SECOND SESSION SECOND COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FOURTH MEETING HELD AT THE PARQUE CENTRAL, CARACAS, ON WEDNESDAY, 14 AUGUST 1974, AT 4 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 38
• Publication Date: August 16, 1974
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
Second Session
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY.RECORD OF.THE FORTIETH MEETING
Held at the?Parque Central, Caracas,
on Wednesday., i14.August 1974, at 4 p.m.
Chairman :
Rapporteur:
Mr. AGUILAR
Mr. HANDAH
R6gime of islands (continued).
Transmission from the high seas
Other questions
PROVISIONAL
For participants ont r
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.I+0
16 August 1974
Fiji
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 16 AUGUST 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 23 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5433
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.140
English
Page 2
REGIME OF ISLAi?DS (continued)
Mr. MORALES (Venezuela) said that Venezuela attached great importance to the
question of islands; as most of the islands in the chain along its coast were subject to
the indivisible exercise of Venezuelan territorial sovereignty, even though the continuity
of the chain was broken by islands under the sovereignty of another State. The
Venezuelan islands also had archipelagic characteristics.
Article 1 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and article 10 of the
1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, both of which Conventions
were ratified by Venezuela, did not make the maritime jurisdiction of islands depend on
their area, the length of their coasts, or any other criterion extraneous to the existing
definition. He was pleased to note that the ideas underlying those provisions were
shared by many delegations,, as shown in documents A/CONF.62/C.2/L.30 and L.50 and by the
statement of the representative of Trinidad and Tobago at the previous meeting.
His delegation supported document A/COItF.62/C.2/L.58, but felt that the proposal in
it should be supplemented by recognition of the right of the inhabitants of the
territories to which it referred to exploit resources in accordance with their needs
and requirements , as stated in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.30. That solution was a just
one in that it allowed for the development needs of the inhabitants of dependent
territories.
Mr. AMATO (Uruguay) said that his delegation, as a sponsor of document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.53, believed that a colonial or occupying Power could not validly invoke
or exercise for its own benefit rights which belonged either to the sovereign State
established when the colonial yoke was removed or to the sovereign State to which the
occupied territory legitimately belonged.
His delegation did not deny that certain rights would be recognized or established
by the Convention for the benefit of the territory as such, irrespective of whether it
was occupied or under colonial domination. That was clearly reflected in the phrase
as long as that situation persists. However, those rights could not be exercised or
invoked by those who were not entitled to them. To provide the contrary would be to
allow those rights to be usurped. The new law of the sea should be based on principles
of justice and respect for self-determination and sovereignty and could not serve
directly or indirectly to consolidate unjust or unlawful situations.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2 /. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
A/COIF.62/C.2/SR.40
English
Mr. QUENCUDEC (France) said that his delegation, as it had stated during
the debate.on archipelagos, believed that there was no legal justification for any
distinction between continental land masses and islands with regard to the
establishment of,a zone where economic rights would be exercised, unless it was
possible to arrive at a formula which took into account the divergent interests of
the various States involved. The various proposals concerning islands submitted
to the Sea-Bed Committee and to the Conference demonstrated the practical impossibility
of arriving at such a formula, since almost all of them aimed essentially at limited
and unrelated objectives. As the representative of Trinidad and Tobago had
deli nstrated, those proposals, in attempting to satisfy particular interests - however
legitimate those interests might be - entailed ingenious criteria. and resulted in
complex formulae which led other delegations to submit further proposals designed
to solve the artificial difficulties that the original proposals created.
Certain proposals could not be retained in the form in which they had. been
submitted. Document A/C0NF.62/C.2/L.30, for example, contained some interesting
provisions, but its part B was difficult to accept in its present form as it appeared
to deny territories which had not attained independence or autonomy "following an
act of self-determination under the auspices of the United Nations'" economic rights
over maritime resources. Did that mean territories attaining independence or
autonomy outside United Nations auspices would be deprived of their natural rights
over the resources of adjacent maritime areas? His delegation believed that it was
impossible to make distinctions among islands, since that would amount to denying to
certain island territories generally recognized economic rights. It was unnecessary
to include particular provisions on that subject in the Convention because of the
recognized principle of the sovereignty of States.
