2ND UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA: MEXICAN POSITION ON EXTENSION OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000800230015-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 3, 2012
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: March 9, 1959
• Content Type: CABLE

. .
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
11.
FROM
TO
REF
(Security laisifiletion)V S 99, 7,3//3 -7.57
PMORaY
FOREIGN SERVICE DES TCH
Amerdxassy, MEXICO, D, F. 838
DESP. NO.
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. WASHINGTON./4Ma DATE ,
Embtel 2051, March 3, 1959; Deptel 1705, March 6, 1959; Embtel 209%
March 9, 1959 A5*-*/ A/4-,9-,4.5-,egehz-i, 44/4-A eVel?/
DEPT.
7izi ce,2
March 9, 1959 14229517
For Dept.
Use Only
ACTION
RE7 'D
3/ia,
SUBJECT:
N /1/ AEA/ -4? as .1; -.2
F OTHE
zw-7 05 -4( 4/ '19 vf
2nd United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seas Mexican Position
on Extension of the Territorial Sea
Transmitted herewith is the original Spanish text of the Memorandum,
dated March 4, 1959, which was delivered to the Embassy from the Ministry
of Foreign Relations on the evening of March 6, 1959 (Enclosure Na, 1), An
English translation of the Memorandum is also attached (Enclosure No, 2),
The two documents which were carried as annexes to the Memorandum and
identified therein* are forwarded in English translation only, inasmuch a
they are copies or excerpts of statements made at the United Nations by
the Mexican Delegate and may therefore be obtained in original form from
the U. N. Secretariat should such be desirable,
The Embassy wishes to point out that while the Foreign Office Memorandum
relates to the action of Panama in extending its territorial sea to twelve
miles* it was actually received after inquiry had been made of the Ministry
on March 3* 1959, concerning Mexico's attitude toward a similar action by
Libya. The substance of the matter, however, is the same in both cases,
Note should be taken of the fact that the Memorandum does not make any
? mention of Ambassador Rafael de la Colima, Permanent Delegate of Mexico to
the United Nations, with whom it is understood conversations were held
during the first ten days of December regarding the Ue, ki resolution, and
also regarding the action of Panama.
Further action by the Embassy in this matter will await the specific
instructions of the Department.
Enclosures:45"
1, Spanish Text of Memorandum
20 English Text of Memorandum* with hoe Annexes
POL4RAyfrw
'
REP TER
For the Chargi d'Affaires, a.
//
nd
Counselor of
0101)KLX____
INFORMATION COPY
Retain in divisional files or destroy in accordance with security regulations.
Declassified and Approved --(S711-6- 6-1-2i.127-1-27:61k-Tibis0166-129000800230015-5
1 ,s4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
838
(aacsifi, atm) Desp. N
COI -Do F,
From
ectetarfa de Relaciones Exterioresg EstadosUnides Mexicanos) --]
1
OR
No, 120810
Los debates de is Sexta Comisi& de is ASeMblea General de las
Naciones Unidas durante su didmotercer period() de lesions en rand& con
el tema 59 del Programa de la.Asamblett intitulado Cuestidn de is comma&
a una segunda Conftrencia de las Nation's Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mee,
lo mismo quo el resultado de- las votaciones efecteadas en is 596 sesien de
is Comiside, celebrada el 4, de ididembre de 1958, sobre las propuestas
preseutadas respecto al ttma mencienadog demostraron en forma concluyente
que los Estado; Miembros se hallebaadivididos en do* grapes aproximada.
mente iguales, Uno-dvesos grupwen el que se encontraban los Etas
Ueidos y los etres dies EStados patrocinaderes del proyecto conjento de
resoled& A/C.6/L0435 propugnaba que-laAsamblea diddiest convocar a una
Segundo Conferencia sabre el Bench? del Mar pars Julie o agosto de 1959 ?
el segundo grope del gee formaban parte Mixico y los otros seis Estado*
ceautores de la emit:Ma AlC?6/L.440 sostenfa is conveniencia de gee antes
de gee se reaolviera la convocaclkdo una segunda conferenciag is Asamblea
General considerase en snAlicfmocuarto perfecto de oeslones el 'procedimiento
para-conseguir un acuerdo sobre las caestiones de is anChera del mar terri-
torial y los lfmites de los pesquerfaso incluyendoel examen del fondo de
esas cuestlones sl asffuera decidido%
TOmando en cuenta:esta divergencia de opiniones result be evidente
quo in aprobadin del proyecto conjunto de los once pafses per nnaescasa
Mayorfi de la Comisidn.estaba 1004 de constituft un been anode pad el
ixito de is proyeetada Conferencta y.hatfa,prever, per el contrarlol que
ista terminarfa en an fracas? desalentador?
De ahf que la Delegacidu de MeXico? convencida de is necesidad
.de creat condiciones favorables.para lee se puede lograr un acuerdo general
sabre las dos cuestiones que degf:pendientes is Conferenda de tinebra--
anchura del mar territorial y Ifmites de las pesquerfas..al explIcar an rota
en la Sexta Camisiin hays recalcade is necesided de que g antes de llegar a
is Plenariag se hicieran serles esfuermos pews encOntrair un t t. quo
estableciera un mitodo que Wiese recibir aprObaclik unit/time de is Asamblea
El Representante de Okla) en is Comisan termind an 1nterwencldn al respect?
eon las sigulentes palabraes ' "Estamos persuadidolk en elect?, cow ya lo
dije en una de ads intervenclones anteriores, de que Aele agf habremog puesto
'clmientos sdlidos pare nuestta fututi-labor tendiente a conseguir un
,parecida unanimidad en cuanto al fondo del problems
&dada par este convicoling is DelegedinAtt Wilco tuvo *arias
conversaciones-informales cowls Delegacldn de los Esta s UnIdoso del 8 al 10
41.
