M9ARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SECOSTD MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Thursday, 8 August 1974, at 10.45 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. AGUILAR Venezuela
later: Mr. NJENGA Kenya
Rapp oorteur: Mr. NANDAN Fiji
CONTENTS
Land-locked countries
Rights and interests of shelf locked States and States with narrow
shelves or short coastlines
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the four working languages
(Ennglish,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 12 AUGUST 19711,.., THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 19 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5389
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CO--F 62/0. 2/7 . 27
English
Page 2.
LAND-LOCKED COUNTRIES (A/9021- A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29 and L.39)
RIGHTS AND IfiTERESTS OF SHELF-LOCKED STATES AND STATES WITH NARROW SHELVES OR SHORT
COASTLINES (A/9021)
Mr. UPADHYAYA (Nepal), introducing the explanatory paper on draft articles
relating to land-locked States (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29), said that the sponsors had tried
to highlight the main issues that were vital for safeguarding the rights and interests
of the land-locked countries. High priority should be given to the right of free
access by land-locked countries to and from the sea as a firmly established and legally
binding principle. That principle had been recognized in various international
Conventions and it should now be reaffirmed and elaborated in the new instrument on
the law of the sea with due regard to present realities.
For years, even before the first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
the land-locked countries had been making viLrorous efforts to.dr?.a the attention of
the entire international community to their problems and to the need for ensuring
their rights in any future codification. To a remarkable extent, their efforts had
been supported by the United Nations and other international agencies, in particular
the three UNCTAD Conferences, and their right of free-access to and from the sea
should now be clearly elaborated in order to enable them to promote their international
trade and their economic and industrial development. The land-locked countries
depended on the port facilities provided by the transit countries and should now be
given the right to establish certain installations under their own authority and
control in those ports. Furthermore, adequate guarantees should be provided to ensure
that the process of transit was less cumbersome and hazardous. The land locked
countries therefore considered the articles in document A/AC.138/93, submitted to the
last meeting of the Sea-Bed Committee in Geneva, to be of supreme importance. They
provided sufficient safeguards of the legitimate rights and interests of the transit
States and clearly-indicated that the land-locked countries were sincere in offering
those safeguards. The land-locked countries therefore hoped that documents
A/AC138/93, A/CONF.62/23 and A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29 would provide the basis for further
negotiations in the Committee.
Mr. PISK (Czechoslovakia) said that legal norms concerning the rights and
interests of the land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States should
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R0003000A4QQ 1F932IC.2/SH. 32
English
Page 3
(Mr Pisk, Czechoslovakia)
become a part of the new codification of the international law of the sea. Those
norms should in particular ensure free access by lwizd-locked countries to and from
the sea, their freedom of transit for that purpose, equality of treatment in the
ports of transit States, free access to the international sea-bed area and
participation in the international regime, including;:the machinery, and the equitable
sharing in the benefits derived therefrom.
The right of land-locked States to free access to and from the sea must be
considered as a firmly established and legally binding principle, to be reaffirmed,
elaborated and surrounded by legal guarantees which would ensure its implementation
in the new Convention. His delegation earnestly hoped that the draft articles relating
to land-locked States (A/AC.138/93) would be reflected in the new codification that
would emerge from the Conference. His delegation also wished to express its
endorsement of. the principles contained in the Kampala Declaration, which was based
on-similar ideas..
Document.A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29 was an attempt to explain in greater detail the
principles and norms which the land-locked countries wished to see. embodied in the
new Convention on the law of the sea. The first part of the paper sought to explain
why the previous legal instrument dealing with the right of access of land-locked
States to the sea could not be considered satisfactory. That applied particularly
to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas which, while proclaiming the principle
of free access to the sea and recognizing that States having no sea-coast had
equal rights with coastal States, had not included adequate measures to ensure their
effective exercise. The second part of the paper explained individual principles
and provisions which were included in the draft articles. Two principles included
in the draft articles should be regarded as fundamental- first, the land-locked
States, irrespective of the origin and characteristics of their land-locked condition,
should have the right of free access to and from the sea in order to enjoy the
freedom of the seas and to participate in the exploration and exploitation of the
sea-bed and its resources on equal terms with coastal States; and secondly, in order
to ensure the exercise of the right of free access to and from the sea, transit
States must accord free and unrestricted transit to the traffic of land-locked
States by all means of transport and communication in accordance with the provisions
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
English Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
.
(Mr. Pisk, Czechoslovakia)
of the Convention. The authors had attempted to reflect adequately existing practice
and experience as developed in different Darts of the world and to derive therefrom
a common denominator that might be shared by all land-locked States and recognized
by the entire international community. The draft articles did not include a detailed
regulation, but followed the pattern of other principles to be included in the new
codification. The land locked countries were aware that many aspects of the
provisions of the draft articles had to be implemented in special bilateral, regional
or multilateral agreements with transit States. They also recognized that the
exercise of their rights should in no way entail a threat to the sovereignty or other
important interests of the transit States. The draft articles therefore included a
number of clauses safeguarding the rights of transit States.