However, if it was deemed necessary to lay down -express rules, it would be
cient to have a clause applying, the fundamental rules of the sovereignty of
States over all their territories, including islands, and recognizing the consequent
rights.
The only real problem created by the existence of islands was that of delimiting
areas under national jurisdiction. On that question also the various proposals that
had been submitted seemed designed to cover particular or local situations. It. should
be possible to find a general rule allowing respect for the requirements of equity
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.1O
English
Page 1
(Mr. Quencudec, France)
while leaving the door open for the consideration of the facts of each situation,
In that regard the proposal in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.28 reflected a viewpoint
which deserved attention. The presence of islands or islets was, in fact, a special
circumstance which should be taken into account when dealing with delimitation
problems. Such problems in any case, could be solved only through direct agreement
between the parties concerned.
Mr. PONCE hWRIQUEZ (Ecuador) said that document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.58, of
which his delegation was a sponsor, was so important that it could not fail to enlist
the support of countries which believed in justice and in putting an end to the rule
of force. It was inspired by concepts of liberty and indep^rdence and designed to
ensure that the oppresive colonial Powers would find it m.,re and more difficult to
continue along the path of exploitation and injustice.
The Conference was working to establish a just and ec?iitable system of internaticnal
co-operation which would make it possible to narrow the e;.orrcus gap between
rich and poor countries. Despite the process of liberation from colonialist regimes
and despite the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Coli_ni$.i Countries end
Peoples, there were still territories, including territories in the Lmericas, occupied
by foreign Powers. The rights laid down in the Convention must not be used by tho::e
Powers to maintain their hegemony End to perpetuate the injustice3 created for their
exclusive benefit. Those rights existed in ;rder to fa- i:itat: the development and
progress of free peoples. In keeping with the near ccncep?,c which should underlie the
Convention, they legitimately belonged to the ir_ha,_-'Jtz1nVs of the t- ritories.
The peoples of the world were moving ever core rapidly tow-arils _:berty and
independence and towards a greater awareness
or claim them. Ce- Powers, on the other hard, vrO1 a speak ing of the ~: ^3 for a
political realism which dirided the world into two areas for the purpose of
distributing the benefits gained through intimidation. Neither that kind of
political realism nor the continuation of colonial regimes was acceptable to his
delegation. What had to be recognized, instead, was the ir_dGmiteble strength of the
countries which were striving for a just law of the sea. It was blindness not to
accept that reality and to draw the logical conclusions from it.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved. For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/CONF'.62/C.2/SR.40
English
Page 5
Mr. ROBINSON (Jamaica) endorsed the statement of the representative of Trinidad
and Tobago, particularly as it related to the rights of island territories such.-as those
which constituted the Associated States of the Caribbean.
In view of the. inequities of the past, provsions such as those in articles 3 and 4
of his delegation's draft articles (A/CONP.62/C.2/L.35) should be included in the
Convention. Such, provisions should relate not only to islands but to all territories
under foreign domination, and should relate to all rights conferred by the Convention,
not just those relating to%the economic zone. Part B of document A/COP.F.62/C.2/L.30,
which contained a..useful formulation, could be amended to cover the latter point.
In principle, his delegation supported the view that every island. generated and was
entitled to..its own territorial sea, economic zone and continental shelf. It could not
endorse.the view that an island's maritime space should be determined according to
criteria different from those used for continental land masses. That approach. would be
legitimate if it were possible to isolate criteria which applied only to islands, but
criteria such as size and population v:re as applicable to continental land rnasscs as they
were to islands, and. it was difficult to understand why they should be used only to
determine the mariti?m.e space of islands.
Mr. JACOVIDES (Cyprus) said that the proper treatment of the question of islands
in accordance with the requirements of international law and equity was of vital national
interest to his delegation and also a test of whether the new convention would be based
on fairness and objectivity.