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
Pa'
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
WalWialrlfWAAVAWW
1
Desp. Nc. 838
(Classification)
From M2XiC011? D4_
de diciembree tom resulted? de las cu les. se llegd a un acuerdo en el
sentido de quo la fecha prevista en el proyecto conJunto de los once palsies.
para la convocacidn de la COnferentia (Julio a a sto de. 1959) se postergase
haste "marzo o abet' de 1960% La Delegacidn de losiEstados UnIdos t md
a su cargo obtener el asentimiento de los demis coautores del proyecto
conjunto en: tuestidn? y la Delegacidn de Mdelco se comprometid a conseguir
-el apeyo de los demds?copatracinedoree de la enmienda eonjunta original
pare la presentacidne con elellemo patrOcinio, de. una nueva enmtenda gee
se distribuyd.como documento Alte253,y'qee al ser aprobada en 1 783 seeldn
plenarie de 14 AseMble 4 el 10 de?diziembre, permittd glee se adoptase en la.
ealsma sesidn. per 71 votes t favor, ninguno len contra y 6 abstencionee,
el proyecto de resolucidn de la Seeta Comisidn as enmand do. La particle
pacidi active- de latelegaclin de Wilco en las coneers clones informales
quo permitieron ese resulted* fed indudablemente one de las contribuciones
rads eolistructivae e 1 materia.
La anmienda conjunta- A/L.253 tuvo la siguiente redaccidng
'Substitdyanse en .el pirrafo 2 de la parte dispositiva /as
pelebras 'en Julio a agosto de. 1959' por 'en la fecha ms pedelma
de M8120 o abr./1 de .1960 Tie se estime convenientee
Como se we el text? de la enmienda- es muy claro y no puede
prestarse a Inteepretaciones mbiguas. Ademis el Repreeentante de Mdkico,
ai inteoducir formalmente la enmienda- en nombre proplo y de todoe los otros
coautores, explicdeen su interventidn (anee? 1), tanibidn en forma clara e
Inaciafieca, el espfrtu y 1 Intencidn de las Delegaciones copatrocinadoras.
qee, esentlaImentee cond. tfa en hecer posible que el soyecto de resolutidn
de la. Seeta CoMisidi fuese aprobado por unanimidad, y pereitlr que pudiera
llevarse a cad* una labor preparatoria concleneuda que crease condiciones
favorables para. is. eventual adoptidn de una fdrmula general de deretho que
corresponda a la prittica Internacional deennestros dfas y que dd satisfaccldn
a los intereses...legftimos del Estado riberegol sin ?Felder en mento alguno
epee las Naciones Unidae estin baeadas en el principio de In len ldad soberana
die todos sus. miembros.
Si bien es clerto que algunos de los catorce Representantes que
hicieron ,so de la palabra en la 783 sesidn plenaela antes de gee 1 enmlenda
fuera puesta a otacidn, se veflrieron direct o indleectamente la poslcidn
o expectatie s ems respectiv s Goblernote tambl4n lo es flee tales declax
clones sdlo podrfan compro eter en cads case al Goblerno de que Sc trate,
cow, par lo demis, lo demnestra el hecho de Clue se laviraran en tesis a
veces totalmente opuestas, segdn puede verse en las-pirrafoe de algunas de
ellas ciee a contleeacidn se reproducen en el oeden en quit las declaraclones
fueron pronunciadasg
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
fl
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
LOLL. I
(Classification) Desp. N.4)?ti
From
El Representante de irlanda:
*Se nos ha seRalado, tamblin, que 'no podemos aswnir ,esta
posicida en forma unilateral, ear qui? Ceres de 30 naciones,
haste este moment?, ban aceptado este triterio, ear qu suponer
gee nesotros debemos ser los inices quo debemos esperar la aprobacido
universal ".
El Representaate de los Estados Upidoss
"Nasotros ,esperamos una plena zooperacida en is segunda
vonferencle y una atmdsfera conciliatorla durante el period?
necesario de preparativos anteriores a is conferencia. Se sobre-
eatiende que durantee-este perfodo los goblernos no deben 'tomer
medidas quo pongan en peligro el &Ito de la conferencie.
El Representante de Worniga:
"En general, es osible que el Gobierno noruego se com-
prometa a abstenerse s all del efio 1959, de tomer las medidas
necesarias para proteger a su poblacida costera de conformidad
con nuestro concept? de las reglasexistentes en el derecho inter-
nacional%
El ffepresentante del Japan:
Delegacidn voted a favor de.esta enmienda en la esperanza
de que su-aprobacian auMente la posibilidad.de 4iito dela- con-
ferencia proyectada. Voter en is esperanza de Tie no se, tomari nin-
guna medida?unilateral antes de la Conferencia por Estados MieMbros,
port* se podrfa agravar la situacidn ya cadtica-acerca de- la
-anchura del mar territorial,
El ffepreseatante de la U.R.S.S.:
"Creo que en las condiciones relnantes con motto? de continua
presidn y el use de la fuerza contra ese pequeffo pafs ndrdico
(Islandia) que vive casi exclusivamente de sus reeursos pesqueros,
no se podrd crear Is base necesaria pare liegar a un acuerdo, que
podrfa constitufr el dzito de Ia segunda conferencia sobre el
,derecho del mar, Si estas tentativas no fueran abandonadas, no
habri ambiente propiclo pare preparar en forma aerie y constructive
este conferencia".
