Meeting of States Parties

To Law of the Sea Convention

60^th Meeting (PM)

STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION RESOLVE ISSUE OF 10-YEAR TIME PERIOD

FOR SUBMISSION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF DATA

At Eleventh Meeting’s Final Session,

Delegates Decide on 13 May 1999 as Starting Date

The Eleventh Meeting of States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea decided at its closing session on Friday evening that 13 May 1999 shall be taken as the starting date of the 10-year period from the entry into force of the Convention for each State to make a submission on the outer limits of the extended continental shelf.

That date will apply to States for which the Convention entered into force before 13 May 1999 -- the date on which the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf adopted its Scientific and Technical Guidelines.  The guidelines are to assist States in preparing their submissions which are to be sent to the Commission.

The Meeting also decided to keep under review the general issue of the ability of States, particularly developing States, to fulfil the Commission's requirements.  Those requirements, including the submission of data to the Commission within a 10-year period, are set out in article 4 of Annex II to the Convention.

Cristian Maquieira (Chile), President of the Eleventh Meeting, said in his closing statement that the issue of the 10-year time period was one of the most important items on the agenda this year.  The Meeting -- keeping in mind the difficulties encountered by developing countries in complying with their obligations -- had adopted a decision based on a proposal by Papua New Guinea, on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum States.

He expressed gratitude to the Government of Norway for its substantial contribution to a voluntary trust fund to help developing countries meet their obligations under article 76 of the Convention (definition of the continental shelf) and hoped other States would also contribute to the fund.  He underlined the importance of training to enable developing countries to fulfil the requirements of the article.

The President also paid tribute to Gritakumar Chitty, the outgoing Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, who will resign on 1 July.  He said it was very important that the next Registrar be elected from a broad

range of candidates, keeping in mind that the Tribunal was an international institution that treated all regions equally.

Before concluding the Eleventh Meeting, the States parties discussed matters relating to article 319 of the Convention, which spells out the Secretary-General’s depositary functions.  It also details additional responsibilities entrusted to him under the Convention, including an obligation to report to all States parties, the International Seabed Authority and competent international organizations on general issues arising with respect to the Convention.

Also this evening, the President announced that the Twelfth Meeting of States parties would be held from 13 to 24 May 2002.  That date would coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention.  He would hold discussions in the months ahead with delegations on the appropriate manner to celebrate the event.

Speaking during today's discussion were the representatives of Papua New Guinea, Chile, Norway, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, New Zealand, Philippines, Nigeria, Spain, United Kingdom, Sierra Leone, and Iceland.  The observer for the United States also spoke.

The Meeting also heard a statement by the representative of a non-governmental organization, the Seamen's Church Institute.

Opening of Final Session

The President opened the Meeting by outlining the afternoon’s business.  He added that the report of the External Auditors for the financial year 2000, with financial statements of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, would be considered at the Twelfth Meeting.

Action by Meeting

The Meeting then adopted the draft decision on the commencement date of the 10-year period for making submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

PETER DONIGI (Papua New Guinea), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum States, thanked delegations for their work in coming up with the compromise text.

Issues Relating to Article 319 of Convention

The Meeting then took up matters relating to article 319 of the Convention.

MARIA-TERESA INFANTE (Chile) said it had been a concern shared by many States that the Meeting of States parties not be restricted to consideration of organizational matters.  It was not simply a question of granting the Meeting powers over issues that had already been decided, but one of overall decision-making power with respect to implementing annual review of the Convention and other developments in the context of the oceans.

She said article 319 provided a good basis for promoting a more active role for the Meeting of States parties.  It could analyse information of general interest received from various bodies that did not necessarily rely on the responsibility of the Secretariat.  An overall approach and vision, in accordance with article 319, was important, particularly when dealing with the way in which the Convention worked.  It was important for the Meeting to make a contribution at a legal level.

