UNITED NATIONS THIRD CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, THIRD SESSION, GENERAL COMMITTEE, PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 22, 2002
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: May 15, 1975
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
PROVISIONAL: FOR PARTICIPANTS ONLY
Distr.
RESTRICTED
15 May 1975
THIRD CONFERENCE ENGLISH
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Original.- FRENCH
Third Session
GENERAL COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 8 May 1975, at 9.55 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. AMERASINGHE
Rapporteur-General: Mr. RATTRAY
CONTENTS:
Date, place and duration of next session
Question of inter-sessional arrangements for informal
consultations and negotiations
Other business
N.B. Participants wishing to have corrections to this provisional summary
record incorporated in the final summary record of the meeting are
requested to submit them in writing in quadruplicate, preferably on
a copy of the record. itself, to the Official Records Editing Section,
room E.41O8, Palais des Nations, Geneva, within five working days of
receiving the provisional record. in their working language.
A/CONF.62/BUR/SR.13
GE.75-65374
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
DATE, PLACE AND DURATION OF NEXT SESSION
Tc expedite the work, the Chairman proposed that speakers should be limited to
five minutes, in ac -.ordance with rule 26 of the rules of proc ~dure.
It was so decided.
The CHAIRMAN invited the chairmen of the five regional groups to present
the views of their respective groups on the date, place and duration of the next
session: the debate would then be open to all members of the General Committee. Some
delegations which were not members of the Committee had also been invited to
participate.
Mr. AMARA (Ivory Coast), Chairman of the Group of African Countries, said
that his Group maintained that the Conference should not begin before April 1976,
:since, apart from considerations of climate, delegations must be allowed enough time
'::_, hold consultations at all levels. With regard to the place, the African Group
could agree to New York or Geneva, if no developing country offered to accommodate the
:onference. The majority, however, favoured New York. The Group had also agreed, by
very broad consensus, that the next session should not last more than eight weeks, at
the end of which, depending on the results, it would be prepared to consider any other
proposal.
1r. SAID-VAZIRI (Iran), Chairman of the Group of Asian Countries, said that
his Group had not changed its views since the General Committee's last meeting; it
agreed to the next session being held either in New York or Geneva if no developing
country in Africa or Asia offered to act as host to the Conference. There was general
agreement in the Group that the next session should begin on 1 April 1976, and after
consultation it seemed that most members favoured a session of seven to eight weeks
duration.
r. PISK (Czechoslovakia), Chairman of the Group of Eastern European
~_.ialist States, said that his Group would willingly agree to the next session being
held in a developing country; but if that proved impossible for technical or
financial reasons, it sew no objection to the session being held at Geneva or
vew fork, preferably Geneva. The Group hoped that the session would begin early in
1976, but it was prepared to accede-to the wishes of the African and Asian countries
in that respect. The duration of the session should not exceed eight weeks.
0NF.62/BUR/Ep~poved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
Mr. ZEA (Colombia), Chairman of the Group of Latin American States, said
that in view of the difficulties of holding the next session in a developing country,
his Group would agree to Geneva or New York., though there was no consensus in favour
of either city. However, as the African and. Asian countries preferred New York, his
Group was prepared to support that choice. As to the duration of-the session, it
seemed. that ten or twelve weeks would be needed to complete the work, and the feeling
in the Group was that the time should be divided, between two sessions, one at the
beginning of 1976 and the other in the summer of the same year. The first session
could beheld. in New York early in the year, as the Secretariat had. suggested.
Mr. TEMPLETON (New Zealand), Chairman of the Group of Western European
and. other States, said that there were two main schools of thought in that Group
regarding the duration and. place of the next session. The majority considered that
the session should not last more than eight weeks, since it was difficult to release
specialists for a longer period and experience at Caracas had shown that a longer
conference was not proportionately more productive. Those who favoured a maximum. of
eight weeks acknowledged. that a further session might be required. to complete the
Treaty. A. number of other representatives favoured. a longer period, which might be up
to twelve weeks, with an interval of a week or ten days at some point during the
session; they thought that should enable the Conference to complete its work. In
general, most representatives who favoured a shorter session considered that it should
be held at Geneva. Some of those who had expressed a preference for New York or
Geneva had also indicated that they could. accept a majority decision in favour of
either city. As to the date, some representatives thought the session should begin as
early as possible in the New Year, but the Group recognized that the preferences of
members of other groups who wished to avoid the severe winter should also be taken
into consideration.