Previous. legal instruments, such as the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas
and the 1965 New York Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States, had secured
freedom of transit for land-locked States on the basis of reciprocity". Those
provisions had apparently been based on a wrong supposition that both the land-locked
end transit States had identical needs for transit arising from the same or
comparable position. That as not the case. The purpose of free transit for
land-locked States was to ensure the exercise of their right of access to and from
the sea. Failing that, they would be deprived of the benefits deriving from the
legal uses of the sea on an equal basis with coastal States. The draft articles
therefore included a principle whereby reciprocity should not be a condition of free
transit for land locked States. The land-locked countries were, however, aware that
in some cases the level of economic and other relations between a land-locked State
and its transit neighbours might lead to agreements that would include the principle
of reciprocity. The sponsors of the draft articles wished to avoid the adverse
effects of both a strict application of the condition of reciprocity on the one hand,
and its- mandatory exclusion on the other. -
Mr. KAFANDO (Upper Volta) said that his delegation was guided by the
principle that the sea was a factor in the development of peoples, an element of
solidarity between. nations and a zone of peace and security. The three priorities
with respect to the land-locked countries' rights were the right of access to the
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
English
Page 5
(Mr. Kafando, Upper Volta)
sea, the right of transit and the right of participation by developing land-locked
countries in the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the exclusive
economic zone.
Today the.right of free access to the sea did, to a certain extent, exist in
bilateral agreements and in some multilateral instruments. However, the land-locked
countries wished to see the timid provision of article 3 of the 1958 Convention
strengthened and unequivocally stated in the new legal instrument. To that end, his
delegation.belieyed. thet,document A/AC.138/93 should be given particular attention
by the Conference. ,.7Up.rights contained therein, namely the right of free access to
and from the sea without restriction. and the right of free access to the sea-bed area,
derived their justification from legal philosophy and from the very nature of the
ocean space. Thq sea should not be the sole property of coastal States, but should be
used by all States.
The old legal.order governing the use of the oceans which had been based on
political concerns and the desire for hegemony by the great maritime Powers, had
undergone a radical change.. The res communis which war, now the basis for that
law was primarily economic considerations. A new concept of equality of rights
had been introduced, placing all States, coastal or non-coastal, on an equal footing.
However, that de jure equality had to be made de facto since the coastal States at
present enjoyed certain priorities.
He recalled that the United Nations General. Assembly, at its eleventh session,
had drawn the attention of the international. community to the necessity of providing
adequate transit facilities for the land-locked countries in order to promote their
international trade, thus implicitly imposing an obligation on transit States.
That obligation was all the more important as the economic needs of the land-locked
and coastal States were interdependent.
The fact remained, however, that the land-locked countries were far more deprived
than their coastal neighbours, as reflected in their classification by UNCTAD among
the least developed countries. The Conference should therefore find a definitive
solution in order to.ease the economic plight of the land-locked countries resulting
from heavy transport costs, lack of industry and high cost of imports, all of which
reduced their foreign exchange earnings. It was for that reason that the land-locked
countries were attoTrpting to ensure that transit traffic should not be subjected to
any customs duties or taxes other than for services rendered. If free transit was
recognized as a right, then the principle of reciprocity did not exist. /...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
n/CO?~iF. 62/C. 2 /SR . 32
nglish
Page o
ir. :afando, upper Volta)
The land-.locked countries should have the right to participate in the exploration
and exploitation of the resources of the exclusive economic zone. As the
representative of Sene,al haJJ pointer out, that was one of the basic tenets of the
Vest African iconomic Community. `:'bile his country _n&intained excellent bilateral
co-operation with Ghana and the Ivory Coast, the experience of regional integration
showed that political considerations did enter into the picture. The rights of the
land-locked countries, in order to be safeguarded, should therefore be laid down in
a multilateral convention. Bilateral and regional arrangements should exist, but
only in order to regulate the modalities and details of transit in the context of the
laws of the coastal States. That was a flexible formula that would permit a
reconciliation between respect for the sovereignty of the coastal States and the
rights of the land.-locked countries. He ur?ed the States represented at the
Conference to transcend national self'.interest and negotiate a new, enlightened law
of the sea by acceptin.~, compromise solutions.