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
Page 4 of
- Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R060800230015-5
_1
Desp. No. tgit:/
(Classification)
From Mexico, D. F.
El Representante de Australia:
'Sin embargo acogemos is enmienda con el sentido y en los
tirminos en que fad presentada por el representante Mexican?, a
saber, ma propuesta negociada que represents importantes con?
-
cesiones de ambas partes de nna Comisidn any dividida sobre los
pantos que abarca la enmienda".
El Representante de Tine:1g
'De manera que nustra delegacidn votard en favor de la
resolucidi A/G.253, puesto que dita podrd conducirnos a la trans-
accidi. Sin embargo, quisliramos precisar gee nnestro Gobierno
reserve totalmente an derecho con respecto a las medidas que
podrfan tener en cnenta las cuestiones de fond? que se estudien
en las prdiimas conferencias de las Naciones Unidas sabre el
derecho del mar'.
La anterior recapitulacidn, que se ajusta fielmente a los hechos,
tal come istos sucedieron, permite examiner con una perspective corrects is
cuestidn a que se refiere el memoidndum de Is Embajada de los Estados Unidos
en Mixlco fechado el 23 de diciembre de 1958. Como se desprende de esa
recapitulacidn, y en especial de lo que se ha dick? respecto a los textos
de is enmienda,conjunta y de is intervencidn del Representante de Mixico al
introducirla formalmente en is 783 sesidn plenaria, en ningdn momenta tratd
iste intim? de que los Estados que votasen en favor de is enmienda cuyo
texto se limitaba a un simple cambio de fechase contrajesen el compromise,
ni expreso ni acite, de abstenerse de lo que el Gobierno de los Estados
Unidos llama "actos unilaterales", ni hubo en is participacidn de la
Delegacidn de Nixie? element? alguno que pudiese permitir tal interpretacidn.
Conviene recorder al respecto que el Gobierno de Mexico comparte--
come lo expuso su Representailte en is Sexta Comisidn eI 26 de noviembre de
1958 (anexo 2)--el criterio expuesto pox is Corte Internacional de Justicia
en uno de sus folios en el sentido.de que. "el acto de delimitacidn
propiamente tal es necesariamente un acto unilateral, ya que el Estado
riberefio es el dnico que tiene competencia pare realizarlo". Tambiin
comparte la opinidn expresada per la Corte en el mismo falle'de quo *la
validez de la dellmitacidn respecto.de los terceros Estados depende del
derecho internacional' y sostiene al respecto que, come nunca haste ahora
se ha logrado codifiear la anchura del mar territorial en un instrumento
internacional, el &Ice derecho internacional aplicable tiene que ser el
que se funds en is costumbre internacional originada pox la prictica
esencialmente coincidente, per is sum de actos anilaterales anilegos, de
is mayorfa de los Estados, eostumbre que ha creed? la que podrfa Ilamarse
is "norma consnetudinaria de derecho internacional vigente en la materia',
conforme a Is cual los Estados poseen is facultad soberana de fijar distintas
UNCLASS1FIDD
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
Pp 5 nf
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
(Cl tion) Desp. No. 838 assifica
From Mexico. D. F.
exteusiones a su respectivo mar territorial dentro del Mate miiimo de dace
millas.
De ahf clue el Gobierno de Wilco tenga per la nueva legislacidn
promulgadepor el Gobierno de Panama, a In que se refiere el memordndum de
is EMbajada de los Estados Unidos, el mismo respeto que le merecen todas
las medidas antIogas dictadas por otros Estados--tales come, pare no citar
sino algunas de las mis recientes, Ins tomadas por Indonesia, Arabia Saudita,
Islandia e Irak--en el ejercido legftimo de su soberanfa y de conformidad
eon in que? en opinidi del Gobierno de Dixie?, constituye In norma de derecho
internacional.vigente en in =Aerie..
Por otra parte, en lo que atafie al Gobierno de Paused, iste habfa
ya expresado claramente su ?pint& respect? al panto de que se trate, desde
hese casi un aio? en in dltima sesidn plenaria de la Conferencla de Ginebra,
in vigisimaprimera, celebrada el 27 de 02.11 de 1958. Entre las propuestas
sometidas a in consideracidn de esa sesidn de in Conferencia figurd la
presentada per Australia, Canadd, Ceilin y Ghana con in sigla A/CONF.13/1..49
-.quo no llegd a ser puesta a votacidn debido a la oposicidn que provocd--
cuyo primer pirrafo resolutivo disponfa lo siguiente:
"Recomendar que todos los Estados, haste que se conozca el
resulted? de las negociaciones .)plazadas que se mencionan, se
abstengan de extender los lfnites de su mar territorial o los
lflites en los que reivindican derechos exclusivos de pesca".
Al referirse a dicho pdrrafo, el Presidente de in Delegacidn
panamefia, sefior Carlos Sucre, expuso lo que en el Acta resumIda de la
sesidn antes citada se encuentra consigned? come sigue:
*Refirlindose al proyecto de resolucidn de las cuatro
potencies, dice que el pdrrafo a) de la parte dispositiva es
inaceptable porque impone una obligacidn injusta a los Estados
que esperaban que las uormas de su legislacidn nacional serfan
consagradas per una declaracidn general de la Conferencia. Su
delegacidn no puede compartir la opinidn del representante del
Rein? Unido de que la libertad de accidn de los Estados puede
impedir que se llegue a un acuerdo sobre in delimited& de las
zones del mar, -Es la actin unilateral emprendida por un cierto
ndmero de Estados in que ha facilitado in evolud& del derecho
del mar*.
