THIRD SESSION, PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIFTY-FIFTH PLENARY MEETING HELD AT THE PALAIS DES NATIONS, GENEVA, ON FRIDAY, 18 APRIL 1975, AT 3.35 P. M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 22, 2002
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: April 22, 1975
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
PROVISIONAL: FOR PARTICIPANTS ONLY
UNITED NATIONS
THIRD COi.RENCE
ON THE LAW OF '. SEA
CONTENTS:.
Distr.
RESTRICTED
22 April 1975
Original: ENGLISH
PROVISIONAL SUI ARY RECORD OF I1IS FIFTY-FIFTH PLENARY ISETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 18 April 1975, at 3.35 p.m.
Rapporteur--General: Mr. RATTRAY
President: Mr. AMERASINGIIE Sri.. Lanka
Organization of work
Evaluation by the President of progress of the work of the Conference
(continued)
N.B. Participa.nt.s.wishing to have corrections to this provisional summary record
incorporated in the final summary record of the meeting are requested to submit
them in writing in quadruplicate, preferably on' a copy of the record itself, to
the Official Records Editing Section, room E.4108, Palais des Nations, Geneva,
within five working; days of receiving the provisional record in. their working
language.
A/CONF.62/SR.55
GE,75-64766
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
ORGANIZATION OF WORK (A/CONF.62/L.3/Add.3)
The PRESIDENT announced that, in addition to the non-governmental
organizations earlie.:invited to send observ::rs to the Conference in pursuance of
General Assembly resolutions 3029 A (xxvli) and 3067(M. III), the International Council
of Voluntary Agencies, the International Commission of Jurists and the International
Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples had asked to be included on the
list approved by the Conference. If he heard no objection he would take it that the
Conference approved their requests.
It was so decided.
EVALUATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF PROGRESS OF TIM WORK OF Th'E CONFERENCE (continued)
The PRESIDENT appealed to speakers to be brief in their comments.
Mr. ANDERSEN (Iceland) said that the slow progress made by the Conference so
far was a matter of grave concern to many delegations. At the beginning of the session
it had been hoped that a consensus would have been achieved by the present stage or
that voting would have started. The proposal made by the President, at the previous
meeting, that single negotiating texts should be drafted, was the only realistic
solution; his delegation supported it and was confident that the outlines of an agreed
text would emerge.
The work of the negotiating groups relating to the unified texts should be given
high priority, and reasonable time-limits should be allowed for suggestions. rriority
should also be given to the clarification of texts concerning the crucial issues of the
territorial sea, straits, the limits of the continental shelf, the economic zone and the
exploitation of the' international sea-bed area. The sense of urgency generated at the
present meeting must not be allowed to falter or fail.
Mr. PANGAL (Afghanistan) said it was normal to make an evaluation of progress
when the half-way stage of the session had been passed. The President's statement at
the previous meeting had revealed the disturbing fact that no substantial progress in
negotiations had been achieved. That failure should be taken into account and a
decision taken to use the remaining time for substantive negotiations.
Much time had already been spent on procedural matters and the complexity of the
subject before the Conference had been used as a pretext and justification for failure
to produce results. It was essential at the present stage to make a further determined
A/C 911F. 62/sR. 55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
-3-
effort to produce a comprehensive convention, for which there was an urgent need. In
order to be successful, however, such a. convention must protect the rights and interests
of all States.
The single negotiating texts should therefore reflect the positions of all interest
groups, including the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States, and should
be the outcome of negotiations among the groups. They should. not be the result of
negotiations conducted outside the framework of the Conference or of personal
initiatives from outside. Above all, the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged
States. must be given a firm assurance that they would not have imposed upon them a text
which ignored their rights and. interests, for that would be a serious violation of the
historic mandate of the Conference to prod-ace a new, just and comprehensive order for
the seas. With that proviso, his delegation would. co-operate with the President and
the chairmen of the committees in producing the single negotiating texts.
Mr. SHEBAB (Egypt) stressed his country's conviction of the-need to establish
a new legal order for the sea, which would end the prevailing disorder and meet the
need,for international co-operation without injuring the interests of any State. He
supported the President's proposal that single negotiating texts should be prepared.
It should be understood, however, that such texts could only form a working basis for
negotiations and that they would have no official or binding status. They should
.reflect all points of view and it would. not be possible to set a deadline for the
completion of such a. complex and difficult task.
