THIRD SESSION THIRD COMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING HELD AT THE PALAIS DES NATIONS, GENEVA, ON FRIDAY, 25 APRIL, AT 10.05 A.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 18, 2001
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: April 25, 1975
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
PROVISIONAL: FOR PARTICIPANTS ONLY
Distr.
RESTRICTED
25 April 1975
THIRD CONFERENCE Original: ENGLISH
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
THIRD COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUP'MARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SECOND TMTING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 25 April, at 10.05 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. OSPINA Colombia
Rdpporteur : Mr. MAN YkNG Sudan
CONTENTS
Organization of work
Development and transfer of technology (continued)
Scientific research (continued)
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.4108, Palais des
Nations, Geneva, within five working da of receiving the provisional
record in their working language.
State Dept. review completed
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.22
GE.75-64896
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
- 2 .-
ORGANIZATION OF WORK
The CHAIRMAN suggested that, in view of the volume of work before the
Committee, speakers should. limit their statements to five minutes each.
It was so agreed.
DEVELOP11ENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY (continued)
Draft articles on the transfer of technology (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l)
Mr. HAJVIID (Iraq), introducing document A/CONE.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l on behalf
of the Group of 7;, said that making the best use of the seas meant preserving the
marine environment, controlling pollutign from all sources and controlling the
exploitation of marine biological and non-biological resources. That called for
efforts by every country, separately or through international organizations, to
develop marine technology and facilitate its transfer to countries that needed it,
especially the developing countries.
The proposed draft articles accordingly provided that States and'international
organizations should actively promote the development of the marine scientific and
technological capacity of developing States, whether coastal or land-locked, by such
means as training, the establishment of regional scientific research centres, joint
projects for exploration and exploitation of sea-'bed and marine biological resources,
the exchange of technologists, and conferences and seminars, and by making the
results of research available to all States without discrimination. If technology
were the monopoly of a few States it would not serve the interests of all mankind.
The Group of 77 the=refore considered that tie way to promote the balanced development
of technology throughout the world, for the well-being and economic development of all
countries, was through international, regional and bilateral co-operation. The draft
articles were a compromise designed to meet the aspirations and. desires of all
countries.
Miss AGUTA (Nigeria) said that the draft articles in
document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l were an improved version of proposals submitted
at the second session of the Conference. The original draft articles had been
sponsored by'a large number of delegations, and had received support - at least in
principle - from others, including the. delegations of New Zealand, India,
Australia, Malta, Kenya,, China, Bulgaria, Greece and. France. The fact that the new
document was sponsored by the Group of 77 was indicative of the efforts that had been
made to produce a text acceptable to all delegations.
A/CONE. 62/C. 3/SR',~l3proved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
3-
Draft article 1 imposed an obligation on all States to promote the transfer of
technology with a view to.enabling developing countries to participate in the exploration
and exploitation of the resources of the marine environment and. ocean space: of, in
other words, all areas of the sea, whether international or national. Draft articles 2,
3 and 4 dealt with the role of the international area and the proposed international
authority and their function in the development of countries and the transfer of
technology. They took account of the interests of the land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged countries. Since,scientific research in both national and international
areas would play an important part in the.transfer of technology, reference had had to
be made to the international authority, but the sponsors realized that how the authority
should be established and run was not a matter for the Third Committee. The Committee
would, however, be acting within its competence in discussing the authority in the
context of the transfer of technology.
The purpose of article 5, a new article, was to emphasize that the transfer of
technology was not just another form of aid to developing countries: it involved the
purchase and sale, import and export of commodities, against payment in cash or in kind.
The transfer of technology as a moans to speed the development of the developing
countries was not a new idea; recent work in the General Assembly, UNCTAD,.UJESCO and
UNIDO had produced a number of schemes for the process. The new draft articles
however, were far more comprehensive and, as part of the convention on the law of the
sea, with its vast scope, would ultimately override earlier provisions.
The draft articles on the transfer of technology were vita]. to the work of the
Conference, since they were linked. with scientific research, the concept of the common
heritage of mankind and the universal concern for progress in the developing-countries.
The Conference would have failed in its purpose if it concluded a treaty which lacked the
means of implementing the transfer of technology.
