SECOND SESSION THIRD COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING HELD AT THE PARQUE CENTRAL, CARACAS, ON FRIDAY, 9 AUGUST 1974, AT10.55 A.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 4, 2001
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: August 13, 1974
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
UNITED NATION
THIRD CONFERENCE
THE LAW THE SEA
PROVISIONAL
Eor_par.tjcipants only
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.13
13 August 1974
Second Session
THIRD COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Friday, 9 August 1974, at 10.55 a.m..
Chairman: Mr. YANKOV Bulgaria
Rapporteur: Mr. HASSAN Sudan
CONTENTS
Progress reports of Chairmen of informal meetings on items 12 (Preservation
of the marine environment) and 13 and 14 (Scientific research and Develoy:.:.icnt
and transfer of technology)
Presentation of proposals on item 13 (Marine scientific research)
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 -uadru licate 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 13 AUGUST 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 20 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5405
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070013-6
A/COWF. 62/C. 3/SR.13
English
Page 2
PROGRESS REPORTS OF CRAIRt/ OF INFORMAL : STINGS OTT ITS 12 (PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT) AND 13 AND 14 (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF
TECHNOLOGY)
Mr. VALLARTA (Mexico), speaking as Chairman of the informal meetings on
item 12 (Preservation of the marine environment) said that at those meetings a method
of work had been adopted that would enable delegations to continue working in an
orderly manner. It had been decided to cover the following subjects:
1. Pollution from land-based sources;
2. Marine pollution from activities concerning exploration and exploitation of
the sea-bed within the areas of national jurisdiction;
3. Marine pollution from activities concerning exploration and exploitation of
the sea-bed beyond the areas of national jurisdiction;
4. Pollution fraan vessels (flag State, coastal State, port State);
5. Marine pollution from the atmosphere;
6. Pollution from dumping of wastes in the sea (flag State, coastal State,
port State);
7. Other sources of marine pollution.
It only remained to undertake the difficult task of drafting provisions on those
and other topics in the small drafting and negotiating group.
Mr. METTERNICH (Federal Republic of Germany), speaking in his capacity as
Chairman of the unofficial meetings on items 13 and 14, said that the consultation and
negotiation group set up at the informal meetings had worked out texts for two articles,
and three paragraphs of a third article. Negotiations would continue on a further
paragraph of that article.
As soon as a consolidated position was reached among delegations concerning rules
of conduct for marine scientific research and consent, participation and obligations of
coastal States, the consultation and negotiation group would start working out texts on
those items, which would then be submitted to the Committee meeting informally.
It was hoped that the consultation and negotiation group would that day end its
task of drafting an agreed text on general conditions for the conduct and promotion of
marine scientific research. There would then be an informal meeting for a first reading
of item 3 of the informal comparative table (CRP/Sc.Res./1).
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
A/CON]?. 62/C, 3/SR.l3
English
Page 3
(Mr. Metternich, Federal
Republic of Germany)
If there was. time, the informal meeting could. then begin its first reading of
items 4 and 5 and then go on to discuss a number of drafts introduced in
Sub-Committee III of the Sea-Bed Committee in 1973.
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS ON ITEM 13 (MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH)
Mr. APMETON (Trinidad an.d Tobago) introduced document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.9,
containing draft articles on marine sciertific research. Reviewing the articles, he
said: that since in article I it was very difficult to make a clear distinction between
pure scientific research and industrial or other research, a. considerable degree of
control would. be needed.
With respect to subparagraph (c) of article IV, he recalled the extreme position.
adopted by..ce-rtain delegations at the Sea-Bed Committee which had.held that the results
of scientific research should be the property.. of the coastal State. His delegation
was, . now proposing t'?at the originals shoul4,.remain the property of the coastal State
only where specimens could not be duplicated... Under subparagraph .(d)..his delegation,
now wished to add the words-'?and not being unnecessarily, withheld" at the end.