With regard to the resident's suggestion that a fourth session of the Conference
might be convened later, that was not a question which could be decided at the present
meeting, since there had been no time to study it. The Egyptian delegation would,
however, welcome any proposal that might speed up progress, and he assured participants
that the developing countries were just as anxious as any delegations present for a
speedy conclusion of negotiations.
Mr. SAUTE SLIT (Romania) said that during the first half of the session
considerable progress had been made in understanding the various positions of
participating States and, in view of the complex nature of the work, his delegation
regarded that progress as being satisfactory. Negotiations on basic questions of
particular importance such as the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the
economic zone should, however, be accelerated.
A/CONF. 62/SR. 55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14 :.CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
-4-
With regard to-the President's proposal, his delegation thought it should be
possible, by intensifying all efforts, to draw up single negotiating texts. Those
texts should reflect the interests of all States and should be a work of condensatiol,
leading towards the establishment of maritime relations on a new basis, as the
foundation of a new international political and economic order. All States, on a
basis of equality, should be able to see their views reflected in the texts. If the
three weeks to come were given over to intensive work, it should be possible to
produce the outline, at least, of a new convention.
Mr. PI Chi-lung (China) said that the ccmmittees had done much useful work,
but it must be acknowledged that, measured against the magnitude of the task and the
expectations of the peoples of the world, it was not enough. The main reason why
insufficient progress had been made in drawing up a new law of the sea which would
meet the needs of the time and of all countries, was that the Conference was dominated
by two opposing views. On the one hand, the countries of the Third World, and others
which valued their independence, desired a thorough revision. of the outmoded regime
left over from the era of colonialism and imperialism and, on the other hand, the two
supei-Powers wished to maintain a position of hegemony ar.d were unwilling to
relinquish their monopoly of the control of the oceans. The super Powers sometimes
altered their tactics: while saying they would negotiate, they remained adamant on
the substance of their positions. One of the super-Powers, while professing to have
the interests of the developing countries at heart, insisted that the area beyond the
territorial sea was the "high seas" and that the economic zone was part of the high
seas. It insisted on freedom of research, alleging that research was not related to
economic resources. The other super-Power'took a similar stand and, by propagating the
idea that if no immediate agreement was reached on a convention it would take
unilateral action, was issuing a threat to the world to impose its own view. In
those circumstances, how would it be possible to reach agreement?
Progress would only be possible when the position of maritime hegemony had been
abandoned and real co-operation with the developing countries initiated. There was
little time left at the present session, but what time remained should be used to the
full and a thorough discussion of important matters of substance such as the economic
A/CONF. 62/SR. 55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For. Release 2002/06/14: CIA5RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
zone, the territorial sea and straits should be begun at once. A proliferation of
working groups should be avoided so as to enable developing countries with small
delegations to play their full part,
With regard to the single negotiating texts proposed by the President, the
representative of Tanzania had made judicious comments at the previous meeting. If
such texts were to be dxativn up, they should reflect the positions of the majority of
countries and especially of the developing countries. Moreover, other proposals
already submitted should remain valid despite the existence of the unified texts.
In the Second Committee many subjects had not been fully discussed and new proposals
would probably be forthcoming.. The unified texts should. not prejudice such
proposals and should not be treated as the sole documents for consultation and
discussion.
In confronting the super.-Powers, the developing countries had learnt to feel a
new unity in their fight for a new international economic order, and the super-Powers
were consequently becoming isolated. The task before the Conference was arduous,
but it must be pursued with energy and the newly-found unity must be maintained.
China, a developing socialist State of the Third World, would work side by side with
the developing countries towards the establishment of a new law of the sea in the
long-term interests of the peoples of the world.
Sir Roger JACKLING (United Kingdom) said that the Conference had reached
a critical stage. It was essential that participants should demonstrate that some
degree.of progress had been made, inorder to convince governments and the world
as a whole that a generally acceptable convention was within reach. His delegation
therefore supported the President's proposal.
It was true that there had been negotiation, but great difficulty had been
found in reconciling positions, even among like-minded delegations. The drawing up
of single texts by a new method was therefore. the last hope of achieving significant
progress. His delegation did not share the doubts expressed by the representative of
Tanzania at the previous meeting. On the contrary, it considered that a single
text concentrated attention, led to a better understanding of other people's
positions and opened the way for compromise.