Mr. XUSUF (Somalia) said that all delegations recognized the urgent need to
bridge the ever-widening gap between developing and developed countries. The
Conference would fall short of its objectives if it did not agree upon precise terms for
the transfer of technology to the developing countries. The General Assembly at the
sixth special session had emphasized the need for the transfer of technology within a
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3 .
-4-
new international economic order; the basis could be laid only through international
co-operation if all mankind was to share in the use of advanced technology. The
sponsors viewed the proposed draft articles as a compromise text for adoption by the
Committee.
Mr. At ASFOOR (Oman) said that, as representative of a developing country,
his delegation supported the draft articles in document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l. They
expressed in realistic terms the views and hopes of the developing countries, both
coastal and land-locked, on the transfer of technology.
Mr. LO Yu-au (China) said that the proposals in document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.62/Rev.l
gave expression to the desire of the developing countries to exploit their marine
resources and to enhance the level of their marine science and. technology, with due
regard to the situation of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged countries..
The proposals in article 1 concerning the development of the marine scientific and
technological capacity of developing States and the transfer to them of all kinds of
marine technology were reasonable and proper, and his delegation supported them as
deserving consideration by the Conference.
Many of the developing countries were adjacent to vast areas of the sea with
abundant natural resources, and had a wealth of manpower. They could certainly build
up their own marine scientific and technological capacity if they relied on the strength
and wisdom of their own people, and on mutual exchanges and support. China had always
supported intensive transfer of marine science and technology to the developing countries
as a means of promoting the exploitation of their marine resources and raising their
level of technology. It believed, however, that the transfer of any kind of technology
to developing countries should, as proposed in the new draft articles, take account of
the economic capacity and development needs of the receiving country, strictly respect
its sovereignty, and be unconditional - in other words, not associated with the grant
of special privileges or excessive profits. It should be practical and cost--effective,
and care should be taken to ensure that the technology was fully mastered by the
developing countries, so that they could gradually move forward on the road to economic
independence. In short, the transfer of technology should not serve as a means of
plundering and controlling developing countries.
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
- 5 -
IN. WRA AILLO (Ecuador) said that the transfer of technology was a vital
element in helping the developing countries to achieve the goal of rational development.
It was regrettable that the developed countries had. submitted no proposals on that
subject, and the sponsors hoped that they would support the proposals in document
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l. It should be noted that the transfer of technology was one
question on which there had as yet been no negotiations, and his delegation urged that
arrangements should be made for informal discussions on it to start; the following week.
'Mr. V.ARGAS (Mexico) said that the sponsors realized that the proposals in
document A/COI '.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l were by no means perfect and intended to improve
them. One of the main purposes of the new draft articles was to stress the importance
of the transfer of technology, particularly to the developing countries. It was
essential in the future convention on the law of the sea, to avoid the errors of the
past and to ensure that all advances in technology were covered by the provisions of
the convention. In the countries of the third world the transfer of technology was
valued as a means of raising living standards by strengthening economic and
technological development and ensuring better and more rational utilization of marine
resources, while protecting those resources and the marine environment.
The second purpose of the proposals was to outline the manner in which the
transfer of technology should operate. Here, the requirements were properly
co-ordinated work by international organizations, the development of individual national
technologies, a regional approach and an important role for the proposed international
authority. The transfer of technology was a two-way process, involving responsibility
and effort on the part of both developing EV developed counties. In practice, it
would almost invariaoly operate at the bilateral level. His delegation hoped that
it would provide a constructive basis for international co-operation and the promotion
of a new world economic order.
P7i. TIKHOiHTOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his delegation's
position on the transfer to the developing countries of technology related to the
exploration and exploitation of marine resources was reflected in the draft articles
on the prevention of marine pollution (A/CON1{.62/C.3/L.25 and Corr. 1) and on
scientific research (A/COI?IF.62/C.3/L.26) sponsored by his delegation.
A/C ONF . 62/C -3/SR. 22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
- 6--
His delegation had just received the draft articles in document
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev. 1 and could make only preliminary comments. They contained
some reasonable elements, but also some unacceptable provisions. Articles 3 and 4
were based on the assumption that the future international authority would undertake
all forms of marine scientific research. His delegation did not endorse that approach;
in its view, the authority would exploit and explore only the resources of the
international area.
His delegation had already .stated that it would view sympathetically the inclusion
in any rules for the conduct of marine scientific research of provisions on the
transfer of technology to the developing countries. The Soviet Union was accordingly
prepared to co-operate in devising and implementing on a multilateral and bilateral
basis the necessary programmes and measures. It should be borne in mind that the
success of the Conference depended on the readiness of all States to consider each
other's interests.
