SECOND SESSION SECOND COMMMITTEE PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 20
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: August 7, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD CONFERENCE
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PROVISIONAL
For participants only
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
7 August 1971+
Second Session
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY. RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas
on Monday, 5 August 1974, at 8.50 p.m.
Exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial sea (continued)
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the four working
languages (English, French, Russian or Spanish), preferably in the same language as the
text to which they refer. Corrections should be sent in quadruplicate within five
workin days to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, Nivel Lecuna, Edificio Anauco,
and also incorporated in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 7 AUGUST 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 14 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
Chairman: Mr. TUNCEL Turkey
later: Mr. AGUILAR Venezuela
Rappoorteur : Mr. NANDAN Fiji
CONTENTS
C-5349 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5 /.. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
ish
Page 2
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL SEA (continued)
Mr. CHAO (Singapore), summing up his delegation's views on the question of an
economic zcnF' for cor_.stal_ States, said the econo- r' lore approach was not the only
practical approach nor was it the most equitable. The defect of existing law under the
four 1958 Conventions was that advantages were conferred upon a small minority of States;
the economic zone approach merely sought to enlarge the number of States enjoying those
advantages, and in some cases would inf'.ict harm upon land-locked and other geographically
disadvantaged States. Th' only Just approach would be to allow coastal States to claim
a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles beyond which the whole marine area should
be under this enntrol and vurisdict;on of an international ocean authority. The
authority should exploit the non-living resources of the area for all mankind and should
lay down rules and regulations governing the exploitation of living resources by States.
That approach would give roil effect to the principle of the common heritage of mankind.
His delegation also favoured the regional zone approach whereby three or more adjoining
or opposite States would be entitled to establish rt regional or subregional zone.
k!4,4acent and opposite States would also be entitled to loin the group, although no
State should be part of more than one such zone. The zone should lie within the
geographical confines of each continent concerned so that no State would be excluded
from a regional or subreoional zone. That approach would secure justice for all States
and would provide a real opportunity for regional co-operation and understanding.
If there was to be a coastal-State econcnie zone, his delegation's acceptance of it
would be subject to two condit.;ons: firstly, there must be adequate provisions in the
treaty itself to safegt.ard The rights and In'.-rests of lend-locked and other
geographically disadvantaged SttLtcs. Secondly, the breadth of the economic zone should
not prejudice the economic viability of the i.iteinational area. In determining the
breadth, the report of the Ser-retary-.General (A/A(..138/87) should be constantly borne in
mind.
The approach taken by N_geria in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.21 was very constructive.
Nevertheless, the provisions of article 1.2 (d) were reminiscent of the 1958 Geneva
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contig:ous Zone. No cogent reasons had been
put forward to justify granting coastal States further jurisdiction in the economic zone
in relation to the prevention and punishment of infringement of customs, fiscal,
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300046026-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
English
Page 3
(Mr. Chao, Singapore)
immigration and sanitary regulations. There was no.reason why those functions could not
be performed effectively within the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. He. urged the
Conference not to transform the economic zone into a territorial sea.
The new 12-mile limit for the territorial,sea.would do away with the need for a
contiguous zone except where coastal. States did not claim the 12,mile territorial sea.
His delegation commended the draft article,on the contiguous zone contained in document
A/CONF..62/C..2/L.27?
Although article 3.2 of the Nigerian draft,:would oblige coastal States to enforce
applicable international navigation safety standards,; there was no mention of
international standards covering the duty of,the coastal States to regulate and preserve
the marine environment and to prevent pollution. He hoped that the Nigerian delegation
would be prepared to reconsider the question... Although there was no provision to
safeguard the rights and interests of land-locked.an.d other geographically disadvantaged
States, his delegation had been assured by,the Ni,gerian..delegation.that a revision
would. be forthcoming.
Document A/C;ONF..6,2./L.l contained some of.the.most interesting ideas before the
Conference. Nevertheless, his delegation looked forward to the inclusion of articles.
recognizing the rights de ure,and interests of land-locked.and geographically
disadvantaged States.. He hoped the sponsors of the draft would also consider the need
to accommodate the interests of neighbouring States within an archipelago in:their
future deliberations. His delegation was unable to accept article-'?-19 of the. draft.
His delegation hoped the Conference would. not repeat the mistake of the
1958 Conference on the Law of the Sea, which had carved up the most valuable areas of
the sea-bed for a.number of advantaged coastal States without any regard to the rights
and interests of the less advantaged States.
Mr. BOTHA (South Africa) said that his delegation fully supported the concept
of an exclusive economic zone extending to a maximum distance of 200 nautical miles
measured from the baselines used for. calculating the 12-mile territorial sea. Within
that zone, the coastal State should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the renewable
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
?~nr*lish
I'age 4
(Mr. Botha, South Africa)
living resources of the sea and sea-bed and have sovereignty over the non-renewable
resources of the continental shelf, the sea-bed and the subsoil thereof.