Mr. MYRSTF.i (Sweden) said that article 2 of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39,
of which Sweden was a sponsor, granted a right to all geographically disadvantaged
States, whether developing or developed, to participate in the exploitation of the
living resources in the zones of neighbouring coastal States, while other proposals
restricted that right to developing countries. tlhen the economic zone concept had
begun to emerge, his delegation had wondered whether the right to establish such
zones should not rightly be confined to those countries which really needed them, in
the first instance, the developing countries. It had been said, however, that
practical considerations had convinced the originators of the economic zone concept
that differences in the breadth of the jurisdiction area, for example, between
neighbouring coastal States, should be avoided. It had also been pointed out that
difficulties would arise if a developing coastal State should. in the future, reach
a status that could be classified as developed. It now appeared that a majority of
States had accepted the view that there would be no differentiation between
developing and developed countries with respect to the breadth of the economic zone.
It would then logically follow that no distinction should be made between developing
and developed States which were geographically disadvantaged.
his delegation believed that since the land-locked or shelf-locked developed
countries had only developed countries as neighbours, the different treatment of
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/COME.62/C..21$R.32
English
Pate 7
en. Sweden
neighbouring disadvantaged countries' rights would result in giving the developed
coastal States more exclusive fishing rights in their economic zones. The developing
coastal States, on the other hand., undertook to share the living; resources of their
economic zones with their geographically disadvantaged neighbours. leis delegation
had difficulty in understanding why highly developed coastal States should be entitled
to reserve for themselves large parts of the living resources of the sea. It was even-
more difficult to conceive why developed coastal States should be accorded. more
extensive rights in their zones than developing: coastal States. It therefore seemed
to his delegation that no developing country would stand to lose by admitting rights
for developed geographically disadvantaged countries within the zones of the
neighbours of the latter.
The philosophy behind the provisions of article 3 was that the economic zone
was a new concept in international law replacing the concept of the legal continental
shelf. The proposal was aimed at striking a balance between the interests of coastal
States on the one hand, and those of the geographically disadvantaged nations..pn
the other. Much of the criticism of such a proposal had been based on the argument
of acquired rights. The Conference was, however, entitled and expected to create
new rules and was under no obligation to retain old concepts. It should be borne in
mind that the same argument of acquired rights was applicable to those parts of the
high seas which, according to the economic zone concept, would fall. under
the resource jurisdiction of coastal States. The right of all nations to fish on
the high seas had been acknowledged for centuries, while the right to the resources
of the continental shelf was of very recent date. Consistency demanded. that the
Conference could not do away with acquired rights in one context while retaining
them in another.
There were no definitions of the concept of "other geographically disadvantaged
States"" and `neighbouring coastal States'`. The comparison between a 'disadvantaged"
State and its "advantaged" neighbour would determine the extent of the right to be
enjoyed by the disadvantaged neighbour. That determination should.be solved at the
regional, subregional or bilateral level. The same applied to the term 'neighbouring
coastal States" and, in that connexion, his delegation was pleased to see the emphasis
placed on regional fishery organizations in document A/CONF.62/C.2/E.'O.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CO F.62/C.2/SR.32
English
(_Mr. !Trsten, Sweden)
;ith respect to anadromous fish originating from geographically disadvantaged
States., much had been said about salmon migrating from their home rivers to the high
seas. where they could be fished indiscriminately by fishermen from other States.
However, nothing had been said about those salmon returning from tl...e high seas to
their home rivers in geographically disadvantaged States. As the Swedish extensive
tagging research clearly showed, a significant part of the recaptures were Made in
the territorial waters of other States. If the Convention was to include a coastal
State exclusive economic zone, due consideration must be given to the interests of
the salmon-producing but geo3raphically disadvantaged States so that arrangements
could be made between the coastal States and the States of origin of anadrombus
fish in order to maintain an optimum suitable yield for the interested countries.
Those regulations could be made either by bilateral or regional arrangements.
Mr. IN MI (Ghana) said that the problems of special interest groups
involved rather delicate issues- the need for tact and care in assessing; and
evaluatinz; them had been underscored on several occasions. The Conference should
not threaten the unity of cohesive groups or see them dismembered. Any solution
to the problems involved must accommodate conflicting interests.
There were two elements involved: the incontestable right of all States
to the resources of the sea-bed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction as the common heritage of mankind, and agreement on appropriate
measures to ensure that .geographically disadvantaged countries had access to
resources under the sovereign jurisdiction of coastal States. It was the second
element that had led to controversy and disagreement.
It would be virtually impossible for the Conference to try to spell out the
details of regional or bilateral agreements conferring the right of transit
through coastal States to the sea, but the Convention should contain provisions
that would make the conclusion of such agreements mandatory. There was no
doubt that regional integration was fast becoming a fact of life: paragraph 9
(part C) of the OAU Declaration on the Issues of the Law of the Sea (A/CONNF.62/33)
adequately reflected a spirit of accommodation and the trend towards integration.
