PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SEVENTH MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: August 14, 1974
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
THIRD CONFERENCE
THE L HEM
For participants only
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
14 August 1974
SECOND COMMITTEE
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE THIRTY-SEVENTH MEETING
Held at the Parque Central, Caracas,
on Monday, 12 August 1974, at 3.20 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. AGUILAR
later: Mr. TUNCiL
Rapporteur: Mr. NANDAN
CONTENTS
Archipelagos (continued),
Venezuela
Turkey
Fiji
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
working days to the Chief, Documents Control, Room 9, Nivel Lecuna, Edificio Anauco.,
and also incorporated in one copy of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 14 AUGUST 1974, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS
WILL BE 21 AUGUST 1974.
The co-operation of participants in strictly observing this time-limit would be
greatly appreciated.
C-5413
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 2
ARCHIPELAGOS'(continued)
#4r. LIMBO SL;RRA (Portugal) hoped that the Conference would solve the problem
of archipelagos in a satisfactory manner and that the new convention would guarantee
the rights of countries to benefit from the economic resources of the sea which were
their natural heritage.
Since the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea, efforts had been made to
provide a suitable legal regime for archipelagos. In a preparatory document prepared
for that Conference, outlying archipelagos were defined as "groups of islands situated
out in the ocean at such a distance from the coasts of firm land as to be considered
as an independent whole rather than forming part of or the outer coastline of the
mainland". The document concluded that "the only natural and practical solution was
to treat such outlying archipelagos as a whole for the delimitation of territorial
waters by drawing straight baselines from the outermost points of the archipelago -
that is from the outermost points of the constituent islands, islets and rocks'".
/United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, volume I,
Preparatory Documents: preparatory document No. 15, PP. 290 and 302 (A/C014F.13/181/
That Conference had not resolved the problem of archipelagos but the Conventions
on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone contained provisions enabling States
to use the method of drawing straight baselines where there was a fringe of islands
along its coest.
The unique character of archipelagos justified the use of the method of drawing
one straight baseline connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands of an
archipelago on the lines of the provisions of article b of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. linters thus enclosed should be regarded as
internal waters, and the same baselines would be used for measuring the breadth of the
territorial sea and other zones of national jurisdiction.
Proposals concerning archipelagos submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee had been
limited to the specific case of archipelagic States. However, the arguments in
favour of the establishment of a special regime for archipelagic States were also valid
for archipelagos-forming part of the territory of a coastal State, particularly with
regard to the security and economic interests of such States. Application of a different
regime to the latter would mean that the archipelagic part of the territory of mixed
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
:n/CO7I~.u2/C.2/S .. 7
ynglish
Page 3
(Mr. Limbo Serra, Portugal)
States would be regarded as second class territory. His delegation regarded the
draft articles-.concerning archipelagic States and archipelagos forming part of the
territory of a coastal State in uocument A/COTuF.62/L.4 as more complete and balanced.
Indeed, the entire document was an excellent working paper.
The provisions concerning revaluation and more equitable distribution of the
resources of the sea under the revised law of the sea being prepared by the present
Conference should not impede navigation. The right of States to adopt a special regime
for the delimitation of archipelagic waters should be recognized but his delegation
would not favour any alteration to the existing regime of navigation.
U KYAW MIN (Burma) said that archipelagic States, though few in number, had
special needs and interests which in the past had been ignored by the major maritime
powers. Those requirements could not be adequately met by general rules applicable
to other States, whether insular or continental. As long as its islands and peoples
were separated by waters that were subject to the regime of the high seas, the
archipelagic State could not safeguard the integrity of its territory','the political,
social and cultural unity of its"people, the cohesion of its economy, and the needs of
its national security. Concerned as it was with the strengthening of its own
territorial integrity and national unity, Burma'fully supported the archipelagic State
concept under which the interjacent waters enclosed. within straight baselines connecting
the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs off an archipelago woul4
be designated as archipelagic waters and that, together with their sea-bed and
superjacent air space, they would be subject to the sovereignty of the archipelagic
State. That support was accorded on the explicit understanding that the concept of the
archipelagic State would be applicable only to mid-ocean archipelagos constituting a
State.. his delegation strongly opposed any extension of that concept to oceanic
archipelagos or other groups or chain of islands belonging to a 'continental Stli.te,
The considerations which justified a special regime for archipelagic States could not
be invoked with respect to islands which did. not constitute a State and which'possessed
none of the attributes of a State. In some cases, such islands had an inferior
constitutional status under the laws of the parent State. International law should not
therefore put them on the same level as archipelagic States. There was no reason why
islands of that category should be excluded fro,i the general regime of islands. In that
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
A/COi4F.62/C.2/SR.37
Lnglisn
Pa.;e 4
(i3 KYaw iiin, Burma)
connexion, his delegation welcomed the improved definition of an archipelagic State
liven in article 5 of document A/CONF.62/L,4,
The existing regime relating to deeply indented coastlines and waters enclosed
by a fringe of islands along the coast had long been established in law and usage.
That r6gime should not be affected by new provisions regarding archipelagic States,
which had a direct bearing on territorial sea baselines and the status of waters
landward of those baselines. The status of archipelagic waters was different from that
of internal waters. At the previous meeting, toe sponsors of the draft articles in
document A/CONF.62/C./L.49 had indicated that a stipulation on the maximum permissible
length of straight baselines would be included in the final provisions regarding
arcAipelagic States. In-such circumstances, his delegation considered it imperative
tilat a disclaimer clause on the lines of article 8 of document A/CONF.62/L.4 should be
incorporated into those draft articles.