El Gobierno de Mexico ha tornado note con satisfaccidn-de que
el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos esti estudiando ahora la naturaleza y in
oportunidad de las consultas diplomdticas que deban realizarse come parte
de in labor preparatoria prevista en la resoled& aprobada per in Asamblea
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
6
- Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
(Classification) Desp.litertur?Do po
From
General in relacidn con las dos cuestiones de fondo que dejd pendiemtes la
Conferencia de Ginebra. La Setretarfa de Relaciones Exteriores de Mexico
esti, i au vez, examinande ese mismo aspect? de la labor preparatoria cuya
importancia puso de relieve el Representante de Mixito en su intervencidn
en in. 703 sesidn plenaria de la Asamblea General en la que expresd,ontzo
otras cosas lo que sigueg
'Este labor preparatoria indispensable e insoslayable,
deberd consistir principalmente, en nuestra opinidn, en con
-
suites y negociaciones preliminares de cardcter bilateral o
regional que preparen debidamente el terreno pare la eventual
adopcidn de una fdrmula general de derecho que corresponda a la
prictica internacional de nuestros dfas y que puede dar satlsfaccidn
a las reivindicaciones, las aspiraciones y los intereses legftimos
del Estado riberefio.
"Estamos persuadidos ademis de que, pare quo tanto la labor
preparatoria come la Conferencia puedan productr los resultados
construcivos que fervientemente anhelamos, serd precis? par una
parte, que todos los Estados llamados a participar en las labores
de esa Conferencia demnestren con hechos ester animados, come Io
estamos nosotros, de un deseo sincero de encontrar una solucidn
justa y aceptable pare todos a las dos delicadas cuestiones
pendientes ye por otra parte, que en ningin memento se olvide que
la Organized& de las Naciones Unidas? bajo cup dgida se ,
celebrard la Conferencia, estd basada, segdn lo establece el
capftulo lo. de la Carta de San Francisco, en el principle de
la igualdad soberana de todos sus Miembroe.
2 Anexos.
xico, D. F., 4 de marzo de 1959.
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
(r P2C7P 1 Of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
-..,
L___
i,
(Classification) Desp. No 838
1.
Fro MeaCe#D F,
(Seal - Ministry of Foreign Relations, United Mexican States)
TRANSLATION
MEMORANDUM
The debates of the Sixth Commission of the General Assembly of the
United Nations during the thirteenth session with relation to topic 59 of
the Program of the Assembly entitled 'Question of the Convocation of a Second
Conference of the United Nations on the Law of the See? ,as well as the
results of the ballotings carried out at the 596th Session of the Commission
held December 4e 1958, on the proposals presented with regard to the mentioned
topic, proved In a conclusive form that the Member States were divided Into
approximately two equal groups. One of these groups, which included the
United States and the other ten States which sponsored the joint resolution
AJC,6/Le435, proposed that the Assembly resolve to call a Second Conference
on the Law of the Sea in July or August 1959; the second group formed by
Mexico and the other six States, co-authors of the amendment A/C 6/L440,
proposed that before it was resolved to call a mond conference, the
General Assembly consider in its fourteenth sessi 0 'the procedure to be
adopted to obtain an agreement on the matters of the breadth of the terri-
torial sea and the limits- of fisheries, including basic examination of
these matters, if it were so agreed?,
Taking into consideration this divergence of opinions, it was evident
that the approval of the joint resolution of the eleven countries by a
bare majority of the Commission was far from constituting a good sign for
the success of the proposed Conference and on the contrary would forecast that
it would end In a disheartening failure.
Therefore the ?Aegean Delegation, convinced of the necessity of creating
favorable conditions to attain a general agreement on the two matters which
the Geneva Conference left pending--the breadth of the territorial sea and
'Ulu of fisherles--upon explaining its vote in the Sixth Committee emphasized
the necessity that before arriving at the Plenary serious efforts be made to
find a text establishing a method which would receive the unanimous approval
of the Assembly. The Representative of Mexico in the Commission ended his
statement In this matter with the following words: ?Me re convinced, in
effect, as I mentioned in one of my former statements, that only In this
manner shall we have formed a solid basis for our future labor tending to
obtain a like unanimity with regard to the basic problem Itself,?
Guided by this conviction, the Mexican Delegation held several informal
conversations with the Delegation of the United States, December 8,10, as
a result of which an agreement was reached whereby the date fixed in the
Joint proposal of the eleven countries for the convocation of the Conference
(July or August 1959) would be postponed to "March or April 1960?. The
Delegation of the United States undertook to obtain the consent of the rest
UNCLSSIFI
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
PACYP_ CIT
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
?1NRIV
(Classification) Desp. F.
From
of the co-authors of the mentioned joint proposal, and the Mexican Delegation
agreed to obtain the support of the other co-sponsors of the original joint
amendment, in order to present the new amendment with the same sponsorship,
which was distributed as document A/L,253? and which upon being approved at
the 703rd plenary session of the Assembly, December 10, made it possible for
the amended proposed resolution of the Sixth Commission to be adopted at the
same session, by 71 votes in its favor, no votes opposed, and 6 abstentions.
The active participation of the Mexican Delegation in the informal talks
which made this decision possible, were without doubt one of the most con-
structive contributions in the matter.
The joint amendment A/L.253 was worded as follows:
"Substitute in paragraph 2 of the dispositive part the
words In July or August 1959" by "on the earliest date in
' Match or April 1960 which is deemed convenient".