Mc. PIANSFI.IMD (New Zealand) said his country.attached the greatest importance
to the transfer of technology to the developing countries as a means of enabling them
to explore, exploit and manage the marine resources under their jurisdiction.
Although its marine technology had not.reached the highly efficient level achieved by
its land-based food producers, New Zealand was willing to share with the developing
countries whatever technology it possessed.
Document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev. 1 went a long way towards achieving the desired
objective. While the draft articles would require careful study, they seemed at
first glance to be generally acceptable.
Mr. CLINGAH (United States of America) said that his country recognized the
concerns of the developing countries and had been working for some time on the transfer
of technology to them. It therefore welcomed any proposal which furthered that effort
and provided a reasonable basis for progress. In his delegation's view, document
A/COIIF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev. 1 could serve that purpose.
Certain aspects of the document did, however, require elaboration and. refinement
in informal meetings. One example was the connexion made between the transfer of
marine technology and the international authority. In his delegation's view, that
connexion was primarily a matter for the First Committee. Another feature with which
A/COVF. 62/C .3/SR. 22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
-7-
his delegation had difficulty was the reference to the transfer of patented. technology:
in the United States, such technology was private property and therefore not subject
to Government trans er. His delegation wor'l.d find. it impossible to agree to any such
provision.
Mr. RAMDAN (Egypt) said that the relationship between those who possessed. and
those who did not possess marine technology was clear: the exploitation of marine
resources required scientific co-operation among all States on the conditions set forth
in document A/C01,1I{ . 62/C. /L.I2./Rev I. Marine technology should be available to all
members of the international community.
Mr . KOLCHAKOV (Bulgaria) said. that his delegation took great interest in
all questions involving the transfer of technology. Unfortunately, it had not yet
been able to study the provisions of document A/COI]F.62/C.3/1.12/Rev.l in detail..
It would. have difficulties with some provisions - for example, articles 3 and 4
concerning the role of the international. authority. His delegation believed. that the
matter deserved. more careful study, but it was prepared. to support all the reasonable
ideas contained in the document.
Mr. 3313AEKOVIC (Yugoslavia) emphasized the importance of the transfer of
marine technology, particularly to the developing countries. iii-s~ delegation supported
the new draft articles on the subject.
Mr._ JAIN (India) said that he did. not a,,-~ree that the role of the proposed
international authority was purely a matter. for -the First Committee; the mandate of
the Third. Committee required it to consider all aspects of the transfer of ma:cine
technology by State and. by international. c _?ga.niza Lions, incl.:ding the authority, which
had. acquired experience in technical matters concerning the marine environment.
The revised. draft articles represented the hopes and wishes of the developing
countries. His delegation was pleased to note that they had received support not
only from the developing countries but also from some of the developed countries,
which would be instrumental in. transferring the -technology in question.
Mr. HUSSAIII (Pal istan~ said that his delegation fully supported document
A/COII'.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l. The establishment of regional centres, referred to in draft
article 4, would have a fain-reaching effect on the transfer of technology.
A/COI\F.62/C.3/SR. 22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
In the absence of any draft articles on the subject submitted by the developed
countries, he took the view that document A/CON1F'.62/C.3/L.l2/Rev.l, although capable
of being improved, should be acceptable as a basis for negotiations.
Mr. BELDESCTJ (Romania) said. that the draft article;, in document
A/CONT'.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l constituted. a constructive contribution to the Conference's
work on the question of the transfer of technology, which had so far received very
little attention. The programmes proposed in that document would. give all States, and
especially the developing countries, access to marine science and technology on an
equitable basis.
His delegation urged that, although the transfer of technology should be organized,
first and. foremost, for the benefit of the developing countries, the draft articles
should also provide for more intensive co-operation among all States.
Mr. A_ ILM (Bahrain) stressed the crucial importance to his country of the
transfer of marine technology.
He supported document A/CO1TF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l and appealed to those developed.
countries whose delegations had expressed doubts about the document to be flexible in
forthcoming negotiations on the subject.
Mr. d.,. COI CET ?O (Portugal) said. that a brief study of the revised. draft
articles indicated. that they proposed effective ways of transferring marine technology
to the developing countries. His delegation agreed. in principle with the draft
articles, but reserved the right to express its views in greater detail after further
study of the document.
