SEABED COUNCIL CONTINUES STUDY OF PROCEDURAL RULES FOR LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION
Press Release
SEA/1635
SEABED COUNCIL CONTINUES STUDY OF PROCEDURAL RULES FOR LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION
19990819(Received from the International Seabed Authority.)
KINGSTON, 18 August -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority, meeting in Kingston this morning, continued discussion on the draft rules of procedure of the Legal and Technical Commission which that body prepared last year.
The Council has now considered 47 of the 49 rules contained in the draft (ISBA/5/C/L.1) since it took up the topic yesterday afternoon, 17 August. The rules discussed today are included in four of the eight chapters of the draft, dealing with the secretariat, conduct of business, decision-making and participation by non-members of the Commission. Examination of the final two rules should be completed at the meeting scheduled for 3 p.m. today, when the Council is also expected to take up a proposed addition to the rule on confidentiality, introduced by the United States yesterday.
The Council began today's deliberations with rule 20 (duties of the Secretary-General). Support was voiced for a proposal by Senegal to combine this rule with rule 21 (duties of the Secretariat) so as not to separate the functions of the Secretary-General and the secretariat. The Secretary-General, Satya N. Nandan, pointing out that similar language was used in rules of the Council and Assembly, noted that rule 20 highlighted the role of the office of the Secretary-General while rule 21 concerned services provided by the secretariat.
Discussion on rule 22 focused on the budgetary implications of keeping records and sound recordings of Commission meetings. The United Kingdom said any decision to have summary records should be "upon the recommendation of the Council". This position was supported by the Russian Federation and the Netherlands but opposed by Chile, which wanted the records distributed to members of the Council.
There was considerable debate on rule 35 (decision on competence), which states that "any motion calling for a decision on the competence of the Commission to adopt a proposal submitted to it shall be put to the vote before a vote is taken on the proposal in question". The discussion was concerned
- 2 - Press Release SEA/1635 19 August 1999
with whether the rule, in inviting a vote, was consistent with the concept, stated in rule 39 (decision-making by consensus and voting), that "As a general rule, decision-making in the Commission should be by consensus".
A proposal by France to replace "before a vote is taken" by "before a decision is taken" was supported by a number of delegations, including Australia and Chile. Austria's recommendation to retain the wording of rule 35 and place it under chapter VII (decision-making) alongside rule 39 received support from Egypt and the Republic of Korea. Italy, the Sudan and the United States wanted the rule to remain unchanged.
Argentina, supported by Chile, Australia and the Russian Federation, suggested that the rule should refer to article 165 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which lists the functions of the Commission.
Rule 48 (participation by members of the Authority and entities carrying out activities in the international seabed area) was examined along with rule 6 (private and public meetings), which had been deferred yesterday. Under rule 48 as it stands, any member of the Authority may request the chance to attend a meeting of the Commission when a matter particularly affecting that member is under consideration. Chile proposed changing the rule to eliminate the need for making such a request, arguing that every member had a right to participate in the Commission's meetings.
However many delegations opposed this view, including France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian Federation and the United States, saying that this would undermine the free flow of information among members of the Commission. France made the point that those members were bound by considerations of confidentiality and open meetings would jeopardize their position. Many delegations also referred to rule 39 of the Council's rules of procedure, which provides for meetings of subsidiary bodies to be held in private.
A proposal by New Zealand to add a sentence to rule 6 was widely supported as a practical solution that would not compromise the need for frequent private meetings. It read as follows: "In deciding whether meetings should be open or closed, the Commission should bear in mind the desirability of holding open meetings whenever issues of general interest to members of the Authority, which do not involve the discussion of confidential information, are being discussed." The Russian Federation and the United States opposed such a change.
* *** *