The coastal State should have the exclusive rights to exploit the living resources
within the economic zone up to the maximum sustainable yield. If, however, the coastal
State did not possess the capability to harvest the maximum sustainable yield, it
should, until it had that capacity, share with other States the exploitation of the
resources in order to ensure that available stocks were fully utilized. Provisions
should be made for suitable financial reward to the coastal State for the participation
of others in the exploitation of the living resources of the zone. Such participation
could be arranged through existing international fisheries conventions or on a bilateral
basis. Detailed arrangements between the coastal State and its land-locked neighbours
should be spelled out in bilateral agreements between the countries concerned.
In addition to its exclusive rights to exploit the living resources of the zone,
the coastal State should also have exclusive jurisdiction, including enforcement
powers, with regard to the proper conservation, under coastal State laws and regulations,
of the living resources within the zone. Only then would the coastal State be in a
position to conserve those resources effectively.
The South African delegation supported those proposals which envisaged continued
coastal State sovereignty over the continental shelf in cases where it extended beyond
,he 200-nautical-mile limit proposed as the outer limit of the economic zone.
Coastal State jurisdiction within the economic zone should also embrace the right
to prevent and combat all forms of marine pollution. Effective pollution controls
could be achieved only by way of binding international standards and criteria coupled
with enforcement powers. Flag States and port States had obvious responsibilities in
that regard, and should be granted suitable powers of enforcement. At the same time,
however, it was essential that strong and effective enforcement powers be exercised by
coastal States.
The South African delegation supported the principle of maximum freedom of
scientific research, excluding, of course, research of a military and proprietary
character. Within the territorial sea, however, scientific research should be subject
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
/...
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
A/CONF:62/C.2/2R.27
English
Page 5
(Mr. Botha, South Africa)
to the prior consent of the coastal State, which should, if it so desired, be able to
participate in the research and have access to the results. Within the economic zone,
research should be allowed subject to the control of the coastal State and with the
right of the latter to participate in the research and have access to the results.
In addition to its rights within the economic zone, the coastal State should also
have certain defined obligations and duties, namely the obligation not to prevent or
interfere with the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and to respect and
preserve the traditional freedom of navigation and overflight in the case of straits
used for international navigation.
Mr. SOTH (Khmer Republic) said that his.delegation was very much in favour
of the creation of an exclusive economic zone of not more than 188 nautical miles
measured from the outer limit of a 12-mile territorial sea. The coastal State should
enjoy sovereign rights over the natural resources of the sea-bed and ocean floor, as
well as of the superjacent waters. Such sovereignty was subject to limitations
imposed in the interests of the international community and included the.obligation of
the coastal State to respect the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, and
the laying of submarine cables and pipelines. Those freedoms should not be abused in
any way which might affect the economic: character of the zone. For example, foreign
fishing vessels should not be permitted to use the pretext of the freedom of navigation
to engage in clandestine fishing activities in the zone. Naval manoeuvres which might
disturb the living resources of the zone should be prohibited. The exercise of the
other freedoms should not be prejudicial to the interests of the coastal State. It
was normal for the coastal State to intervene in cases where poorly maintained pipelines
threatened to pollute the marine environment or destroy the living resources of the
area.
His delegation maintained that the right of innocent passage should not be
recognized for warships or any type, tankers and other vessels transporting polluting,
harmful or dangerous substances, and fishing vessels. The latter should be'denied the
right of innocent passage because of their tendency to fish clandestinely in the
territorial waters of the coastal State. All such vessels must'remain outside the
territorial sea. Merchant ships must not use their right of innocent passage for
purposes other than trade.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5 /' ' '
 A/CORF.62/C ?
:(Md For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
English
Ps.;e h
{?ir, Soth:
timer c~epublic)
`'he i,2ral r=.^i;nes of the coatiCuOus zone and the continental st?elf should not
be retained in the new l,aw of, the sea. A larze number of States, including many
signatories of the 1956 Geneva Convention, in extending their territorial seas to a
breadth of 12 nautical :files or more, had chose: to ignore the contiguous zone. The
retention of that zone, *ihich the Geneva Convention had viewed? as part of the high
seas, wouli? only complicate viatters. Placing the contiguous zone between the
territorial sea and the economic zone would result in a belt of high seas between
two other zones which ,.ere not *pnrt of the high seas. On the other hand, a contiguous
zone situated at the outer limit of the economic zone would not be very useful, since
only those coastal States which possessed sufficient and effective means could
exercise their competences in a zone 200 miles beyond its coasts, which was
unfortunately not the case of the developing countries.