A/COI\'T+' . 62/SR . 5 5
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
- 6 -
Production of the texts would be difficult. It was obvious that each must be the
product of a single hand, that is to say, of the chairman of each committee. He must
have complete discr.:tion to consult as and where he wished and no restrictions must be
placed upon him. The United Kingdom delegation agreed with the representative of
Venezuela that the texts shouldleave no room for alternatives: it would therefore be
impossible for them to represent all the trends reflected at the Conference. The texts
could be submitted to the committees informally, but that must be done well before the
end of the session.
For his part, he was confident in the ability of the chairmen to complete the
task, Since the Second Committee was having the greatest difficulty in reaching
agreement, he promised to give particular support to the Chairman of that Committee.
Although the single draft texts would. only be negotiating texts, and would not commit
the participants any more than the draft of the International Law Commission had
committed the 1958 Conference, he hoped that they would form a basis for final agreement
to be reached at the next session of the Conference.
Mr. STEVENSON (United States of America) said he shared the President's
concern at the slow rate of progress being made and questioned whether the Conference
4:ae adopting the right procedure for reaching agreement. At the previous session a
considerable advance had been made in regard to the economic zone, which had been
largely due to the efforts of the Chairman of the Second Committee in reducing the
number of alternatives.
Clearly the difficulties facing the Conference must be explained to the general public
^^d a further effort made to justify the expectation that a treaty would be drawn up
t;ithin a reasonable time.
Some real progress had been achieved at the present session, at which informal
negotiations had been essential, although more time had been spent on restating positions
th:n had been truly constructive. The only way out of the present difficulties was the
preparation of single texts without alternatives or variants, and he therefore supported
the President's proposal.
He agreed with the Canadian representative that the Second Committee's text should
be prepared as quickly as possible so that it could be discussed at the present session.
His delegation had come prepared to negotiate an international solution of problems of
critical importance to mankind and he hoped the Conference would pass the test of the
multilateral treaty-making process.
A/CCHr.62/SR.55 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
-7-
Mr. FRANCIS (Jamaica) said. he endorsed. the President's views in the main, and.
agreed. that unified. negotiating texts with the characteristics the President had.
described. should. be prepared. before the end. of the session.
The representative of Tanzania had. made some pertinent observations about the
proceedings in the Second. Committee, which urgently needed. a mechanism to integrate the
fragmentary efforts of interest groups.
Atr. BAIT.1,11 (Peru) paid. a tribute to the dedication, intelligence and. skill of
the President which had. contributed. so much to the progress thus far achieved.. Since
the Geneva Conferences on the law of the Sea in 1958 and. 1960, the legitimate interests
of developing countries in the maritime space were being increasingly recognized., and.
a legal structure designed. to promote alien domination and. exploitation was becoming
obsolete.
The progress of the present Conference had. been slow because some delegations were
not prepared. to change the status quo and. would. only make concessions on minor issues.
The lack of progress was not due to the absence of negotiating machinery, and. even with
a single text negotiations would have run into difficulties because of the
unwillingness of some delegations to compromise.
Unified. negotiating texts could. not be a substitute for negotiations and. must not
be allowed, to endanger vital interests or the progress of the third. world. Their scope
would. have to be established. in advance, to prevent arbitrary interpretations. They
must be timely, that was to say prepared. when the moment was ripe, but some of the
working groups had. not yet discussed, certain fundamental problems. They must also be
balanced. and. consistent. They would. need. to be informal, not binding and. open to
amendment, and. should. be prepared. in a way that was consistent with the Conference's
established. methoJs of work. Each committee's text must faith-fully represent -the
consensus of its members.
Mr_YIYALA (Ecuad.or) said. that the Conference had. reached. a critical stage;
some real progress had. been made and. the negotiations should. certainly continue. The
subjects being dealt with were both complex and. wide in scope; many of them touched,
on the vital interests of certain States, some of which were prepared. to compromise,
whereas others seemed. unwilling -to give up established. positions. He wondered. whether
unified -texts would. change that situation.
A/ CONP 62/a?1. 55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
The unified. texts must reflect the fundamental interests of the various groups
concerned and provide a synthesis of the work done by the working groups. They must
fulfill the requirements mentioned. by the P-ruvian representative.
There was no need for the Conference to concern itself tco much with public
opinion. Many other conferences dealing with problems of public international law had.
only produced. results after many years. Nevertheless, an effort should. be made to
explain to the world. the complexity of the issues under discussion.