Mr. BAEW'URA (Guinea) said that 'tine transfer of technology was a means of
rectifying past injustices and bringing about a more equitable distribution of the
world's wealth. The proposals in document A/CO.1?.62/C.3/L.l2/Rev.l were based on that
fact, and. he hoped that they would. receive wide support.
Mr. Ti3O`17, (Kenya) said that fears had been expressed. elsewhere that increased
exploitation of marine resources, particularly by coastal States, might lead to a
deterioration of the marine environment. The developing countries,. however, did not
possess the necessary technology either to exploit marine resources or to protect the
environment.
His delegation supported document A/COPTF. 62/C . 3/L.1.2/Rc,v.l mainly because it held
that those States able to assist in the transfer of technology -- principally the
developed countries - had the duty to do so in order to ensure the proper utilization
of resources and the protection of the marine environment.
.A/CONF.62/C.3/,~p,proved For Release. 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
If sweeping environmental provisions were to be imposed on coastal States, they
should also be given access to the appropriate technology for discharging their
obligations. The d.ocument was therefore an extremely important one.
His delegation did not agree that-the role of-the international authority did not
fall within the competence of the Third Committee; the Committee was empowered to
consider all aspects of the transfer of marine technology, whether or not the process
involved the international authority.
His delegation regretted that the subject had received little attention from the
developed countries at the Conference. He hoped that some practical ideas would be
forthcoming from them, and., that further study would be given to the question.
Mr. SHERMAN (Liberia) said that article 1 in document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.12/Rov.1
clearly reflected his delegation's concern that international co-operation should be
intensified with a view to bringing about the best possible utilization of marine
resources and a new world economic order. The draft articles had probably not solved
all the technical problems involved in any rules for the transfer of technology, but his
d.elc,gation supported it in principle and hoped that it would be adopted..
Mr. BRAUNE (German Democratic Republic) said that document
A/CCNF.62/C.3/L.l2/Rev.l contained many constructive features, but that it needed
careful study. While the text embodied a number of acceptable provisions, his
delegation had serious difficulties with regard to draft articles 3 and 4, in so far
as they sought to establish the competence of the international authority for the
whole of ocean space. .
His delegation was prepared to co-oper:?te in working out a generally acceptable
solution on the basis of the document.
Mr. GOVEN (Turkey) supported document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.l2/Rev.l; it was, in
his view, a useful working document.
Mr. I.EGAULT (Canada) said that, in order to make the most efficient use
possible of marine resources, preserve the marine environment, understand the
interaction of the oceans with the atmosphere and predict changes in the environment,
it was essential that all States should be able to participate in, and benefit from
the development of marine technology.
tJONF. 62/C . 3/SR. 2.2
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
- 10 _
The Secretariat had provided two excellent documents (A/COIvF.62/C.3/L.3 and L.22)
containing a clear statement of what was needed for the transfer of such technology
and a proposal on how the needs might be met. The draft articles in document
A/COI"T'.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.1 suggested a way of embodying, those proposals in effective
treaty articles.
His delegation. had not yet had time to study the document in detail, but it
sympathized with the sponsors' objectives and was anxious to take part in further work
on the subject. The document had some very positive features, including provisions
based on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. There were other
provisions, however, about which his delegation had some reservations.
The exchange of technology should be promoted between all States: from developing
to developing, from developed to developing, and from developed to developed countries.
In all such exchanges there had to be respect for the rights of both the supplier and
the recipient of technology. The reason was that marine technology was both expensive
and, sometimes, specifically related to the circumstances of a certain geographical
area. In order to facilitate the transfer of technology, the development of new
technology had to be encouraged; but if the developer of new technology lost all
incentive to develop new instruments and technique,s for studying such matters as ocean
circulation and the quality of the marine environment, man's survival might be
threatened. On the other hand, if, in the interests of all mankind, technology needed
to be developed in a certain geographical area, then the rights of the States in that
area had to be recognized and protected.
In the statement made by his country's Hi_nister of the Environment at the previous
meeting, she had expressed the view that the developing countries were not trying to
evade their environmental obligations, but rather looking for some way of accepting
their full share of the common responsibility for man's survival. Emphasizing the
importance of the transfer of technology and the provision of assistance to the
developing countries, she had pointed out that Canada was already involved in a number
of bilateral and regional programmes in the transfer of marine technology, and hoped
to continue and expand them.