HANS WILHELM LONGVA (Norway), noting that this was the third year that the discussion was taking place, said his country did not agree that the Meeting was an appropriate forum for implementation of review of the Convention.  The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and other bodies had specific functions under the Convention and they should stick to those functions.  The Commission had a scientific and technical function and could not give legal advice to the Meeting.  Likewise, it was not the function of the Meeting to discuss issues like general review and implementation.  Only the General Assembly had the overall global competence to review.

MARIA ANTONIETA MONROY (Mexico) cited paragraph 4, Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, saying that among the purposes of the Organization was to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of States in the attainment of common ends.

HOLGER MARTINSEN (Argentina) said that the Secretary-General's function of reporting to States parties on general matters arising from the Convention was clearly acknowledged in article 319.  However, Argentina was concerned at claims that the exercise by some coastal States of their rights with regard to fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks were inconsistent with the Convention's provisions.

He said the Secretariat's mandate did not give it power to pass judgement on the compatibility of domestic legislation and the Convention, and the report did not give adequate justification for such a judgement.  The Argentine law referred to was perfectly consistent with the Convention and general international law, he stressed, urging the Secretariat to address that issue.

SORAYA ELENA ALVAREZ NUNEZ (Cuba) said that questions related to article 319 were very important for the future, especially given the adoption of the decision on the 10-year time period.  The discussion on extending the deadline had demonstrated the genuine role that the Meeting could play, and had shown that it was competent to be seized of all general issues deserving study in the context of implementing the Convention.  The inclusion of the item on the agenda was important in view of ongoing General Assembly consultations concerning ocean affairs.

VICTORIA HALLUM (New Zealand) said the Meeting's role could not be reduced strictly to administrative matters.  But it should bear in mind the work being undertaken in other United Nations forums.  While the General Assembly was well placed to deal with many matters, the work going on there did not preclude the role suggested for the Meeting by Chile.  The States parties had the capacity to consider and discuss the definition of problems like piracy.

CARLOS SORRETA (Philippines) said there had been unexpected profound changes since the Convention was adopted, and States parties to the instrument should be concerned with its implementation.  His delegation supported the Chilean position.

KENJIKA LINUS EKEDEDE (Nigeria) said that legally speaking, States parties to the Convention had a right to discuss issues of a general nature affecting the Convention and to implement them.  He observed that although the General Assembly had the lead role in matters relating to the Convention, there were some Assembly members who were not party to the Convention.  States parties could discuss fundamental issues reported to it by institutions created by the Convention.  A State party could also bring up issues raised in reports of the Secretary-General.  The Meeting of States parties had an inherent right to do so, he said.

JOSE ANTONIO ITURRIAGA (Spain), supporting the position of Chile, said the Meeting of States parties was a supreme organ of the Convention and thus had a role to play in looking at the instrument and its implementation.  The States parties had to look at every issue that arose in the implementation of the Convention.  The Secretary-General in his reports could flag States parties to issues arising from the implementation of the Convention.  Under his initiative certain issues could be placed on the agenda of Meetings of States parties.  

MAUREEN WALKER, observer for the United States, said article 319 imposed a duty on the Secretary-General to convene meetings of States parties.  Under customary international law, as reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the provision must be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms in their context and in the light of the Convention's object and purpose.  Any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the Convention, and subsequent practice between the parties in the application of the agreement, were also to be taken into account in its interpretation.  To the extent that the terms of the provision were ambiguous, she said the relevant negotiating history of the provision should also be considered.

The mandate of the Secretary-General to convene meetings was qualified in two respects:  first, it was limited to meetings that were “necessary”, and second, the mandate was linked to other provisions of the Convention.  She said a study by the Secretary-General (submitted in 1981) made it clear that any general review functions under the Convention would be handled as part of his reporting obligation in article 319, and that such reporting would be prepared “on the basis of systematic consultations”.  He cautioned that before any mechanisms for such consultation could be established, “further work would be needed on possible alternative methods for consulting governments … and ensuring better coordination on ocean space matters”.

The negotiating history of the provision strongly suggested that the delegations to the negotiating conference never intended to empower the Meeting of States parties to perform a review or even consultation function regarding general issues pertaining to the Convention or its implementation.   

