PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION APPROVE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL 2001 BUDGET

Press Release
SEA/1678

PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION APPROVE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL 2001 BUDGET

The Tenth Meeting of States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea this morning approved, as orally amended, an $8,090,900 budget for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, for 2001.

Adopting draft decisions on budgetary matters of the Tribunal, the Meeting also approved the staffing table for the Tribunal's Registry for 2001. The Meeting took note of the fact that most of the budgetary increase in 2001 over the level of 2000 was due to the costs associated with maintenance, operation and security of the Tribunal's new premises outside Hamburg, as well as the level of its judicial work.

Some delegations said that as long as no substantial changes took place in the work of the Tribunal, the current level of the budget should be maintained, and adjusted for inflation only. Some delegations urged the Registrar to take account of geographical representation in appointments.

Representatives of Nigeria, Algeria, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States, Sierra Leone, Côte d'Ivoire, Spain, Argentina and Senegal made statements on the draft decisions.

In another action, Cameroon, Croatia, Australia and Chile were elected Vice- Presidents of the Tenth Meeting of the States parties.

The Meeting also began debate of a proposal by the United Kingdom which would amend Rule 53 of its Rules of Procedure, concerning decisions on questions of substance. By the proposal, decisions on budgetary and financial matters would be taken by a three-fourths majority of States parties present and voting, provided that such majority included States parties contributing at least three- fourths of the expenses of the International Tribunal, as well as a majority of States parties participating in the Meeting.

By the same draft text, decisions on all other matters of substance should be taken by a two-thirds majority of the States parties present and voting, provided that such majority included a majority of the States parties participating in the Meeting.

__________

* The 46th meeting was closed. The meeting numbers for Press Releases SEA/1676 and 1677 should be the 47th and 48th, respectively. States Parties - 1a - Press Release SEA/1678 49TH Meeting 25 May 2000

A number of delegations opposed the United Kingdom proposal, stating that it was discriminatory and would introduce weighted voting. The representatives of the United States, Japan, Russian Federation and Germany supported the United Kingdom. Also speaking on that issue were the representatives of Ghana, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Malaysia, Australia, Cuba, Mexico, New Zealand, Jamaica, Nigeria, Iraq, Russian Federation, Trinidad and Tobago, India, Côte d'Ivoire, Germany, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Costa Rica and the Republic of Korea. The debate on the issue would continue in the afternoon.

Also this morning, the Meeting took note of an oral report presented by the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, Satya Nandan, on the activities of the Authority in the past year.

In his report, Mr. Nandan said that one of the most important achievements of the Assembly of the Authority during its fifth session was the approval of the Agreement between the Seabed Authority and the Government of Jamaica concerning the headquarters of the Authority. He also said it was important that State parties supported the work of the Authority by paying their assessed contributions in full and on time, and also to participate in its meetings.

The States parties meet again at 3:30 p.m.

States Parties - 3 - Press Release SEA/1678 49th Meeting (AM) 25 May 2000

Work Programme

The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea convened this morning during their Tenth Meeting to elect officers of their Bureau and to consider the draft budget proposals of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for 2001 (document SPLOS/WP.12), and other issues.

In earlier action, the Tenth Meeting of the States parties had elected Peter Donigi (Papua New Guinea) as President of the Tenth Meeting, adopted its draft agenda, and established an open-ended working group to consider the budgetary proposals of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

(For background information, see Press Release SEA/1674 of 19 May.)

Also before the meeting is a proposal by Chile (document S/PLOS/CRP.22) pointing out that the States parties should receive a report from the United Nations Secretary-General every year on issues of a general nature arising with respect to the Convention. That provision, contained in article 319 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, had been implemented for years and then suspended without any convincing reason, the Chilean document says.

The document states that the Secretary-General's report should give rise to a general debate in which States parties would express their views. For the purposes of that debate, the Chilean proposal says that information about the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and of the International Seabed Authority should be made available, without prejudice to their sphere of autonomy and, where applicable, the necessary confidentiality.

For that purpose, Chile's document proposes that the Chairman of the Commission and the Secretary-General of the Authority could be invited to the Meeting of the States parties. If, for valid reasons, they were unable to be present at the Meeting, they could send written information in due course.