The continental shelf such as it was conceived in existing law should not be
retained either since the economic goal it had been created to serve had been subsumed
in the broader concept of the economic zone. It was not easy to justify the
co-existence of those two rfigimes. The regime of the continental shelf defined
according to the double criteria of depth and exploitability had given rise to many
difficulties.with.regard to its delimitation between adjacent or opposite States
which could not be easily solved. Under such conditions there was no reason to
retain the regime of the continental shelf which should be absorbed by the exclusive
economic zone. To facilitate the resolution of any conflicts which might arise
from the application of the future conventions on the law of the sea, especially the
convention on the economic zone, a specialized international legal body should be
created, made up of spec_:aliste competent to deal with all maritime questions and,
in particular, fishing disputes. Such a body would do a great deal for the maintenance
of international law and order on the seas.
Mr. ILLUECA (Panama) said that his delegation had observed with interest
the emergence of a majority opinion on the general principles of the exclusive
economic zone and the patrimonial sea. The latter had been advanced by various
Latin American delegations which had been forerunners in the search for a solution
that had since been accepted by many other delegations, particularly the States
members of the OAU, as the most suitable under existing conditions of international
law.
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R006 OOR062 2/SR.2?
English
Page 7
(Mr. Illueca, Panama)
Together with Ecuador, Pe.ru and Chile, Panama hac. beer. in ;-,up +orter of a
maximum breadth of 200 nautical miles for the territory +,T sea calculated from.?the
baselines to determine the area under the Jurisdiction of the coastal State. When
the Panamanian Government had adopted legislation in 1967 establishing a 200-mile
territorial sea, it had been motivated. by the some concerns as those delegations
which supported the genuine exclusive rights of the coastal State over the entire
exclusive economic zone.
It was reasonable to allow the free transit of vessels, overflight, and the
laying of submarine cables and pipelines in the economic zone under the exclusive
Jurisdiction of the coastal State.
His delegation continued to give proof of its flexibility and attitude of
conciliation. Like the rest of the Latin American countries, Panama would continue
to be jealous of those rights. which third States claimed over any part of its
territory. Throughout its e:iistence as a Republic, Panama had had to endure against
its will, an anachronistic colonial situation based on brute force. Consequently,
Latin America was particularly vigilant with regard to any attempt to perpetuate
colonialist or neo-colonialist exploitation of the resources of the people of that
region, and particularly of the Isthmus of Panama. The doctrine of the permanent
sovereignty of nations over their natural resources was the economic corollary of the
right-of the self-determination of peoples.
The exclusive economic zone was one of the key concepts of the 'Conference and
was closely interrelated with the concepts of the territorial sea, contiguous.zone
and continental shelf. Consequently, it had'to be dealt with in such an over-all
context and the method of reaching agreement had to take that reality into account.
It was necessary to reach promptly an internationally accepted agreement
incorporating the principles of sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction of the coastal
State over all resources and related matters in a zone of up`to.200 nautical miles.
adjacent to its coasts. Such a regime was quite reasonable provided. that it took
into account regional and subregional realities, as well as the legitimate interests
of the land-locked States. The recognition of the rights of the coastal State over
the exclusive economic zone should not affect its sovereign rights over the territorial
sea or its continental shelf and "national sea-bed", whose characteristics had
been defined in his delegation's statement on item 5.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
 A/CONF. 62/C.2/SR.&pproved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
English
Page
ir. k1'A1AC (Turkey) :,aid that his delegation 3uprorted in principle the
idea of an exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial sea. Such a zone would
probably offer to the developing countries the best opportunity for bolstering their
economic development.
The coastal State should have sovereign rights within the economic zone of up
to 200 miles from its shores for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the living
and non-living resources of the sea, the sea-bed and subsoil thereof, and for
regulating scientific research. Those rights should not affect the freedom of
navigation and overflight, -,id the freedom of laying submarine cables and pipelines
outside the territorial sea.
Residual rights should be carefully determined and regulated in such a manner
as to preclude the misuse of rights recognized in connexion with the economic zone.
Although Turkey was a developing State surrounded on three sides by seas, it
stood to receive no direct benefit from the establishment of economic zones since
the narrow and semi-enclosed nature of those seas would prevent it from extending its
jurisdiction to more than a fraction of the intended maximum breadth of the economic
zone. Furthermore, as FAO -.,:files had demonstrated, those seas were not well
endowed in living resources.
Turkey like most of the coastal States bordering on the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean, fell into the category of geographically disadvantaged States, as did
roughly half of the States participating in the Conference. With the addition of
the land-locked countries, approximately 100 of the participants did not stand to
derive any direct benefit fr)m the exclusive economic zone.