Mr. YTU.RIAGA RARBERAN (Spain) pointed out a discrepancy between the wording
of articles II and IV. The former read,`'Marine Scientific Research in the territorial
sea shall only be condueted,with the'.prior..approvai of the coastal State .
Article IV,.howevea, read:. ''Marine Scientific Research in the exclusive economic zone/
patrimonial sea, and on.the continental shelf shall be conducted only with the prior
authorization of the coastal State ..."
.. Mr.JAIINT (India) ;endorsed that view. It would be better to use the word
"authorization" An both places.
With respect to article V, he pointed.:out that it was not clear whether the
international authority would have authority over the water column.. He therefore
wondered whether it would be possible to add, after the words "be conducted" in the
first line, the words in conformity with its competence".
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
A/CCICF.62/C.3/SR.13
English
Page 4
Mr. RAMADAN (Egypt) said that draft article I seemed to lack the proper
scientific approach. The definition in CRP/Sc.Res./12, submitted by his delegation,
might be more suitable.
Mr. BUSTANI (Brazil) asked whether there was a difference between ''prior
approval'' and "prior authorization" in the view of the Trinidad and Tobago delegation.
If there were no difference, he wondered why there were separate sections in the draft
articles for the territorial sea and the economic zone.
Mr. HUSSAIN (Pakistan) said that his delegation was in agreement with the
draft articles in A/CONF.62/C.3/L.9. It fully agreed that no lines could be drawn
between pure and other research and that all such research should be conducted for
peaceful purposes.
He agreed with the Egyptian representative that article I did not constitute an
adequate definition of marine scientific research.
Article II was in line with a document sponsored by his delegation at the Sea-Bed
Committee (A/AC.158/SC.III/L.55), though it differed in that it used the words "prior
approval" whereas his delegation's text had read "explicit consent". The present draft
articles also distinguished between the territorial sea and the economic zone.
His delegation endorsed the ideas in articles III, IV and V. With respect to
article V, his delegation had submitted a similar proposal (CRP/Sc.Res./3/Rev.1).
Mr. BOROVIKOV (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that his
delegation had some problems with regard to the document as a whole.
With respect to article V, it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that no
State would be ready to give the international authority exclusive rights to marine
scientific research, for the authority would then carry out only such research as was
of interest to it. Moreover he foresaw certain problems of financing.
Mr. MBOTE (Kenya) said that his delegation was generally in agreement with
the draft articles but it, too, would like a clarification of the distinction between
"prior approval" and `prior authorization".
Since the list of the rights of coastal States given in article IV could not be
exhaustive, it might be better to insert the term "inter alia" in the introductory
paragraph; alternatively; the list might be omitted.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6 /.
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.13
English
Page 5
(Mr. Mbote, Kenya)
.He understood that the question of the "International
article V, was still being debated in the First Committee.
not of course prejudge the outcome of that debate., but for
the wording of the article.
Area", referred to in
The Third Committee should
the present he could support
MissMARIANI (France), referring to article I, subparagraph (b), said that it
was possible to make a distinction between pure scientific research and industrial or
other research. The point of industrial research was that it should have an immediate.
practical application, whereas pure research need not have such an application , and, was
moreover public property. It should be remembered that industrial research could also
bring benefits to mankind.
Her delegation could not at present accept article V which prejudged the decisions
ns
to be taken elsewhere concerning the international zone. Her delegation thought that
the sponsors had not reflected sufficiently on the financial implications of the article.
Mr. BOHTE (Yugoslavia) said that his delegation would also like to have.
clarification of-the difference between "prior approval" and !prior authorization". It'
might be possible to link articles II and IV, using clearer terminology.
He agreed, with the comments made by the representative of.Kenya about the rights
listed in article IV; the list might well be omitted..
He thought that the wording of article V should be.-the same as that used in the
proposals which the Group of 77 had submitted to the First Committee, where the question
of the international zone was still under consideration.