Mr. R0A (Peru) said he had taken an active part in the deliberations which
had produced document A/CO]1vF.62/C.3/L.l2/Rev.l and he fully endorsed it. The main
.J./COr,rF.62/C.3/M. 2.2
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CAA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
purpose of the Ora 't articles was to provide machinery-..for the transfer of technology
in order to benefit the people of the developing countries.
Mr. APPLETOTv (Trinidad and Tobago) said that the draft articles were not
perfect but they formed a good basis for discussion. He disagreed with those who
objected to the references in the text to an international authority: some degree of
overlapping in the work of the three Main Committees was inevitable, and an international
authority would be performing an essential service in the transfer of technology.
Mr. YABOURI (Togo) said that the revised draft articles
(A/C0ii1F.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l) would make for. better international co-operation. They
reflected the desire for co-operation and justice of the third-world countries. He
recommended that the Committee should adopt the document.
Hr. GULMO (Senegal) associated himself with those representatives who had.
expressed the hope that there would be prompt and constructive negotiations on the
proposals in A/COIIIF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l. He regretted that no proposals had been made
by developed countries, since the transfer of technology also benefited such countries
in so far as it helped. to reduce the gap between them and. the developing world. The
role of the international authority as proposed in articles 3 and 4 should be seen in
an over-all context of co-operation between all countries.
Mr. TAYLOR-THOMAS (Gambia) said that the draft articles were of paramount
interest to underprivileged developing countries such as his own. His Government was
anxious to take advantage of any assistance offered by international bodies for the
development of its marine resources and to collaborate with like-minded. States in
bilateral, regional or any other arrangements to transfer technology. His delegation
fully supported the draft articles.
NIs. iiAM LAINE'TT (Finland) said that document A/COIVF.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l
constituted a valuable basis for further negotiation. Her delegation supported the
basic thinking behind it, but had some doubt with regard to articles 3 and 4. She
was gratified that the subject was at last receiving more of the Committee's attention.
A/ COT,1- . 62/ C . 3/ SR. 22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
-- 12 -
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (continued)
Draft articles on scientific research (A/CO1T1.62/C..3/L.13/Rev.2) and Draft
amendments to the draft articles on marine scientific research contained in
do cum, ent A COPir'.62 I L l,(~ A CONF.62 C.3 L.28T
M:r D (Iraq), introducing revised draft articles on scientific research
(1i/CONP.62/C.3/L.l3/Rev.2), said that the purpose of the document drafted by the
Group of 77, was to preserve the legitimate rights of States in zones under their
national jurisdiction and at the same time express that Group's conviction that
scientific research was essential for the conservation of living and non-living
maritime resources. The draft articles were designed to ensure that research was
carried out in an atmosphere of international co-operation and in the interests of
all parties concerned. Developing countries hoped to engage in marine research,
and to that end they welcomed the possibility of specialized international organs
conducting such research in areas under national jurisdiction, subject to the
prior consent of the coastal State concerned. The most important requirement for
such consent was that research should be conducted solely for peaceful purposes.
A consent regime was also in the interests of the parties carrying out research,
since research vessels and personnel needed the collaboration of the coastal State.
Furthermore, the conditions proposed in the draft articles were in tune both with
the true objectives of scientific research and with the economic interests of the
coastal States.
With regard to marine research in the international zone, it was the view of
the Group of 77 that the international authority should be responsible for regulating
it, either by conducting the research itself or by some other means under its direct
control. He was gratified to report that land--locked and geographically
disadvantaged developing countries had endorsed as satisfactory the provision whereby
coastal States should give preferential treatment to them in the matter of conducting
marine research. The Group of 77 had also deemed it necessary to include a provision
regarding marine research not conducted directly in the marine environment. He hoped
that the revised draft articles would. prove acceptable as a satisfactory compromise
based. on justice and equality.