/.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
A/00 ,62/C.2f61L32
English
Pane 9
(lair . Komi , Ghana )
His delegation sympathized with and shared the concerns of those w'nO wished to see
regional or subregional economic zones. established as a solution to the problems of the
landlocked and. other geographically disadvantaged countries. There was considerable
merit in the idea-of establishing regional fishery zones, and to do so would be a
welcome move towards re ional economic interation. But the issue should be taken up by
the appropriate continental or regional organizations. 'ven if the concept of a
regional economic zone was accepted, there would still remain the crucial issue of the
access of land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged countries to the zone.
Such access should not compromise the security of coastal States, and it must reflect
the underlying principle of. bilateral or multilateral agreements.
His delegation supported the legitimate demands of land-locked States for access
to and the right to benefit from the living resources of the economic zone of
neighbouring countries. The MU Declaration had endorsed. that provision as a right and
not merely as a principle. It followed that his delegation could not fully support all
the articles submitted in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39, but it could accept the articles
referring to the sharing of the living resources in the economic zone. iris delegation
interpreted the word "neighbo ringP1 in terms of adjacency.
Mr. OCHAN (Uganda) said that a land-locked. State's most evident, disadvantage
was the absence of a seaport - a facility that had a funssmental effect or the economy
of any State. The sea. offered the cheapest mode of transport and was often the only way
to reach. international markets. Because they had no sea-coasts, the access of land-
locked States to the main avenues of international transport was, i.ndirect; the consequent
high transport costs were a serious impediment to foreign trade and the economic
development of most of those States. Legal, administrative and political problems often
arose also. From the earliest times, land-locked territories had frequently had to face
restrictions of various kinds on the movement of goods and persons between them and the
seas through more advantageously placed. territories. With the growth of trade, it had
become necessary to find a balance between strict adherence to the sovereignty of coastal
States and the land-locked States' need for international trade.
He reviewed the history of the progressive e,.elzelopment of international law relating
to land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States as embodied in the Covenant
of the League of Nations, the 1921 Barcelona Convention on Freedom of Transit, the 197+
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the 1965 UNCTAD Convention on Transit Trade
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/COiIF.62/C.2/SR.32
English
Pa -e 10
(i~4r. Ochan, Uganda)
cif Land-locked States. The review showed that the rights of land-.loekea and .other
Geographically disadvantaged States were firmly established in international law and
practice. The Conference must simply review that law, make the necessary amendments to
it, and bring it into line with the reality of the contemporary world - a reality that
took into account the legitimate 'rants, aspirations and claims of land-locked any. other
geographically disadvantaged 'States. It was in that spirit that he recommended
consideration of the draft articles on land-locked States submitted to the Sea-Bed
Committee in document A/AC.138/33 as a basis for negotiations. The document embodied
the important provisions of GATT and the UPTCTAD Convention; in order to ensure that the
issue of transit was resolved at the same time as other law of the sea matters it
provided that the proposed draft articles should form an inseparable part of the law of
the sea. Draft article II, paragraph 3, under which the access to the sea of the land-
locked States would be the concern of the international community as a vhole, was of
;,rest importance because the tiare had come when the fate of a lame section of the world
community must be safeguarded by that community. Although the international community
should provide the over-all framework, there must be express clauses in any future
codification of the law of the sea making it mandatory for States to enter into bilateral
arrangements.
Document A/COWF.62/C.2/L.29 contained a fairly thorough analysis and discussion of
his delegation`e position on the item. He urged the Conmittee to use the document and
also the Kampala Declaration (A/COI4F.62/23) as a basis for discussion and negotiations.
The Declaration outlined the very basic legitimate aspirations of the land-locked and.
other geographically disadvantaged States. He also drew the Cormittee's attention to
document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39, of which his delegation was a sponsor. That document was
another attempt to accommodate the interests of land-locked and other geographically
disadvantaged States without disregarding the interests of other States.
Mr. TUERK,(Austria)said that the right of the land-locked States to free access
to the sea had long since become a *.rell-established princi-zle of international law.
Article 3 of the 1953 Geneva Convention on the High Seas made the exercise of that right
dependent on agreements between. the States concerned. His country had satisfactorily
concluded bilateral agreements with its neighbouring; Ctetea, but it fully understood the
situation of land-locked countries that had not found sw-h a satisfactory solution.
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
English
Page 11
(Mr. Tuerk, Austria)
Working paper A/C0 '.62/C.2/L.29 contained an excellent analysis of the various problems
The time had come to accomrti.odate the 'legitimate interests of the land-locked and
other geographically disadvantaged'States:rd to harmonize them with those of other
groups of States. Working paper A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39 stated the position of the land-
locked and other geographically disadvantaged States on their participation in the
exploration and exploitation of the living and non-living resources in the area beyond
the territorial sea.. As far as the rights of land-locked and other geographically
disadvantaged States to those resources were concerned, no basic distinction should be
made as to the nature of those resources. The countries involved were not asking for
privileges, but for equality and non-discrimination - a status they believed they were
entitled to as a matter of right.
