STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION TO RECOMMEND ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATION OF TRUST FUND TO ASSIST PARTIES IN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS

Press Release
SEA/1679

STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION TO RECOMMEND ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATION OF TRUST FUND TO ASSIST PARTIES IN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS

The Meeting of States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea this afternoon recommended that the General Assembly consider the establishment of a trust fund to help States in proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

By that recommendation, based on a proposal of the United Kingdom, the United Nations Secretary-General would operate the fund. Contributions to the fund would be on voluntary basis and could be received from States, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and any other body or individual. It was pointed out that a similar trust fund had been established for the International Court of Justice.

Judge P. Chandrasekhara Rao, President of the Tribunal, welcomed the United Kingdom proposal on behalf of his colleagues. It could serve, he said, as a device to overcome financial impediments to the judicial settlement of disputes. It should aim at financially assisting States for expenses incurred in connection with any phase of the proceedings in cases submitted or to be submitted to the Tribunal.

In another action, the States parties adjourned until their Eleventh Meeting further debate on a revised amendment to rule 53 of its Rules of Procedure proposed by the United Kingdom. The rule deals with decisions on questions of substance. The revised amendment to paragraph A of rule 53 would read: "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 a majority of States Parties participating in the meeting."

Also this afternoon, the States parties began consideration of the question of the establishment of a finance committee, before adjourning further discussion until their next Meeting.

The Meeting decided to continue debate tomorrow of a proposal by Chile to have the annual Meetings of States parties consider an item entitled "Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea". Introducing the proposal this afternoon, a representative of Chile said that the Meeting, an assembly of States parties, was the highest body of a convention which was one of the greatest achievements of the United Nations. It was incumbent on the Meeting to consider the total spectrum of the law of the sea.

Page 1a follows) States Parties - 1a - Press Release SEA/1679 50th Meeting (PM) 25 May 2000

The representative of Norway, opposing the proposal, said the institutions of the Convention had now been established and were functioning. The integrity of the Convention system itself was very important, and the agenda of the Meeting should be restricted to what was provided for in the Convention.

Representatives of Senegal, Nigeria, Tonga, France, Guatemala, Greece, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Germany, Namibia, Republic of Korea, Ghana, United States, Malaysia, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Mexico, Australia, China, Portugal, Cuba, Costa Rica, India, Japan, Ukraine and Indonesia also spoke.

The States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, 26 May, to continue their deliberations.

States Parties - 3 - Press Release SEA/1679 50th Meeting (PM) 25 May 2000

Programme of Work

The Tenth Meeting of the States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea met this afternoon to continue its debate on a proposal submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom, concerning rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States Parties. It was also expected to consider other items on its agenda.

(For more background information, see Press Releases SEA/1677 of 19 May and SEA/1678 of 25 May.)

Resumed Debate on United Kingdom Proposal

The representative of Senegal said that the subject was not new and his position had not changed. The United Kingdom proposal impinged on certain principles relating to non-discrimination among States and to the equality of States before the law. Above all, the United Kingdom proposal ran counter to the practice established within bodies of the United Nations. He underlined the growing importance he attached to the financial viability of the Tribunal, which had to remain impartial and independent. He could not endorse the United Kingdom proposal.

The representative of Nigeria said the representative of the United Kingdom had unintentionally implied that some parties were more serious about budgetary control than others. That was not the case. The impartiality and independence of the Tribunal had to be taken into account. It would be gradually eroded if the proposal was accepted and, therefore, could not offer the proposal his support.

The representative of Tonga said that the unintentional mischief of the proposal had already been pinpointed by other delegations. He, too, could not support the amendment.

The representative of France said he supported the idea underlying the proposal, but felt that it should not become a matter of exclusion. If the proposal was interpreted as such, however, the wording should be reconsidered. He encouraged the States parties to continue to ponder the proposal.

The representative of Guatemala said that, in general, he shared the opinions of delegations opposing the proposal. He agreed that the introduction of a weighted voting principle was incompatible with the principle of equality of States parties.

The representative of Greece supported the proposal.