Mr. WALIAA`fE (Netherlands), introducing the draft amendments
(A/CORD .62/C.3/L.2_8) to the draft articles on marine and scientific research contained
in A/CO1'r .62/C.3/L.19 on behalf of the 4,18 members, developed and developing, of the
group of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States, said that the group
had interests in all the fields covered by the Conference and insisted on being
granted the some rights in appropriate cases as the coastal States, in return for
their readiness to accept the same obligations. The draft amendments took into
Approved For Release 200208/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
A/COITF. 62/C . 3/SR. 22_
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697ROO0400050035-3
- 13 -
account comments received since tlae . second session. They dealt, in particular,
with the procedure to be followed when a research State or organization which, in
the opinion. of the coastal State concerned, had not properly fulfilled the conditions
laid down in draft article 6 in document A/CONF.62/C.3/019 during previous research,
.gave notice of its intention to undertake another project in the same zone or when a
coastal State considered that a new research project did not conform to the provisions
of that article. The procedure in question was described in the proposed amendments
,to draft articles 5 and 6 in the earlier document.
Provision was also made in the amendments for the settlement of disputes, in
the first instance, at an expert level. If the experts of the paxtioo could not
agree, they might request assistance from experts nominated by the Director-,General
of UNESCO after consultation with competent international organizations. There was
a good chance that such objective assistance would lead the coastal State to
withdraw its objections. Otherwise, the normal procedure for the compulsory
settlement of. disputes laid down in the amended draft article 6 would have to be
followed.
The proposed amendments were proof that the system set out in document
A/CONF.62/C.,3/1.19 was not rigid; it could be further modified in order to achieve
a compromise text. .
Mr. T.I3OTP (Kenya said that, because there had as yet,been no attempt to
draft a definition. of !'marine research", most of :the documents relating to the
subject were open to misconstruction, since they might be held not to refer to some
kinds of research activities conducted in the marine environment.
During the informal consultations on the proposals in document
A/COIP.62/C.3/L.l3/Rev..2-, there had seemed to be a feeling that they would
inevitably complicate marine research, but that was not,the intention of_t-he
developing countries which had prepared them. The main purpose. of the document
was to establish a consent regime: it had been said that support for such a
regime was prompted by the mistrust of other groups by the Group of 77, but it
,might equally well be contended that opposition to it was based on mistrust of
coastal States..
A/CO1TF. 62/C . 3/SR. 22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697ROO0400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
me revised draft articles made no attempt to distinguish between resource-oriented
and non-resource-oriented research; it was not practicable to do so. An important
feature was the statement of principle in draft article 6 on research activities con-
ducted outside the marine environment.
Mr.KRAL (Czechoslovakia) said that, as a member of the group of land-locked
and other geographically disadvantaged. States, his delegation had participated in the
drafting of document A/CONF.62/C,3/L.1.9. It had no difficulty in supporting the
amendments in document A/CONP.62/C.3/L.28, although it reserved the right to make some
fuxther comments on them, particularly with regard to the proposed procedure for the
settlement of disputes.
As far as scientific research was concerned, his delegation stood by the comments
it had made in support of document A/COPTF.62j/C.3/L,26 at the twentieth meeting. The
second revised version of document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.l3 was disappointing in that it
adopted a very restrictive position on the conduct of scientific research and that
its provisions were completely unsatisfactory to the land-locked countries. For
example, the document made a distinction between developing and developed land-locked
countries - a differentiation that was morally wrong - and offered the land-locked
countries nothing more than empty promises of preferential treatment. Draft article 6
in document A/CONF.62/C.3/L,19 and draft article 7 in document A/CONF.62/C,3/L.26, on
the other hand, offered the land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States
th, opportunity to participate in marine scientific research projects within the economic
zones of the coastal States of the region, as well as access to information and assistance.
Mr.CLINGAN (United States of America) said that his delegation had noted with
,
disappointment the hardening of positions reflected in document A/COTTF,62/C.3/L.13/Rev.2
a development that ran counter to the general spirit'of compromise which had so far
marked the current session. Two of the concepts on which the document was founded were
quite unacceptable: the proposal for a consent regime governing scientific research
in the economic zone and the proposal for the regulation by the international authority
of research in the international area. His delegation agreed that the interests of
the coastal State should be protected, but it did not believe that a consent regime
was -.squired. Furthermore, it failed to understand why any restriction on scientific
../CON`dF, 62/C . 3/SR. 22
Approved For Release,2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
15
research was required in the international area. He appealed to all delegations which
supported'the draft articles' in question to show a greater spirit. of accommodation and
to permit the preparation of a text that Vould both protect the interests of coastal
States and allow the conduct of scientific research for the benefit of everyone.