The principle of the, common heritage of mankind. provided a firm basis for the
participation of land-locked States in the exploitation of the resources of the area
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. It also implied their access to the area.
There must be. effective provision for a land-locked country or its enterprises to
participate in the exploitation of the resources of the international area; in
considering competing proposals for such exploitation, the unfavourable geographical
location and resulting distortion of the competitive position of the land-locked States
would have to be taken into account. In that way, the land-locked and other
geographically disadvantaged States should be at least'partly enabled to offset their
obvious disadvantages, which were a direct consequence of their particular geographical
position. The transfer of technology was therefore of utmost importance; in most cases
that was a prerequisite for a land-locked State to be able to participate actively in
the.exlal*atation:of the international area. Even relatively highly industrialized
States like his own lacked sufficient marine science and technolo,;ical know-how.
The land-locked countries must be adequately represented in the various organs of
the future international authority. Their representation in.the_council of the
authority should be.roughly.proport~onal to their number in the assembly.: .Because many
land-locked countries were among the least:developed in the. world, it.was'of very great
importance to them that._theiinternational'authority should begin to function in the very
near future. In distributing.the,.;,benefits derived from its activity., the authority
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CO71.62/C.2/SR.32
English
Page 12
(r4r. Tuerk, Austria)
should consider the stage of economic development of the recipient country, using the
per capita gross national product as a primary indicator in determining the equitable
share of benefits to be allotted to each of the countries concerned.
Lastly, the new law of the sea must provide the possibility for land-locked States
to participate in marine scientific research.
Mr. NYAUDO (MonGolis) said that his country, as a land-locked country,
attached the greatest importance to item 9, on which it had already explained its
general position.
The right of land-locked countries to free access to and from the sea had been
endorsed by all participants in the Conference as a firmly established and legally
bindin, principle of existing international law. Consequently, the main task of the
Conference as far as the land-locked countries were concerned was to work out legal
norms further elaborating their rights and interests.
His delegation was a sponsor of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29, the purpose of which
was to explain in some detail the provisions of draft articles relating to land-locked
States submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee on 2 August 1973 (A/AC.138/93; A/9021, vol. II,
p. 16). He cmpkasized the importance of articles II and III of that draft and expressed
his delegation's full agreement with the explanations concerning those two articles in
the recently submitted paper (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29). Article XVII of the draft stipulated
that land-locked States should have the right of free access to and from the area of the
sea-bed and shoulc, derive benefits from its resources - a provision which was in full
conformity with the Declaration of Principles governing the sea-bed and the ocean floor
beyond the liaits of national jurisdiction (General Assembly resolution 2749 (XXV)).
Land-locked countries should have proportionate representation in the organs of the
future international sea-bed aschinery, particularly in its council. They should also
have equal rights in the matter of decision-making.
The draft articles also adequately protected the legitimate rights and interests of
the transit State. Under article XIV, the transit State could take any measures it
deemed necessary to ensure that the exercise of the right of free and unrestricted
transit should in no way infringe its legitimate interests.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9 /
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01,: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9 ,
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
English..
Pace '13
(Hr._ Nyamdo, Mongolia)
The provisions contained in the draft articles dealt in a general way with the
problems of land-locked countries and would certainly not exclude the conclusion of
bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements providing for special arrangements.
Indeed, the draft itself called for the settlement of specific questions by the land-
locked and transit States concerned.
The new convention on the law of the sea, if it was to.be comprehensive, must
develop existing general principles on the rights of land-locked countries. The
Conference should facilitate that task by firmly endorsing and elaborating the
principle of the right of free access of land-locked..countries to and from the sea.
is delegation also hoped that -the international cointnunity wouldgive due consideration
to the rights and interests of land-locked countries in the economic zone.
Mr. DIATTA (Senegal) said that his delegation attached the greatest importance
to item 9.2, and he stressed the difficulties experienced by the land-locked countries -
the majority of which were situated on the African continent - in the struggle for
development.
His delegation supported without any reservations the Declaration of the heads of
State of the Organization of African Unity signed at Mogadishu in June 1974 (A/CONF.62/33).
That Declaration was identical to the earlier one adopted at Addis Ababa except for the
fact that a provision had.been inserted to reflect the views of the land-locked
countries concerning their right of access to the sea. Thus, the African States
recognized: (1;) that the land-locked countries should be entitled to access to the
sea and that a provision to that effect should be included in the universal treaty to
be elaborated by the Conference; and (2) that the land-locked countries should have
the right to exploit the living resources of neighbouring economic zones on an equal
footing with the nationals of coastal States.
Those rights had also been affirmed by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth
session in resolution 274+9 and at its sixth. special session in resolution 3202 (S-VI).--
The economic and political importance of such rights was self-evident.' Their
main effect would be to narrow the ever-widening gap 'between developed and developing
countries, thereby reducing the international tensions generated by feelings of
disappointment on the part of nations which felt that they had been wronged.