Mr. DONIGI (Papua New Guinea) recalled the compromise text adopted last year by which it was agreed to review instead of discuss implementation of the Convention.  He saw some complementarity in the informal consultations on ocean matters and the Meetings of State parties.  The topic should remain on the agenda of the States parties.  It was within the jurisdiction of the States parties to suggest to the Secretary-General to include a specific item on their agenda.  A State party could also suggest an agenda item.

PAUL MCKELL (United Kingdom) said it was not necessary or appropriate for the item to be placed on the agenda.  The "Other matters" provision of the agenda could be used for issues raised by States parties.

Mr. MARTINSEN (Argentina) endorsed remarks by the representative of Spain, saying that the Secretary-General’s report might please some delegations and not others.  The value judgement in the Secretariat report pre-supposed an interpretation of Argentine law, whereas Argentina had not been consulted on the scope of the law.

ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU (Sierra Leone) reiterated his support for Chile’s position, noting that his delegation had consistently supported it for the last two years.  Sierra Leone did not agree with the position of the observer for the United States, but endorsed the principled stand of Papua New Guinea's representative.  Nigeria's representative had made it clear: the Convention had created institutions that deliberated on matters pertaining to the Convention, and issued reports containing sections that were pertinent to implementation.  Those reports were presented to the Meeting, which could therefore not be excluded from considering such matters.  The General Assembly was not competent to discuss such matters because not every State represented there was a member of the Meeting.  The Assembly could therefore not be more competent than the Meeting.

TOMAS HEIDAR (Iceland), referring to the statement that the issue was a substantive one, underlined that it was an organizational matter.

Mr. DONIGI (Papua New Guinea) said that the agenda item “other business” was restricted to administrative matters and was normally raised from the floor.  It did not apply to matters for which States had already given due notice.

Mr. MAQUIEIRA (Chile), President of the Meeting, said the content and result of the discussion were similar to those of previous years.  The proposal by Chile was very useful, as it made it possible for delegations to use the tool as needed.  It would be useful for the future.

Statement by NGO Representative

DOUGLAS STEVENSON, Director of the Seamen’s Church Institute’s Centre for Seafarers’ Rights, speaking about the Law of the Sea from a human perspective, said that the protections accorded to those who toiled at sea were the most important aspects of the Convention and should receive the most attention.  Without them the Convention’s provisions had little meaning.  While seafarers were tough, highly skilled professionals, they were very vulnerable.

Pointing out that mariners were still threatened by pirates in many parts of the world, he called for urgent international efforts to eradicate piracy.  Countries that were victimized by piracy must take stern measures to protect their ships and crews, even for acts that occurred in the territory of other countries.  That would involve taking a new look at the definition of piracy.  Other issues relating to the Convention included abandoning mariners, detaining ships’ crews and eroding traditional seafarers’ rights.

He noted that although maritime law theoretically provided remedies for seafarers abandoned without pay, food, water, fuel or the means to go home, the remedies were often beyond their reach.  They often could not afford to pay litigation costs and legal fees or to support themselves during the protracted legal procedures required to take advantage of the law’s protections.  Some States, he said, in their zeal to protect fragile marine environments, had resorted to imposing strict criminal liability on ships’ crews for pollution incidents -- even where no criminal culpability was involved.

Examples of the erosion of seafarers’ rights included attempts to dilute their traditional rights to medical care, he said.  That right, one of the oldest and most enduring accorded to seafarers, was so firmly established in maritime law that it was an assumed part of every mariner’s employment contract.  It was so fundamental that no mariner could give it away by contract, he emphasized.

He said that when mariners’ health, safety or welfare was in jeopardy, they looked to the Convention for protection.  Its comprehensive regime of law and order not only provided benefits to individual States and the world economy, but also imposed obligations on States.  When one flag State failed to honour its obligations under the Convention, all States parties were affected.  In such situations, especially those involving persons’ rights, the international community and individual nations must step in to protect the seas’ most valuable resource:  human beings who live and work on ships.

President’s Closing Statement

CRISTIAN MAQUIEIRA (Chile), President of the Eleventh Meeting, in a closing statement, noted that the Meeting had been able to adopt a draft budget of $7,807,500 for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea expeditiously because of the excellent proposal prepared by the Tribunal and the cooperation of all delegations.