Mr. JJABABOLYA (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the
question of
the legal regime of the waters of archipelagic States, States constituted wholly by
one or more archipelagos, was an entirely new problem in international law. There were
no special norms in contemporary international law to provide the basis for consideration
of that question. All the Cotmitittee had before it was proposals from archipelagic and
some other States. The question was, however, related to other important questions being
considered by the Conference, such as the breadth of the territorial sea and the regime
of international straits and economic zones.
The basic principles of contemporary international law provided for the equality
of States and mutual respect for the rights of all peoples in the uses of the sea. Yet
the concept of a special regime for archipelagic waters meant that there would be
different provisions for large areas of ocean between the islands of archipelagic
States, which wished to extend their sovereignty over areas of the hiii seas much
larger than their own land area. Indonesia and the Philippines, for example, claimed
sovereignty over an area of the seas almost twice as large as that of their land
territory. If the 200-mile economic zone, with the sovereign rights over the living
and mineral resources that it implied, was to be added to the archipelagic waters,
archipelagic States would have rights over vast areas of the high seas.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/COIF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 5
(1v1r. Barabolya, USSR)
his delegation maintained that the question of the regime of archipelagic waters
should be considered together with other related questions. International rules should
be drafted to take account of the interests of archipelagic States, which ehould,
however, state clearly and unequivocally that they, in turn; were prepared to take
account of the interests of other States. The regime of the waters of archipelagic
States should be established in.conjunction with a settlement providing for free transit
passage along the shortest routes through archipelagic straits and waters traditionally
used for international navigation.
In connexion with the question of straight baselines, the length of baselines
used to delimit the so-called archipelagic waters and the 't'erritorial waters should be
limited and clearly defined in the convention. A 43-mile limit had been proposed, but
any other reasonable limit could also be considered. It was quite clear that individual
islands belonging to archipelagic States should have their own territorial waters and
could not be linked to the archipelago by straight baselines. Archipelagic States
would, in any case, be in an advantageous position in comparison with other States in
respect of living and mineral resources of the sea as they would have rights in a
considerably larger part of the seas. .
The'proposals made by the archipelagic States would be acceptable to his delegation
only if they agreed to free transit for all ships through archipelagic straits and
waters used for international navigation, and if they recognized the right of unimpeded
overflight. Such provisions would not interfere with the right of archipelagic States
to use their own archipelagic waters or with their rights over the resources of those
waters, He agreed with the representative of Bulgaria that articles 4 and 5 of
document A/CONNF.62/C.2/L.49 were unacceptable as they provided only.for the principle
of innocent passage of ships through archipelagic waters and also because.. they provided
for the possibility of restriction of passage. Such proposals, which did not strive
towards compromise, were unrealistic. He would be in a position to support the proposals
of the archipelagic States if they accepted the 12-mile limit for territorial waters,
and free transit, without exception, for ships through archipelagic waters of
archipelagic States and through all other international straits.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 6
(Mr. Barabolya, USSR)
His statement referred only to those very few archipelagic States, which were
constituted by a group of islands and the ocean space between them and which had
geographical, and traditional political, economic and administrative unity. He stressed
that he was not dealing with the question of archipelagos off the coast of mainland
States which formed part of their territory. He would oppose any proposal for any
regime for such archipelagos or islands that was different from that applied to the
mainland State. Any attempts by individual mainland States to draft provisions for a
special regime for such archipelagos were completely unjustified. Such attempts could
lead to arbitrary action in many parts of the ocean, interference with navigation and
extension of rights over large areas of the high seas, which would hardly promote progress
and the strengthening of peace and understanding between peoples.
Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ (Ecuador) outlined the historical background to the
concept of archipelagic States. The Institute of International Law had considered the
matter in 1924 and 1928 and had formulated the unitary concept. Some proposals
concerning archipelagic States had also been submitted to The Hague Conference for the
Codification of International Law. The subject had not been considered at the
1958 Geneva Conference but there had been an awareness of the special needs of
archipelagic States. At that time most archipelagos in the Pacific and Indian oceans
had been colonial possessions which were being exploited by the European Powers. Those
Powers had no interest in establishing a special regime for archipelagic waters since
limiting the rights of colonized people made it easier to dominate them and, exploit
their natural resources.
As a result of the progress made in the decolonization process many States,
including Ecuador, were asserting their just claims for the first time with the full
support of developing countries. The Convention should contain a special chapter
defining the terms "archipelagic State" and "archipelago'; it should also establish the
right of archipelagic States to their own territorial sea and determine the method to
be used for drawing the baselines for the territorial sea and other zones of jurisdiction.
His delegation supported the view expressed by many delegations, and in particular by the
representative of India, that no distinction should be made between archipelagic States
and archipelagos forming part of the territory of continental States. It also endorsed
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.,62/c.2/SR.37
Page 7
(Mr. Valencia Rodriguez. Ecuador)
the definition of "archipelago` and the provisions concerning archipelagos forming part
of a coastal State contained in document A/CONF.62/L.4.
As defined in its Constitution, the Republic of Ecuador consisted of the continental
territory and the Columbus or Galapagos archipelago. Since its independence, Ecuador
had exercised sovereignty over that group of islands: they were part of a single
geographical, economic and political entity and had always been regarded as such.
Therefore, the Columbus or Galapagos archipelago satisfied all the conditions implicit
in the most rigorous definition of an archipelago forming part of a coastal State. In
that connexion, he shared the views expressed by the representative of France at the
previous meeting concerning the indivisibility of sovereignty.