I...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/COi;F. 62/C. 2/SR. 32
L n ;lisil
Page 14
(hr. Diatta, Senegal)
The-African countries were aware of the problems and had to some extent anticipated
the law by giving land-locked countries access to port facilities. That reflected
their eagerness for co-operation at the bilateral, subregional and regional levels.
Thus the member countries of the West African l'conomjc Community, three of which were
land-locked countries, were striving to establish satisfactory arrangements for the
joint exploitation of fisnery resources.
i-ir. RABAZA (Cuba) said that his delegation endorsed the right of the land-
locked countries to free access to and from the sea because it was a basic principle
of the law governing the freedom of' the high seas. It believed, too, that the land-
locked and geographically disadvantaged States should have the right to participate in
the exploitation of the living resources in the economic zones of neighbouring coastal
States.
he recalled the worus of the President of Mexico, who had expressed i4exico's
concern about the situation of certain Caribbean States, whose problems would not be
solved by the establishment of a patrimonial sea. The President had spoken of the need
to take into account those States' just aspirations and to make provision in the
Convention for regional or subregional agreements which would guarantee their nationals
the right to exploit the living resources of the region. Mexico, he had said, was ready
to start negotiations whenever the States concerned so desired.
Cuba which, by virtue of its geographical situation, had been the gateway to the
new worla in the centuries following its discovery, was today a geographically
disadvantagea country. It therefore attached importance to the draft submitted by the
Ja;aaican delegation concerning the rights of the &eograpiiically disadvantaged countries
(A/COfF.62/C.2/L.35) and endorsed the provisions it contained.
i4r. Ai'DRES (Switzerland) observed that the existing lair of the sea made
provision for some of the rights of the land-locked countries. Some multilateral
conventions a4opted prior to the Geneva Conventions of 1953 had granted land-locked
countries a number of basic rights, includinfc (1) their right to sail under their
own flags on the high seas; (2) equality of treatment in seaports with regard to
access to and the use of such ports; (3) free transit through the territory of States
situated between them and the sea. The first of those rights had been confirmed in
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
~n.f:alish
Pabe 15
(Mr. Andres, Switzerland)
article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the ii,h Seas and the second had been recognized,
in principle, in article 3 of the same Convention. It was nevertheless essential that
the treaty articles prepared by the Third Conference should confirm all those rights
clearly and unambiguously reaffirm the right of innocent passage to which the vessels
of land-locked and coastal States were equally entitled, in accordance with article 14
of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. The fact
that some land-locked States might not possess a maritime fleet was irrelevant; the
point was to confirm existing rights for every State without exception.
The land-locked States should continue to enjoy the freedoms referred to in
article 2 of the Geneva Convention on the high Seas, in particular the freedoms of
navigation and overflight, and should also be free to conduct scientific research. In
principle, those freedoms should also be enjoyed in the proposed economic zone. The
land-locked States were particularly concerned to see the principle of freedom to
conduct scientific research preserved to the fullest possible extent.
The rights referred to had evolved within the context of international rules which
were based on a simple division of maritime space, namely, a relatively narrow
territorial sea under the sovereignty of the coastal States and the high seas which
were open to all States, coastal and land-locked alike. The new element which had
upset that simple division was the formulation of a number of unilateral claims
concerning the coastal State's exclusive right to the resources of its continental
shelf. That extension of jurisdiction - the external limit of which had been left
unfortunately vague in the 1958 Geneva Convention - had upset the balance between
coastal and land-locked States.
It went without saying that the institution of a broad zone in which the coastal
State would have rights over all the resources would further aggravate that inequitable
situation. That was why his delegation had decided to sponsor docimient A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39.
The circumstances in which the land-locked countries now found themselves justified their
demand to participate in the exploitation of the resources of the economic zone or,
failing that, to receive adequate compensation. It must be remembered that the land--.
locked countries were all small States, of which most were developing and some were
among the least developed. On the other hand, the majority of the States that would
benefit from the creation of the economic zone were not poor.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
Page 16
(Mr. Andres, Switzerland)
There was nothing in law or in equity to justify a distinction between living
and non-living resources. Furtaerr,+ore, the advocates of the economic zone concept did
not draw any such distinction. Consequently any attempt to exclude the land-locked
countries from the exploitation of either category of resources or the resultant
benefits would be misguided, particularly where regional agreements implyin6 solidarity
between the signatory States had been concluded.
i,iany land-locked and geographically disadvantaged countries were sorely lacking
in mineral resources; Switzerland, for example, bad none at all. Their interest in
living resources to feed their population was self-evident.