Mr. PLAKA (Albania) said. that because of political disagreements the
Conference was still trying to devise an effective procedure. Representatives from
Asian, African, Latin American and, other countries were determined. to formulate a new
law of the sea which would. safeguard. their national sovereignty and. economic interests,
replacing the old. law which had perpetuated injustice. But the two super-Powers, the
United. States and the Soviet Union, were opposed to that new trend. and. were obstructing
progress by various manoeuvres, because they wished to maintain their political,
military and economic interests in accordance with their aggressive expansionist policy
of establishing their hegemony throughout the world and domination over the ocean.
They were striving to maintain a privileged position with respect to the ocean by
obstructive tactics and were minimizing the significance of the current session by
distracting attention from the main problems affecting the rights and interests of
deeveloping countries and. other independent peaceful States.
The Soviet Union representative had shoi.m, at the previous meeting, how the
super--Powers were seeking to impose a package deal on the main issues. The proposals
of those two powers on the main issues made it clear that they wished. to limit the
sovereignty of States over the territorial sea, the sovereignty of coastal States over
s-~raits situated in the territorial sea and the sovereignty of coastal States over
renewable and. non-renewable resources of the exclusive economic zone, as well as the
sovereign rights of States relating to scientific research and. pollution control.
To that end. they were sowing discord between coastal and. land-locked. States.
/co .62/SR. 55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
- 9-
The United States was trying to secure the hasty adoption of rules on the
exploitation of non-renewable resources of the international sea, and was threatening a
treaty on`that subject must be concluded by the following year. For its part, the USSR
had submitted a new proposal on the subject which was at variance with the position of
developing countries and, in particular,' with article 9 as drafted by the Group of 77.
In the `.Third Committee, the Soviet' Union had made a proposal that would reduce to a
minimum the rights of coastal States in the economic zone, in the continental shelf
and with respect to scientific research.
The two super-Pow?e:rs were trying to set aside the key issues and consequently the
Second Committee had. not yet decided on its procedure. Although a certain number of
working groups had been set up at the insistence of the great majority of participating
States, they had not yet started to work on major problems. Moreover, some of the
small delegations were unable to participate in many of the groups.
2 Negotiations and consultations were certainly necessary, but hews opposed to
.those undertaken in secret, by which the super-Powers hoped to settle the main issues
and restrict. the legitimate rights of peace-loving States.
Unified texts might provide a basis for discussion, but they must be drawn up by
the committees themselves with all delegations taking part in the process, and they
,should reflect legitimate interests of peace-loving States. He rejected the
Soviet Union proposal that a single text be prepared without the participation of all
members, as it would only serve the interests of the super-Powers.
The unified texts should, inter alia, contain provisions about the right of each
State to determine the breadth of its territorial sea at a reasonable distance of up
to 200 nautical miles according to its particular conditions, taking account of defence
needs, national security and economic interests; the defence of the coastal State's
national sovereignty over straits in the territorial sea; the passage of warships
and military aircraft over the territorial sea, which should be subject to the law of
the coastal State; the full sovereignty of the coastal State over renewable and.
non-renewable resources in. the exclusive economic zone; and, its national jurisdiction
over other aspects of the economic zone including military activities in it. The
A/CONF.62/SR.55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
demands of developing countries concerning the exploration and exploitation of the
international sea must be recognized. as well as the legitimate rights of land-locked
States.
In the limited time left to the Conference the principal. issues should be examined
with all delegations taking part and an effort should be made to resist the rapacious
policy of the United States and the Soviet Union, in order to establish a new regime
in the seas and oceans. Peace-loving States were aware that the super-Powers had sent
their fleets to the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic and the Pacific '-'cea-ns
to threaten the liberty and independence of other States.
The PRESIDE T called the Albanian representative to order and asked him to
confine himself to the subject under discussion, uhich was how to promote the process
of negotiation.
Mr. PLAKA (Albania) said that peaceful States must fight against hegemony;
they should expel foreign military bases from the 'terri tory of coastal States an d deny
port facilities to the fleets of the two super-Powers. National sovereignty in the
marine zones should be strengthened in the Convention. Peace-loving States would not
yield to any pressure or blackmail; they would be victorious in the struggle to in a
just new law which would protect the legitimate rights of the vast majority of States.
Mr. YTU VIACA (Spain) thanked the President for his untiring efforts to find
an acceptable procedure. His proposals should make for speedier results by focusing
attention on specific issues. That process had already been initiated in the First and
Third Committees. However, he shared the views of the representatives of Canada and.