Mr. MOLTENI (Argentina) said.that his delegation supported article I because
there was no, practical difference between pure and applied researehi. It, too, would
like a clarification of the terms "prior approval" and "prior authorization". He agreed
that the list of rights in article IV was not exhaustive, moreover; the possibility
that coastal States might impose other requirements should be left open. Artie V must
for the moment remain provisional, being. dependent on the ~jurisdictioh'vested in the
International Authority. On that understanding, his delegation could accept it.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.13
English
Page 6
Mr. BOTHA (South Africa) suggested that the words or refusal" should be
omitted from article IV, subparagraph (d), and that the second part of the subparagraph
should read: "such consent being given within a reasonable time, and not being
unreasonably withheld".
'Ir. YI'URRIAGA -~?? P ~rT (Srain) at d that the definition given in article I was
acceptable but that it might be better to preface it with the words "for the purposes
of this Convention". His delegation agreed with the point made in subparagraph (c) but
thought that it might be omitted.
With regard to the distinction between "prior approval and 'prior authorization"',
his delegation thought that the requirement for the territorial sea should be different
from that for the economic zone.
He noted that there was no intention to give an exhaustive list in article IV,
since the article referred to "minimum requirements". He agreed that article V gave
rise to problems and that the Committee should not prejudge the decisions of the First
Committee. However, he could not agree that the question of the international zone
concerned only the First Committee. There were two main aspects: the regime governing
scientific research beyond the limits of national jurisdiction., and the conduct of such
research. While the regime fell within the competence of the First Committee, the
question of conduct of scientific research fell within the competence of the Third.
There might be a need for a joint meeting of the two Committees.
Mr. DAHAK (Morocco) said that the definition given in article I was not
complete. He noted that the term 'marine environment` had itself not yet been defined.
The definition of marine scientific research could be accepted provided that the marine
environment was not-understood to include the air space above the sea.
Article I, subparagraph (c) might be improved by replacing the words "by means not
harmful" with the words "by means not prejudicial", since harmful effects might not be
apparent at the time the research was being conducted.
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.13
English
Page 7
Mr. BUSTANI (Brazil) asked the representative of Spain whether the distinction
he had made between "prior approval" and ''prior authorization`' meant that he wanted
to have different jurisdictions for the territorial sea and the continental shelf..,
Mr. McCOMIE (Barbados), speaking on a point of order, said that he had
understood that, when a proposal had been introduced by its sponsor, delegations might
then seek clarification but should not enter into substantive issues. The present
debate clearly dealt with substance and amendments had even been submitted.
The CHAIRMAN agreed with the point made..by the. representative of Barbados:
substantive matters should first be discussed in informal meetings. He.appealed to
delegations to conform to that arrangement.
Mr. HUSSAIN (Pakistan) said that he wished to make his delegation's position
on article III'ciear: the aim was to include the concept of national jurisdiction;
therefore, the words "or areas of national jurisdiction" should be inserted after the
words "territorial sea".
Mr. BERTELS (Netherlands), referring to article IV, said that the granting of
prior authorization made sense only if it was subject to specified maximum, rather than
minimum, requirements.
Mr. APPLETON (Trinidad and Tobago) referring to the distinction between
"prior approval" and "prior authorization", said that the intention was to provide a
stronger regime for the territorial sea than for the economic zone. However, his
delegation thought that the terms could be used interchangeably.
Subparagraph (b) of article I was not meant to be part of the definition of marine
scientific research, which was given in subparagraph (a).
The territorial sea and the economic zone or patrimonial sea had been dealt with
separately in articles II and III and in article IV respectively, for the'purposes"of
negotiation.
He agreed that the list of rights given in article IV-.was not exhaustive but, as
the representative of Spain had pointed out, the introductory paragraph did include the
term "minimum requirements".