The Chilean delegation accordingly proposed that the States parties annually consider an item entitled "Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea".

Also before the Meeting is a document (SPLOS/CRP.20) by the United Kingdom proposing a new text to replace "Rule 53" ("decisions on questions of substance") of the rules of procedure for meetings of the States parties. The text proposed by the United Kingdom reads: "Subject to Rule 52: (a) Decisions on budgetary and financial matters shall be taken by a three-fourths majority of States parties present and voting, provided that such majority includes States parties contributing at least three fourths of the expenses of the International Tribunal, as well as a majority of States parties participating in the Meeting; (b) Decisions on all other matters of substance shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the States parties present and voting, provided that such majority includes a majority of the States parties participating in the Meeting."

Election of Officers

LIESBETH LIJNZAAD (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the Western European and Other States Group, nominated Australia for Vice-President.

RICARDO LUIS BOCALANDRO (Argentina), speaking on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, nominated Chile for Vice-President.

PAVEL DZYUBENKO (Russian Federation) said that his delegation had not been part of the decision taken by the Eastern European Group. The statement in the press release of 24 May had been wrong. No decision had been taken, but nevertheless it was suggested that his delegation’s statement was a proposal. Therefore, he did not intend to make any proposal on behalf of the Eastern European Group. He requested the Secretariat to make the necessary correction in documents of the current session, including such unofficial documents as the press release in question. The Eastern European Group was trying to agree on the question of the candidacy of Vice-President. That would be a decision taken by the Group as a whole.

DONKA GLIGOROVA (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), on behalf of the Eastern European Group, nominated Croatia for Vice President.

The nominees were approved by acclamation.

The President, PETER DONIGI (Papua New Guinea), announced that the Credentials Committee would meet at 3 p.m. and reminded delegations who had not done so to submit their credentials before 1 p.m. today.

Budgetary Matters, International Tribunal for Law of Sea

The meeting then turned to the draft decisions on budgetary matters of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for 2001 (document SPLOS/l.18).

KENJIKA EKEDEDE (Nigeria) asked for five minutes to study the document.

AHCENE KERMA (Algeria) noticed an apparent mistake in the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the French version, where the year 2002 should be replaced by the year 2000.

Mr. DZUBENKO (Russian Federation) seconded Nigeria’s request for a pause, but asked for 15 minutes instead.

The meeting was suspended for 15 minutes.

PAUL McKELL (United Kingdom) proposed to amend the sixth line from the foot of paragraph 1 to read "and, as appropriate, will submit a request", instead of "and will submit an appropriate request".

Mr. EKEDEDE (Nigeria) said that the Registrar should take account of geographical representation in the appointments to the staff of the Tribunal.

MAUREEN O'C. WALKER (United States) proposed amending the last sentence of the first paragraph to: "The Meeting takes note of the fact that most of the budgetary increase in 2001 over the level of 2000 is due to the costs associated with maintenance, operation and security of the new premises, as well as the level of judicial work."

Mr. DZYUBENKO (Russian Federation) said it would be difficult to agree with the first paragraph of the document, because he could not go along with a substantial increase in the budget. The document did not provide clear arguments for that increase. There were possibilities for further work on the budget to insure zero or minimal growth.

He said that the legal burden on the Tribunal might somewhat increase, but that the creation of new posts might not be necessary. He could not support the total of $8,090,900, and thought there was still slack that could be taken up with the purpose of arriving at zero growth. It was unjustified to double the money devoted to maintenance of the premises, and all expenditures in that regard might not be necessary.

He also asked the Secretariat for a breakdown of contributions of individual parties to the Convention, showing the scale and the year that had been taken as a basis. Such a breakdown would illuminate the situation. That document had been prepared in the past, he said.

The PRESIDENT replied that he did not intend to reopen the discussion on the budget. He reminded delegations that the maintenance item was the first item approved in the working group. The original increase in the budget had been reduced to 5.7 per cent, which was a tremendous achievement.

ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU (Sierra Leone) said that the contents of the document had been thoroughly debated in the informal meetings, and agreed with the President that the debate should not be reopened. Even so, he thought that Nigeria’s view that the staff level should reflect equitable distribution of the regions was appropriate.

The PRESIDENT noted that Nigeria’s concerns would be reflected in the report.

NOEL-EMMANUEL AHIPEAUD GUEBO (Côte d’Ivoire) said it was important for the geographical criteria to be taken into account in the hiring policies for the Tribunal and he, therefore, fully supported Nigeria’s statement.

ANTONIO MILLAN (Spain) said that his delegation fully supported the statement of the President.

Mr. DZYUBENKO (Russian Federation) reserved his delegation's position on the first paragraph, which dealt with the budgetary affairs of the Tribunal, for reasons he had given earlier.

The representative of the United Kingdom proposed an amendment to the second paragraph of the document, which was then debated. It was agreed to frame the amendment, as follows, "with a view to providing the Tribunal with the necessary financial means to consider cases submitted to the Tribunal in 2001, in particular those requiring expeditious proceedings, etc."

Mr. DZYUBENKO (Russian Federation) said that the Secretariat should prepare a table showing the new range of contributions in relation to the scale of assessment to the regular budget of the United Nations.

The PRESIDENT said the Registrar had undertaken to provide background information on the matter, which should be available shortly.

The meeting then adopted the draft decisions as orally amended on the budgetary matters of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for 2001.

Mr. MILLAN (Spain) said now that the contents of the document had been approved, the States parties should duly meet their obligations. The budget had continued to grow, as would be expected from a young body. It was regrettable, however, that work in the draft reduction exercise had not been as exhaustive as it could have been.

He said that the reduction of $608,000 might have been greater had the meeting persevered in efforts at austerity. He called attention to that issue for the future. One could not continue to support such successive increases in the budget. He felt that the Tribunal had been sufficiently endowed with the human and material resources needed to discharge itself of the duties entrusted to it. As long as no substantial changes took place in the workload of the Tribunal, the current figure had to be maintained from now on -- with necessary annual updates for inflation -- along the same lines as the United Nations itself addressed its short-term budget.

Mr. BOCALANDRO (Argentina) said that he had accepted the reasons for this year’s increase, but noted that after four years the budget still continued to grow. The budget had arrived at an adequate level that should be maintained. Only increases based on significant needs could be proposed. The evolving increases should come to an end.

PAUL BADJI (Senegal) said that it was the States parties’ responsibility to provide the Tribunal with the necessary means to carry out its duties. At this stage, increases were inevitable. For the future, however, once the Tribunal had gone through its initial phase, the budget should be established without too much tension.

Report on Activities of Seabed Authority

SATYA N. NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, presenting an oral report on the activities of the Authority in the past year, said the Assembly of the Authority held its fifth session from 9 to 27 August 1999. The first part of the sixth session took place from 20 to 31 March 2000, and the second would be held from 3 to 14 July 2000.

One of the most important achievements of the Assembly during the fifth session was approval of the Agreement between the International Seabed Authority and the Government of Jamaica concerning the headquarters of the Authority. Following its approval by the Assembly, the Agreement was signed by the Foreign Minister of Jamaica and the Secretary-General of the Authority. The secretariat would now work on a supplementary agreement regarding the terms and conditions of the Authority's occupation of the headquarters building.

During the same session, he said the Council of the Authority adopted the Financial Regulations of the Authority and was able to make further substantive progress on the rules of procedure of the Legal and Technical Commission and the draft regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules. The Council continued its work on the draft regulations during the first part of the sixth session in March 2000. Also during the fifth session, the Legal and Technical Commission commenced consideration of draft guidelines for the assessment of possible environmental impacts arising from exploration for polymetallic nodules, and the Finance Committee considered and adopted its rules of procedure.

With respect to the financial situation of the Authority, he said at today's date contributions to the 2000 budget had been received from 35 members of the Authority. The total amount received was $2,117,895, or 41 per cent of the total assessed contributions. He also said that, as of now, contributions of $217,814 (4 per cent of the budget) remained outstanding from 68 members of the Authority in respect of the budget for 1999, while in respect of the 1998 budget, contributions of $1,311,409 (27 per cent of the budget) remained outstanding from 46 members of the Authority.