His delegation's fundamental position, set forth in its statements at the 40th
plenary meeting and, at previous meetings of the Second Committee, was that no distinction
whatsoever should be made between islands, irrespective of their size and population, and
continental land masses, and-that the principles for determining the territorial sea,
the continental shelf and the economic zone of islands should be exactly the same as
those that were applied in determining the corresponding national jurisdictions of
continental land masses.
His delegation's position was firmly based on existing law and practice; he wished
to refer in that regard to article 10 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone, and article 1 (b) of the 1953 Geneva Convention on the
Continental Shelf. He was accordingly gratified to note that that position was shared by
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2 /...
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/COdF.62/C.2/SR. 140
English
Page 6
(Mr. Jacovides, 0.
large number of States, and not only by island States. His delegation particularly
wished to associate itself with the views expressed by the representative of Trinidad
and Tobago and by the sponsors of document A./CON .62/C.2/L.30.
In the case of opposite or adjacent States, delimitation should, in the absence of
agreements freely arrived at on the basis of equality, be based on the median line
principle, which was F.quitab?e and firmly based in existing law. To avoid discrimination,
that line should be measured fr,m the insular as well as from the continental baselines.
His delegation hoped th?.t the Con erence would not allow itself to be swayed by
attempts to promote narrow national interests, to the detriment of the legitimate rights
of islands, which were based on such principles as the sovereign equality of all States.
Mr. S:iTTISO GALVPZ (Guatemala) stressed his delegation's deep interest in all
uuestions relating to the liberation of peoples under colonial domination. In view of
that interest, it had co-sponsored document A/COi4F.62/C.2/L.58. In order to leave no
doubt of his delegation's position in the event that that proposal was not adopted, he
wished the following statement to be placed on record: Guatemala would not accept the
application of any provision of the convention or conventions that the Conference might
adopt, nor would it recognize any rights deriving therefrom, either in or for territories
occupied by foreign Powers, in usurpation of the legitimate sovereign rights of other
hates over those territories.
Mr. IMAM (Tunisia) said that the handful of countries which had done their
utmost to prevent the inclusion of item 19 in the agenda and to delay its discussion
were those whose intereF7tz were protected by the provisions of the 1958 Geneva
Conventions relating to the regime of islands. Those provisions offered only a weak
definition of an island and granted them the same rights as it granted continental land
mas`-es.
Such a situation largely favodred those countries which had been able to extend
their power over a large nu_n-%)er of islands, while it was detrimental to the developing
countries, which haO_ not p..rticipated in the elaboration of the 1953 Geneva Conventions
and which for the most part did not possess any islands. It was also unfavourable to
all land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States, which, having expected
an equitable distribution of the resources of the international zone, were justly
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
L1. L Sh
Page 7
G:jr, Kedadi, Tunisia)
concerned at seeing that concept rendered meaningless by the exaggerated claims of
countries possessing islands, particularly when the concept of the 2O0-mile economic
zone and that'of archipelagic States promised to become a reality.
The OAU DeclAration'(A,/CONF.62/33) was an attempt to resolve that conflict of
interests ands establish objective and equitable rules, and his delegation had demonstrated
its full support for part B of that Declaration by co-sponsoring documents
A/AC.138/SC.II/L.40 and L.43 and also document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.28, on delimitation.
A solution could be found only if the relevant clauses of the 1958 Geneva Conventions
were tightened,up and made more precise. To that end, he wished to introduce, on behalf
of his own delegation and those of Algeria., Dahomey, Guinea, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali,
Mauritius, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Upper Volta and Zambia, some draft articles
on item19.
Articles Land II defined as accurately as possible the size of the different areas
and the elevations of islands, their degree of proximity to the coast, and the various
factors that should be taken into account for the purposes of delimitation.
The provisions of article III would ensure that non-adjacent islands were not used
for delimitation between adjacent or opposite States. That principle was in line with
the provisions of document A/CONF.62/C,.2/L.23.
Under article IV,,the provisions,of articles I and II would not apply to insular
or archipelagic States, and a coastal State would not be entitled to claim rights based
on the controversial concept of archipelagos by reason of its exercise of sovereignty
over a group of islands situated off its coasts.