It would appear that to date efforts to reach an agreement had been directed
to reconciling the interests of the oceanic coastal States and the major maritime
Powers. It was equally necessary, perhaps even more so, to strike a balance between
the interests of the geographically disadvantaged States and those of the oceanic
coastal States which also included the big maritime Powers. Only then would the
new legal order respond to the realities and requirements of the times.
His delegation supported the statement made by the representative of Trinidad
and Tobago at the 22nd meeting of the Committee in which he had said that the dictates
of justice and equity required that the geographically disadvantaged States in
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5 /.. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : Cl
-RDP82S00697R000~0 02- . e/SR.,27
Page 9
( ~r. Akyamac~ }
a giveri.'region should enjoy preferential rights in the exploitation of the living
resources within the economic zones of the, other coastal States of that region The
Puckish delegation was particularly pleased with.the clear emphasis which the
representative of Trinidad and. Tobago had placed on the role of the,principles of
justice and equity in the regulation of the legal norms for the sea,, a. notion which
it had itself consistently supported and upheld.
As distinct from disadvantages for which redress could. be found within .a ,given
region, there existed in different parts of the world disadvantaged regions such
as the Mediterranean or Baltic, where all or the greater part of the States were
disadvantaged, and because of the characteristics of those. areas, no redress could
be found for the situation within the region concerned. Such situations should not
be overlooked. The 1973 London Conference for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
had designated five semi-enclosed seas as special areas with regard.to pollution.
That classification could also serve as a. basis for the identification of disadvantaged
regions and could be complemented or corrected for the purposes of the new convention
to include all the disadvantaged States of the world
Individual States of disadvantaged regions should be granted the right to
participate in the exploitation of the living resources within,the economic zones to
be established in the oceans to which such regions were in close proximity. Mere
recognition of that right might none the less prove to be unrealistic in .the short term,
particularly in the case of developing States. which would not for some time to come
be able to engage in distant fishing. To compensate.for such situations, special
arrangements could be made for those States to have a higher share of the profits. to
accrue from the exploitation of the international area.
Certain proposals before the Conference had recommended that the traditional
distant-water fishing States be granted fishing rights within the economic zones of.
ocean States. The creation of such a privileged club would be highly, detrimental to
the developing States" which in the fiiture might have to turn to . distant-water fishing
to sustain the growth of their economic and social development'.: Preferential fishing
rights to be granted to States within the'economic zones of other States should be
accorded on the basis of the criteria referred to previously.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
 A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
.., Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-J DP82S00697R000300040026-5
Page 10
04r.AkYsmac , Turkey)
An accurate definition of the term "disadvantaged State" was of crucial importance.
The Jamaican draft proposal (document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.30) p~:,o-:ided a number of criteria
for that purpose, while another delegation was working out related but different criteria1
Perhaps a method combining the two approaches would produce the desired definition.
given the close connexion between the exclusive economic zone and the territorial
sea, his delegation hoped that the Conference would be able to adopt a regime for the
territorial sea which, while setting forth a uniform maximum breadth, would also
provide for satisfactory regional arrangements in order to avoid creating problems
for States in areas with special geographical characteristics.
In view of the large areas which the economic zone would include, the question of
delimitation between adjacent and opposite States assumed great importance. The guiding
principle of the Turkish proposal contained in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.-34 had been the
achievement of a just and equitable delimitation between adjacent and/or opposite States
based upon the agreement of the parties concerned.
While there was no reference to any specific method of delimitation in the Turkish
draft proposal, no r.et`,od, including that of the median line, had been excluded. States
would have to use the m^st appropriate method, or combination of methods, in accordance
with the particular circumstances and equity.
The median line was one of the methods of delimitation, but should not enjoy
preference over other line3 of delimitation such as the "equitable dividing" line which
had been proposed in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.28, or any other line to be agreed upon
by States concerned. As the International Court of Justice had confirmed in its
judgement in the North Sea Continental Shelf Case, the application of the median line
was not obligatory. Furthermore the Court had clearly indicated in paragraph 89 of its
judgement that the application of the equidistance or median line led unquestionably
to inequity in the sense that the slightest irregularity in the coastline was
automatically magnified by th^ median line.
International practice had shown that the median line could not be applied
unilaterally. The decision whether or not to apply the equidistance line had to be
reached by agreement among the States concerned.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
 A/CONF.62/C.2/5R.27
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CI -RDP82S00697R00030 -5
>s e .Ll
(Mr. Akyamac, Turkey-)
Paragraph 1 of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.34 `dealt in a non-exhaustive manner with
special circumstances. 'slands,-islets and rocks within the area to be delimited
deserved special attention since their presence could have such a distorting effect as
to,deprive s. State from having any meaningful economic zone. Neither the coastal State
nor the State to which the islands belonged should be made to suffer from that situation.