The representative of New Zealand said that the proposal was motivated by concern that adoption of the budget should be supported by an overwhelming majority of the States parties. The United Kingdom's suggestion, however, implied an element of weighted voting, which was not acceptable. She wondered if the Meeting could agree to a higher threshold, say three fourths, but without introducing the element of discrimination.

The President of the Meeting, PETER DONIGI (Papua New Guinea), said that the year 2000 budget was $7.66 million. Three fourths of that amount would be $5.75 million. That would be contributed by Japan, Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, Netherlands, and Australia, to a total of $5.69 million. With Brazil included, the amount would add up to $5.86 million. The proposed amendment by the United Kingdom would result in nine countries having a greater influence in financial and budgetary matters. It also meant that those countries might not approve the budget, creating an impasse. He, therefore, suggested that the United Kingdom consider withdrawing the proposed amendment. Otherwise, the matter would have to be deferred to next year's Meeting for consideration.

The representative of the United Kingdom suggested an amendment to his proposal so that paragraph A would read: "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 a majority of States Parties participating in the meeting."

The Meeting decided to consider the proposal as amended by the United Kingdom during its Eleventh Meeting.

The representative of Nigeria said that, although the revised United Kingdom proposal was welcome, it still was not compatible with General Assembly rules of procedure which had stood the test of time. His delegation did not know why the rules should be changed. His Government would have problems with the proposal. The amendment just proposed was still discriminatory, and the Meeting should stick to General Assembly rules.

The representative of Germany said his delegation reserved its position while awaiting instructions.

The representative of Namibia said that no such proposal had ever been advanced at the United Nations, which had major contributors to its budget. Why then was the new procedure being introduced? he asked. And why was the new procedure being proposed for the Tribunal’s budget?

The representative of France said his delegation also wished to register reservations about the proposal.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said his delegation still had problems with the revised text, which did not conform with established practice at the United Nations. His delegation did not see why decisions on the budget should be separated from other substantial matters.

The PRESIDENT proposed adjournment of debate on the question until the next meeting of State parties.

The representative of Ghana asked whether future discussion would be based on the old version or the revised version incorporating the United Kingdom proposal.

The PRESIDENT said it would be on the revised version.

The representative of the United States suggested that delegations should consider rules on budgetary matters adopted by other subsidiary bodies, such as the International Court of Justice.

Establishment of Finance Committee

The PRESIDENT asked whether delegations might want to discuss the question of the establishment of a finance committee, noting that no written proposals had been introduced. He said references to a finance committee in documents of the States parties would have to be deleted if the committee was not established.

Asked by the representative of Germany why he saw a need to bring up the issue, the President said it was a substantive matter. If establishment of the committee was approved, issues such as its composition, powers and membership would also have to be considered.

The representative of Malaysia said the meeting should first consider the rationale for establishing such subsidiary bodies.

The representative of the Netherlands said her Government would appreciate the establishment of a finance committee, which would facilitate the work of States parties. She would like to see it as an expert body which could work on budget matters, thereby curtailing the work of the States parties.

The representative of Nigeria said the current practice of formal consideration of the budget should be maintained. The composition of the finance committee, if such a body was created, should be based on geographical representation. The necessary facilities would have to be put in place to ensure full participation of all experts from various regions.

The representative of the United States said that the role of the Meeting of States parties was to consider the budget and elect judges. She would support a subsidiary body within the context of the Meeting, similar to an open-ended subsidiary body.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that, according to established procedures, the proposal to establish a financial committee should be accompanied by a financial assessment.

The representative of Mexico doubted the need for a finance committee to study the Tribunal's budget. The way it had been considered in the past was not bad. Improving consideration of the budget process was possible, but convening an open-ended-type body during the Meeting might be more appropriate. She suggested striking all references to a finance committee.

The representative of Germany was in favour of establishing a finance committee. The format of such a committee might be an issue to look into, along with its financial implications. References to the financial committee should be maintained.

The representative of Namibia expressed reservations about establishing a finance committee because of its financial implications. He was happy with the current system of an open-ended working group.

The representative of Australia said she had reservations about establishing a finance committee. Discussions of the budget were expected to become simpler now that the Tribunal would be moving into new premises. Some countries might restrict themselves to contributing to discussions in the proposed committee. The United States' suggestion of an open-ended subsidiary body was an interesting one. She supported Mexico's proposal to strike all references to the financial committee.