As is seen, the text of the amendment is very clear and cannot lend
itself to ambiguous interpretations. Moreover, the Mexican Representative,
upon introducing the amendment formally in the name of the Mexican Dele-
gation and in the name of all the other co-authors, explained in his address
annex 1), also In a clear and unmistakable manner, the spirit and intention
of the co-sponsor Delegations which, essentially, con3ists in making possible
that the proposed Resolution of the Sixth Commission should be unanimously
approved, and to permit the carrying out of a preparatory, conscientious
labor which will create favorable conditions for the eventual adoption of a
general formula of law corresponding to the international practice of our
days and which will satisfy the legitimate interests of the coastal State,
without forgetting for one moment that the United Nations are based on the
principle of sovereign equality of all of its Members,
Although it is true that some of the 14 Representative who spoke at
the 783rd plenary session, before the amendment was voted upon, referred
directly or indirectly to the position or expectations of their respective
Governments, it is also true that such declarations could only bind in each
case the Government they represented, since in addition it Is evident that
they were inspired in postulates at times totally opposed, as may be seen
in the paragraphs of several of these declarations, which are reproduced
in the order in which they were delivered:
The Representative of Ireland:
"It has been pointed out to us, also, that we cannot assume this
position in a unilateral form, Why? Nearly 30 up to this moment
have accepted this position. Why assume that we would be the only
ones who must wait for universal approval?"
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
3 e
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
._J 'LULL. AY U
838
(Classification) Desp.
From xl coI 1:1IF?
"JO 1,??? 411.1.1101Fir...0. .01??11ff
The Representative of the United States:
"ft hope for full cooperation in the second conference and
a conciliatory atmosphere during the period necessary for the
adVance preparations for the conference. It is to be supposed that
during this period governments should not take measures which will
endanger the success of the conference."
The Representative of Norway:
"In general, it is impossible for the Norwegian Government to
?commit itself to abstain after the year 19590 to take the necessary
steps to protect its coastal population, in accordance with our
concept of the existing rules of international law,"
The Representative of Japan:
"My Delegation will vote in favor of this amendment in the hope
that its approval will increase the possibility of success of the
proposed conference. It will vote hoping that no unilateral measure
Will be taken before the Conference by the Member States, because
the already chaotic situation regarding the breadth of the territorial
sea could thereby become aggravated,"
The Representative of the USSR:
"I believe that In the conditions existing by reason of the
continual pressure and the use of force against that small Nordic
country (Iceland) which lives almost exclusively from its fishing
resources, it will not be possible to create the necessary basis
to reach an agreement, which could constitute the success of the
second conference on the law of the seas Should these attempts
not be discontinued there will not exist a propitious atmosphere
to prepare this conference in a seeious and constructive form."
The Representative of Australia:
"Nevertheless we adopt the amendment with the understanding
and on the terms in which it was presented by the Mexican repre-
sentative, that is, a negotiated proposal which represents important
concessions from both sides of a C ssion which Is very divided
With. regard to the points embraced in the amendment,?g
The Representative- of
ss.
'Therefore our delegation- will vote in f vor of resolution.
A/L.253 because this: Will lead us to a compromise. However., we.
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
A _L
- Declassified and Approved ForRelease2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP0806197R000800230015-5
, L_ SF?11,11,..117../111. alba iMidlY
, I Eonci. IN U --ZE.----.
Desp. No 838
From. Mexico, D. ft,
(Class i fication)
would like to peke it clear that our Government tot lly reserves its
right with respect to the measures which would take into account the
fundamental questions to be studied in the future conferences of
the United Nations on the laws of the sea.?
The foregoing recapitulation, which faithfally conform to the facts,
exactly as they took place, makes it possible to examine with a correct
perspective the matter referred to in the memorandum of the Embassy of the
United States ih Mexico, dated December 23, 1958. What can be gathered from
this recapitulation, and especially with regard to what has been said regarding
the text of the joint amendment eel from the statement of the Representative
of Mexico in introducing it formally at the 783rd plenary session, at no time
did the latter endeavor to press the States voting In favor of the amendment,
the text of which was limited to a simple change of dates, to undertake the
obligation either expressly or tacitly, to abstain from what the Government
of the United States calls ?unilateral acts, no was there In the partici-
pation of the Delegation from Mexico any element which would permit such an
inteepretation.
It is advisable to remember that the Government of Mexico shares--as
stated by its Representative in the Sixth Commission on November 26, 1958
tAnnex 2i-4he opinion expressed by the International Court of Justice in
one of its decisions, in the sense that "the act of delimit tion? peculiarly
so, is necessarily a unilateral act, In smuch as the coastal state Is the
only one that is competent to carry it out". It also agrees With the
opinion expressed by the Court in the same decision that 'the validity of
the delimitation with respect to third States depends on international law",
and it maintains in this respect that, since the codification of the breadth
of territorial waters has up to the present time never been achieved in an
international Instrument, the only international law ppricable must be
that which is based on international custom derived from the practice
essentially coincident, by the amount of unilateral analogous acts, of the
majority of States, a custom which has created what could be called "the
customary norm of international law in force in the subject matter",
according to which the States possess the sovereign faculty of fixing
different extensions to their respective territorial sea within the maximum
limit of twelve miles,
?