The Galapagos Islands had been designated a national park in the interest of
preserving species and in order to facilitate scientific research for the benefit of
mankind. The Government of Ecuador had. enacted legislation establishing a territorial
sea of 200 miles, measured from the outermost point of the outermost island and the
lowest water mark, around the Columbus archipelago. The waters enclosed by those
baselines were internal waters and subject to the relevant legal regime. As in the case
of the continental territorial sea, the interests of the international community were
duly protected with regard to freedom of navigation and overflight, the laying of cables
and submarine pipelines, subject only to the limitations imposed by Ecuador's exercise
of its sovereign rights in its territorial sea. The arguments in favour of the extension
of the sovereignty of the coastal State over its adjacent sea were equally valid.in the
case of archipelagos, particularly with regard to security requirements.
Ecuador was not prepared to cede, in any circumstances, any part of its sea
territory which consisted of a territorial sea of 200 miles extending from.its
continental coast and around the Columbus archipelago. His delegation had submitted
proposals relating to the item under consideration. (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.10) and drew
particular attention to the provisions of article 1.
Problems relating to archipelagic States and archipelagos forming part of the
territory of a coastal State were closely related and should be solved jointly. In that
connexion, his delegation had submitted a proposal (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.51) to the effect
that the method applied to the archipelagic State for the drawing of baselines should
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5 / ? ? .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
A./CONE/62/C.2/SR-37
English
Page 8
(Mr. Valencia Rodri~;.ez, Ecuador)
also apply to archipeLaos that formed Part c.f a State, without entailing any change in
the natural reAirie cf' the waters of such archipelagos or of their territorial sea.
Mr. ARP- J3URU (Peru) shared the view expressed by the representative of the
Soviet Union that tf,e --mergence of new archipelagic States was one of the most novel
aspects of the radian changes in the law of the sea. The concept of archipelagic States,
together with those of the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone of 200 miles
and the regime of the sea-bed, constituted a departure from the r6gime of the high seas
and the establishment of the jurisdiction of States or of an international authority
over those zones to ensure that the international community was governed on a more
equitable basis. The change had come about as a result of the emergence of many new
sovereign States, which, as the representative of Ecuador had stated, had not been
conscicus of the need to regulate navigation between the islands forming their
archipelagos while they -ere colonized ',.y powerful States. Significant changes had
taken place in international relations and particularly in the law of the sea, since the
tiie of the Roosevelt Declexs:tion establishing a territorial sea of 200 miles for the
pirotec tior_ of United Stat ~e interes tF? .
Technological progress had also played a part in the development of the concept of
archipelagic seas because of the need for more stringent protection against the risks
deriving from advanced technology, particularly with regard to nuclear powered ships and
submarines. The measures adopted by some countries with regard to the entry of such
vessels into seas under their sovereignty were fully justified. His delegation supported
the concept of a'chipelagic waters and the establishment of a single territorial sea and
exclusive economic Hone for the entire archipelago and the view that enclosed waters
between islands forming an archipelago should be regarded as internal waters when States
considered such protection necessary. The concept of the archipelagic State served to
consolidate the territorial unity of States such as Indonesia or Philippines; it ended
in law the physical separation created by nature, and facilitated government
administration. The concert was also valid in the case of States such as' Ecuador in
,n''nich the Galapagos archipelago was an. integral part of the national territory.
Interest in the resources and strategic situation of that archipelago further justified
the measures which had been proposed.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5 /
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
Page 9
(Mr. Aramburu., Peru)
Together with Chile and Ecuador, Peru had been an initiator of the doctrine of
archipelagos which had led to the 1952 Santiago Declaration. That Declaration had
subsequently become an international treaty, article 1+ of which provided that "the zone
of 200 nautical miles shall extend in every direction from any island or group of
islands". Ecuador had solved the problem of the Galapagos Archipelago on the basis of
that provision. Such practice was logical and just and his delegation fully supported
The concept of archipelagos was only opposed by those who needed unrestricted
freedom for their navies. Establishment of a single archipelagic territorial sea by
the use of straight baselines would create no obstacle to navigation or trade since
innocent passage would be recognized even in internal waters which had previously. been
territorial sea. Freedom of communications would therefore be guaranteed and those who
opposed recognition of the concept of archipelagos would find that there was majority
support for the position adopted by archipelagic States or States with off-lying
archipelagos. His delegation supported the inclusion in the Convention of a chapter
concerning archipelagic seas on the lines of the proposals in document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.149. He endorsed the views expressed by the representatives of India,
France, Honduras and Ecuador that the proposed regime should apply not only to
archipelagic States but also to archipelagos forming part of the territory of a State.
Notwithstanding the provisions of article 5, unimpeded innocent passage should be
guaranteed through the archipelagic sea without prejudice to the existence of
preferential regimes such as those envisaged for neighbouring States under article 2.
Mr. ABDEL HAMID (Egypt), speaking on the question of archipelagic States, said
that their special situation and needs made their survival dependent on the integral
unity of their islands, waters and peoples. The League of Arab States, at its recent
meeting in Tunisia, had recommended that the legitimate interests of archipelagic States
should be accommodated in order to conserve their unity and ensure their geographical
and political survival. The representative of Indonesia had spoken of the concept of
the archipelagic State and the need to protect the security interests of such States;
the Egyptian delegation felt that that was a legitimate concern. Article 1+ of the draft
before the Committee (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.1+9) provided for the right of innocent passage for
ships of all States through archipelagic waters, which, he felt, reflected the'legitimate
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
A/ eo14F. 021 C. 2/SR. ;5'(
English
Page 10
(intr. Abdel Hamid, Egypt)
desire of archipelagic States to reduce expenditure on national defence so that they could
use the funds thus saved for national development. He also noted with approval that
article 2 of the draft did not include-any firm provisions with regard to the system of
baselines; further negotiations on that question would be required.
idr. KOH (Singapore) said that his position on the question of archipelagic
States was based primarily on consideration of the objective merits of the case but was
also influenced by his country's friendship with Indonesia and the Philippines; which,
together with his country, Malaysia and Thailand, formed the Association of South-East
Asian States, a regional organization that was growing in strength, coherence and
achievement. He appreciated the crucial importance of the archipelagic concept to the
territorial integrity, national unity and security of Indonesia and the Philippines. He
accepted, in principle, the validity of the concept of a mid-ocean archipelagic State.