The principle of equity and all other relevant factors should therefore be taken into
account in negotiations between the parties concerned. The foregoing references to
islands had been made within the context of special circumstances, and not with regard
to the regime of islands ingeneral.
The provisions for the pursuit and conclusion of negotiations in the Turkish
draft proposal guaranteed that the matter would not drag on to the detriment of either
of the parties. An attempt had been made to enable the States concerned, irrespective
of their size, to negotiate on an equal footing without inhibition and without being
subjected to pressure or intimidation.. His delegation believed that paragraph 2 of its
draft represented an effective and desirable improvement over the negotiating machine
provided by the 1958 Geneva Conventions.
Mr. (Libyan Arab Republic) said that. the economic zone was directly
linked with the vital interests of nations and was an important factor in the
prosperity and well-being of mankind.
There were two distinct and even conflicting.approaches to the economic zone:
firstly, peoples who were struggling to achieve a standard of living approaching that
of the developed countries favoured the establishment of an exclusive
economic zone in which the coastal State would exercise sovereignty over living and
non-living resources. Secondly,. there were those who sought to reduce to a minimum the
sovereignty of the coastal State over its economic zone in order to maintain and
increase differences in standards of living. The aim of the latter was to enable their
fishing'fleets toinvade the coastal waters of the developing countries, monopolize
fishery resources, transform them into finished products and sell them at high prices.
That was contrary to the equitable principles that should prevail in the elaboration of.
a new law of the sea. His delegation therefore favoured the establishment of exclusive
economic zones in which the coastal State would have complete sovereignty over living
and non-living resources.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
 A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
r'nrli sh Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
t
(Mr Unis, Libyan Arab Republic)
A number of draft articles had put forward the idea of the median line as the
only solution to the problem of 3e?.imitation; others had pressed f ,-,r a special
treatment for islands. The finding in the North Sea case had clearly shown that the
median line approach was not satisfactory in all cases. In order to provide greater
flexibility with respect to methods of delimitation and to minimize differences of
interpretation of the expression "special circumstances", delimitation methods should
be agreed on by the various parties concerned, having due regard to prevailing
conditions a:id special circumstances.
Mr. VALENCIA RODru.GUEZ (Ecuador) said that his country had noted the interest
shown by all countries in the rights and powers of coastal States in the sea adjacent
to their cowls up to a distance of 200 miles. That interest was encouraging to the
Latin American countries, including his own, which had extended their sovereignty over
the 200-mile zone some 25 years earlier, on the basis of legitimate economic, legal
and security considerations, without prejudice to any provisions of international law.
What had seemed at the time a legal heresy was now accepted even by the powerful
countries w'--ch belittled the rights of the developing countries. No one now denied
that the 200-mile limit wac the only means of relieving the acute and growing subsistence
problems of the developing world.
His delegation had also noted the somewhat discouraging fact that there was no
uniformity of cvinion on what was meant by the economic zone. For example, some texts
referred to the coastal State's rights of sovereignty while others referred merely to
sovereign rights; but no 'fording had been found which explicitly described the new
legal concept and it finally had to be admitted that sovereign rights simply meant
sovereignty. Although it was argued that sovereign rights did not devolve from the
exercise of sovereignty, a State could hardly exercise sovereign rights without
possessing sovereignty. Presumably with the object of establishing other shades of
meaning,, it was also said that the coastal State should exercise sovereign rights in,
but not over, the zone in which case the State would exercise its rights over certain
constituent parts of the zone, such as renewable or non-renewable resources, but
not over the zone it. elf .
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 C~A-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
II
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
English
Page 13
(Mr. Valencia Rodriguez, Ecuador)
Such notions could only be a sourceof controversy in the future, The disparity
of concepts was compounded by talk about a State's preferential rights, or special
powers or authority- in the 200-mile .one - which suggested doubts regarding sovereign
rights -? while at the same time it was maintained that the State in question could
exercise authority over the continenta]~.shelf. That would. mean that the State's
sovereignty, while extending over the sea-bed and subsoil, was in some doubt where the
superjacent waters of the same zone were concerned. Yet the resources of the
continental shelf and the resources in the superjacent waters were equally important to
the coastal State.
Furthermore, if, as proposed in some texts,.the economic zone should be exclusive
in favour of the coastal State, how was it possible. to talk both of-exclusiveness,
?,hich suggested sovereignty, and of the coastal State having no sovereignty? If the
coastal State exercised its rights to the exclusiin of third States, that was nothing
other than sovereignty.
