LAW OF SEA CONVENTION PRAISED AS MILESTONE FOR RULE OF LAW, UNITED NATIONS, AS GENERAL ASSEMBLY COMMEMORATES 20TH ANNIVERSARY

Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Plenary

70^th Meeting (AM)

LAW OF SEA CONVENTION PRAISED AS MILESTONE FOR RULE OF LAW, UNITED NATIONS,

AS GENERAL ASSEMBLY COMMEMORATES 20TH ANNIVERSARY

‘Constitution for the Oceans’ Largely Fulfilled, Says Secretary-General;

Warns of Continued Threat from Depleted Fisheries, Degraded Marine Environment

The General Assembly met this morning to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the opening for signature of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Secretary-General Kofi Annan describing it as “a milestone for the rule of law and the United Nations”.

Known as “a constitution for the oceans”, said the Secretary-General, the Convention had established a legal framework of general principles and rules governing the division of ocean space and regulating all activities within it.  Over the past twenty years, the purposes of the Convention had been fulfilled in large measure.

However, he continued, implementation of certain aspects -– exemplified by the increasing depletion of world fisheries and the serious degradation of the marine environment -– had been inadequate, posing threats not only to food security and the livelihood of many coastal communities, but also to human health and life itself.  Thus, cooperation and coordination between States should be improved and all States that had not yet done so should ratify the Convention.

Acting Assembly President Clifford S. Mamba (Swaziland), speaking on behalf of Assembly President Jan Kavan (Czech Republic), said that the elaboration of the Convention represented an attempt to establish true universality to achieve a “just and equitable international economic order” governing ocean space.  For the first time, the Convention offered a universal and complex legal framework for sharing the oceans as a common heritage of mankind.

A number of other speakers said that perhaps the most notable achievement of the Convention was its contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes with a mandatory, not an optional, system of dispute settlement.

In the past 20 years, said Tommy Koh, President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, there had been no instance of a dispute involving the interpretation of the Convention that had led to the use of force.  Instead, such disputes had been referred to either the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, conciliation or arbitration.

Satya N. Nandan, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, added that the greatest contribution of the Convention had been to resolve important jurisdictional questions, some of which had eluded agreement for centuries.  The Convention reflected a delicate balance between competing interests in the use of the oceans and their resources by taking a functional approach in establishing the various maritime zones and the rights and duties of States in those zones.

Also this morning, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, former President of Malta, paid special tribute to the late Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta, whom he described as a “visionary” for originating the ideas for the Law of the Sea and seeing that civilizing project through to its conclusion in the Convention.

In addition, statements were made by Don Mackay, President of the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention; Martin Belinga-Eboutou, President of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority; Raymond Ranjeva, Member of the International Court of Justice (on behalf of the Court’s President, Gilbert Guillaume); Alexander Yankov, Member of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (on behalf of Tribunal President L. Dolliver Nelson); and Peter F. Croker, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

The representatives of Gabon (on behalf of African States), Japan (on behalf of the Asian States), Armenia (on behalf of the Eastern European States), Venezuela (on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States) and Sweden (on behalf of the Western European and Other States) also spoke.

In conjunction with the commemoration, the Assembly will hold, at 3 p.m. today, two simultaneous informal panel discussions on the theme “The Dynamism of the Convention:  challenges for the present and solutions for the future”.

Background

The General Assembly met this morning to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the opening for signature of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Statements

CLIFFORD SIBUSISO MAMBA (Swaziland), Acting President of the General Assembly, delivering the message of JAN KAVAN (Czech Republic), General Assembly President, said that since ancient times, domination of the sea and maritime trade had symbolized and attributed power and prosperity.  From the fifteenth century onwards, great discoveries gave further importance to domination of the sea.  Modern technologies of the last century offered the opportunity to exploit the mineral resources of the sea and speeded up industrial and economic development.  The use of the oceans had evolved from basic provision of food and as a medium of transportation, resources for energy and minerals.  Thus, it was no surprise that the supremacy over the oceans had also been a source of conflict and for many years it was law of the strongest that ruled.

Tomorrow, 10 December, he noted, it would be 20 years since the Convention was opened for signature, as a result of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that took place from 1973 until 1982.  Aware of the extreme importance to elaborate a new and comprehensive regime for the law of the sea the international community worked together and mutual cooperation overcame numerous conflicting interests.  The elaboration of the Convention represented an attempt to establish true universality in the effort to achieve a “just and equitable international economic order” governing ocean space.

For the first time, he continued, the Convention offered a universal and complex legal framework for sharing the oceans as a common heritage of mankind.  The text of the Convention was not only the result of the codification of customary law; it embodied the progressive development of international law, as well, and also constituted the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  The high number of States Parties to the Convention was the best proof of the magnificent success of all those who participated in the work.

Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea had been “a milestone for the rule of law, and for the United Nations”.  Known to many as “a constitution for the oceans”, the Convention had established a legal framework of general principles and rules governing the division of ocean space and regulating all activities within it.  It was a permanent document that provided order, stability, predictability and security based on the rule of law, in an element where human beings of different nations had interacted through the centuries.

Challenges requiring new thinking and vigorous action had emerged, he said, in each of the main areas addressed by the Convention.  Yet, the Convention was a living document, adaptable to change.  Knowing that all the problems and uses of the ocean were interrelated and that a piecemeal approach would not suffice, the framers had elaborated a Convention, which attempted to address all problems, activities, resources and uses of the ocean.  They had also sought to take into account and balance the rights and interests of all groups of States.

The Convention had provided for the rational exploitation of living and non-living marine resources, he added, as well as for the conservation of living resources.  It had established a comprehensive and forward-looking framework for the protection of the marine environment, a regime for marine scientific research, principles for the transfer of technology and a binding system for dispute settlement.  Over the past twenty years, the purposes of the Convention had been fulfilled in large measure.  However, implementation of certain aspects –- exemplified by the increasing depletion of world fisheries and the serious degradation of the marine environment -– had been inadequate.

That posed threats not only to food security and the livelihood of many coastal communities, but also to human health and life itself, he concluded.  As the source of life and its sustenance, the oceans and seas had been vitally important for the earth’s ecosystem.  Without them, economic prosperity and the well-being of present and future generations could not be sustained.  To succeed in meeting those threats, cooperation and coordination between States should be improved and all States that had not yet done so should ratify the Convention.

UGO MIFSUD BONNICI (Malta) paying tribute to the late Ambassador from Malta, Arvid Pardo, said globalization had not created a new world order, but a state of fact.  What was needed today were visionaries who could provide answers and possessed competence, in addition to intuition, since they had a greater task to perform than the prophets of previous centuries.  “Arvid Pardo was such a visionary.”  A jurist and international diplomat, he saw the fate of coming generations and the planet’s physical well-being as one and the same.  Appointed as Ambassador Extraordinary by newly independent Malta, he seized the opportunity presented by Malta’s membership in the United Nations and put forward his vision of the new Law of the Sea and a new way of exploiting the riches of the ocean bed in the 1960s.  In 1967, he delivered his memorable speech to the General Assembly.  By 1973, the General Assembly convened a Law of the Sea Conference.

Even after he was no longer an ambassador, Pardo continued to work for the adoption of a convention on the law of the sea.  He was happy to see the opening of the Convention in Jamaica on 10 December 1982.  He was not entirely satisfied with the outcome, but continued to work for acceptance of the concepts embodied in the text of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and for further progress in the study of his area of international law, as well as in the science and technology connected with the protection of the seas and seabed and the marine environment and their exploitation for exclusively peaceful purposes.

The world has a debt of gratitude to people of vision who see a civilizing project through to its conclusion, he said.  “I pay tribute to a great man from a small nation” who made a contribution to the unfinished mural of our civilization.

TOMMY KOH, of Singapore, who served as President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, said the Convention had made a contribution to international peace and security by replacing a plethora of conflicting claims with universally-agreed limits on the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.  The world community’s interest in the freedom of navigation had been well served by the delicate compromises contained in the Convention on the status of the exclusive economic zone, the regime of innocent passage through the territorial sea, the regime of transit passage through straits used for international navigation and the regime of archipelagic sealanes passage.

The Convention, he added, had also made a contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes between States by having a mandatory, not an optional, system of dispute settlement.  In the past 20 years, there had been no instance of a dispute involving the interpretation of the Convention which had led to the use of force.  Instead, such disputes had been referred to either the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, conciliation or arbitration.  The Convention was like a constitution which sought to regulate all aspects of the uses and resources of the world’s seas and oceans.  Its underlying philosophy was that ocean space should be treated as an ecological whole.

He pointed out that the process of achieving the Convention was almost as important as the Convention itself.  The Conference was probably the first truly global effort of mankind to work collaboratively in the development of international law.  It developed, tested and refined diplomatic techniques and processes for reaching agreement that lived on today in the United Nations and many multilateral conferences.  He did not believe there was a need to review the Convention as it had stood up well to the test of time.  Also, it had been possible to evolve pragmatic processes to cure the Convention’s imperfections and to provide solutions to problems left unresolved by the Convention.  The Assembly had, for example, adopted a resolution containing an implementation agreement on Part XI of the Convention, the effect of which was to amend that part of the Convention dealing with deep seabed mining.