Hiz delegation was prepared to recognize Indonesia and the Philippines as archipelagic
States, provided that the legitimate interests and rights of the international
community, on one hand, and of those countries' regional neighbours, on the other hand,
were taken into consideration.
Turning to the question of the definition of an archipelagic State, he suggested
that the definition given in-article 1 of document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49 could be made more
precise. The sponsors of that draft might perhaps incorporate in subsequent drafts the
kind of criteria suggested in document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.44, which postulated a maximum
permissible distance between islands and a maximum permissible land to water ratio as
criteria for the definition of an archipelagic State.
Commenting on article 2, paragraph 5, of the draft articles in document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.149, he recalled the statement made by the representative of Malaysia and
expressed the hope that the sponsors of the draft and the delegation of Malaysia would
hold consultations with a view to finding a formula acceptable to both sides.
The main source of protein for the people of Singapore was fish, and approximately
half the total catch was taken in areas of the high seas which would be -enclosed by the
Indonesian archipelago and thus transformed into archipelagic waters. He had taken note
of the statement made by the representative of Indonesia that some neighbouring countries
might have a problem in connexion with traditional fishing in Indonesian waters, and he
hoped that the sponsors would incorporate :n the draft articles a suitable formulation of
the rights of neighbouring States to fish in archipelagic waters.
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 11
Mr.,RABAZA (Cuba) noted that the archipelagic concept; and thequestion.of a
special regime for archipelagic waters were of fund mental.:i"mportance.to.a considerable
number of States. whose problems:had not been considered at the 1930 Hague Conference,
for the Codification of International Law or at the 1958 or 1960 Geneva Conferences on
the Law of the;,Sea. Several different approaches had been taken.at,the Hague
Conference: with, respect. to archipelagos: some representatives had proposed that each
island should.be considered to be an individual unit with its own territorial sea:
others had suggested that there should be a belt of territorial waters round
archipelagos when the islands composing the archipelago were not more than a certain
distance apart; and a handful of. others had maintained that archipelagos could
constitute. & whole on the basis.o.f their geographical characteristics. No definition
had been given of the nature of_the waters within the group of islands. Subsequently,
the International Law Commission had indicated that it too was unable to overcome the
problems involved in a definition of archipelagos. The 1958 Geneva Conference had not
reached any conclusion on the question;: although article 4, paragraph 1, of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone provided for the use of the
method of straight baselines to measure the breadth of the territorial sea where there
was a fringe of islands along the coast. The 1960 Geneva Conference had not provided
any definition of an archipelago either.
The Cuban archipelago was composed of two main islands and dyer 1500 medium-sized
and small islands.
The Conference owed it to the archipelagic States to settle the question of a
definition. Archipelagic States were States composed of one or more archipelagos made
up of islands` or groups of islands that were so closely linked that they formed a
geographical, economic and political whole. He supported the use of strait baselines
between' suitable points as the most appropriate method of delimiting the waters of
archipelagic States. In us'ing' baselines linking the outermost points of the outermost
islands', the~State concerned should6hsure that those baselines followed the general
directon of the coastline of the main islsnd or islands and were not drawn from or to
isolated.'reefs or islands. Archip'elagi:c waters should not include territory belonging
to ' othe'r' States or enclose as internal waters areas of the sea that were or could be used
for international navigation, as they constituted straits that linked one part of the
high-seas-to another part of the high seas and were the natural and shortest routes for
international communication, in which freedom of navigation had always been respected.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 12
(Mr. Rabaza, Cuba)
Those provisions might well be included in some of the drafts recently submitted to the
Committee. Remote and isolated islands in mid-ocean could not be grouped together and
regarded as archipelagos, as the criterion for defining an archipelago was geographical,
economic and political unity between its constituent parts.
Ns. TARCICI (Yemen) said that he fully appreciated the legitimate concerns of
those delegations which had submitted the draft articles in document A/C0NF.62/C.2/L.49.
His Government, strongly believing; in full State sovereignty over territorial waters,
felt that the draft articles were inspired by a legitimate concern for sovereignty
over territorial waters and waterways linking islands. The case of archipelagic States
was clearly a special case and should therefore be given a separate chapter in the
future convention on the law of the sea. The delimitation of the territorial waters,
internal waters and economic zone of archipelagic States was a matter of great
complexity, and the sponsors of the draft had suggested practical and realistic
solutions. Representatives of archipelagic States had said that they had always borne
in mind the interests of other States in drawing up the general principles on which the
draft had been formulated, and they had offered to negotiate with interested States in
order to improve the draft, particularly with regard to the question of innocent passage.
The seas should be used to bring countries together by facilitating communications, but
that principle should not in any way serve as 'a pretext for depriving States of their
sovereignty over their national waters. In conclusion, he expressed his delegation's
support for the draft before the Committee (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49).