Tanzania about the difficulties likely to be encountered. He h^d every confidence in
the Chairman of the Second Committee, but Solomor himself would not have succeeded. in
reconciling some of the widely divergent vies! :-?r, certein ma.tter.. -nd it mould
preb;7?bly be impossible to eliminate altexne.tive texts entirely. Unified negotiating
texts must be the outcome of consultations in i:?orlral groups in iihich all delegations
could participate, and they must be open to . endmer.t. They could certainly not be a
substitute for negotiations.
He welcomed the fact that a working group on "innocent passage" had been set up
to examine problems connected with navigation through the territorial sea and straits
within the territorial sea, so that all suggestions could be considered on an equal
footing.
1.% CON!'. 62, SR.55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
y 11 '.
Mr. PISK (Czechoslovakia) agreed with the President's assessment of the
progress so far achieved. Single negotiating texts were certainly needed, particularly
by the Second Committee, and he hoped they could be prepared by the end of the session
so as to provide a basis for future negotiations. They must reflect the work done so
far and provide an outline of the future convention. It would not be possible to
accommodate all international interests, but the texts must do so as far as possible.
In preparing' unified texts .a high degree of objectivity would be needed, but
unfortunately experience in the Second Committee had shown that no delegation was
prepared to make significant concessions.
The next session of the Conference might be held at the beginning of 1976 if single
negotiating texts could be ready by the end of the present session.
Mr. PERISIC (Yugoslavia) said that the main subject of concern was problems
faced by the'Second Committee. The Group of 77 had produced a draft on some key issues
such as article 9 and the basic conditions, and the Committee itself had made some-
progress in drafting a single negotiating text; that procedure should continue despite
the difficulties encountered.
He supported the President+s proposal, but considered that single negotiating
texts should not be a compromise or commit any government. They must be open to
amendment. He hoped that they would be produced before the end of the session, but the
final decision on the possibility of producing such texts should be left to the
committee chairmen and taken before the final week of the Conference.
He fully endorsed the statement by the delegate of Venezuela regarding the
unacceptability of any time-limit or threat of unilateral action on the common heritage.
The Conference was not a purely legal exercise, but a very important political
conference demanding patient work to harmonize different individual interests with the
interests of the community as a. whole. For that reason he supported the proposal that
the Conference should strongly reaffirm the moratorium proclaimed in General Assembly
resolution 2574 D (XXIV) and condemn any attempt at unilateral action violating that
moratorium.
Mr. JAGOTA (India) welcomed the proposal that single texts should be prepared
before the end of the present session. Such texts should cover all issues before the
Conference, and should be regarded as a basis for future negotiations. They should be
AICONF.6212R: j jroved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
open to amendment, but should not contain any variants or any evaluation of the work
done so far. The negotiations taking place in the working soups should be continued
while the chairmen )f the committees were p.-eparing the singl( texts.
Because of the legal nature of its work the Conference had chosen an inductive
approach, which had led to the emergence of a number of important concepts and, in the
case of the Second Committee, to the document on Main Trends (A/CONF.62/C.2/ 1P.1).
But the Second Committee had not yet tackled central issues such as the economic zone,
archipelagos, islands, the continental shelf, land-locked States and geographically
disadvantaged States. The working groups should negotiate on those issues and the
results of their negotiations should be embodied in the single text.
Mr. CHOWDHL'RY (Bangladesh) said that the Conference must prepare a universally
accepted legal framework for the utilization of the resources of the seas, in order to
protect the interests of the developing countries. Failure to do so would lead to
chaos, unilateral action and colonization by force. A single text would facilitate
that process, provided that it reflected all main trends and took account of legitimate
national interests.
He endorsed the suggestion that a further session of the Conference be convened as
early as possible in 1976, and considered that inter-sessional informal meetings would
contribute to its success.
Mr. XEDADI (Tunisia) said it was important that the discussions concerning the
future convention should proceed in an atmosphere of calm, free from any pressure and
with the participation of all delegations. Some delegations were anxious to achieve
results because of internal pressures, but were not prepared to make concessions. All
the participating delegations held formal briefs from their governments, but most of
them had shown flexability and made concessions, both at Caracas and during the present
session. The developing countries had submitted proposals on most of the issues before
the Conference that were in conformity with the Declaration of Principles; those
proposals were reflected in the document on Main Trends (A/ / CONF.62/C.2/t'/P.l) and should
continue to be the basis for negotiation. The Conference should issue a solemn
declaration reiterating the principles contained in resolution 2574D (XXIV) and
affirming the need to avoid unilateral action.