Article V, which concerned islands under colonial domination or foreign occupation,
provided that the rights to the maritime spaces.and to the resources thereof belonged to
the inhabitants of,those islands and must profit only their own development.
The sponsors trusted that their proposal would be taken into account in the
preparation of the.informal working paper to be produced on item 19.
Mr. TANOL (Ivory Coast) requested that his delegation be included in the`list
of sponsors of the proposal introduced by Tunisia.
Subsequently circulated as document A/CONF.62/C,2/L.62.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.140
2ngli sh
Page 8
Mr. VENCHARD (Mauritius), speaking as a sponsor of that proposal, said that
article V gave concrete form to operative paragraph 10 of the OAU Declaration, and was
very similar to part B of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.30; it would ensure that the resources
of islands under colonial domination or foreign occupation were vested in the inhabitants
of such islands. In the case of inhabitants who had been displaced - a situation not
provided for in that article - his delegation considered that their rights should not be
affected by their displacement.
Mr. DUDGEON (United Kingdom) said that the question of islands was particularly
important to the United Kingdom which itself consisted of a group of islands.
There was an immense diversity of island situations, ranging from large and
populous islands forming part of even larger continental States to small islands with
self-sufficient populations. The world community had already drawn up a body of rules
for the maritime spaces of islands, including the rule that islands were entitled to a
territorial sea and a continental shelf and the rule on drawing straight baselines
round fringes of islands along the coast. There were, however, no rules classifying
islands into different types.
Attempts had never--heless teen made at the Conference to divide islands into
different categories by reference to various criteria, including size, population,
position and political status. However, his delegation did not believe that that
approach could result in any generally applicable rules that would be equitable in all
cases. Indeed any such formulation was in grave danger of discounting many islands of
both absolute and relative importance.
One criterion suggested wns that of population. In various parts of the world, even
in very recent times, several islands which had been inhabited and even self-sufficient
had become uninhabited as a result of -;temporary or long-term changes in climate or
economics. Other small islands, formerly uninhabited, had been populated or repopulated.
Particularly where the c^onemy of States, or regions of States, with such islands was
precarious, it would be grossly unfair to deprive them of, say, an economic zone which
might prove a more permanent and certain means of achieving satisfactory development in
the face of otherwise overwhelming geographical disadvantages.
A second criterion suggested was that of size-. but there were large islands which
were largely or completely uninhabited and small ones with dense populations which
depended heavily upon the sea.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
A/COIF`.62/C.2/SR O
English
Page 9
(Mr. Dudgeon, United Kingdom)
A third criterion put forward was the distance.. of an island from the mainland.
In the, case of: island States and archipelagos, however,. it was not possible to say in
aiery `.case which island constituted the main and.
A fourth criterion.was the position of.an island in relation-to the coast of a
foreign State.. Reference had.-been made to an island..situated within the territorial sea
or on the continental shelf of.a neighbouring state. However, in his delegation's view
that begged the whole question.. The. isl-and.was'entitled to a territorial sea of its own.
The: continental sea belonged..to,.the island as much.as to the neighbouring State. The
real.question was that of delimiting the territorial sea and the-continental shelf
between the two, and the same applied to the economic zone.
With respect to islands which had not yet attained independence, his delegation
largely shared:the view of the delegation of Trinidad and.Tobago. So far as the
dependent territories for which the United Kingdom Government was.repponsible were
concerned, in most-cases the principal reason for, their continuing dependence was
uncertainty about their economic viability. To deprive such territories of any.right to
,.,an economic zone could. only increase that uncertainty and make the attainment of
independence more difficult. His delegation considered that the proposals in that sense
would have the opposite effect to that which their sponsors presumably had in mind, and
it could not support them.