Some delegations - no doubt with a view to overcoming those disparities -.had
drawn up lists of rights and powers for the coastal State over its exclusive economic
zone, ranging from exploration and exploitation of the renewable living resources of
the sea-bed and the non-renewable resources of the continental shelf to.exclus.ive
jurisdiction over fiscal matters and authorization and control of scientific research.,
Those were important economic rights which,. .gain, must involve the coastal State's
sovereignty.
lie wondered whether such rights -? however exhaustive the list - would really
meet the future nee of the developing peoples, needs which were increasing by leaps
and bounds as a result of the population explosi -,i1, the deterioration in international
terms of trade and the discriminatory measures adopted by the powerful States in their
own interests. In other words, were those the only economic rights that coastal. States
could exercise in the propob3d 200-mile economic zone?. They would never meet those
countries' needs, because they would ;,e'only partial rights if the coastal State did
not have sovereignty over. the zone and the great Powers were allowed to : assert. their
claims with respect to it.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5 /.
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.27
English
Page 14
Ovir. Valencia Rodriguez Ecuador)
The inevitable conclusion was that the only legally acceptable and economically
viable solution for the developing peoples lay in the doctrine of sovereignty over a
200-mile zone, in other words, a 200-mile territorial sea. That doctrine also had the
important advantage that residual rights and powers in the zone would be duly recognized
as belonging to the coastal State. t'Yith a territorial sea of 200 miles the coastal
._ktate would exercise rights and privileges deriving from sovereignty and at the same
time allow the international. community freedom of sea and air communication and permit
the laying of cables and pitelines subject only to the restrictions resulting from the
coastal State's exerei-se of its rights.
Mr. REMY (Haiti) said that his country was interested in the sea as a source
of wealth, since it had few natural resources. It was anxious for the developing
countries to be enabled to exploit the biological and mineral resources of the seas
:adjacent to their coasts. Some species were in danger of -extinction owing to
wirestricted exploitation by fishing fleets from distant lands. The 1958 Geneva
Convention on Fishing ani Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas
recognized the coastal State's vital interest in the resources adjacent to its coast
>ut did not meet the legitimate aspirations of the developing countries regarding
fishing and the conservation of the sea's biological resources. His country had taken
;fart in consultations with other Caribbean countries concerning joint policy on various
aspects of the law of the sea to meet present-day political, economic and social
c'nnditions, giving special attention to the question of a fairer share for the
developing countries. Those consultations had resulted in the Declaration of Santo
Domingo, 1972, introducing - among other things - the new concept of the patrimonial
:yea or exclusive economic zone, which gave the coastal State sovereign rights over the
renewable and non-renewable natural resources in the sea and on the sea-bed and its
subsoil up to a 200-mile limit measured from the applicable baseline. Under that
concept, the coastal States also had the duty to promote and the right to regulate
scientific research in that zone and to adopt measures to prevent pollution of the
urine environment.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000
I0lW Ki C.2/SR.27
English
Page 15
(Mr. Remy, Haiti)
The notion of the. patrimonial sea was new to international maritime law and
represented a means of replacing a system of inequality, injustice and under-development
by a more viable, just and humane order. There was no justification for doubt
concerning the new concept on the ground that it might impede navigation and other uses
of the sea. In that connexion he recalled the statement made by the President of
Venezuela at the opening of the Conference that Venezuela defended the sea as an
instrument of peace and justice, of collective wealth for all nations and as a
compensating factor in establishing a world equilibrium.
The idea of justice which must be embodied in the new law of the sea would be
illusory if it benefited only the coastal States. The land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged countries must also share in the exploration and exploitation of the
biological and mineral resources in the economic zone and their rights should be
explicitly recognized in the Convention. Details could be negotiated by the parties
Concerned.
One of the problems connected with the exclusive economic zone or patrimonial sea
was recognition of the rights of third States exploiting the pelagic resources of the
zone where the coastal State lacked the technical capacity to take the maximum
allowable catch and there was a surplus of exploitable resources. While his delegation
understood the concern of such States about possible wastage due to under-exploitation,
it could not-countenance misuse of resources, particularly at a time when land-based
natural resources were insufficient to meet the growing needs of an expanding world.
However,'it considered,that'in the patrimonial sea the coastal State should have the
right to determine the conditions of any 'agreement on exploiting the zone, particularly
on methods of exploi,tation:.'That would open the way to bilateral and regional
agreements and would at the same time encourage' technical co-operation.
His delegation was somewhat concerned at.proposals for eliminating the contiguous
zone and the continental shelf. The contiguous' zone could well be:preserved as part
of the economic zone or patrimonial sea adjace'nt'to the territorial sea of 12 nautical
miles - which was a reasonable limit - since the considerations''justifying the
contiguous zone, i.e. the need to prevent and punish infringement of the coastal
:hate's territorial sea, were still valid. Moreover, in a number of countries
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-$...