He added that 40 members of the Authority were in arrears of contributions for a period exceeding two years. He reminded States parties that, in accordance with article 184 of the Convention and rule 80 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, a member of the Authority in arrears in the payment of its financial contribution to the Authority should have no vote if the amount of its arrears equalled or exceeded the amount of the contribution due from it for the preceding two full years.

One of the most important substantive tasks of the Authority had been to complete work on the draft regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules. Those were the regulations essential to implement Annex III of the Convention. At the end of the fifth session, the Council of the Authority decided that, with respect to the organization of work for the sixth session of the Authority, priority would be given to the work of the Council on the draft regulations, with the view to adopting the regulations during 2000. Accordingly, most of the time available during the first part of the sixth session, in March 2000, was devoted to the work of the Council.

He said the Council agreed to continue, during the second part of the session, its discussions of draft regulations dealing with the application of the precautionary principle, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, the reporting of exploration data, and confidentiality of data and information.

A workshop was held from 2 to 6 August 1999 on proposed technologies for deep seabed mining. It was attended by developers of the various mining subsystems proposed for the recovery of polymetallic nodules, representatives of the registered pioneer investors, and independent experts in technology used in the offshore mining industry. The proceedings of the workshop would be published shortly, he said.

A third workshop would be organized at the Authority's headquarters at Kingston from 26 to 30 June 2000. The Authority was also involved in other substantive work to fulfil its mandate to promote and encourage marine scientific research in the area assigned by the Authority for exploration of polymetallic nodules. He said that over the next two years, the Authority intended to establish a central data repository not only for polymetallic nodules, but also for all marine minerals in the area allocated by the Authority.

It was also intended to develop environmental databases containing, inter alia, information on the basic biology of the deep sea. Such databases would assist in the evaluation of data and information received from monitoring programmes established by contractors for the purpose of observing and measuring the effects of exploration activities on the marine environment.

It was important, he said, that State parties supported the work of the Authority by paying the assessed contributions to the administrative budget in full and on time. Another way of support was to participate in the work of the Authority, he added. The Convention and the Agreement established a very high threshold for the quorum necessary for the convening of the Assembly and the Council, which, in the case of the Assembly, was one half of the total membership of the Authority.

It was a matter of growing concern, he said, that it was becoming increasingly difficult for the Assembly to secure a quorum for its meetings in Kingston. He urged all members of the Authority (all States parties) to make their best efforts to attend the next meeting of the Authority.

DIANE MARIE QUARLESS (Jamaica) thanked the Secretary-General of the Authority for his comprehensive report. She underscored the need for States members to pay up their assessed contributions regularly and in time to the budget of the Authority and to attend its meetings.

The Meeting of the States parties took note of the report of the Secretary- General

Rules of Procedure

Mr. McKELL (United Kingdom) introduced his delegation’s draft amendment to the rule of procedure concerning decisions on questions of substance. The draft called for such decisions to be taken by a three-fourths majority of States present and voting, provided that such a majority included States parties contributing at least three-fourths of the expenses of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

He recalled that his delegation had first introduced the text at the Ninth Meeting of the States parties, but there had not been enough time to discuss it. The proposal was an appropriate method for dealing with matters of substance relating to budgetary and financial matters, he said.

HENRY HANSON-HALL (Ghana) said his delegation did not support the proposal. He drew attention to the fact that General Assembly rules of procedure provided for the adoption of budgetary matters determined by a majority present and voting. He said the United Kingdom was seeking to introduce weighted voting, which was not a United Nations practice.

EGIDIUS HAKWENYE (Namibia) said his delegation could not support the United Kingdom proposal, which was discriminatory.

YUKIO TAKASU (Japan) said his delegation favoured the United Kingdom proposal. He said weighted voting was being applied only to financial questions.

Mr. KANU (Sierra Leone) said his delegation opposed the proposal, which seemed to be aimed at exposing "those who have and those who have not". It "appeared on the face of it to be discriminatory".