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.13
English
Page 8
(Mr. Appleton, Trinidad and Toba-o)
The representative of Byelorussia had said, with reference to article V.-that the
International Authority should not have the exclusive right to control scientific
research. In his delegation's view, the essential point was that the Authority should
have the right to decide who should undertake the research, even if initially it lacked
the means to do so itself. He agreed, however, that the Committee should not prejudge
the issue. He accepted the suggestion made by the representative of India that some
formula such as in conformity with this Convention' should be inserted after the words
"shall be conducted" in the first line of the same paragraph.
If the South African proposal that the words or refusal' should be omitted from
article IV, subparagraph (d), were accepted, there would be no need to require the
consent of the coastal State, since it would not have the right to refuse.
He noted that. article 1, subparagraph (a), included the words "and exveriments
related thereto';, which he thought covered the point made.by the representative of
Morocco concerning air space.
Mr. COLLINS (Liberia), introducing document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.10, said that
the purpose of the amendment proposed in paragraph 2 of that document was to ensure
that port States adopted the national legislation required for the enforcement action
referred to in article 8 of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L?4.
His delegation could not accept document A/C0NF.62/C.3/L.4 as it stood, but could
accept it with the amendments proposed in the document he was introducing.
Mr. PERRAKIS (Greece) said that he found the amendments proposed in
document A/COLIF.62/C.3/L.10 quite acceptable. In fact, they clarified and,improved
upon document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.4.
Mr. BREEUER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that he wished to clarify
certain aspects of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.7 which he had not had time to explain in
his statement at the 12th meeting of the Committee.
That document tried to serve two fundamental interests; the protection of the
marine environment of coasts and the free flow of shipping. The latter interest was
of the highest importance for developing countries which were entering the area of
sea trade with new ships flying their own flags. Those States were concerned that
/...
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
English
Page 9
(Mr. Breuer, Federal Republic of Germany)
coastal States should not apply standards stricter than those laid down by international
law concerning the construction, design, equipment, maintenance and operation of
vess.els. Document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.7 had been prepared with that interest in mind.
According to scientists, the most hazardous long-term effects on the marine
environment resulted not from major pollution incidents but from chronic pollution
caused by continuously escaping small quantities of oil and other harmful substances.
To remedy that problem, article I, paragraph 1, of his delegation's proposal imposed on
flag States the obligation to denyto...ships which did not comply with IMCO or
stricter flag-State anti-pollution requirements the right to fly their flag, and to
issue certificates for ships complying with those requirements.
To facilitate inspection measures, article I, paragraph 2,, provided that those
certificates would have the same validity with respect to the authorities of other
States as if those States had issued.them. That should be.acceptable if at the same
time, as provided in article I, paragraph 3,. the flag State was held responsible
for marine pollution incidents caused by ships to which it,had. issued certificates
that incorrectly attested to ccmpliance with anti-pollution requirements. However,
he wished to emphasize that that last provision was not intended to detract from
the primary liability of ship-owners in respect of pollution damage.
Still more important were the provisions designed.to ensure that flag States
complied with their obligations. His delegation's proposal, provided, first, for the
participation of port and coastal States in the enforcement measures implemented by
flag States with a view to supporting and controlling flag States in that regard. For
that purpose, article II, paragraph 1, made provisions for the inspection of
certificates of ships in certain areas by port and coastal State authorities, and even
for inspection of the ships themselves under some circumstances.
A second category of measures was designed to put pressure on flag States to carry
out their obligations. To that end, article III, paragraph 1, entitled port States to
deny entry to their ports of.off-shore terminals to ships not carrying valid
certificates, and entitled coastal States to deny such ships passage through their
.territorial sea. However, his delegation did not think it necessary to give coastal
States the right to inspect ships in innocent passage through their territorial, sea,
as their rights in that area were adequately protected by the presumption contained
Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
 Approved For Release 2001/12/05 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300070013-6
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.13
English
Page 10
(Mr. Breuer, Federal Republic of Germany)
in the second sertence of article III,paragr