Pfr. GAYAi1 (Mauritius), observing that the Conference should not only draw up
a convention but should also ensure the progressive development of the international
law of the sea, said that there should be an entirely separate regime for archipelagic
States. The archipelagic concept should not give rise to inordinate fears, and the fact
that it had been recognized and then shelved at the 1958 Geneva Conference did not mean
that it should not now be accepted as part of international law. There were basically
two fundamental problems concerning the archipe--agic concept, the need to define an
archipelagic State and delimit its archipelagic waters, and the regime of passage
through such waters. The draft (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49), of which his delegation was a
sponsor, contained proposals relating to both questions.
The definition of an archipelagic State in article 1 of the draft, according to
which it was a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and might include
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 13
(Mr. Gayan, Mauritius)
other islands, was.a restrictive definition which would ensure that noSt:ate which..did
not satisfy the objective and restrictive criteria for that definition would qualify..
as an archipelagic State. The archipelagic. concept should apply only to,,,Stat,es that
were genuinely archipelagic, constituted entirely by islands forming one or,,more
archipelagos or by one or more archipelagos and other islands. Any State which had
historically been regarded as an archipelagic State would not be. deprived of that
stetts. Non-archipelagic States would not, however, be. allowed to avail themselves of
the regime the Conference was to establish.
At its Addis Ababa and Mogadishu meetings in 1973 and 1974 the Organization of
African Unity had recognized the special position of archipelagic States. General rules
of the international law of the sea did not adequately cover their position. The draft
before the Committee stated clearly why special treatment was necessary in the case of
such States: the islands, the interconnecting waters and other natural features of the
archipelagic State were intrinsically linked so that they formed a single physical and
economic entity. That description had of course to be supplemented by a political
factor, for one of the primary conditions was that an archipelagic State should be an
independent State, a political and sovereign entity. The waters could not be
disassociated from the land territory of an archipelagic State, and any rule or
principle which tended to interfere with the geographical unity of an archipelagic State
would be unacceptable to his delegation.
Turning to the question of the juridical status of archipelagic waters, he said
they were constituted by the waters enclosed by straight baselines drawn to connectthe
outermost points of the outermost islands forming the archipelagic State, those were the
baselines.from which the breadth of the territorial sea and other special zones was
measured. He hoped that the term "archipelagic waters" would soon form part of the
language of international law. He saw no difficulty in maintaining the right of
innocent passage through such waters, although the archipelagic State might designate
s:ea lanes for some categories of vessels, particularly nuclear vessels or vessels
carry.rig-dangerous.cargoes. While it would not be proper to impose restrictions that
would effectively nullify the right of innocent passage, the archipelagic State would
nevertheless retain,the residual right to suspend all passage through the archipelagic
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 14
(Mr. Gayan, Mauritius)
waters should the protection of its security interests necessitate such action. He
favoured a uniform regime of passage through archipelagic waters and would support any
system that ruled out a multiplicity of regimes regarding passage. Whatever the regime
of passage it should in no way undermine the sovereignty of the archipelagic State over
the water column, the sea-bed and the subsoil of the archipelagic waters.
He assured the Committee that it was not the intention of the sponsors of the
draft (A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49) to subject to their sovereignty large expanses of the oceans.
The sponsors were not claiming the status of archipelagic States because they had
expansionist ambitions but only because they wished for a regime which would satisfy
the needs of their special geographical situation.
Mr. ABAROA (Spain) said that, since the nineteenth century, his country had
upheld the position that the islands and interconnecting waters of an archipelago
constituted a natural entity. His delegation therefore fully supported article 5,
para. 2, of document A/CONF.62/L.4, and article 1, para. 3, of document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49.
It was time to recognize the new concept of archipelagic waters, of which no
mention was made in the 1958 Geneva Conventions, but which were clearly defined in
article 7 of document A/CONF.62/L.4 and in article 3 and the following articles of
document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49; that meant relinquishing the principle that the
archipelagic State could not extend its sovereignty beyond the fringe corresponding to
each of the islands of the archipelago considered separately.
In fact, the new concept of the economic zone suggested that the islands and
waters of an archipelago should be considered as a whole, subject to the same legal
regime, with the clear delimitation of its external boundaries, surrounded by the
corresponding belt of sea in which it would exercise, like all other States,
sovereignty and competences as might be laid down in the final convention.
Document A/CONF.62/L.4 had additional merits: articles 9 and 11 would ensure
the application of the same principles to archipelagos forming part of a coastal State.
There was not the slightest doubt as to the legal and political correctness of such
provisions; without them, the future law of the sea would seriously penalize such
States.
/
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697ROO03b6%Wg6gC. 2/SR. 37
n ;li sh
ova n ,ca _L5
(Mr. Abaroa, Spain)
The delimitation of archipelagos naturally engendered certain problems. In every
case, hvreve:r, they should be solved on the basis o if denticE~_ treatmeut of all the
integral parts. of the territory of the State. His delegation took the view that the
provisions to be adopted for deli.mitation in the case of adjacent or opposite States
would permit the satisfactory solution of any problems that might arise, provided such
provisions clearly established a general rule while allowing for the possibility of
adapting it to: partticula cases.
Mr. KHARAS (Pakistan) expressed his country's deep anguish over the news. of;
continuing floods in Bangladesh.
He said that the peculiar geographical characteristics of an archipelagic State
entailed special needs requiring rules to ensure. its national existence. It.
constituted a single political, economic, social and legal unit. His delegation
therefore fully sympathized with the concerns of such States and supported in principle
the concept of'archipelagic States.
Agreement would still be required, however,: on delimitation and the regime of
passage through archipelagic waters. There were two basic approaches to delimitation.