The CHAIRMAN, summing up the statements made by the chairmen of the regional
groups, said there seemed to be general agreement that the next session should not
exceed eight weeks and that, if circumstances so required, a further session should be
held. With regard. to the place, there seemed to be no objection to New York or Geneva,
the final choice depending on the capacity of one or other city to accommodate the
Conference. The date would depend on the place chosen. As to the idea, put forward
A/CONF.62/BUR/SR.13
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
by the Group of Latin American countries, of holding a further session, he indicated
that the fourth session might be devoted to negotiations and the fifth to decision-
making. Ir that connexion, he pointed out that under its rules of procedure, the
Conference was required to make every effort to reach ganoral agreement and could not
rroceed to a vote until all efforts to do so had been exhausted. If decisions had to
be taken by a vote, the session devoted to decisions should be held at a place where
electronic voting equipment was available, thatwas to say grew York.
3 ssential that a treaty be concluded as soon as possible, at the latest in 1976, if only
`:o avoid being overtaken by unilateral action. The idea of holding two more sessions
as wise, it being clearly understood that at the second of them decisions would have to
taken. if necessary by voting. In his delegation's view, a single session in 1976
;,'ouid not be sufficient, as the unified texts would attract many comments and
.mendments and would have to be negotiated. If it was desired to hold two more
:,sions, there were -hose ;possibilities. First, the General Assembly might decide
atcgorically in favour of two more sessions, leaving the Conference no choice; his
-delegation was opposed to that procedure. It was similarly opposed to the second
possibility, which was that the General Assembly might authorize one more session, but
?ive the Conference discretionary power to decide to hold another, for in that
situation neither the Secretariat nor delegations would have any clear idea of -what
and lities and services would be required. The formula preferred by Singapore was
,hat the General Assembly should decide that there could be two more sessions, but
;pave, it to the Conference to decide whether or not to hold the second. With regard
c the place, his country supported the majority view, which was in favour of New York.
`vastly, if there was only one more cession, it should begin on 1 April; if there were
:wc, it would be necessary to leave a reasonable interval between them, to give
n,-legations time for reflontion.
The CHAIRMAN emthasized that it was understood that the Conference could
i.vail itself, if it wished, of the possibility of holding two more sessions offered
by the General Assembly.
Mr. ZEGERS (Chile) said that the main thing was to make sure of having a
iod of twelve weeks, which could be divided into two parts, one for negotiation
one for decision-making. In that way, rrovision would be made for two sessikatiis,
VI CGNF.62/BUR%SR.13
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120013-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120013-0
_7_
but.the second would be held at the Conference's discretion. It was desirable that
the General Assembly should give priority over all other meetings to the Conference
on the Law of the Sea; the Fifth Committee would then act in accordance with the
General Assembly's decision. The programme should also include a session of one
week for signing the Convention at Caracas, as planned, which should also be held
in 1976. The session devoted to negotiations could be held in New,York or
Geneva, and it should not be forgotten that, at Geneva, it was possible to hold up to
fifteen meetings simultaneously.
Mr. KOZYREV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said he was surprised
that some representatives should have mentioned the possibility of holding several
sessions in 1976, since the question under discussion was the date, place and duration
of the next session. He was also surprised by the statements to the effect that the
Convention should be signed in 1976. True, all delegations wished the Conference
to finish its work as soon as possible; it should do so, however, not by votes cast
with the aid of an electronic device, but by taking, and then applying, decisions
which had been adopted by consensus. In his opinion, the fourth session of the
Conference should be held between April and June, either at Geneva or in New York,
depending on the services which the Secretariat could provide. It would be for the
fourth session to take the necessary decisions concerning a further session; the
Conference would be exceeding its powers if it decided at that stage on the date,
place and agenda for a fifth session.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the rules of procedure made provision for
voting.
Mr. MEDJAD (Algeria) subscribed to the statement made by the Chairman of the
African Group regarding the date and place of the next session. The proposal by the
Latin American Group to hold two sessions in 1976 had been submitted to the Conference
too late. To speak of two sessions was tantamount to prejudging the results of the next
session. If the implication was that positive results were expected by the end of the
fourth session and that the fifth would be reserved for decision-making, Algeria would
have no objection. But if that was not the case, and delegations were not given time
to study the problems that would arise at the fourth session and to hold regional and
inter-regional consultations, the fifth session would-be a ,repetition of the fourth.