A/CuNF.62/SR.55 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
13
The proposed single texts would be useful provided that they covered all the
matters assigned to the Committees and reflected as clearly as possible the interests
of the developing countries. They should be regarded as the basis for future
negotiations. In preparing their texts, the chairmen of the committees should be
guided by the positions of the regional groups; the texts should. be ready before the
end. of the session, so that those groups could engage in inter-sessional discussions
in preparation for the final phase of the Conference.
It was the view of his delegation and of the Group of 77 that the next session of
the Conference should be held in 1976, in a developing country in Africa or Asia.
Mr. FARRY (Australia) endorsed the need for single negotiating texts
incorporating the agreements already reached in the informal discussions. Where
positions were not harmonized., the Chairmen, in consultation with the Secretariat and
the officers of the committees, should prepare a balanced text stating the general
position, which would. be subject to amendment.
As Chairman of the informal group on settlement of disputes, he wished to inform
the meeting that that group was at present discussing a'single text and hoped to submit
seventeen articles and. three concise annexes.
Mr. TPF;BI1ThTICK (Bolivia) . said that there was generally a heavy economic
undercurrent to international relations, and in view of the importance of the. natural
resources of the sea, the law of the sea could be no exception. His delegation thought
that the delay in starting on real negotiation was not unexpected., since the object of
the Conference was to formulate a new law of the sea based on international social-
justice. The Conference was at a crossroads: it could take the path of peace and
progress or continue on that of injustice and discrimination, which would make
negotiation impossible.
His delegation was prepared to collaborate in preparing single. consolidated texts
which took account of the interests of landlocked and other geographically
disadvantaged-States, and. it endorsed. the views expressed. on that subject by the
Guatemalan representative. ill the participants were keenly aware that they were the
repository of their peoples' hopes of economic development and social progress, in
addition to being the legislators for a new law of the sea: in that capacity, this
delegation was willing to negotiate.
A/C0''~.TF. 62/SR. 55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
- 14 -
Mr. ZEGERS (Chile) endorsed the President's proposal that single texts should
be prepared before the end of the session. They should be regarded as a basis for
future negotiations and should take account of all the deliberations which had taken
place since 1956. They should reflect the discussions held at Caracas and during the
present session, particularly on cracial issues such as the two hundred mile limit.
Mr. LUPINACCI (Uruguay) also supported the President's proposal. He endorsed
the view expressed by the representative of Greece that it was difficult to see how the
Conference could draw up legal rules on the complex issues before it without such a text.
The difficulties which had arisen in the negotiations were due to the vested
interests of certain States and, in particular, to the resistance of the major maritime
Powers to the adoption of a new Law of the Sea recognizing the legitim&te interests of
the developing countries. Some progress had been achieved, however, particularly at
Caracas where the document on basic trends (A/CO1F.62/C.2t1P.1) had been prepared.
The single texts should take account of the results of the deliberations in all the
working groups. They should clearly define the most important issues and should seek to
provide an uncontroversial, generally acceptable basis for future negotiations. They
should be prepared before the end of the present session, so that delegations could
submit them to their Governments for consideration in preparation for the next session
of the Conference.
MrrGODOY (Paraguay) said that the drafting of single texts before the end of
the session would greatly facilitate the work of the Conference and would enable
delegations to engage in systematic consideration of proposals in plenary meetings.
At the present session, the volume of documents, particularly in the Second Committee,
had made it extremely difficult to study the numerous proposals submitted.
The lack of progress could not be attributed to any particular country or group,
since each delegation had an obligation to defend the interests of its country and the
aspirations of its people. He welcomed the relative successes which had been achieved
by the First and Third Committees, in which his delegation had not been able to
participate actively. The lack of progress in the Second Committee was due to its
extensive agenda and the complexity of the subjects allocated to it. The document on
Main Trends produced at Caracas constituted an advance, however, and he was confident
that the exceptional qualities of the Chairman of the Second Committee would ensure the
successful conclusion of its negotiations.
A/COND. 62/SR. 55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
- 15 --
The forthcoming session of the General Assembly would provide a useful opportunity
for informal intersessional consultations.
IIr. ' de I,ACI AMLUME (France) said that when delegations had elected. at. Caracas
to follow the traditional negotiating procedure, everyone had realized that progress
would be sloi,r in a large conference dealing with, a n tuber of unfamiliar subjects.