He drew attention to the need for assessed contributions to be paid in full and in a timely fashion so that the Tribunal could discharge its functions effectively and efficiently.  The same might also be said for the payment of contributions to the International Seabed Authority. 

The Meeting also dealt with the election of a judge for the Tribunal to serve the remainder of the term of Judge Lihai Zhao of China, who passed away last year.  It elected a distinguished jurist, Xu Guangjian, also from China, to fill the vacancy.  On behalf of the Meeting, he extended best wishes and sincere hopes for a successful term on the Tribunal.

He informed the Meeting that the Government of the United Kingdom had made a further contribution to the trust fund established to assist developing States in the settlement of disputes through the Tribunal.  The contribution was in addition to the one previously announced by that Government last year in the General Assembly.  He extended the gratitude of the Meeting to the Government of the United Kingdom for its generous support, and hoped other countries would also contribute to the fund.

He noted a new rule relating to the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States, which formalized the current practice of considering the proposed budget of the Tribunal.  The rule provided for an open-ended working group on financial and budgetary matters which would make recommendations to the Meeting.  In a related matter, the question of the financial regulations of the Tribunal would be taken up next year, despite the progress that was made during its consideration.

The Chairman observed that one of the most important items on the agenda this year was the issue of the 10-year time-limit for States to make submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, as set out in article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  The Meeting

-- keeping in mind the difficulties encountered by some States, particularly developing countries, in complying with their obligations under that article -- adopted a decision based on a proposal by Papua New Guinea.  He said States in a position to do so should send their submission to the Commission as soon as possible.

He underlined the importance of training to enable the developing countries to fulfil the requirements of the article.  He recalled that the Chairman of the Commission had reminded the Meeting that the Commission had developed training modules but that it was not within its mandate to provide such training.  It was stated that the Meeting of States parties should explore ways and means of addressing that issue.  He, on behalf of the Meeting, expressed gratitude to the Government of Norway in making a substantial contribution to the voluntary trust fund to help developing countries meet their obligations under article 76 (definition of the continental shelf).  He hoped other States would also make contributions to the fund.

Twelfth Meeting

The President announced that the Twelfth Meeting of States parties would be held from 13 to 24 May 2002.  He noted that the date would coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  He said he would hold discussions in the months ahead with delegations on the appropriate manner to celebrate "the great contributions the Convention has made to the progressive development of international law".

He also read out the agenda items for the Twelfth Meeting, which included reports of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the report of External Auditors for the financial year 2000, scale of assessment for the contribution of States parties to the Tribunal's budget and the draft budget of the Tribunal for 2003.  Other items included the election of seven members of the Tribunal; election of 21 members of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; and consideration of financial regulations of the Tribunal.

Eleventh Meeting Highlights

One of the major issues debated during the Meeting, which began on 14 May, was the question of the 10-year time-limit for submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as set out in article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Those submissions concerned the delineation of the outer limit of a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

Yuri Kazmin, Chairman of the Commission, reminded States parties of the 10-year deadline from the entry into force of the Convention for States to make their submission on the outer limits of the extended continental shelf.  He said until it was legally changed, the deadline was the Commission's basic guiding principle.

During the debates it was noted that the adoption of the Commission's Scientific and Technical Guidelines which was to assist coastal States in making their submission had been delayed.  It was noted that many States, particularly developing countries, faced difficulties, including insufficient technical and scientific expertise to fulfil their obligations under article 4 of Annex II to the Convention.

The 11-member Pacific Island Forum States introduced a position paper strongly urging the extension of the time-frame for submissions to the Commission.  They noted that the scientific and technical work required to support a submission was highly complex and beyond the capacity of many small island States.  The problem was exacerbated, they said, by the fact that, in many cases, zones of national jurisdiction, including territorial seas, archipelagic seas and exclusive economic zones, had not been accurately defined.