NOR FARIDA ARIFFIN (Malaysia) also said her delegation could not support the United Kingdom proposal. She noted the proviso concerning the presence of the three fourths of the major contributors for the voting. The language was an unfortunate piece of drafting which should be reconsidered, she said.

CATE STEAINS (Australia) said her delegation also could not support the United Kingdom proposal. It was not appropriate to give certain countries greater voice in the work of the State parties.

SORAYA ELENA ÁLVAREZ NÚÑEZ (Cuba) said, while her delegation was aware of the size of the United Kingdom contributions, her delegation could not support the proposal, which would tend to establish differences. She referred to the need for equality.

SOCORRO FLORES (Mexico) said her delegation fully shared the views of those opposed to the proposal. Existing mechanism for adopting budget should not be changed.

VICTORIA HALLUM (New Zealand) said her delegation could not support the weighted element inherent in the United Kingdom proposal.

Ms. WALKER (United States) noted that delegations had been united in support of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Delegations had today worked through consensus in the spirit of compromise and transparency that characterized meetings of the State parties. She noted that the United Kingdom had originally set a higher threshold for decisions on budgetary and financial matters, but that had been reduced. Her delegation believed the concerns of major contributors should be taken into account. In doing so, the Meeting would be reflecting the spirit of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the International Seabed Authority. Her delegation supported the United Kingdom proposal.

Mr. KERMA (Algeria) said his delegation could not accept the proposal and favoured the existing rules of procedure.

Ms. QUARLESS (Jamaica) also said that her delegation had difficulties in supporting the United Kingdom proposal, which sought to set an unacceptable precedent. She supported the comment of the representative of Malaysia that the language of Rules of Procedure 53 and 56 should be looked at again.

Mr. EKEDEDE (Nigeria) said his delegation would have enormous difficulty in supporting the United Kingdom proposal. The General Assembly rules of procedure did not draw any distinction between budgetary matters and others, which the United Kingdom proposal seemed to seek to do.

ABDUL MUNIM AL-KHADHE (Iraq) said that like the other delegations that had spoken against, it could not accept the United Kingdom proposal. His delegation supported the existing rule.

Mr. DZYUBENKO (Russian Federation) said his delegation supported the United Kingdom proposal, although it would have preferred decisions to be taken by consensus.

GAILE ANN RAMOUTAR (Trinidad and Tobago) said her delegation would be unable to accept the proposal. She asked what the rationale was for introducing the proposal, and the reason for the departure from the accepted principle of United Nations practice.

Mr. McKELL (United Kingdom) said the proposal sought to remedy problems that might occur in the future. It was better to have a budget which States could pay for. It was not intended to give some States the veto in budgetary and financial matters.

NARINDER SINGH (India) said that the two-thirds majority rule was quite adequate and representative of the membership, and should be maintained. As a judicial body dispensing justice impartially, he said the Tribunal should not be seen to be beholden to small countries contributing a major share of its budget.

Mr. AHIPEAUD GUEBO (Côte d’Ivoire) said the report of the Seabed Authority had noted the difficulty of achieving a quorum. Absenteeism had been stigmatized. Absenteeism, however, often occurred because it was difficult for many countries to send representatives as far as Jamaica. Countries experiencing economic difficulties were most numerous among the parties. He said that it would be difficult for his country to accept the proposal.

JOCHEN TREBESA (Germany) said that his delegation could live with the proposal. He pointed out that it was not the intention of the proposal to discriminate against anybody.

FERRY ADAMHAR (Indonesia) said he supported India’s position.

PHAM TRUONG GIANG (Viet Nam) supported the position expressed by Ghana and Namibia.

CARLOS FERNANDO DIAZ PANIAGUA (Costa Rica) said it was clear that there was no consensus for the proposal. He wanted to address the issue of the distinction between participating and voting States, which should be retained. Small countries could not be present at all meetings.

RYU HO-KWON (Republic of Korea) said he had difficulties supporting the proposal of the United Kingdom. He saw no reason to differentiate budget and financial matters from other matters of substance. He said that the deliberations on the issue might be overstretched. In the past, agreements had been reached by consensus. In the event that consensus could not be reached, article 53 could be applied. That article should not be changed.

* *** *