The kind of detailed rules and principles proposed would inevitably bring about the
very inequity which they purported to avoid. The existing law and State practice with
regard to islands and their maritime spaces, reflected in proposals such as those of.
part A of-document A/CONF/62/C.2/L.30, was perfectly. adequate and should remain
undisturbed. With respect to the question of delimitation of boundaries, the provisions
of.artinle l2 of the Territorial Sea Convention and article 6 of the Convention on the
Continental Shelf, which laid down the three-part rule of agreement, special circumstances
and median line were: adequate and sufficiently flexible. Those rules already allowed
for all the different circumstances existing. there was a risk in.trying to do too
much.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/CONF/62/C.2/SR.40
y glish
Prre 10
Mr. $ENCHERKH (Algeria) said that his delegation had already given the essence
of its position with regard to islands in its statement on archipelagic States. He
therefore merely wished to endorse the arguments put forward by the representative of
Tunisia when introducing the draft articles on the regime of islands (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.62)
of which his delegation was a sponsor. He had noted with satisfaction the growing trend
in favour of including in the future convention provisions which took account of the
special circumstances of islands. With regard to islands lying in an enclosed or
semi-enclosed sea which were neither island nor archipelagic States, while his
delegation had no intention of questioning the sovereignty of States over the different
partsof their territory, including islands, it could not accept the attempt by some
delegations to use that idea of sovereignty as a legal Justification for the
recognition of right to marine space over which it already had rights as a continental
coastal State, thus claiming double rights to those waters, both for itself and for the
islands which were in fact part of its territory. That argument would also lead to an
unequal sharing of resources between coastal States in narrow seas. It was therefore
unacceptable to the Conference and to the international community as a whole.
Any such delimitation must be done by bilateral or regional agreement according to
principles of equity taking account of special circumstances in the interests of all
the States concerned. That was a principal advantage of the draft articles
(A/CONF.62/C.2/L.62) which he hoped would be carefully considered by the Committee and
receive the support of many delegations.
Those considerations applied to narrow seas such as enclosed or semi-enclosed
seas. More appropriate solutions based on the draft articles could be worked out for
other circumstances, provided that such solutions were reasonable and took account of
the overriding concept of the common heritage of mankind.
The future convention should ensure the preservation of the inalienable rights of
peoples still under colonial domination in all fields, as proposed in draft article V
of the document, and in accordance with the provisions of the Organization of African
Unity Declaration on the Issues of the Law of the Sea.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/ CONF. 62/ C. 2/SR.4o
English
Page 11
Mr. CASTAREDA (Mexico) expressed his delegation's support of the draft
articles introduced by the representative of Tunisia, of which it wished, to become a
sponsor. The aim of article V was not to sow discord or to prejudice in any way the
interes`CS'of States but to stress that colonial status could not have a permanent,
legal basis but must be purely temporary. The principle of non-recognition of colonial
domination should be as generally recognized as that of the non-recognition of
legitimate title to territory acquired by force. The draft articles therefore expressed
that principle and clearly stated that the occupying metropolitan Power had no right to
the maritime spaces around those islands or to the resources thereof.
There was an immense diversity of island situations, as the United Kingdom
representative had said, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to draft
regulations to cover them all. Any basic norms must reflect the provision in document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.30 that the extent of the territorial sea of.an island must be
determined in accordance with the provisions applicable to other land territory. There.
could however, be exceptions based on principles of equity.
Mr. RASOLONDRAIBE (Madagascar) said that, as the representative of an island
State, he was.fully aware of the difficulty of distinguishing between an island State,
an island and an islet. The draft articles were therefore aimed at giving clear
definitions. There were three issues related to islands: sovereignty, maritime rights,
and delimitation. With regard to the first two, there was. no problem in the case of
island States, but the rights of the inhabitants of islands under foreign domination or
control must be clearly stated. Although the remaining continental States under
colonial domination were the most difficult and serious issues with which the Special
Committee of 21i. had to deal, they were now very few in number and most of that
Committee's work was concerned with islands. His country supported the establishment
in the future convention of the rights to the territorial sea and the economic zone
not only of those islands which were on the agenda of the Special Committee but also
of any other islands, however small, which were not yet economically and politically
independent.
Delimitation was dealt with in draft article II, which was very clear.