Such a result would be contrary to the wiehes.of delegations; it might weary
governments and interrupt the rhythm of the meetings. Algeria hoped, therefore, that
any decision concerning a fifth session would be taken at the end of the fourth session,
in the light of the results obtained. It was then, and only then, that it would be
possible to assess the usefulness of a further session.
A/CONF.62/BUR r? ed For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120013-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120013-0
The ChiIRMAN said it was only a matter of ensuring that the General Assembly
~cvided for the possitility of a further session, which would not necessarily take
:lace.
F,VENSL;N (Norway) said he strongly supported the proposal of the
1.qtin American Group that the Conference should it for a period of ten to twelve weeks,
.ivided into two secsicnF;. It was important to ensure that the deliberations of 1976
..-ould culminate in the adoption of a convention. S1,lfficient time should therefore be
.flowed for ner;etiation and for taking decisions, possibly by votinrj. It was true
_a.t Linder its " -entlemen' s agreement" the Conference should not vote until all efforts
o reach a consensus had been exhausted; but it would be unrealistic to believe that
t would not be necessary to take many votes. And it would not be desirable for the
onferenc to have to :tart voting at its next session, in 1976. here should be a
4'airly long interval between the next two sessions, so as to leave ielegations time
_'or reflexion and to enable the Draftini Committee to meet.
ii=i'. L KkBU-K'HABOUJI (Zaire') said that the Chairman of the Group of African
nuntries had clearly explained the position of that Group, which wished a session to
e meld in or after April 1976; a movement seemed to be developing, however, in favour
'a holding two more sessions. He wished to draw the attention of members of the
hneral Committee to another point, namely, that in any event a separate session was
be held at Caracas for the si ninr of the Convention. The Chilean representative
Lit said that that session should br held in 1;76, so there would be three sessions in
_9 76, not two. The Conference on the Law of the Sea was becoming more and more
expensive, especially for the countries of the Third World. His delegation was willing
agree to a session being held in New York in or after April 1976, and he hoped that
there had to be a further session to take decisions, it could be held at the same
;ine as that scheduled for Caracas.
The CHAIRPMM reminded the Committee that the Venezuelan Government had clearly
,tated that a separate session would be needed for signing the Convention.
"ir. OGOLA (U;anda) endorsed the statement made by the Chairman of the
Group. His delegation strongly hoped that the Conference would conclude its
ork in 1976, but it could not support the suggestion that it should hold two more
ions, One cession F. year was already a heavy enough bur:Len for the small countries.
ti:onference noulci certainly afford to wait anotY.er year before finishing its work.
hoped that his rest-rvations would be taken into account.
/eorn.62/BUR/SR.13
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120013-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
- 9 --
Mr. OGUNDERE (Nigeria) said he thought that mid-March would be a suitable
time for the opening of the next session. First, the Conference would thus precede the
Economic and Social Council by several weeks. Secondly, the idea of holding two
sessions in 1976, seemed to be gaining ground, and an eight-week session from mid-March
to mid-May would allow time for an interval of two months before the next session,
which could start in mid-July and run for at least six weeks. That would enable the
Conference to complete its work before the opening of the General Assembly. Even if
the main object of.the fourth session was to seek a consensus, it would be impossible
to avoid all recourse to the process of decision-making.,
Mr. de LACHARRIERE (France) said that a broad consensus had seemed to be
emerging at the beginning of the meeting in favour of a session that would not begin
until April and would last eight weeks. As most representatives were willing to meet
either at Geneva or in New York, it only remained to find out if one of those cities
could accommodate the Conference at the desired time. Some complications had been
introduced by the Latin American proposal for a further session. A simple way of
solving the problem would,be to leave it to the fourth session to decide whether a
fifth was necessary. The French delegation agreed with that idea, because a session
was competent to take such a decision. On the other hand, it had. serious objections to
a division of functions between the fourth and fifth sessions, whereby the fourth
session would be devoted to negotiation and the fifth to decision-making. His
delegation was opposed to such compulsory planning being imposed when representatives
had not yet even received the single texts that were supposed to serve as a basis for
discussion. It was possible, and in any case it was desirable, that the fourth session
should be able to take decisions on many points; but as the respresentatives of the
United States, the Soviet Union and Algeria had pointed out, it could not be stated
that the fifth session would be reserved for decision-making. It was true that the
possibility of voting was provided for in the rules of procedure, but the time when a
vote would be taken could never be determined in advance. That would be contrary to
the spirit of the work and to the rules of procedure themselves, since any vote
depended on a determination whether all efforts to reach general agreement had been
exhausted, and it was impossible to decide that question now. If a fifth session took
place, it was to be hoped that it would comprise all the elements necessary for
applying the rules of procedure and adopting a satisfactory convention. To sum up,
he thought that provision should be made for an eight-week session, to be held at
A/CONF.62/BUR/SR.13
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120013-0
ie iork a:, t11?_ JeGree Lariat tiVL ,,' Jk, _u.: for the zossibillty of holding a
-1--- session; I= LLt the ire should certainly b-: no division f functions between the
ir. td1UIL ' oc~ieral :tenub.iic of l.ienaatny/ stressed that the i;ccnomic and
;La- council shcLd-' concede priority to the Genf',)rancc: or -,he law of the Sea, so
^culh have a_l. the nuce -.a y services arc_ facilities,
};^ "!dltitMA-1' sai t he t!':ouxnt the pit I1eI'w.:. usoem ly would be strongly
1. _enu oc Co k;i v '. Sri o.cit;y o thv-; ?vrll :renc:: or. the iwa ^f the Sea.