Hence the Government of Mexico Will h ve for the new legislation
promulgated by the Government of Panama, ta which reference is made in the
memorandum of the Einbassy of the United States, the same respect merited
by all nalogous measures which are dictated by other States, such as-.to
mention only a few of the most recent cases, those naaurea taken by
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iceland and Iraq--in the legitimate exercise of
their sovereignty and in accordance with which, in the opinion of the
Government of Mexico, this constitutes the norm of international law in
force in this matter.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
pp 5 nf
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
NJ ? a.m. ? WA/ oft 6 Mol???iii
(Classification) Desp. No 838
From Mexico,. De F.,
On the other hand, as far as the Government of Panama is concerned,
that Government had already clearly expressed its opinion with regard to the
point in question, almost a year ago, in the last plenary session of the
Conference of Geneva, the twenty-first, held on April 27, 1958. Among the
proposals submitted for the consideration of that session of the Conference
was that presented by Australia, Canada, Ceylon and Ghana, with the abbreviated
initials A/CONF.13/1e49--which did not teach the voting stage due to the
opposition it provoked-ewhose first paragraph of resolution read as follows:
?To recommend that all States, until the results of the
postponed negotiations men:tioned are known, abstain from extending
the limits of its territorial waters or the limits In which they
claim exclusive fishing rights."
In referring to that paragraph, the President of the %imolai
Delegation, Sr, Carlos SUCRE, expressed what in the resume of minutes of
the session mentioned above is set out as follows:
"Referring to the proposed resolution of the four powers, he
states that. paragraph (a) of the operative part is unacceptable
because it imposes an unjust obligation on States that were hoping
that the nos Of their national. legislation would be consecrated
by a general declaration of the. Conference, tis delegation cannot
agree with the Opinion of the representative of the United Kingdom
that the liberty of action of States may prevent the reaching of
an. agreement. on the delimitation of the zones of the sea, It is the
unilateral action undertaken by a certain number of States which
has facilitated the evolution of the law of the sea."
The Government of Mexico has taken note with satisfaction that the
Government of the United States is now studying the kind and opportuneness
of diplomatic meetings which will be held as part of the preparatory labor
foreseen in the resolution approved by the General Assembly with relation
to the two fundamental problems left pending by the Conference of Geneva,
The Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico Is likewise examining this same
aspect of the preparatory labor, the importance of which was pointed out
by the Representative of Mexico in his address at the 783rd plenary session
of the General Assembly, In which he expressed among other things, the
following:
"This indispensable and unavoidable preparatory labor should
consist principally, In our opinion, of preliminary consultations
and negotiations of bilateral or regional character, which will
properly prepare the ground for the eventual adoption of a general
formula of law which will correspond to the international practice
of our days and which will satisfy the claims, the aspirations and
the legitimate interests of the coastal State.
INCLASSIFIED
J
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDPO8001297R000800230015-5
-
,(Ctasiification) Des1).
From ?
are'Coninced besides, thatoln order that,, the preparatory,
labor as well is ihesConferencemay succeed in producing the
? constructive-resultsmbich we fervently desire, it will be necesri,
? on one part, that sill the States Caledta,participate In the:
?
labors of that.COnferente-mill'ahow by actions, that they are animated,
as?Weitee by-a-Sincere desire to find a solution-just and acceptable
to i1Iforthe?tmo delicate, pending problems andon the?other'part?:
that at no time will they forget that the Organization of-the Vnited
Nations,. under whose auspices tiii:'-Conference will be held, is based,
according to'Chipier I of the Charter of San Francisco, on the,
?
principle of the sovereign-equality of all its Member-s,?' .
Mexico, Do F?, Marth 4, 1959
2. Annexes,
Translation: IMRennieiRGLeddy
UNCLASSIFIED-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
1Doe of
Declassified and Approved ForRelease2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
- 838
(Classification) Desp. No
Mexic414 Do Fo
ANNEX I
THIRTEENTH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBEX OF ME UNITED NATIONS
? INTERVENTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE, FROM MEXICO,
AMBASSADOR LIC. ALFONSO GARCIA ROBLESG IN PLENARY SESSIM
December 102 1958
POINT ND, 59: Matter of the convocation of a Second
Conference of the United Nations on
the Law of the Sen.
I wish briefly to. refer to the joint amendment A/L*253 whose coauthors
have honored me by requesting that I present it formally to the Assembly,
On the occasion of my address in the general debate of the Sixth
Commission on the topic that we are examining, I had the opportunity to
emphasize on November 26 last, that in our opinion only a draft resolution
which offers probabilities of Obtaining unanimous approval in the Assembly
could provide solid grounds for our future labor toward obtaining a like
general agreement with regard to the heart of the two vital questions: which
were left pending by the Conference of Geneva: the breadth of the territorial
sea and the limits of fisheries,
Returning to this same aspect, upon explaining the vote of my Delegation
in the Sixth Commission on Friday of last week? I again emphasized? after
mentioning the disheartening results of the balloting of that evening, the
necessity for all of us to find, before attending the plenary, a text which
could satisfy the various opinions manifested in the Commission,
This reminder clearly shows our approval with regard to the result of
the informal conversations which have taken place during the last three days
between the sponsors of the original joint draft L*435 and of the joint
amendment of that draft identified as L,440, our Delegation hawing had the
privilege of actively participating in these conversations, as well as
having previously been given the opportunity to participate in the preparation ?
of the mentioned amendment,
The new amendmento-A/L*253-cmhich is the outcome of the efforts made
to reach an agreement, now offered for the consideration of the Assembly under
the joint auspices'of the seven States that sponsored the original amendment
(Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, India, Ire Mexico and Venezuela), offers a
conciliatory solution, which we dare hope will receive the unanimous approval
of the Assembly,. This compromise amendment involves a considerable amount of
mutual concessionso-which all those who have participated in the debates
of the Sixth Commissien may easily appraise-omade for the purpose of obtaining
a general agreement.
[ UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
Pn CIP 2 nf
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
WA. 'Mr 418/6",11?Mir ignegir
( Class i fi cat io n ) Desp. No. 838
From Mexico., D.0 F.,
Due to the brevity of the ame ent and to the fact that its text is
sufficiently clear, I will limit myself to making a brief commentary on
the subject. The expression on the earliest date in March or April 1960
which is considered convenient" has been used instead of simply saying in
March or April", because the date for the convening of the Eleventh Inter
American Conference which will be inaugurated at Quito, Ecuador, at the end
of January or in February 1960, has not yet been definitely fixed, The
terminology used in the amendment is for the purpose of avoiding that the
Inter?American Conference mentioned, which is held only every five years
and which is the Supreme Body of the Organization of American States, may
coincide with the Conference of the Sea, which would involve serious
difficulties for the representatives of the Latin American Republics, The
working which has been given to the amendment signifies, therefore, only
that the Secretary General, when deciding upon the date of the convocation
of the Conference of the Sea, whether it is In rch or Arpil 1960, after
consulting all the member States of the United Nations, should bear in mind
the fact which I have just mentioned.
As I have already stated, we hope that our amendment will meet with
unanimous approval; we also hape that the draft resolution transmitted by
the Sixth Commission, once it is amended, will be unanimously adopted.
Naturally when this hope haslmen fulfilled it will only serve as a stimulus
to prepare us to carry out with. tenacity and perseverance a conscientious
preparatory labor which, as already stated in the last paragraph of the
preamble of the draft resolution?a paragraph which was added thanks to our
original amendment in the Commission?will ?be a primary factor which will
enable us 'to insure reasonable probabilities of success" of the future
International Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Law of the Sea,
This indispensable and unavoidable preparatory labor should consist
principally, in our opinion, in consultations and preliminary negotiations
of bilateral or regional character, which will duly prepare the ground for
the eventual adoption of a general formula of law which will correspond to
the international practice of our days and which can satisfy the claims,
the aspirations and the legitimate interests of the coastal State,
We are convinced besides that in order that the preparatory labor as
well as the Conference may produce the constructive results we fervently
hope for, it will be necessary on one hand, for all the States called to
participate in the labors of that Conference to show by actions that they
are animated, as we are, with a sincere desire to find a solution )ust and
acceptable for all to the two delicate pending questions and, on the other
hand, that not at any moment should it be forgotten that the Organization of
the United Nations under whose sponsorship the Conference will be held, is
based, according to Chapter 1 of the Charter of San Francisco, "on the
principle of sovereign equality of all of its Members".
Translation: LMRennie/RGLeddy
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
1 4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08007297R000800230015-5
838
(Classification) i ficat ion) Demo NQ
MeXICO, O. F.
From
ANNEX2
PARAGRAPHS OF THE ADDRESS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF MEXICO? IN THE SIXTH
COMMISSION OF THE GEhERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, NOVEMBER 26, 1958,
IN THE GENERAL DEBATE RELATIVE TO THE TOPIC "MATTER OF .THE CONVOCATION FOR A
SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON TIE LAW OF THE SEA".
The Delegation which represented Mexico In the recent Conference of
the United Nations on the Law of the Sea, in which I had the honor to take
part, attended that international meeting with the firm conviction that in
order to attain constructive results, it was necessary, above all, to have
an objective knowledge of the practice and existing conditions on the
subject, the codification of which was being attempted.
-
For that reason, since my first intervention in the general debate of
the First Commission of the Conference, in which I carried the representation
of my country, I had the occasion to express on March 199 1958, the following:
"We believe that the first thing that should be done, so
that our labors will be fruitful and the conclusions at which we
arrive will be acceptable to all, is to clarify the situation
existing at present regarding the limits of the territorial waters
and the breadth of these waters which the Governments represented
in the Conference consider to be the one corresponding to the
necessities of their respective countries; at present, I repeat, not
the situation which existed more or less in the past, nor the
situation which may possibly exist in the year 2000."
For that reason also a few days before the Conference my Delegation
proposed to the First Commission, and had the satisfaction of having this
Commission adopt a resolution setting forth that the Secretariat be entrusted
with the preparation of a "synoptic picture of the requirements of the
existing laws and regulations in the States represented at the Conference,
concerning the breadth and juridical rule of the zones of the sea adjacent
to its coasts, and of the claims which on the same subject the Governments
of those States may have officially formulated, prior to the date of the
inauguration of the Conference"...
The. synoptic picture points out to us.the road for the solution of
problems left pending at the Conference of Geneva. The law, as many
prominent jurists have repeatedly said, is a rule of life and, in Consequence,
in order that it may be respected and may render beneficial results, must
take into account the existing living conditions, Law must be adapted to
life and not vice versa. In the ease before us, the progressive development
of international law and its codification, cannot tend to create anachronous
molds which correspond only to fixed minority interests and which are Intended
subsequently and by force to make existing international laws conform to them;
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
Paoe 2 of
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
(Classification) Desp. No. ass
From Maxi cos D. F.
but rather they should try to clarify' above all, the rides in force in
existing national lows in order to formulate the international norm which
may be the common denominator of said rules.
