PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION DECIDE ON WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL, BUDGETARY MATTERS
Meeting of States Parties SEA/1706
To Law of Sea Convention 17 May 2001
58th Meeting (AM)
PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION DECIDE ON WORKING GROUP
TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL, BUDGETARY MATTERS
Meeting Also Hears Views of Chairman of Commission
On Limits of Continental Shelf
The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, continuing their Eleventh Meeting, this morning adopted a decision to amend its rules of procedure to establish an open-ended working group on financial and budgetary matters.
It took that action to include a new rule, 53 bis, in the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States Parties, which was proposed by Germany.
In another action, the Meeting adopted the report of its Credentials Committee, which had recommended the acceptance of the credentials of all delegations to the Eleventh Meeting.
Following those actions, the States parties resumed their discussion of issues concerning limits on the extension of the continental shelf. The representative of Papua New Guinea submitted a draft decision yesterday calling for the extension of the 10-year deadline for States parties to submit data delineating the outer limit of their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The data is to be submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
Yuri Kazmin, Chairman of that Commission, said that any decision by the States parties to extend the 10-year deadline would not be binding on the Commission. However, the Commission would be guided by whatever decision was adopted, provided it was legally correct. A deadline, once established, should be final and binding on everyone, he emphasized.
He said that establishing limits on the continental shelf was extremely important because recent research findings had shown that oil and gas resources in areas close to the limit of the continental shelf could well become the centre of disputes between States.
Regarding partial submissions, he said that the Commission’s rules of procedure permitted them only in the case of disputes with regard to parts of the continental shelf on which States could not present submissions. Any other
(page 1a follows)
States Parties - 1a - Press Release SEA/1706
58th Meeting (AM) 17 May 2001
instance of accepting recommendations for partial submissions would mean the Commission having to change its rules. It had its own procedures for changing its rules.
The representative of New Zealand said the Commission was not in a position to advise States parties on legal matters. Its functions were technical. The Commission was a creation of the Convention, which in turn was created by the States parties. They could amend the Convention in any way they chose -- a fact that should be kept very clearly in mind, he added.
Sierra Leone's representative expressed concern at the Chairman's views, saying they should not be taken lightly. The Chairman had made certain fundamental statements of law which touched upon the validity of decisions by States parties. Consequently, he wondered what legal status the actions of States parties had, and whether the Secretariat could help the Meeting to interpret the Chairman's statement.
The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said her country regarded itself as having the potential to claim an extension of its continental shelf. There was merit in the question of extending the 10-year time limit, particularly from the perspective of a developing country, given the technical, scientific and financial difficulties faced by many of those countries in submitting the necessary data to the Commission. Trinidad and Tobago was prepared to enter into discussions on the issue.
Japan's representative said he would not block any consensus decision in the matter. Earlier, he had expressed full understanding of the difficulties some developing countries faced in preparing their submissions. Something had to be done to help them, and Japan could work with those countries towards that end.
He expressed serious doubt, however, about changing the time frame. From the legal point of view, the issue was very clear. Adopting such measures could affect the judicial stability of legal instruments. Seeking clarification of the legal issues involved, he said the question should be considered carefully.
The observer for Ecuador emphasized the inherent right of coastal States to the continental shelf, including the extended continental shelf. That right could not be affected by any delay in a State's submission of documents by a certain deadline or by any other circumstance. The 10-year deadline was not intended to undermine or limit the rights of coastal States, he said, but to facilitate the timely laying out of the distinction between national and international jurisdictions.
Cristian Maquieira (Chile), President of the Eleventh Meeting of States parties, summed up the discussion, saying there were indeed difficulties about the deadline set under the article 4 of the Convention's Annex II for submissions to the Commission. A majority of delegations realized the enormous technical difficulties involved.