 A/CONF.62/'-A By & For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
English
Page 16
(Mrs Remy, Haiti)
regulations to that effect were still in force. Haiti, for example, had issued a
decree in 1972 establishing a contiguous zone of three nautical miles beyond the limits
of its territorial sea. As to the continental shelf, he thought that the 200-mile
limit would eliminate it, since its regime would be covered by the regime of the
patrimonial sea. He therefore favoured adoption of the African proposal to reduce its
extent, in order to avoid a plurality of regimes and taking into account the fact that
the concept of the common heritage of mankind had already begun to be downgraded.
Mr. KIM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that his delegation fully
supported the concept of the establishment of the economic zone or patrimonial sea to
limit of 200 nautical miles, which appeared to be supported by most delegations.
Some imperialist Powers, however, were opposing it. One, for example, was opposed to
the establishment of e-cclusive rights over fishery resources in a zone extending
beyond the limits of the territorial sea, while another proposed that foreign
fishermen should have non-discriminatory rights to fish in a coastal State's economic
zone when the latter was not using its resources in the zone to the full. Those Powers
were attempting to harvest the living resources in the economic zones of other States
beyond the limits of the territorial sea and were a threat to developing coastal
States. He was particularly concerned about imperialist pillage of fishery resources
in Korea's southern see. and in the fishing grounds of other developing countries.
The following were important and essential elements in the concept of the economic
zzone or patrimonial sea and should be included in the new Convention. Firstly, the
coastal State should havq within its economic tone or patrimonial sea sovereign rights
over living and non-living resources, including preservation and protection of those
resources, up to a limit of 200 nautical miles, and jurisdiction over scientific
research and control of marine pollution. Secondly, the land-locked countries should
'lave reasonable rights and interests. and should be given the possibility of
;articipating in exploitation of the living resources in the economic zone or
jatrimonial sea of neighbouring coastal States, such rights and interests to be
srovided for under bilateral or regional agreements. Thirdly, the coastal State
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5 /.. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R0003 " &ggC?2/6R?2T
English
Page 17
(Mr. Kim, Deaperatic People's Republic of Korea)
without prejudice to its sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over the zone, and
subject to its consent to.delineation of the course for the laying of such cables and
pipelines. Fourthly, the boundary of the economic zone or patrimonial sea between
adjacent or opposite States should be determined by consultation in accordance with
the principle of an equidistant line or a median line.
Mr. MANGAL (Afghanistan) said that his delegation, as a matter of principle,
did not support unilateral action by States aimed at broad seaward extension of-their
national jurisdiction. Such action was not consistent with the concept of the common
heritage of mankind and might result in conflicts in the seas and delay the cods. 'cation
of the international law of the sea.
The concept of the economic zone or patrimonial sea would be just and acceptable
only if the rights and interests of other States, particularly the land-locked and
other geographically disadvantaged States, were taken into account. His delegation,
which represented a land-locked country, would not be satisfied with a legal regime
for the 'economic zone under which the coastal State would exercise sovereign rights
or` -jurisdiction over all the resources of the area. In the first place, the concept
of the economic zone did not provide for a balanced accommodation of the interests
of States. The exte.'sion of a'aoaslal State's sovereignty to the area adjacent to its
territorial sea for the purpose of exclusive exploitation by that State would be
neither just nor conducive to international co-operation. The rights and interests
of land-locked and other geographically disadvantaged States with respect to the
natural resources of the economic zone must be taken into account.
A consensus seemed to be emerging in favour of the 12-mile limit for the
territorial sea where coastal States would exercise full sovereignty. His
delegation would support such a limit measured from the applicable baseline.- There
must be two distinct legal regimes for the territorial sea and the economic zone.
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.2T
Lns;1ish
Page 18
(Mr. tan alp Afghanistan )
The economic zor.e, if agreed on by the Conference, would consist of an area which
had previously been part of the high seas. By any reasonable standard, land-locked
and other geographically disadvantaged States should therefore have equal rights with
coastal States to explore and exploit the living and non--living resources of that area
on a non-discriminatory basis, and the right to free access to and from the sea and
the economic zone. That legitimate claim should not be construed as prejudicial to the
coastal State's interests: such rights would be exercised in a peaceful and orderly
manner, in accordance w 7;h the provisions of the new Convention and having regard to
the legitimate interests of the coastal States concerned and of the.international
cowmilnity. Land-locked States would be required not to transfer their rights in the
econcmi.c zone to third States, but they would be entitled to obtain technical and
financial assistance from other States and from international organizations to develop
their own industries.
He did not share the view, nor the arguments underlying it, that the present
continental shelf regime should be retained within the framework of the new economic
zone concept. Aeceptancc of the economic zone should supersede the 1958 continental
shelf regime. A plurality of regimes in the economic zone would not provide a just
accommodation of the interests of other States, including; the land-locked States.