Nevertheless that procedure had the merit of givin,^ delegations a chance to express
their views and to become familiar with, those of other delegations, and to weigh the
concessions and compromises required to reach a general.agreement. Some delegations
thought that insufficient progress had been made, but there had been satisfactory
results in the First and Third Cut)_+.
ittees. Some progress had also been made in the
Second Committee, though admittedly on the less important matters. His delegation saw
no reason to change a mode of procedure which was democratic and legally unassailable.
He was not- clear what the nature of the proposed single consolidated texts would
be. they could only be the outcome of negotiation by the committee chairmen and would
resemble mediators' reports. If the proposal was adopted, he hoped, that the report of
the Conference s?,ould be prepared in two separate parts, one part consisting of the three
consolidated "negotiating" texts and the part recording what had actually been
negotiated between Gover ments up to the end of the session. Pre-a 'reements had been
reached in certain areas and negotiation should be actively pursued during the remainder
of the session; the attention of the participants should. not be concentrated on the
consolidated texts - a negotiating text was not a negotiated text.
Some speakers hed suggested that the consolidated texts should contain no variants,
but a more reasonable objective would be-to produce a text with variants on the points
on which the chairmen judged them desirable. The chairmen's teams of reference should
be flexible.
Mr. YOLGA (Turkey) said that when the programme of work had been agreed at
Caracas, his delegation had observed that one session would not suffice to cover it.
That had been predictable in view of the volume and complexity of the subject-matter,
the conflicts of interest and the number of participants. Delegations must be content
to proceed slowly, otherwise they might produce a text which would be the subject of
general criticism after a few years.
A/COI'I7'.62/SR.55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
- 16 -
He approved of the proposal to produce single consolidated texts, provided that
it would not hinder the continuation of negotiations up to the end of the session.
Any hope that the chairmen of the three Committees could produce texts which would
solve all the problems before the Conference would prove merely another illusion.
With regard to the nature of the consolidated texts, he fully endorsed the views
expressed by the Venezuelan representative. They would not be official negotiated
texts binding on any participant, but rather reports by the chairmen on the results
of their work. The chairmen should be given considerable freedom of action in
interpreting their terms of reference and the texts should take account of all the
points covered, since every point was of importance to some delegation, if not to all.
-Mr. CAMARA (Guinea) said that there had been talk of a threat to force
through a convention: he rejected that suggestion; his delegation was not prepared
to prejudice the interests of their people. He must also denounce as false the
suggestion that the documents prepared by the Evensen group could be imposed on the
Conference as reflecting majority opinion.
No agreement would be reached on the limits of the territorial sea and of the
exclusive economic zone until the maritime rowers abandoned their attempt to impose
their point of view. The developing nations wanted a just economic order which
would make provision for their legitimate aspirations.
Some limit should be placed on the multiplication of groups within committees,
and the proliferation of documents served to confuse rather than to help. The
smaller delegations were unable to attend all the meetings to express their views.
He agreed that negotiations should be speeded up, but the main obstacle to
progress was the confrontation of two conflicting concepts of the future of the
world: the aim of the. Conference was to change the old order imposed by imperialism
the effective sovereignty and
and colonialism for a new order guaranteeing
To advance its work, the
independence of countries long subjugated and exploited.
Conference needed to make a: political choice. Basic problems which had merely been
touched on must be tackled, otherwise the Conference would continue to go round in
circles.
A/CONF.62/SR.55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
17
Single consolidated texts would be difficult to produce unless certain Powers were
willing to abandon their attachment to the old order. Everyone would know where the
responsibility lay, since everyone had heard. the different viewpoints expressed in the
three committees: the third world countries. wished the Conference to make progress -
the former colonial Powers and their allies wished to hold on to their privileges.
Mr. TORRAS DE LA LTJZ (Cuba) said that the Conference must find a method of work
that would enable it to agree, at its next session, on the Convention that all
delegations were working towards. It must first determine why. its progress was slow.
The first reason was the very complex nature of the Conference's agenda; the second was
the fact that the Convention to be drafted was one that would affect the basic interests
of States.
At other Conferences dealing with difficult subjects, such as the sixth special
session of the General Assembly, or the three past sessions of UNC.fAD, the main
disagreements had been between the developing and socialist countries, on the one hand,
and a number of imperialistic Powers on the other. At the present Conference the
differences between. States were much more complex, and even within the Group of 77,
despite its unity on basic issues, there were differences on some of the vital questions
being dealt with by the Second Committee..