In the end, the Meeting adopted a decision based on a proposal by Papua New Guinea to keep under review the more general issue of the ability of States, particularly developing countries, to fulfil the requirements of article 4 of Annex II to the Convention.

During the debate on the 10-year time-limit for making submissions, the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf said it had developed training modules, but that it was not within the Commission's mandate to provide such training itself.  A number of delegations stressed the importance of training, and one representative said a fund should be set up to assist regional and other centres of excellence such as the United Nations University to organize the training.  Norway announced it had provided more than $1 million to assist developing countries to meet their obligations under article 76 of the Convention.  The article deals with the definition of the continental shelf.

Another important issue on the Meeting's agenda was questions related to article 319 of the Convention, covering the reporting functions of the Secretary-General under the Convention.  Hans Corell, the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, gave delegations background information on the matter on the first day of the Meeting.

He recalled that General Assembly resolution 49/28 of 6 December 1994 had given the Secretary-General a mandate to prepare comprehensive reports on developments relating to the implementation of the Convention, the law of the sea and ocean affairs as reflected in Assembly resolutions.  The resolution, adopted after the entry into force of the Convention, highlighted the importance of the General Assembly's annual review of the overall competence to undertake such a review.

Tribunal's 2002 Budget

The Meeting approved the draft 2002 budget of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, totalling $7,807,500, on 17 May.  It also approved $894,300 as contingency funds to provide the Tribunal with the necessary financial means to consider cases in 2002, in particular those requiring expeditious proceedings.

The draft budget envisaged the convening of meetings of the Tribunal for 10 weeks in 2002, six weeks to deal with cases and four for other purposes, such as budget preparation and consideration of organizational and procedural matters related to the work of the Tribunal.  It included an annual remuneration of the 21 judges of the Tribunal in the amount of $1,295,100, in addition to $318,000 in special allowances and $120,000 in travel for the judges.  It also covered $2,187,700 for established posts, $100,000 for general temporary assistance, $50,300 for overtime and $94,700 for official travel.  In addition, the budget allocated $129,000 for temporary assistance for meetings.  

The Meeting also decided to revise the level of compensation for ad hoc judges to bring it in line with the system of remuneration applicable to the elected 21 members of the International Tribunal.  The aim was to ensure consistency between the two systems.  The budget and all other funds approved by the Meeting will be financed by all States and international organizations that are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

A proposal by Japan to have the ceiling rate of the scale of assessments of contributions lowered from 25 to 22 per cent, following the decision of the General Assembly on contributions to the United Nations budget, was withdrawn on the understanding that the issue would be included on the agenda of the Twelfth Meeting next year.

The Meeting adopted a new rule that in effect formalized its current practice of considering the proposed budget of the Tribunal through an open-ended working group on financial and budgetary matters, chaired by the President, which will make recommendations to the Meeting.

Progress was made in the debate on the financial regulations of the Tribunal, based on a working paper produced by the Secretariat.  The item will be taken up at the next Meeting of the States parties.

      Election of Tribunal Member

The Eleventh Meeting elected Xu Guangjian of China to serve the remainder of the term of Judge Lihai Zhao, also of China, who passed away last year.

International Tribunal

Judge P. Chandrasekhara Rao, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, told the Meeting that the Tribunal had delivered judgements in two cases during the reporting period: the “Camoucou" case between Panama and France and the "Monte Confurco" case between Seychelles and France.  More recently, the Tribunal had delivered its judgement in the "Grand Prince" case between Belize and France.  At the request of Chile and the European Union, it had formed a special chamber to hear a dispute concerning conservation and sustainable exploitation of swordfish stocks in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean.  It was the first chamber formed to deal with a particular dispute.

The Tribunal moved into permanent premises in Hamburg last November and concluded an agreement with the Government of Germany on occupancy and use of the premises.  Negotiations were still continuing with the German authorities on the Headquarters Agreement.

      International Seabed Authority

Satya Nandan, Secretary-General of the Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority, in an oral report to the Meeting, said the main achievement of the Assembly of the Authority, during the Authority's sixth session, was the approval of the Regulations for Prospecting and Exploration for polymetallic nodules in the Area established by the Convention.  That followed the adoption of the regulations by the Council of the Authority during the same session.  The Council approved the Rules of Procedure of the Legal and Technical Commission of the Authority.