The representative of the Republic of Korea opposed the idea. He was interested in the United States' proposal of an open-ended subsidiary body, but hoped that detailed proposals would be put forward. The idea was too vague at this stage. He suggested deferring the discussion until the next Meeting.

The representative of Senegal said that the implications of establishing a finance committee should be thoroughly weighed. It would not necessarily lead to a shortening of the Meeting of States parties. Instead, the Meeting might find that such a committee would provide the opportunity to expand its agenda. The implications of guaranteeing full participation by States parties were important. He remained open on the issue, and said he would like to return to the subject next year.

The representative of China also favoured postponing the issue. The present practice could be continued. After some years, the question of establishing such a committee could be taken up again.

The representative of Portugal argued that one of the merits of the United States proposal was that it would officialize the way the Meeting was working now, and would make it more predictable.

The representative of France said that there was a compelling need for expertise. He thought that the idea of a financial committee should be studied thoroughly.

The representative of Greece supported an open-ended finance committee and said it would address the issue next year.

It was decided to defer the matter until next year's Meeting.

Establishment of Trust Fund

The representative of the United Kingdom formally proposed the establishment of a trust fund for the Tribunal to provide financial assistance to States to help them in proceedings before the Tribunal. The trust fund would be similar to that of the International Court of Justice, which was administered by the United Nations Secretary-General. He said the fund should be established by a resolution of the General Assembly and operated by the Secretary-General.

Contributions to the fund would be on an entirely voluntary basis, and could be received from States, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and any other body or individual. The trust fund should only be used to fund appropriate cases, principally those proceeding to the merits where jurisdiction was not at issue.

A request for financial assistance, he said, could be submitted to a panel of experts which would recommend the amount of financial assistance, if any, to be given, and the purpose for which it might be used. The expenses covered would not include any award of compensation, but would be earmarked for such items as preparation of pleadings, counsels' fees, and travel expenses. An annual report would be made to the Meeting of States parties.

Judge P. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, President of the Tribunal, expressed appreciation to the United Kingdom delegation for its proposal. The idea of a trust fund was not a new concept. The availability of such funds would serve as a device to overcome financial impediments to the judicial settlement of disputes and advance the peaceful settlement of such disputes.

Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provided for settlement of disputes by peaceful means, he said. Under article 287 of the Convention, States were given more than one means for the settlement of disputes over interpretation or application of the Convention. Those means included the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice.

He said the proposed fund should aim at rendering financial assistance to States for expenses incurred in connection with any phase of the proceedings in cases submitted, or to be submitted, to the Tribunal, including its Seabed Disputes Chamber and other Chambers of the Tribunal. The Court trust fund provided for application for financial assistance only in cases where special agreements existed for submitting disputes to the Court.

The representatives of the Republic of Korea, Namibia, Nigeria, Greece, Cuba, Mexico, Costa Rica and India supported the proposal. Some called for examination of the modalities for establishing the fund and how it would be managed. The representative of Japan said his Government would consider the proposal, and warned the Meeting not to have any high expectations of its contribution to the proposed fund.

The PRESIDENT then proposed that the Meeting agree to recommend that the General Assembly establish a trust fund.

Japan, in turn, proposed postponement of that recommendation.

The representative of Costa Rica suggested recommending that the General Assembly consider establishing the fund.

The representative of Guatemala supported the proposal by the United Kingdom. He suggested that the United Kingdom, alone or together with other States, should present a request for inclusion of the proposal in the General Assembly's provisional agenda.

The PRESIDENT noted that an item entitled "Oceans and Law of the Sea" was already on the General Assembly's agenda.

The representative of Ukraine supported the proposal and suggested asking the Secretariat to circulate relevant information on how similar trust funds operated.

The representative of Indonesia aligned himself with Ukraine's statement.