Consequently, when the opportune moment arises again to examine the
problem of finding a formula which will judicially define the breadth of
territorial waters, it will be necessary to make it possible for that formula,
as I have pointed out several times at Geneva faithfully to reflect what
could be called the common norm of international law in force in the sublect
matter, which, as pointed out by the legislation and practice of the world's
coastal States, and as explained since 1956 before the International Commission
of Law by the Mexican. member of that Commission, Dr. Padilla Nerve, is a norm
of changeable nostenti, The formula, in consequence, should be such that it
will limit itself to recognizing contractually that which, based on inter-
national practice, may be affirmed that it Is already a common law of States,
that is, the sovereign faculty of these States to fix different extensions
to their respective territorial meters within certain reasonable maximum
limits,
With respect to this customary international norm, which is without
doubt the most Important factor which must be taken into account for the
codification of the breadth of the territorial sea, I do not wish to
continue without stopping briefly to analyze--in order to demonstrate the
absence Of_aIl_fundaMental and judicial logic., the principal argument.
widaiited-ip to the present in the debates of this ComMission by some of the
representatives who ? have adopted-the tactics of attacking, as worthless
in international law, all governmental decision which fixes breadth greater
than three miles,
We have been told repeatedly by those representatives that the decisions
to which I have just referred, whether these are in the form of laws, decrees
or regulations, should be considered as "unilateral acts of internal character,
completely lacking judicial international efficacy. To support this state-
ment, there is generally adduced a paragraph of the decision relative to the
fisheries dispute between the United Kingdom and Norway dictated by the
International Court of Justice in 1951.
The Mexican Delegation shares--as I stated emphatically at Geneva on
March 19--the opinion set forth by the Court in that decision, in the sense
that the limitation of the maritime zones and therefore of the territorial
waters, has not only an internal aspect but also an international aspect.
To put it in the words of the decision itself, "If it is indeed true that
the act of delimitation properly such is necessarily a unilateral act, since
the State with coastal waters is the only one competent to perform it; on
the other hand the validity of the delimitation with respect to the third
States depends on international law". My Delegation, however, believes
that the paragraph which I have just quoted, far from serving as a basis of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
Paue_of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
-
(Classification) Desp.
MeNi "It F.
From
the thesis sustained by those who have invoked it, totally nullifies in
itself the mentioned thesis. Let us further examine its text to prove it.
"The validity," says the decisionrrof the delimitation with regard to the
third States depends on international law". The key words are without doubt
"International law", and it Is evident also that upon so speaking the Court
intended to signify international law of today and not international law of
the times of Bynkershoek.
Now, what are we told about the breadth of the territorial waters by
the two principal sources of positive international law, treaties and
international custom?
With regard to the first, not only hns it been impossible to incorporate
any disposition in this respect in the recent conversations at Geneva, but,
as it is well known, up to the present it has not been possible to codify. ,
the breadth of the territorial waters in an international instrument.
There remains to illuminate us on this matter only the second source
of the law of peoples, to which I referred to previously; international
custom drawn from the essentially coincident practice, for the amount of
unilateral analogous acts, of the majority of the States. This and no
other, in ,the absence of any contractual instrument, was the only judicial
basis, at the end of the XIX century and in the beginning of the present
century for the defunct "rule of three miles" which on the other hand, it
may be worth while remembering, was never generally observed because, among
others, neither the Scandinavian States, nor the States of the Mediterranean,
nor Russia, nor various Latin American Republics ever accepted it.
In spite of that lack of absolute uniformity, we believe that we are
right in affirming that the invocation of the "rule of three miles" at the
time of its most extensive practice, say in the year 1899, could be considered
justified in law in the light of international practice.
But that period passed half a century ago. We are now living in 1958,
when the famous rule has expired, expressly repudiated by an immense majority
of States. By the light of practice and the existing international circum-
stances, the same judicial basis would exist today for invoking the "rule of
three miles" as to invoke theriale of one hundred miles or two days of
travel' which, as is known, was formulated in the XIV century by Bartholomew
of Saxoferrato and which, as pointed out by Raestad? was accepted by
practically all of the jurists of the XV century.
Na..- It is nOt, as I have said, the practice of epochs more or less
past which should interest us and which can give judicial value to at
international norm. The only one that interests us and the only one that
can be of service to us as a source of positive contemporaneous international
law, is the practice of our days, the practice of the second half of the
XX century in which we live.
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
Pc ie 4 nf
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5
W.....
(Classification) Desp. No. 838
From MeXi COG D'a
Which is that practice? I will limit myself, to answer that question,
to.recall that the Commission of International Law of the United Nations in
its Eighth Report to the ASSeMbly which served as a basis for the labors of
Geneva declared that: ?The Commission considers that the international
law does not authorize the extension of the territorial waters beyond twelve
miles, This affirmation of the Commission and the judicial element that,
like it or not, is forcibly implicit, should be interpreted in the light of
the official data subsequently compiled In the synoptic study prepared by
the Secretariat and which (1 have already mentioned it but it. is worth
while repenting)L proves' in an irrefutable form, that more than two thirds
of the coastal States of the world have fixed the breadth of their territorial
waters at more than three miles, although not exceeding in the ,majority of
the cases, the breadth of twelve miles, That should be considered, therefore,
the common norm of international law In effect in the matter, the only
existing LW, as we know that no contractual international norm exists in
this respect, -and the only one that can be adopted, therefore?, to judge
international validity of the delimitation of territorial waters to Which
the Court referred in its decision of 1951. That one and no other, must
be the *International law" on which, as the decision one,
said validity
depends with respect to third States,
We' hope thaVit will be seriously considered, and with the .objectivity
Which Should conitItute one of the essential qualities of the jurist on
the, matter which l have just explained, and perhaps, as a consequence we
will not be told gain at the Commissien about:?nnilateral acts" lacking
International eftects nor of pretended violations of:international-law,
lat on:
PRennie
OCRowell
ROleddy
UNC
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000800230015-5