Twenty-seven members of the Authority had signed the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the International Seabed Authority, which was opened for signature in Kingston on 26 August 1998.  Three countries -- Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom -- have ratified the Protocol, while Croatia acceded to it on 8 September 2000.  It would enter into force 30 days after the tenth instrument of ratification or accession is deposited. 

The Assembly had adopted the Authority budget for 2001 and 2002 in the sum of $10,506,400 -- the first budget to cover a two-year financial period, as envisaged in the Financial Regulations of the Authority.

      Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf

Yuri Kazmin, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, told the Meeting that the Convention was the instrument which created the Commission, and by which it was guided.  While the other two entities created by the Convention -- the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Seabed Authority -- had observer status, the Commission did not have such formal relationship with the Meeting of States parties.  Perhaps that was because the Commission had not yet been established when the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of State parties were adopted.

On the issue of the 10-year time-limit, he said that was what had been stipulated in the Convention.  The establishment of continental shelf limits beyond 200 nautical miles was quite complicated, and in many developing countries there was a need to train the appropriate staff.  The Commission had prepared a wide range of materials for use by States parties and international organizations for that purpose.

He said the Commission had always considered it important to work with the States parties on matters related to the Convention.  It had, for example, requested the States parties' advice on dealing with areas where a dispute was involved.  Other issues for which the Commission was grateful to the States parties included the establishment of trust funds to cover expenditures arising from the participation of members nominated by developing countries in the work of the Commission, and to assist with the training of technical and administrative staff.

Trust Funds

During the meeting, Norway announced that it had made a contribution to the trust fund to assist developing countries in meeting their obligations under article 76 of the Convention (definition of the continental shelf).  It was announced that the United Kingdom had made a further contribution to the voluntary trust to assist developing States in the settlement of disputes through the International Tribunal.

Resignation of Tribunal Registrar

Justice P. Chandrasekhara Rao, President of the Tribunal, announced that its Registrar, Gritakumar Chitty, would resign with effect from 1 July.  Mr. Chitty had first served the Tribunal as an officer appointed by the Secretary-General, then as the Director in charge of the Registry and finally as the Tribunal's first Registrar.

Justice Rao said Mr. Chitty had played an important role in establishing the Registry, in negotiating relations between the Tribunal and the host country and in setting up the necessary infrastructures.  The Tribunal was taking steps to elect his successor as soon as possible, he added.

Mr. Maquieira (Chile), President of the Eleventh Meeting, expressed sadness at the Registrar's decision to leave his position, noting his dedicated contribution, during the Conference on the Law of the Sea, to those provisions of the Convention dealing with the settlement of disputes.  Upon approval of the Convention, he had also performed brilliantly in helping to establish a special committee to organize the Tribunal.  Since then he had been instrumental in ensuring that the Tribunal had the same status as the International Court of Justice.

Satya Nandan, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, said that as someone who supported the Tribunal very strongly and as the President of the meeting of States parties, Mr. Chitty was instrumental in its establishment.  The Tribunal was very young and needed to establish its credibility and to develop with circumspection.

Mr. Chitty had an outstanding international career, and his decision to resign at this time had brought to an end a remarkable term of service to the international community, Mr. Nandan stated.  Mr. Chitty joined the United Nations in 1975, and since then had been associated with the Secretariat of the United Nations as well as the Tribunal.  He served as the Secretary of the Working Committee of the Whole, which developed the system of dispute settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and was very dedicated to the task.  He continued as Secretary of the special preparatory commission which was

charged with making preparations for the establishment of the International Tribunal.

In the first proposal of the budget of the Tribunal, Mr. Chitty -- together with the State parties -- had set a very high standard for the Tribunal, Mr. Nandan said, adding that he thought the State parties and the international community owed much to him with respect to the work he did throughout his many years with the Tribunal.   

Several other delegates expressed regret at the news of Mr. Chitty's imminent departure and wished him well.

* *** *