Mr. IMIALINTOP.PI (Italy) said that, in the regime of islands, the question of
the territorial sea was easy to resolve because the. territorial sea was a constituent
- Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/CONF. 62/C. 2/SR. 4+0
English
Page 12
(Mr. Malintoppi, Italy)
part of the-territory of the State and must follow the regulations established for its
land territory. The 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf had also
established the coastal State's rights to the sea-bed and subsoil of areas surrounding
islands in the same way as those adjacent to its land territory. Although in the
Sea-Bed Committee his delegation had never expressed great sympathy for acquired rights,
it considered that if States already enjoyed rights to the continental shelf, they
should be respected. A certain flexibility was, however, called for in drafting
provisions for the new concept of the economic zone and the rights and duties of States
in that connexion, since the Conference was engaged in developing progressive
international law.
With regard to the delimitation of marine space which included islets and rocks,
there were certain difficulties inherent jn any attempt to bring provisions concerning
them into line with the 1958 Geneva Conventions. Endeavours had been made to establish
lists of criteria to be followed in that delimitation, but any such criteria tended to
become arbitrary because they did not take account of special circumstances. It was
therefore necessary to include a safeguard clause covering such circumstances, but the
only really equitable solution must be in line with the judgement of the International
Court of Justice in the North Sea continental shelf cases and could not be based on
abstract criteria, especially in view of the infinite variety of island situations.
Mr. DE?A13ARDA Y G02fI (Spain) said that in his delegation's view the following
criteria should be taken into account in regulating the complex and difficult question
of islands.
Firstly, a generally acceptable definition of islands had to be established. That
could be done by distinguishing islands from other geographical conformations which must
also be defined with precision. Such a step would have the advantage of not including
anover-general but rather a specific idea of islands in the future codification. In
that connexion, he said that some of the proposals put forward contained elements that
would be very useful in establishing the concept and legal regime to be applied to
islands.
Secundly, if the future convention, following the 1958 codification, were to retain
the assumption of-"special circumstances`' for delimitation, it would be necessary to
specify the territories to wh:Lch such special circumstances should apply. The mere
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR. 40
English
Page 13
(Mr. De Abaroa y Goni,?Spain)
presence of islands in a maritime space did not constitute per se a special circumstance;
if it were ,so considered, the danger already existing in the imprecise idea of special
circumstances, would be intensified, and it would become extremely difficult for
neighbouring States. to negotiate on delimitation of maritime spaces close to islands.
Thirdly, an appropriate method must be found to solve the problem of.the regime
of islands. In;his delegation's view the point of departure should be equal trestm#nt
for all parts of a State, whether continental, insular or archipelagic. Moreover the
regime of islands must be based on the following fundamental principles: firstly, the
territorial. unity and integrity of the State, including the territorial waters and the
air space above them; secondly, the indivisibility of the sovereignty of the State over
its territory, continental or maritime; and lastly the sovereign equality of all States,
great or small, insular or archipelagic, continental or "mixed".
Those general criteria would, in his delegation's view, provide a satisfactory
solution for the delimitation of maritime spaces under the jurisdiction of neighbouring
or opposite States and allow for adaptation in exceptional cases.
The CHAIRMAN announced that the discussion on item 19 had been concluded.
TRANSMISSION FROM THE HIGH SEAS (A/902].; A/CONF.62/C.2/L.51+)
Mr. DUDGEON (United Kingdom) drew attention to document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.51+
submitted by the nine States of the European Economic Community, and in particular to
article 21 ter, which referred to co-operation in the repression of unauthorized
broadcasting from the high seas. That article had been included in a working document
on the high seas and was extremely relevant to the item before the Committee. His
delegation hoped that its provisions would be included in any further working document
on the subject.
The CHAIRMAN agreed that would be done.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.140
English
Page 11+
OTHER QUESTIONS
The SECRETARY announced that 28 other delegations wished to join the sponsors
of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.42IRev.1. They were: Algeria, Argentina, Burma, Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ghana, India, Iran, Jamaica,
Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Panama, Peru,
Philippines, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Cameroon, Uruguay,
Venezuela and Yugoslavia.
The meeting rose at 5.15 p.m.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040038-2