?ter,
I~Lr von ITELCK (Federal Republic of Germany), supported by Mr. u1ALKI.~E
(Netherlands), requested that the observer for the International Council of Scientific
Unions should be invited to. speak next.
The, CRAIRTAI said that he took it that the suggestion made by the representative
of the Federal Republic of Germany was acceptable to all delegations.
It was so decided.
Mr POSTMA (Observer for the International Council of Scientific Unions) said
that the structure of his organization, whose members were national scientific bodies,
guaranteed that scientific opinions and ideas generated nationally came to the attention
of the international scientific community, and vice versa. Some 75 countries were
associated with ICSU's activities; they included countries from every region, and at
every stage of scientific development, some of them land-locked States.
He himself was the president of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR),
the specialized body within ICSU responsible for marine affairs. SCOR also. advised the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. The written statement entitled
"Characteristies.of marine scientific research", which had recently been distributed to
all delegations, was a product of extensive discussion within ICSU and SCOR and its
national commissions.
All scientific research was international and could thrive only in an atmosphere
of free exchange of information and ideas. Marine scientific research was more
dependent than any other field of science on the free exchange of ideas, since its
object of study -- the ocean - was an indivisible system. What happened in one part of
that system could, and usually did, influence all the other parts. Ocean currents
were guided by'physical forces and did not stop at artificial barriers erected by man.
Variations in the rainfall in India or North Africa, in the winters in northern Europe
and in the yields of the fisheries along the coast of Peru depended on oceanic processes.
It would become possible to predict such variations only if more information was
collected over vast ocean areas.
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
-- 16
An intensive effort was being made to improve the scientific community's knowledge
of the ocean in both temperate and tropical zones. Marine research of that kind, to be
efficient, required the free movement of scientists and ships. Many of the most fertile
scientific ideas inherited from the past would never have emerged if a system of mutual
isolation had prevailed. There was a widespread feeling among oceanographers that
to impede marine scientific research would have disastrous consequences; for one thing,
many of the best scientists might turn to fields of research unrelated to the ocean.
Without adequate input from fundamental science, industrial and applied research would
soon be reduced to collecting useless data. Moreover, the principal victims of legal
and geographical restrictions would be the developing nations, many of which were on
the threshhold of contributing independently to marine science. To cripple research
in that way, at a time when many intergovernmental organizations, including UNESCO, FAO
and SCOR itself, were intensively assisting the developing countries to expand their own
scientific potential, would be deplorable.
The fear that marine science as such would be of benefit to only a few privileged
countr.5_es was, in his opinion, unfounded. It was true that many developing countries
did not have enough scientists to be fully involved, in marine scientific affairs.
Nevertheless, if the Conference were to place unnecessary restrictions on marine
research, the development of independent scientific potential in many countries would
undoubtedly suffer. It was for that reason that he urged the Conference to draw up
articles that would foster creative marine science, not erect barriers against it.
Miss MtRIA I (France) observed that document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.l3/Rev.2 made no
attempt at a compromise, whereas the draft articles prepared by the socialist countries
(A`CONF.62/C.3/L.26) showed a clear desire to maintain a balance between the interests
of coastal States and those of States undertaking research. Under the draft articles
introduced by the delegation of Iraq (A/CONF.62/C.3/L.l3/Rev.2), the coastal State was
given extensive rights but had no obligations, whereas in the case of the research
State only obligations were mentioned. The only improvement over the original version
was the proposal for preferential treatment for developing neighbouring land-locked
and. other geographically disadvantaged States.
i/CONF.62/C.3/SR.22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
-17-
To delete, from the title of the draft articles, the word "marine" before the words
"scientific research" was a departure from the terms of reference of the Third Committee
and from the objective of the Conference itself, since the marine environment was at
once the object of the research and the place in which it was carried out; that point was
rightly stressed in draft article 1 in document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.26. It was difficult
to see, moreover, how the coastal State alone could regulate research activities carried
out by satellites, as was proposed in the final paragraph of the new document. In
short, the whole proposal was unilateral and unbalanced; it sought to impose a very
restrictive regime without distinguishing between research activities by reference to
their nature and objectives and it envisaged unconditional and discretionary rights for
the coastal State. No mention was made of a procedure for the settlement of disputes,
of dialogue or friendly settlement between the parties concerned, or of protection
against arbitrary action by the coastal State. Finally, draft article 2 prejudged
the outcome of the First Committee's deliberations with regard to the powers of the
international authority.