One of them as typified by the United Kingdom proposal in document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.44,
was that the criteria could be a maximum length of straight baselines joining the
outermost islands and a specified ratio- of land to water. Archipelagic States had
reservations regarding that mathematical approach, believing that the application of'
any arbitrary criterion ran counter to the very basis of.the archipelagic concept.
While it was desirable to obviate ambiguity in the delimitation of baselines, the
organic unity of archipelagic States should be paramount; any criteria adopted should
retain flexi'oility to meet peculiar geographical characteristics. He accordingly
welcomed article 2 of dociunent A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49 which, to some extent, limited, the
arbitrary application of the straight baseline systera; and he hoped such efforts would
be continued. He also noted with satisfaction the additional provision in paragraph.5
of that article which sought to ensure to an immediately adjacent neighbouring State
the continued right of communication.
The interest of the international community would be affected not so much by what
was enclosed within the baselines of an archipelagic State as by the regime governing
passage through its waters. Views differed, however, as to the limitation of.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
 A/CONF. 62/C. 2/S(4pp 'oved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
rnp14S",
(Mr, Kharas, Pakistan)
sovereignty that would be necessary. The United Kingdom proposal to which he had
referred envisaged that the rules on passage throtigh straits used for international
navigation would be applicable to (a) those parts of archipelagic waters which had
been used as routes for international navigation between two parts of the high seas or
between one part of the high seas and the territorial sea of another State, and (b) to
those parts of the adjacent territorial sea which had been so used; and that rules on
passage through the territorial sea would be applicable to all parts of archipelagic
waters and the territorial sea to which the regime of straits did not apply.
The archipelagic States, on the other hand, maintained that foreign vessels would
be entitled under existing international law to only innocent passage through their
waters; they also claimed the right to designate sea lanes, regulate passage through
them and prescrite traffic separation schemes. His delegation supported the view that
innocent passage should be permitted through archipelagic waters, including those parts
used for international navigation, on the basis of criteria that would facilitate the
passage of all ships of all nations and at the same time safeguard the legitimate
interests and rights of the archipelagic States. In that regard he welcomed the
willingness of some archipelagic States to allow merchant vessels the use of normal
sea routes.
The relationship of the archipelagic concept with that of the economic zone must
await the final evolution of the two concepts. It would be unfair, however, if
archipelagic States were to obtain an economic zone of greater area than would be the
case had the archipelagic concept not been recognized.
The question remained whether the justifications and imperatives underlying the
concept of an archipelagic State also held good in the case of archipelagos belonging to
continental States and, if so, what the implications were for the world community. He
particularly had in mind the situation in -enclosed or semi-enclosed seas where the
extension of that concept to archipelagos belonging to continental States would create
great hardship to the other States of the area.
Mr. VOHRAH (Malaysia) said that the views and reservations expressed by his
delegation in an earlier meeting of the Committee still stood. However, he wished to
stress the importance of the archipelagic concept to his country, especially in relation
to the rights of access and communication in the context of its national unity between
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CCNF. 6,2/c. 2/SR. 3'1
English
Page 17
(Mr. Vohrah, Malaysia)
the two parts of its territory, and to the adverse effect on States in the. region of a
further claim to a 200-mile economic. zone beyond the archipelagic boundaries.
He agreed with the representative of Thailand that archipelagos should.be accorded
special treatment; equity'also demanded, however, that due account should be taken of
the rights and interests of neighbouring States affected by any archipelagic claim.
Mr. BARRA (Chile), emphasizing the importance of the question of archipelagos,
said. that the International Court of Justice, in the Fisheries Case between the United
Kingdom and Norway, had recognized the coastal State's right to connect by means of
straight baselines those points on the coast where there were deep indentations and cuts
or where there was a fringe of islands adjacent to the coast, the waters 'enclosed by
such baselines constituting internal=waters. The use of the straight baseline method
for determining the territorial sea of such States was also sanctioned in article 4 of
the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and'the-Contiguous Zone.
On-the other hand, there was a gap with regard to the law on archipelagic States.
That was.why his' delegation had' . in sponsoring document A/CONF.62/L.4. He noted
that document A/CONF.62/C.2/L:49;- in its basic articles, agreed to a large extent with
the former document, especially in connexion with archipelagic?States. It defined the
waters enclosed by straight baselines as "archipelagic waters", in order to differentiate
them from the internal waters produced by such baselines in the case of countries whose
coastline was deeply indented or cut into or which possessed a fringe of islands along
the coast.;'that difference was emphasized even more by the provision contained within
square brackets:at the ead of that document.
With certain relatively simple amendments, those two documents would bring much-
nearer.a solution to the problem of archipelagos.
Mr. BEESLEY (Canada), drawing attention to his delegation's statement in the
plenary and. its co-sponsorship of document A/CONF.62/L.L, said he wished to clarify his
delegation's position on certain questions that it had not yet mentioned.
The basic question was the need to define the very difficult concept of an
archipelagic State. However, the existence in both law and geography of such a
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
n/CONF.62/C.2/" H.
English
Page 18
(Mr. Beesley, Canada)
phenomenon as an archipelago could not be ignored. That fact was reflected in his
delegation's proposal in the plenary.
Many further questions arose, such as the minimum number of islands to be
regarded as constituting an archipelago, the ratio of land to water and the nature of
the link between land and water. Obviously, a clear-cut definition was needed, but
without violation of that area of existing law relating to fringes of islands which
dated back to Norwegian state practice, as upheld in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,
and in accordance with the concept embodied in article 4 of the 1958 Geneva Convention
on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Unless the concept was very carefully
defined, there was a danger of calling into question the existing concepts of law that
were not only soundly based and widely accepted but also very necessary in any future
law.