He said that there also seemed to be agreement that the legal issues involved were complex and required further discussion. The Papua New Guinea draft
(page 1b follows)
States Parties - 1b - Press Release SEA/1706
58th Meeting (AM) 17 May 2001
text could be a basis for those discussions, which could be conducted in a working group.
On another matter, he said that adoption of the 2002 budget of the International Tribunal for the Convention on the Law of the Sea -- which should have taken place this morning -- had been postponed owing to outstanding "peripheral issues", particularly Japan’s proposal on the 22 per cent ceiling on assessment of States parties introduced yesterday.
Also speaking this morning were the representatives of Australia, United Republic of Tanzania, Papua New Guinea and Argentina. The observer for Morocco also spoke.
The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will meet again at 3 p.m.
(page 2 follows)
Background
The Eleventh Meeting of States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will this morning continue discussion of issues related to limits of the continental shelf, and to act on draft decisions on budgetary matters of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for 2002.
It will also act on a draft decision regarding inclusion of a new rule
53 bis in the rules of procedure for Meetings of States parties (SPLOS/2/Rev.3). The draft decision is contained in document SPLOS/L.21.
Furthermore, the Meeting will consider and act on a report of its Credentials Committee.
Statement by President
CRISTIAN MAQUIEIRA (Chile), President of the Meeting, said that adoption of the 2002 budget of the International Tribunal for the Convention on the Law of the Sea had been postponed owing to outstanding peripheral issues, particularly Japan’s proposal on the 22 per cent ceiling on assessment of States parties.
Action Meeting
FERRY ADAMHAR (Indonesia), introducing the report of the Credentials Committee (SPLOS/69 and SPLOS/69/Add.1), said that body had accepted the credentials of all delegations to the Eleventh Meeting and recommended that the report be adopted.
The Meeting then approved the report.
Taking up the rules of procedure for Meetings of States parties (SPLOS/2/Rev.3), the Meeting then approved a draft decision (SPLOS/L.2) on the inclusion of a new rule, 53 bis. The new rule refers to the formation, proposed by the German delegation, of an open-ended working group on financial and budgetary matters.
The States parties then resumed discussion of questions relating to the limits of the continental shelf.
Statements
YURI KAZMIN, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, noted that most delegations seemed to favour adoption of a draft decision in one form or another. The Commission would be guided by whatever decision was adopted, provided that it was legally correct.
Noting that many of yesterday’s statements had referred to the Secretariat background paper, he stressed that the document did not in any degree reflect the Commission’s opinion. The adoption by the States parties of a decision based on that paper did not guarantee its automatic approval by the Commission.
A great deal had been said about the Scientific and Technical Guidelines, he recalled. However, the absence of the Guidelines was not an obstacle to States making their submissions, and the Commission did not wish that absence to be a reason for extending the 10-year deadline. It was evident that 13 May 1999, the date of the Commission’s adoption of the Guidelines, was the most often cited as a date to start counting the 10-year period.
He said there was a reason for using that date. The provisions of
article 76 of the Convention did not take into account the variety of natural conditions of the continental limits. When the article was negotiated in the 1970s, the picture of the structure of the world’s oceans did not coincide with today’s picture and did not take into account the types of margins existing in reality. That created difficulties in deciding how to interpret article 76.
Regarding partial submissions, he said that the Commission’s rules of procedure permitted them only in the case of disputes with regard to parts of the continental shelf on which States could not present submissions. Any other instance of accepting recommendations for partial submissions would mean that the Commission would have to change its rules. It had its own procedures for changing its rules.
He said that a decision on extending the 10-year deadline would not be binding on the Commission. Many jurists and legal scholars shared an interpretation based on article 76, which contained a compromise between the interests of States with a wide continental shelf and those with a continental shelf that did not extend between the 200-mile limit. The Convention contained a package: all recognized States with wide shelves could extend the limit so that the legal shelf would include not only the geographical shelf, but also the slope and the rise. They could therefore extend their rights to the whole continental margin.