The PRESIDENT proposed recommending that the General Assembly should consider establishment of the trust fund. The Meeting adopted his proposal The delegation of Chile stressed the political and substantive importance Chile attached to its proposal for considering the issue of implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (document SPLOS/CRP.22) at the Meeting of States parties. He considered today's meeting an assembly of States parties, which should be looking at the Convention in broad terms. Up till now, the Meeting had been limited to consideration of administrative Tribunal matters. The Convention attempted to establish a legal order for the ocean and the problems of maritime spaces. Those matters were interlinked and must be considered as a whole.

The representative of Chile, introducing the proposal, said that the matter had been discussed in the Ninth Meeting. That Meeting, the assembly of the Parties, was the highest body of the Convention, which was a multilateral treaty and one of the greatest achievements of the United Nations. The goal of the Convention was to establish a legal order governing the seas and oceans. Therefore, all the maritime issues were intimately linked. Parties to a convention had the duty to see its implementation. It was incumbent on this Meeting to consider the total spectrum of the law of the sea.

Pursuant to article 319 of the Convention, he continued, the Secretary- General should present to the States parties a report on issues of a general nature that had arisen with respect to the Convention. That report had been produced in the past, but was no longer issued. Re-establishment of the report could be the foundation for a general debate in the Meeting.

Without prejudice to the autonomy of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and of the International Seabed Authority, it was logical that the work of those bodies be considered, he said. The Secretary-General of the Seabed Authority had delivered an extremely useful report, and year after year a statement, letter or report had been received from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

It was obvious that at certain times the Meeting would have to approach some legal issues on which only the Meeting of States parties would be the competent body. The strength of its institutions should not be limited, but the Meeting should consider their work as a whole. He, therefore, proposed that the next Meeting should include an item titled "Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea". He also requested the Secretary-General to issue a report on general matters to the Convention for the Eleventh Meeting.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said that the Convention had become the constitution of the oceans. There were 132 States parties, and adherence was becoming universal. In order to ensure effective implementation of the Convention, the status of the Meeting of States parties as a focal point should be reinforced. The legal regime must be truly universal. Equally important was the need for the Convention to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. There could be several matters that would warrant deliberation. He, therefore, supported Chile’s proposal.

The representative of Norway said that Chile had raised an important issue: the implementation of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The institutions of the Convention had now been established, and they were functioning. There was a

need for improvement, but that should be a next step. The detailed Chilean proposal might not be the most appropriate way of proceeding.

When the Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force in 1994, he said, the General Assembly had adopted resolution GA/49/28 on the law of the sea, dealing with the issues raised by Chile and followed up every year in the General Assembly. It was true that the Secretary-General should submit a report, but it should addressed to all States parties, not just to the Meeting of the States parties. That report, according to operative paragraph 15a of the resolution, should be dealt with by the General Assembly. That procedure had been followed every year, he said.

On the issue of the partition of competence between the General Assembly and the States parties, he said that article 319 stated that the Secretary-General shall convene necessary Meetings of States parties in accordance with the Convention. Implementation of the Convention was addressed. Matters for consideration by the Meeting were spelled out in rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States Parties. The integrity of the Convention itself was very important, and the agenda of the Meeting should be restricted to what was provided for in the Convention. The rest should be dealt with by the General Assembly and the bodies mentioned in the Convention. Work on implementation of the Convention was already taking place in those bodies.

The representative of the Philippines said the points raised by Norway represented a challenge for the Meeting to deal with.

The representative of Malaysia supported the proposal in principle. She drew attention to article 319 (a) of the Convention, which provided that the Secretary- General, as repository of the Convention, shall report to all States parties, the International Seabed Authority and competent international organizations on general issues concerning the Convention. She said the question should be on the agenda of the next Meeting of the States parties,

The PRESIDENT drew attention to a meeting to be held next week of the United Nations Open-ended Consultative Process on the Oceans, which would consider a report of the Secretary-General on the oceans and the law of the sea. It would also look at a report of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

The representative of Greece said the Meeting of States parties was the most appropriate for discussion of reports of the Secretary-General on the law of the sea.

The representative of Germany also agreed that substantive matters relating to the law of the sea should be discussed in the forum of States parties.

The representative of Japan warned that the Meeting should be cautious about expanding its mandate. It was not the ultimate body to deliberate on all aspects of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. For that, experts would be needed. His delegation could not support Chile’s proposal.

* *** *