The 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf totally disregarded the rights and interests
of land-locked States in the resources of -one continental shelf. For that reason his
country had n)t acceded to the Convention. It could not accept the notion of the
continental shelf as a natural prolongation of a country's territory to the outer limit
of the continental margin and the extension of full sovereignty to the area.
The economic viability of the international area should be preserved and
maintained in terms of both size and resources, so as to give effect to the concept of
the common heritage o'' mankind. That viability could be adversely affected by broad
seaward extensions of the Jurisdiction of coastal States.
Mr. ABAROA (Spain) said his delegation attached great importance to the
question of participation by third States in the rational exploitation of the resources
of the econimic zone. While the non-renewable resources of the zone should be reserved
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5 /.. .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000pe0809@f.2/SR.27
English
Pag' 9
'(Mr. Abaroa, Stein)
exclusively to the coastal State, the nature of living resources justified the
participation of third States in their exploitation. There were a number of criteria
lie wished to put forward as a basis for regulating such participation.
His country had to rely on marine protein to cover its shortfall in meat protein
caused by geographical and climatic factors. It also had a very narrow continental
shelf, particularly in the north, and that shelf was generally poor in fishery resources.
In addition, most of its coastline was on the Mediterranean Sea, a harine,_area that
was ecologically endangered. Consequently, his country had been obliged to build up
a large fishing fleet. It had an obvious interest in seeing that'the future Convention
would contain provisions governing the participation of third States in the exploitation
of the living resources of?the zone for the mutual economic advantage of coastal and
third States.
It must also be established that, when certain conditions set out in the future
Convention were met, the coastal State would authorize third States to participate in
the rational...exploitation of the living resources of the zone. Such participation
could be based on international co-operation and mutual advantage, without discrimination
between possible participants but without prejudice to preferential treatment that might
be granted to specific States. The latter was an important issue that required
accurate definition;, special account should be taken of States whose vessels had
habitually fished in the waters of the zone.
The coastal State should authorize third States to.fish when it was unable to
take all of the allowable catch. In determining the allowable catch, the coastal
State must take into account biological and statistical data: neighbouring States
should exchange information on fish populations common to their economic zones in order
to avoid a biological imbalance in any of the zones. The allowable catch should be the
maximum that would permit the attainment, maintenance or recovery of the maximum
sustainable yield.
Within the zone, the coastal State should promulgate and enforce rules and
regulations for the conservation and rational exploitation of the resources of the zone.
Such measures could include the specification of permitted fishing gear and methods,
the establishment of closed seasons and areas, the establishment of minimum allowable
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5 /. .
 A `CU;tiy+' 62,'6.2/a.-.Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CFA-RDP82S00697R000300040026-5
English
04r. 1,ibaroa Spain)
sizes-for fish taken, the regulation of fishing activity, the establishment of catch
quotas, and the establishment of.over-all catch levels for fishermen from third States.
His delegation considered that F.A.O and the regional and,, international fishery
organizations could be of great assitance to coastal States in-establishing
allowable catches and ways to regulate the conservation and rational exploitation of
the living resources of the zone.
The coastal State should also regulate the. graining of fishing licences in its
zone to fishermen from other areas.
The regime of the zone gave rise to such other problems as the question..of its
delimitation. That was a matter that would have to be considered at a later stage of
the Committee's work.
Mr. SANTISO (Guatemala) said he preferred the term `7patrimonial sea`' to the
term "territorial sea". The concept of the patrimonial sea had become the subject of
greater attention from his delegation from the time of the Venezuelan proposal that it
should become part of a package deal intended to reconcile the interests of all
concerned. The concept was of vital importance for peace and justice and for higher
living. standards throughout the world.
His delegation was in favour of the establishment of a territorial sea extending
12 miles from the low-water line; the coastal State would have full sovereignty over
the sea-bed, :subsoil and superjacent waters and resources thereof without prejudice to
the principle of innocent passage. It also supported unreservedly the establishment
of a zone adjacent to the territorial sea extending up to 200 miles from the baseline
established for the territorial sea. In that area the coastal State would have full
sovereignty over the renewable and non--renewable resources of-the sea'-bed, subsoil and
superjacent waters. The coastal State would be responsible for anti-pollution
measures and the regulation of scientific research, without prejudice to freedom of
navigation, overflight, and the laying of cables and pipelines. Asa signatory to the
1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, Guatemala considered that the continental
shelf should extend to the 200-metre limit or the limit of exploitability. Nevertheless,
its position was flexible and it was in a position to consider and support other
proposals.
He shared the views expressed by the representative of El Salvador regarding the
contents of document A/CONF.62/L.4.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040026-5
The meeting rose at 11-05 p.m.