SEABED COUNCIL DISCUSSES GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION MEETINGS
Press Release
SEA/1644
SEABED COUNCIL DISCUSSES GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMISSION MEETINGS
19990826(Received from International Seabed Authority)
KINGSTON, 25 August -- The Council of the International Seabed Authority, meeting in Kingston this morning, resumed consideration of the rules of procedure of its Legal and Technical Commission. Most of the discussion concerned the participation of Member States of the Authority in meetings of the Commission, which is a body of experts.
The Latin American and Caribbean Group announced that it would propose a candidate for the Commission, to address what the Group saw as geographical imbalance among the members. The proposal would add one seat to the present membership of 22.
Addressing the issue of absenteeism among Commission members at recent meetings, Fiji asked how much it would cost to reimburse members for attending sessions of the body, which normally meets during the regular sessions of the Authority.
Discussion of the rules of procedure will continue this afternoon, following a meeting of the Assembly. The Council will also consider draft financial regulations of the Authority.
In resuming discussion of the draft rules of procedure for its Legal and Technical Commission, the Council took up a revised text (ISBA/5/C/L.1/Rev.1) incorporating changes resulting from its earlier discussion, from 17 to 20 August. Today's debate centred on rule 53 (formerly 48), concerning participation in Commission meetings by Member States of the Authority and entities active in the international seabed area. The rule authorizes any member of the Authority, with the Commission's permission, to attend a meeting when a matter particularly affecting that State is being considered and to express its views on such matter. The rule had been revised according to a compromise suggestion by Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan, made on 20 August.
Chile began the debate, observing that the revised rule did not reflect the concerns of his and other delegations, which felt that coastal States should have the right to participate in the Commission's meetings when a matter particularly affecting such states was being discussed. He suggested an addition to read: "Further, a representative of the coastal State may attend when the matter to be taken up by the Commission relates to an environmental emergency situation, provided that the debates of the Commission do not relate to matters of a confidential nature".
Yemen supported Chile's proposal as a balance between commercial confidentiality and the rights of coastal States. Support came from other members, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Jamaica and Mexico. The Jamaican delegate said that a way should be found whereby a member State, under strictly defined circumstances, could have the right to send an expert to participate in the Commission's meetings. He recalled article 163 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states: "Each Commission shall exercise its function in accordance with such guidelines and directives, as the Council may adopt".
Mexico was concerned that the Commission could deny the request of a member to attend without giving an explanation; it felt that the Commission should be obliged to accept such a request. Austria wanted to extend the right of participation to all members of the Authority rather than just coastal States.
France, objecting to Chile's proposal, said it would give the Commission no voice in deciding who would attend its meetings. Several delegations endorsed France's position. Nigeria pointed out that the Commission was a body of experts and therefore not open to everyone; a State wishing to attend should have to present its case in writing and be invited by the Commission. New Zealand thought it would be unworkable to give all States a "blanket right" to participate in the Commission's deliberations and felt that the rule, as drafted would work well in practice. China urged respect for the scientific character of the Commission and wished to avoid its politicization; the Law of the Sea Convention already contained mechanisms ensuring the Council's ability to monitor the Commission's work.
Senegal and Jamaica suggested that delegations meet informally to seek a compromise. This suggestion was endorsed by Council President Charles Manyang D'Awol (Sudan).
On another aspect, the Latin American and Caribbean Group proposed that the Council elect an additional member to the Commission, nominated from that region, in order to address a geographical imbalance. Chile, which introduced the proposal, said it was in accordance with article 163 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states: "In the election of members of the Commission, due account shall be taken of the need for equitable geographical distribution and the representation of special interests". The proposal, if accepted by the Council, would give the Group four seats on the Commission. It would also increase to 23, the number of members on the Commission, whose main functions are to review applications for plans of work for exploration in the international seabed area and to advise the Council on such applications. The expert body also makes recommendations on protection of the marine environment and monitors compliance with the Authority's seabed regulations. Chile said the Group had the support of the "Group of 77" countries, as well as those of Eastern Europe, and hoped to get full agreement from the Western European and Others Group.
The Netherlands and the United Kingdom agreed on the need to correct the imbalance in the Commission's membership, but suggested that the most logical time to deal with the matter was at elections, which are due in two years. Argentina, Mexico and Chile responded that nothing in the Convention prevented a decision now. "We are claiming our right as set out in article 163, paragraph 4 of the Convention", Chile stated. The Russian Federation said it would not object to the Group's proposal provided that the election of its candidate was not automatic, and that the Council decided on a final limit to the number of seats on the Commission.
The United Kingdom had no objection to an additional Latin American and Caribbean member on the Commission, but wondered whether that would be prudent in light of the clause in article 163 calling for the Council to have due regard for economy and efficiency if it decided on any increase in size.
Fiji and the United Kingdom repeated a request that the secretariat write to members of the Commission for an explanation of their absence from meetings. Fiji also repeated a suggestion that the Authority consider covering the expenses of members, and in this regard, he asked the secretariat to estimate the financial implications. Responding, Secretary-General Nandan suggested that the problem of absenteeism be dealt with in the Council's rules of procedure.
* *** *