In the adoption of criteria such as the length of the baseline, care must be taken
to avoid excluding certain groups of islands. Indeed, some of the very factors that
had been treated as absolutely essential, such as the length of the baseline, might seem
much less important if and when some accommodation was reached on the overriding issue,
namely passage through straits used for international navigation.
For straits to be considered international, there must have been traditional usage.
Once that delicate problem had been resolved, such factors as the length of the baseline,
or the manner of delineating a sea lane, would be relevant to the concept of an
archipelago, which was an emerging concept and not just a claim advanced by certain
States. At the same time, account must be taken of the problems of islands that might
not fall neatly into any definition of an archipelago. A comprehensive and equitable
approach was therefore required. There was a need to assess the status of archipelagic
waters vis-a-vis the status of the economic zone. It was clear from some proposals that
the basic approach was founded upon the principle of sovereignty, while the concept of
the economic zone was an assertion of a number of types of jurisdiction which together
fell short of sovereignty.
His country was particularly interested in the question and would co-operate with
all delegations interested in resolving it in a manner which ensured precision and
which avoided creating a "monster" that could not be regulated.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 19
Mr. FENCHEIK-I (Algeria) said that his delegation, having studied the various
drafts before the Committee and in accordance with the general principles of his country's
foreign policy, believed that the arguments advanced by the archipelagic States should be
heeded.
Up to the present, international law had not admitted the concept of the
archipelagic State, but such an omission was not a valid reason for refusing to examine
the problem now.' Neither could the Geneva Conventions of 1958 be adduced to justify
opposing that concept, since they had not been ratified by many States and were largely
outdated, as the statements of a large number of delegations had shown.
An archipelagic State was one which was exclusively made up of islands. The attempts
of continental States to make use of that concept for their own benefit on the pretext
that they possessed a few islands should be squarely rejected.
The conditions of life of archipelagic States were often difficult and justified
recognizing their particular rights in the future Convention on the law of the sea so as
to enable them to protect their sovereignty and promote their development. His delegation
viewed with sympathy the draft articles relating to archipelagic States
(A/CONF.62/C.2/L.I9). However, certain continental coastal States wanted to take
advantage of the vulnerable geographical situation of archipelagic States to grab for
themselves more and more ocean space. They did not even want to take into account the
special situation of States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas or the fact that
their.claims were in disregard of the rights of other States or, what was more, the fact
that the Conference was supposed to ensure respect for the common heritage of mankind so
as to assist various countries in their fight against underdevelopment. His delegation
could not but oppose with the utmost vigour the claims of continental States which sought
to usurp the rights which pertained specifically to archipelagic States. To give in to
such claims would amount to granting a double privilege to those States, which was
contrary to the spirit of the Conference. His delegation realized that the new law of
the sea could not be perfect, but at least it should not accentuate the conditions of
inequality and domination which had prevailed up to the present.
It was not the intention of his delegation to call into question the sovereignty of
continental States over any islands they might possess off their coasts. But the
recognition of that sovereignty should not result in the granting of exorbitant rights to
continental States. Those with islands off their coasts had a right to the various
maritime spaces and the sovereignty they exercised over islands off their coasts applied
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 20
(Mr. Bencheikh, Algeria)
to the territory of those islands. His delegation was sympathetic to the position of
the archipelagic States, but it recommended vigilance with regard to any attempt on the
part of continental States which possessed islands to extend their rights. The section
of document A/C0NF.62/L.4 concerning archipelagic States illustrated the ambitions of
the continental States and his delegation rejected that document. His delegation hoped
that in the document summarizing the main trendson the various issues under discussion,
the legitimate interests of the archipelagic States would be recognized and the
expansionist aims of the continental States rejected.
Mr. Aguilar (Venezuela) resumed the Chair.
Mr. YOLGA (Turkey) said that his delegation hoped that the archipelagic States
would be accorded the rights they deserved because of their particular situation.
Archipelagic States had to face more difficult problems than the continental States with
regard to communications, national cohesiveness, security, and the financial burden of
administration. In so far as possible, however, the new law of the sea must establish
precise criteria with regard to the concept of the archipelagic State and take into
account the interests of the international community and neighbouring States.
His delegation welcomed the laudable spirit of conciliation manifested in
document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49.
Continental States which possessed islands should not be mistaken for archipelagic
States. To generalize any rule of law was contrary to the interests of the international
community and often resulted in injustice. His delegation had distributed a map which
illustrated the consequences of applying the regime of archipelagic State in the Aegean
Sea. A cursory examination showed that practically the whole sea would become the
internal waters of one of two countries, while the other would be excluded from waters
which had traditionally been open to it and its economic rights with regard to fishing
and the continental shelf would be nullified. Most importantly one of the two States
would be deprived of the right to take measures for its own defence in a sea which was
of great importance to it. The application of the relevant provisions of documents
A/CONF.62/L.4 and A/CONF.62/C.2/L.22 would upset a historically established balance for
the benefit of only one of the States in the area. His delegation therefore categorically
rejected the application of the archipelagic State concept in the case of semi-enclosed
seas.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 21
Mr. iEDADI (Tunisia) said. that like the new concept of the exclusive economic
zone, the concept of the archipelagic State also seemed to have won widespread acceptance,
although such approval was still subject to a number of considerations concerning the
definition of the archipelagic State.