But the establishment of such a shelf must be done on the basis of scientific data and within a certain time-limit, which was 10 years, he said. Therefore, the 10-year period was a part of the overall package. That was not the Commission’s interpretation, but it did coincide with interpretations that claimed the extension of the deadline to be an organizational matter. It was not an organizational matter, but the Commission would not ignore the adoption of a consensus decision and would take it into account. However, the Chairman could not guarantee the Commission’s decision on the deadline.
He said that when the International Seabed Authority was elaborated there were no problems of any kind. But in the 20 years since, technological advances had given rise to many problems. States had started prospecting for sulphides and cobalt-bearing crusts. Applications for prospecting rights could be expected for areas once considered not part of the continental shelf.
Recent research showed that oil and gas resources may well exist in the area close to the limit of the continental shelf and that they could well become the centre of disputes between States, he said. The coast of South America had many promising oil and gas sedimentary basins located beyond the limit of the continental slope and rise. That made the establishment of limits extremely important. A deadline, once established, should be final and binding on everyone.
GAILE ANN RAMOUTAR (Trinidad and Tobago) said her delegation supported deferring the date for the commencement of the 10-year time limit until 13 May 1999 -- the date of the adoption of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines by the Commission. Trinidad and Tobago could also support paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft decision proposed by Papua New Guinea.
She indicated that Trinidad and Tobago believed it had the potential to claim an extension of its continental shelf, and would find such a deferral beneficial. Her delegation found merit in the question of extending the 10-year time limit, particularly from the perspective of a developing country, given the financial, technical and scientific difficulties which many such countries faced in submitting the necessary data to the Commission. Trinidad and Tobago was prepared to enter into discussions on the issue.
Regarding the procedures suggested yesterday in respect to that question, she said her delegation believed that the option of article 313 of the Convention -- which provides a simplified procedure for amending the Convention -- seemed to be the most appropriate way to take the necessary decision as soon as possible. She noted that that procedure would require the consensus of States parties.
She thought paragraph 3 of the Papua New Guinea proposal could form the basis of future discussion and looked forward to working with other delegations on that issue, to which Trinidad and Tobago, a small island developing State, attached high importance.
HIROSHI SATOH (Japan) said his delegation fully understood the difficulties some developing countries could face in preparing their submissions. Something had to be done to help them, and Japan could work with those countries towards that end.
He expressed serious doubt about changing the time frame stipulated in article 4 of Appendix II. From the legal point of view, he said the article was very clear on the issue. Reference had been made to the precedents in which States parties had changed dates in some instruments, but those were procedural. His delegation had serious doubts about their applicability. Adopting such means could affect the judicial stability of legal instruments. The issues should be considered carefully, and he asked for clarification of the legal questions involved.
MICHAEL BLISS (Australia) said the views of his delegation were reflected in the position paper of the Pacific Island Forum States, of which his country was a member. Australia had committed significant resources to defining its continental shelf. It associated itself with those calling for the extension of the 10-year limit. The issue was an organizational one and should be settled. A solution should be found.
TUVAKO N. MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania) expressed concern about the statement of the Chairman of the Commission, particularly on the legal issues he touched on regarding decisions of the States parties and their effect on the work of the Commission.
He suggested that the Meeting should seek the views of the entire Commission on the limits of the continental shelf. He also mentioned the need for the Meeting of States parties to seek to work in unison with the Commission on such issues.
PETER DONIGI (Papua New Guinea), responding to the representative of Japan, pointed out that the Convention did not provide for any penalty where a State failed to meet the deadline. Regarding the rights of coastal States, the Secretariat background paper referred to the Convention’s article 77, which says that a State’s rights over its continental shelf are inherent and do not depend on occupation or declaration.
KARIM MEDREK, observer for Morocco, stressed the importance of the Commission’s vocational training programme in training men and women to understand both the legal and technical issues involved in the complex issue. Purely technical knowledge or purely legal knowledge could not provide viable and equitable solutions for all the world’s regions. Morocco supported that pragmatic and sustainable approach.