It was important for the Conference not to ignore any valid contribution from
whatever quarter.- the main committees, official groups such as the Group of 77, or non--
official, groups such as the Evensen group.
He therefore believed that the President's proposal that single texts should be
drafted by the committee chairman as a basis for negotiation, was a most promising one,
sin.ce'it would make it possible to bring together all the most useful ideas and
suggestions produced at the Conference.
The proposal did not involve putting a brake on the work already in progress; the
working groups could continue with their programmes, and could contribute to the single
texts. Cuba interpreted the President's proposal in the light of the comments by the
representatives of Venezuela and Turkey. A single text, far from paralysing the
Conference's work, should help its progress. If all the points that could be agreed
on were put together, it should be possible to settle at least some questions.
The arrangements for drafting the single texts should be left flexible, so that the
chairmen could choose the best method of work. The single texts must be regarded not as
A/CONF.62/SR.55
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
- 18 -
a panacea, but as a useful working method. He agreed that if possible the texts
prepared by the First and Third Committees should include no variants, and that the
Second Committee text should include variant:; only on those basic questions on which
positions differed very widely.
He supported the views expressed by the representatives of Finland and Tunisia
about pressure being brought to bear on the Conference. He agreed that, in order to
maintain the calm atmosphere necessary for rapid progress towards agreement, the
Conference should make a firm statement, in line with the appropriate General Assembly
resolution, that there must be a suspension of unilateral activities in the exploitation
of the seabed.
Mr. :~SLOLB (Algeria) said that although some delegations believed that the
preparation of single texts could help the progress of the Conference, others, including
his own, had misgivings about it. Algeria supported the views expressed by the
representative of the Ivory Coast, speaking as the Chairman of the African Group.
If a single text could be prepared - which would certainly rot be before the end of
the Conference - it should give equal treatment to all questions, since, particularly
in the sector allocated to the Second Committee, subjects regarded as vital by some did
not have the same importance for others. Account should therefore be taken not only
of the conclusions already reached by working groups. but also of those that would have
to be reached on other matters still pending. All the interests concerned must be
taken into account. He agreed that the Chairman of the Second Committee could not be
expected to produce a single text without variants. On the basis he had outlined,
his delegation would support the President's proposal. even though not fully convinced
of its merits.
The slow progress of the Conference was only to be expected, in view of the large
number of countries involved, and the extent to which their interests conflicted.
One problem was that certain delegations had difficr?ty in reconciling themselves to
the new realities of international life, in particular the full participation, on an
equal footing, of all countries in drafting; new rules of in;;-2rnational law. Yet that
must be the foundation of international democracy; that must be the starting point of
any hope of arriving, within a reasonable time, at agreement on a new law of the se::,
which would be the corner stone of the new international order.
History showed that pressure and unilateral action were never affective in the long
run, and he agreed that the Conference should adopt a solemn declaration, in line with
the relevant General Assembly resolution, prohibiting any form of unilateral action
calculated to bring pressure to bear on the Conference.
A/CONF.62/SR. 55 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82S00697R000300120005-9
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9
The PRDSIDPT?T said that his proposal seemed to be generally acceptable.
It was that the chairmen of the three main comnittees should each prepare a single
negotiating text covering the subjects entrusted to his corurittee, to ta::e account of
all the formal and informal discussions held so far. The texts would not prejudice
the position of any delegation, and would not represent any negotiated text or
accepted compromise. They would be a basis for negotiation.
The chairmen would be helped by the Secretariat in the preparation of their
texts, but would not consult the Secretariat. The single texts would have to be
ready before the end of the present session. The chairmen themselves would decide
whom to consult and how. In the negotiations, any representative would be free to
move amendments. In the preparation of the single texts, account must be taken of
the results achieved in formal and informal groups. The drafting of single texts
would not provide a pretext for ignoring; any existing text, nor would it mean that
no work could be done in working groups, or that other. negotiations at the present
session would. cease. On the contrary, it should stimulate discussion, and.
facilitate progress in the negotiations. He was sure the Conference could have
full confidence in the three committee chairmen and they would certainly take full
account of all the comments made in the present debate.
He hoped that inter-sessional consultations would be pursued; as the
representative of Paraguay had pointed out, there would be a useful opportunity for
doing so at the General Assembly in New Yor'_;.
He. said he too]: it that the Conference was prepared to ae.opt his proposal.
It was so decided.
The meeting, rose at 7.3 p.m.
A/001-I' . 67/3,40oved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000300120005-9