The concept of the archipelagic State was designed primarily to strengthen the
geographic, economic anal political unity of a country. In conformity with the
OAU Declaration on the issues of the sea, his delegation supported that entirely
legitimate aim. However in promoting the concept of the archipelagic State, the countries
concerned must guard. against creating any new implications which. might affect the
fundamental concepts of international law, which had established a reasonable balance
between the mutual rights and obligations of States.
His delegation had great difficulty in accepting the definition of the archipelagic
State in article 1 of document A/CO?.NF.62/C.2/L.49. Paragraph 1 of that article, which
restricted the application of the provisions of the document to archipelagic States alone,
did not satisfy his delegation. Paragraphs 2 and 3 introduced the new concept of an
archi_pelago,Iwhich no dictionary had as yet satisfactorily defined. In order to preclude
abuses of that concept, his delegation urgently appealed to the sponsors of document
A/CONF.62/C.2/L.4 to abandon the concept set out in that document, which was still very
much in dispute, and settle upon the most simple definition of an archipelagic State as
one made up of several islands whose baselines constituted the applicable baselines for
the archipelagic State. His delegation -preferred the use of the term "archipelagic State"
as opposed to the term "archipelago`. While his delegation was quite favourable to the
concept of archipelagic States.) it could not accept the controversial concept of
archipelagos which belonged to States.
In the event that the sponsors of A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49 accepted the suggestions of his
delegation, it could readily accept the concept of the archipelagic State.
Mr. OGUNDERL (Nigeria) said that his delegation was favourable to the
archipelagic concept, but that it needed to be further elaborated and redefined, for
example with regard to innocent passage through archipelagic waters. The concept of the
archipelagic State could however be considered a fait accompli since there was general
agreement that the time had come for the international community to embody it in the
future Convention.
/...
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5
A/COrIF.62/C.2/SR.37
English
Page 22
Yr. S 9YADHAY (Laos) said that his delegation hoped the new law of the sea
would safeguard the principles of Justice and equity and would be in harmony with
the legitimate aspirations of all. Si.ates.
The method of drawing baselines from the outermost points of an archipelago was
the most rational method for delimii:irg the archipelagic waters of archipelagic States.
While providing for the unity, political independence, and security of such States,
the draft articles in document A/CONF.62/C.2/L.~9 went a long wwy towards
accommodating the traditional freedoms of the high seas and the obligations which
followed from those freedoms.
His delegation was pleased that the Philippines and Indonesia, its two neighbours
in South East Asia, shared the same conception of the rights and obligations of
archipelagic States. However the affirmation of the archipelagic concept ran counter
to some of the traditional interests of neighbouring States of those two archipelagic
States. In the view of his delegation, the concern: and acquired rights of the three
other members of the Association of South East Asia Nations had to be taken into
account in the context of their common efforts to build a Zone of Freedom, Peace and
Neutrality. His country was very sensitive to the problems of its neighbours in
South East Asia and intended to join the Association of South East Asia Nations as
soon as circumstances permitted.
The recognition of the status of archipelagc State would be a progressive step
enabling such States to realize fully their aspirations for unity, sovereignty and
territorial integrity.
Mr. REBAGLIATI (-Ar?ant= said that his delegation syfnnathized with the
legitimate desire of the archipelagic States to have their interests protected in the
new Convention on the law of the sea.
The provisions of the new law of the sea concerning archipelagos had to safeguard
the rights of the international community with regard to communications. In that
connexion, the draft articles in document A/CONF.62/L.l provided a good basis. That
text, as well as the statements of a number of delegations, clearly distinguished
among archipelagic States, States which possessed archipelagos far from their coasts,
and States which possessed a fringe of islands in close proximity to their coasts.
However, his delegation believed that distinctions as to the :5j-ii_es c.pplicable to
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82S00697R000300040035-5 / .
 Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5
A/CONF. 62/C.2/sR. 37
.English
Page 23
(Mr. Rebagliati, Argentina)
those three categories of archipelagos should be avoided as far as possible and agreed
with the delegations of Ecuador, Spft?n, and India to the effect that the provisions
relating to archipelagic States should apply mutatis mutandis to distant archipelagos
which belonged to a continental State. Nevertheless, it should be made clear that the
coastal State could not draw baselines connecting the coasts of its continental
territory with those of its distant archipelago.
When distinguishing the so-called coastal archipelagos situated in close proximity
to the coast, it was necessary to take into account the following considerations:
(a) that distinction was relevant to the drawing of the straight baselines used to
measure the territorial sea of a State; and (b) the drawing of such baselines was
governed by certain requirements, most of which were contained in the 1958 Geneva
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, especially article 4+,
paragraph 5, which had been reproduced in article'L of A/COPTF.62/L.4. It should also
be remembered that under article 5,'paragraph 2, of that, Convention, when the drawing
of straight baselines enclosed as internal waters areas which previously had been
considered as part of the high seas or the territorial sea, P. right of innocent
passage should apply.
The item on archipelagos was related to the item on straits. However, only those
archipelagic waters which connected two parts of the high seas or one part of the
high seas with the territorial sea of a foreign State could be considered as straits.
In cases where archipelagic waters fulfilled those conditions, the regime governing
international navigation throuefa straits should apply.
His delegation supported the legitimate interests of all three categories of,
archipelagos and was convinced that those interests could be protected in the future
Convention in a manner consonant with guarantees for international navigation. Such
guarantees for international navigation should be made to all States in general and
to the neighbouring States of an archipelago in particular. Obligations should also
be imposed on those navigating through archipelagic waters in order not to prejudice
the unity which the archipelagic concept was designed to ensure.
The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m.
Approved For Release 2002/04/01 : CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300040035-5