Noting that the delegation of Norway had made a mark on discussion of the continental shelf, he expressed gratitude for that country’s financial contribution to a voluntary trust fund designed to assist the least developed countries and small island States in developing their capacity to prepare their submissions.
MARCELO VAZQUEZ, observer for Ecuador, emphasizing the inherent right of coastal States to the continental shelf, including the extended continental shelf, said it could not be affected by the mere fact that a State had not submitted documents by a certain deadline or by any other circumstance. The purpose of the discussion was procedural.
The 10-year deadline was not intended to undermine or limit the rights of coastal States, he said. It was intended for the purpose of laying out, in a timely fashion, the distinction between those areas which lay within national jurisdictions and those in the international jurisdiction. Although mineral extraction from the international seabed, which had seemed imminent in 1992, had not happened, it was in the interest of States to define the limits between national and international jurisdictions as soon as possible in order to avoid conflict.
He said that although problems linked to complex scientific, technical, political and economic factors prevented some States from meeting the deadline, the Convention could not be amended in order to resolve the question of continental shelf limits. Other legal means must be found. The gradual,
step-by-step approach was reasonable.
It was also reasonable to count the 10-year period from the adoption date of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines, he said. But that would only benefit those States for whom the Convention had entered into force before 13 May 1999, and not those for whom it had entered into force after the date. That must be kept in mind during consideration of the issue, which required a comprehensive solution.
ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU (Sierra Leone) expressed concern about the views expressed by the Chairman of the Commission which, he added, should not be taken lightly. He said the Chairman had made certain fundamental statements of law which touched upon the validity of decisions of States parties. Consequently, he wondered what legal status actions by States parties had, and whether the Secretariat could help the Meeting in interpreting the statement made by the Chairman of the Commission.
DON MACKAY (New Zealand) noted that his country was one of the sponsors of the Pacific Island Forum States’ position paper. He said the Commission was a creation of the Convention, which in turn was created by the States parties. States parties could amend the Convention in any way they chose -- a fact which should be kept very clearly in mind, he stated. The functions of the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf were technical. The Commission was not in a position to advise States parties on legal matters.
He said a decision should be taken on the extension of the 10-year time limit for submissions. His country was not among those with problems, but sympathized with the others.
HOLGER MARTINSEN (Argentina) said his delegation shared the concerns expressed about the statement of the Chairman of the Commission on limits to the continental shelf. He noted that the Chairman's comments were personal. States parties could interpret the Convention. Argentina supported the reasons put forward by the representative of Papua New Guinea in seeking an extension of the commencement of the 10-year period. It was a merely procedural matter, as the Convention did not provide any penalties for a delay in submissions to the Commission.
Mr. MAQUIEIRA (Chile), President of the Eleventh Meeting of States parties, summing up the discussion, said there were indeed difficulties about the deadline set under article 4 of Annex II for submissions to the Commission. A majority of delegations realized there were enormous technical difficulties involved in making the submissions. He expressed gratitude to Norway for donating more than
$1 million to help developing countries prepare their submissions. He said difficulties in determining the continental shelf affected the preparations, as there were other technical and scientific issues.
There seemed to be agreement that further discussions were needed on the commencement of 10-year time limit, for which 13 May 1999 had been mentioned. There was also an agreement that the legal issues involved were complex and required further discussion. A majority of speakers had stated that there was a possibility of reaching agreement on the issue. The Papua New Guinea draft text could be a basis for those discussions -- except for the third paragraph of that text. He said that the discussions could be conducted in a working group. He noted that one delegation had expressed doubt about the manner in which that date was calculated.
He intended to have consultations on the subject in a working group, followed by a document.
Mr. SATOH (Japan) said his delegation would not block any consensus on the 13 May 1999 date as the starting point for calculating the commencement of the
10-year limit.
* *** *