Some delegations maintained that only the developing land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged countries should be allowed to exploit the living resources of the
economic zone. That view was, moreover, reflected in article 19 of document A/CONF.62/L.4.
his delegation had already pointed out that such a discriminatory attitude was completely
unjustifiable. The representative of Austria had rightly stated, moreover, that the
sponsors of document A/C0NF.62/L.4 drew no distinction between developed and developing
coastal States when advocating the creation of an exclusive economic zone and that they
were therefore unjustified in making a distinction when it came to the interests of the
land-locked or geographically disadvantaged States within that zone. There seemed to
be a confusion between the concept of the economic zone and that of the international
sea-bed area; each would serve a completely different purpose. The proposed economic
zone was designed to protect the economic interests of all coastal States without
distinction. The inequalities that would result-from its creation as far as the land-
locked and geographically disadvantaged countries were concerned should be offset by
granting such countries the right to benefit directly or indirectly from the resources
of the economic zones of the region. The international sea-bed area, on the other hand,
would belong to and should benefit everyone, particularly the developing countries. Thus
a distinctionwas drawn between developed and developing States with regard to that area,
whereas in the case of the economic zone it was not.
The regime for the international sea-bed area should explicitly grant to the
land-locked countries the right of free access to and from the area and the right to
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
Page 17
(Ur. Andres, Switzerland)
preferential benefits from the resources of the area. Furthermore, the land-locked
countries should be represented in the body of the authority which would be responsible
for administering those resources. ieasures along those lines were not a charitable.
gesture but a meaningful application of the common heritage of mankind principle.
iir.. IIARA.SZTI (hungary) said that his delegation was a sponsor of the draft
articles submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee in document A/AC,1;8/93 (A/9021, vol., III, ,16)
and of the explanatory paper in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29.
As a land-locked, country, Hungary attached great importance to the recognition in
the future Convention of the rights of the land-locked States to free access to the sea,
freedora of navigation, and equitable sharing in the benefits.of the oceans.
The 1956 Geneva Convention on the high Seas included provisions on the right of
land-+locked..States to free transit through the territory of States situated between
their and the sea and reaffirmed the right of their ships to receive treatment equal to
that accorded to the ships of coastal States. Those provisions, which had proved
inaa.equate, hale been supplemented by the 1965 i tew York Convention on Transit Trade of
Land-locked States, which contained more detailed provisions relating to the right of
free access to the sea. However, only a relatively small number of States had become
pwrti.es to t1e,New York Convention and the scope of its application had been too narrow
to be satisfactory.
His delegation therefore attached great importance to the inclusion in the new
Convention of detailed provisions on the rights of land-locked States and fervently
hoped that they would be based on the draft articles in document A/AC.138/9. In
particular, it was expecting the forthcoming Convention to remedy certain deficiencies
of the NNew,fork Convention. For example, as the representative of Czechoslovakia had
pointed out, reciprocity should not be a condition for the freedomof transit of
land-locked States.
The right of coastal States to an economic zone - which his country was prepared
to recognize entailed a major sacrjfic.for the land-locked States. His delegation
therefore, believed that the right of the latter to..participate on just and reasonable
terms in the exploitation of the living resources.,of the proposed economic zone should
also be recognized in the future Convention.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CONFF. 62/C.2/SR. 32
Page 18
Mr. KAZEMI (Iran) said that his delegation supported the claim of the
land-locked countries to the right of free a.;cess to and from the sea, which should be
open to the commercial vessels of all States whether coastal or land-locked.
Accordingly, his country, although not geographically speaking a transit State, had
voluntarily accorded its only land-locked neighbour transit facilities to and from its
ports on the strait of Hormuz on a reciprocal basis under bilateral agreements based
on the principle of sovereign equality.
The land-locked States should have the right to participate in the exploration and
exploitation of the sea-bed area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and to be
represented in the organs of the sea-bed authority on an equal footing with coastal
States. However, his delegation maintained its view that the coastal State held
exclusive and inalienable rights over its continental shelf and that they could not be
fundamentally modified. Therefore it could not agree with any proposal that would
involve the sharing of revenues derived from the exploitation of the resources of the
continental sh-lf. It would like that view, which was shared by a number of other
delegations, to be reflected in the revised te..t of informal working paper number 3
as an alternative to provision XII of that paper.
His delegation wished to make some suggestions with regard to the legitimate
aspirations of the land-locked countries to participate in the exploitation of the
living resources in the seas adjacent to that neighbouring State. Firstly, coastal
States, whether transit or non-transit States, should, under bilateral or regional
agreements, accord to the nationals of the land-locked States of their region or
subregion preferential rights to fish in certain areas of their exclusive economic
zones. Secondly, in view of the fact that the adoption of the 200-mile limit as the
maximum breadth of the exclusive economic zone would place some oceanic States in an
extreme enviable position in terms of the living resources of the sea, it seemed only
right to provide that any State whose total gain in terms of actual economic zone would
exceed 50 per cent or the outer limits of whose economic zone would exceed 100 miles
should have the obligation to contribute a reasonable portion of the revenue from the
exploitation of its living resources to the sea-bed authority, for distribution among
all land.-locked countries, with special consideration given to the least developed
land-locked States.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9 I.