Document A/CONE.62/C.3/L.13/Rev.2 was based on an unjustified spirit of mistrust:
the coastal State was, after all, guaranteed the right of exploitation, since all.
Governments recognized that scientific research could not form the basis for claims of
any kind. The proposed regime would discourage research useful to all mankind and the
coastal State in particular. It was a great pity that the sponsors had made no effort
to understand the needs and concerns of the research States.
In contrast, the procedure described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of document
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.28 offered the coastal State and the research State or organization
an acceptable way of reaching agreement in the event of a dispute. The procedure
would safeguard the interests of the coastal State and at the same time obviate
arbitrary action and bureaucratic delay. It was modelled on the procedure established
by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission in a resolution which had gained the
support of the coastal States of the third world and industrialized countries alike.
Her delegation accordingly believed that the amendments in document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.28
provided a useful basis for negotiations.
A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
Mr. TAYLOR (United Kingdom) said that-the chief differences between the
revised articles in document .A/COKF.62/C.3/L.l3/Rev.2 and its predecessors were the
change in the title from "marine scientific research" to "scientific research" and a
ilcw paragraph, undo item 2(b), which extended preferential treatment to developing
neighbouring land-locked States and other geographically disadvantaged States. The
change in the title appeared to confer far wider powers on the coastal States and
consequently. represented a hardening of positions. The new provision was not nearly
as specific as the relevant articles of documents A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19 and L.26.
The degree of control which the draft articles sought to impose would be
counterproductive. His delegation preferred the system outlined in
document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.26, under which the consent of the coastal State was required
only i?i the case of.research relating to the exploration and exploitation of the
living and. non-living resources of the economic zone, while other scientific research
could be conducted after advance notification to the coastal State. Indeed, a better
tslancc of interests was t:> be found in documents A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19 and L.26
ganer.a:lly, although the latter granted rather too many concessions to coastal States.
Mr. YUSUF (Somalia) said that his delegation fully supported
rccurr.ent A/CONF.62/C.3/T,,131Pev.2. It was only by a consent r6gime that the rights
of coastal States could be adequately safeguarded. A coastal State would obviously
not withold its consent if it considered the research objective appropriate and if it
w,-_ allowed to participate in the research activities. The draft articles introduced
L`. -:.io representative of Iraq rightly presupposed. a clear demarcation between national.
r..:us and the international area; jurisdiction would be meaningless if free scientific
_e parch was permitted, Paragraph 4 under item 2(b) was a realistic provision, and
t h^.d been endorsed bar many of the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged
countries belonging to the Group of 77.
Mr. LO Yu.-iu (China) expressed his delegation's support for the provisions of
dcc-_,_,ent A/CONF.62/C.3/L.l3/Rev.2, which conferred on the coastal State the exclusive
right to authorize and regulate scientific research in the area within its
jurisdiction and required all scientific research activities in the international area
tc bo conducted under the direct control of the proposed international authority.
provisions were entirely reasonable, and they fully reflected the common
fntc:cects and aspirations of many developing countries, while giving due weight to
the interests of the land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged countries.
;,., CO1?1?. 62/C . 3/SlApproved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000400050035-3
 Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3
-19-
In his delegation's view, any single negotiating text would necessarily have to
reflect the positions and interests of the majority of countries; in particular, it
would have to be consonant with the interests of the developing countries, as voiced
by the Group of 77. His delegation therefore believed that documents
A/CONF.62/C.3/L.l3/Rev.2 and A/CONP.62/C.3/L.12/Rev.l should be used as the basis
for single negotiating texts on scientific research and the transfer of technology,
respectively.
Dix. 1NSSAIN (Pakistan) said that coastal States should. not be subject to
the mandatory obligation to notify land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged
States of proposed research projects, as was provided in paragraph 1 of
document A/COlaP.62/C.3/L.28; such notification should be left to the coastal State's
discretion. With regard to the second provision of that paragraph, he agreed that
neighbouring land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States should be
given the opportunity to participate in. research projects, but only after any foreign
experts appointed by them had been approved by the coastal State. The procedure
outlined An paragraph 2 of the same document caused his delegation serious
difficulties, since it believed that the coastal State should have the right to
terminate any activities of which it did not approve.
The meeting rose at _I _X .m.
A/CONJ!'. 62/C . 3/SR. 22
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400050035-3