! : .rand ?r)d -c.w the idealist view that the
1v ..L- :u i i two more sessions, i.z rcietU finish its work in 1975
convenLion. _ Ul L be reconciled with t1u: realist vl.,-w that that would cause
:ho most i'E :3021: GLE cOl:r: to WOUlervice informal meetings, either at Geneva or in New York during the
General Assembly, or in another city at a date to be specified later..
The CHAIRMAi. informed the General Committee that another Group had also
requested the Secretariat to provide services.
Mr.ZULE"TA (Special Representative of the Secretary-General) said that, if
the services of the Secretariat were requested in a city other than those in which the
official offices of the Organization were located, it would be necessary to conclude
financial arrangements with the host country, in accordance with the relevant
resolutions of the General Assembly.
Mr. JAYAKUMAR (Singapore) said he did not see the purpose of the present
discussion, since it had been decided at the last meeting of the General Committee
that participants in informal consultations who would need the assistance or services
of the Secretariat should so inform the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General. It had been agreed that the Secretariat would do everything it could
to assist the participants and, although the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General had indicated which groups had already requested the Secretariat's
assistance, he hoped there would still be time after the closure of the session to
request the services of the Secretariat if the need made itself felt in other groups.
The CHAIRMAN, replying to the representative of Singapore, said that the list
of informal meetings was not closed and the assistance of the Secretariat could indeed
be requested at a later stage.
Mr. YANKOV (Bulgaria) said that, if he had understood correctly, different
types of informal consultations would be held between the sessions;_ consultations
within regional groups and consultations between regional groups. He thought the
latter were especially important, because they should make it possible to lay the
foundations for future compromises. On behalf of the Group of Eastern European
socialist countries, he wished to ask the Secretariat to provide its services for the
autumn
inter-regional meetings which were to be held in the summer and at the end of the
in 1975. The location of those meetings would depend on the possibilities offered by
the Secretariat.
roved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
A/C0NF.62/BUR/ .13
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0
- 17 -
Mr. ZEA (Colombia) informed the General Committee that the Group of
Latin American countries had not yet taken a decision on that matter.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. RATTRAY (Rapporteur-General), referring to a note recently circulated to
all delegations by the International Ocean Institute, in which it was proposed that
certain functions should be assigned to the Rapporteur-General between the sessions of
the Conference, said that the Jamaican delegation and the Rapporteur-General were in no
way associated with the authors of these proposals. In fact, the Institute suggested
that the Rapporteur-General, with the assistance of a team of experts, should make an
independent and objective assessment of the proposals before the Conference relating
to the new international economic order, but he had very serious reservations regarding
the advisability of those suggestions, to which he had not agreed. The Conference had
taken certain decisions concerning its programme of work and the preparation, by the
chairmen of each of the three main committees, of single negotiating texts which should
serve as a basis for future negotiations. Until all governments had had an opportunity
of studying those texts and of holding the necessary consultations, any assessment of
the kind suggested by the Institute would be entirely out of place. He had received
his terms of reference from the Conference, whose wishes he would try to meet.
The meeting rose at 12.10 p.m.
A/CONF.62/BUR/SR.13
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120013-0