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
English
Page 19
(Mr. Kazemi, Iran)
Iran, bordering as it did an enclosed sea, the Persian Gulf, and a semi-enclosed
sea, the Gulf of Oman, could be considered a geographically disadvantaged country.
Because of its geographical position, it could not fully benef t from, the proposed
200-mile limit. None the less, it supported the'aspirations of those coastal States
which were able to exercise jurisdiction up to 200 miles. It believed, however, that
a clear distinction must be drawn between the land-locked States and the geographically
disadvantaged States. Since it was difficult to draw a clear-cut line between
advantaged and disadvantaged States on the basis of geographical situation alone, the
term "disadvantaged State" should be formulated in a legal definition which took
account of economic and other factors.
The draft articles being prepared by certain coastal States concerning free access
to and from the sea for land-locked States essentially reflected his delegation's
position on the subject.
Mr. KORCHEVSKIY (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that his
delegation shared the feelings of the authc.. of do-suner:t A/CONF'.62/C.2/L.29 and
supported their efforts to'devel_op and improve existing international sea law, the
provisions and principles of which would help to protect the specific interests of
land-locked countries. It fully understood the opinion expressed in the second
paragraph of page 2 of the docu lent and endorsed the points made in the first two
sentences of the third paragraph.
His delegation was well aware of the many problems faced by land-locked countries
in developing their economies. Consequently, it felt that document A/AC.138193 could.::
serve as a basis for legal provisions guaranteeing the rights and interests of the
land-locked countries. A number of new points set out in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.29.
also had great merit. His delegation fully shared the feelings of the authors of the.
document as set out.in section (e); the corresponding article in document A/AC.138/93
should be amended in order not to make reciprocity a condition for the free transit
of land-locked States. He was prepared to agree that many of the articles in
document A/AC.138/93 could be made into a separate chapter on problems of
land-locked countries in the future Convention. While he supported the retention of the
general regulatory role of the new Convention, he felt that a number of issues, such as
those connected with transit facilities and routing for land-locked States, should be
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
English
Page 20
(Mr. Korchevski.y, B elcrissian SSF.)
regulated by bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements. That was because it was
easier to assess certain specific features of the relationships between countries at
the regional or State level. One such feature was the existence of different social
systems; he pointed out that in international practice there were certain limitations
on the freedom of transit of individuals.
In tackling the problems of the land-locked countries the Conference must approach
the drafting of a universal international instrument from the standpoint that all
questions of ocean space were interrelated and must be considered together. It would
thus be possible to take into account the interests of all States and to create the
necessary conditions for opening negotiations in a spirit of compromise. The merit of
the approach was demonstrated by the fact that a number of delegations had already
shown readiness, on certain conditions, to adjust their positions considerably.
i4r. Njenga (Kenya) took the Chair.
Mr. CHAO (Singapore) said that the fairest solution and the one which would
most benefit all mankind would be to decide upon a 12-mile territorial sea, with the
rest of the ocean falling under the jurisdiction and management of an international
authority. The authority would exploit the non-living resources of the area for the
benefit of all peoples and would lay down rules for the rational and equitable
exploitation of the living resources ,y all States. An alternative solution would be
the establishment of regional economic zones. His delegation had not heard any cogent
reasons why its suggestions should not be adopted.
While his delegation maintained its views on that subject, it appreciated the
desire of coastal States to have economic zones of their own. However, it would only
support the establishment of an economic zone if the claims of the land-locked and other
geographically disadvantaged States, as set out in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39, were
met. The 1958 Geneva Conference - held before Singapore had attained its independence -
had treated the land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States unfairly.
His delegation was therefore particularly anxious to see their rights secured in the
future Convention, since otherwise the land-locked and disadvantaged States would
again be the losers in that coastal States would continue to exercise and affirm
"acquired rights". His delegation had therefore co-sponsored document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.39
and was amenable to suggestions for its improvetent.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9 /
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.32
English
Page 21
(Mr. Chao, Singapore)
He agreed with the representative of Iran that there was a need for a better
definition of the term "geographically disadvantaged States". Singapore had a
territorial sea of no more than four miles and was clearly disadvantaged. His
delegation looked forward to co-operating with the Iranian delegation in working out
a definition.
Mr. Mr. KUMI (Ghana) said that he wished to make it clear that his delegation's
support of the right of the land-locked States to exploit resources in the economic zone
of coastal States was limited to living resources. It could not therefore support
article 3 of document A/CONF.62/L.39, which referred to non-living resources.
The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040031-9