DENIS DANGUE RÉWAKA (Gabon), speaking on behalf of the African Group of States, said that the adoption of the Convention had been a turning point in the history of international cooperation, under the dual impact of the integration and globalization processes.  Since its entry into force, the Convention had allowed many coastal countries to resolve problems related to the protection and management of their maritime territories.  Thus, the African States reiterated their support for the strengthening of such a useful instrument.

The Convention, however, needed to be more in line with the tenor of the times, he said.  For that reason, he had supported resolution 54/33, which provided for the establishment of a process to facilitate the reconsideration of the Convention by the General Assembly.  Such a review should focus on the rational management and utilization of marine resources and take into account the commitments made at major international conferences, such as the World Summit for Sustainable Development, as the decline of resources and the deterioration of marine environments constituted credible threats to the environment.

The process of adapting and strengthening the Convention should take into account the economic situation in Africa, he added, whose countries with seacoasts had been marginalized in the world economy.  Africa should be able to implement the instrument effectively, and the same should hold true for reducing, combating and preventing the pollution of waterways.  Moreover, the problems of seas and oceans should be globally managed, in which regard it was important that action be harmonized and coordinated.  The new mechanism proposed in the report on the informal consultative process seemed to meet those needs.  Finally, the African States hoped that appropriate aid would be extended for their participation in the meetings of the mechanism.

KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group of States, thanked all those who contributed to the formulation of the text of the Convention on the Law of the Sea which had been adopted in April 1982 and opened for signature 10 December that year.  In the Asian region trade via sea routes had brought wealth to nations since ancient times and had been a door to other cultures.  But, the seas had also been abused by piracy, armed robbery against ships, and smuggling of drugs and illegal substances.

Since the adoption of the Convention, the discussion on global environmental issues had made dramatic progress.  Through the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, people had become aware of the importance of the global marine environment issue in Asia, too.  Increased cooperation at the regional and global levels would allow the world to deal with environmental issues.  The Convention served as an important and useful legal framework for cooperation in that area as well.  He pointed out that 37 of the 53-member Asian Group were State parties to the Convention.

He said that a display at the American Museum of Natural History poses the question "Which is indispensable for life, air, light or water?"  The correct answer -- water.  It was a reminder that water was the source of life and Earth was uniquely fortunate to be endowed with its vast expanse of sea.  Water being the source of life, he said it was important to use the seas to enhance peace and prosperity, the very basis of life.

MOVSES ABELIAN (Armenia) speaking on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States said the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a unique international legal instrument that combined traditional rules and established norms with the introduction of new, sometimes revolutionary, legal concepts that addressed issues that concerned the sea and oceans in a comprehensive and consistent manner and thus ensured the peaceful use of the seas, facilitated international cooperation and promoted stability.  For the first time, the Convention had laid down a universal international regime covering all areas of use of the oceans and seas and based on the notion that problems of the world’s oceans were interrelated and should be addressed as a whole.

Twenty years after its signature, the Convention had proved to be a dynamic and evolving body of law, he said, and international instruments that had emanated from it and had entered into force were all evidence of its successful functioning.  Those instruments had led to the Convention’s wide ratification since its entry into force in 1994 with 121 coastal and 16 landlocked States representing all geographical regions being parties to it, as well as one international organization.  He said the expansion of the Convention on the Law of the Sea was one of the best examples of international law-making by the United Nations.

However, he added, the role of the United Nations in maritime affairs did not end with the adoption of the Convention.  Political commitment and practical actions were needed at the global, regional and national levels to realize the Convention’s promise of maximizing the benefits from the world’s oceans and seas, while minimizing the risks that had arisen, especially that of degradation of the maritime environment and resources.  That was an area where the United Nations could play an important role.  The Eastern European Group, he went on, noted that the United Nations was fulfilling efficiently the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Convention, and was confident that it would promote the proper implementation of the Convention to the benefit of the international community.

MILOS ALCALAY (Venezuela), speaking on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States, said that the most important contribution of his region had been in two areas -– Part V of the Convention on the exclusive economic zone and Part XI on the regime for the seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.  The establishment of the exclusive economic zone was one concept within a broader negotiating package, including the setting of the maximum limit for the territorial sea and the special regime for archipelagic states. 

The Latin American and Caribbean countries were fully aware of the importance of the sea for purposes of communication, navigation and the laying of pipelines, he said.  But their main interests were the resources in the marine spaces, given their importance for the well-being of populations and development. The confrontation that existed in the traditional law of the sea with the development of the concept of the continental shelf must be borne in mind.  There was a solid legal basis for coastal states regarding oil and minerals found in the continental shelf.  Also, the definition of rights over living resources remained pending.

That was why the States of Latin America had adopted, in the 1950s and in the years preceding the Third Conference, statements calling for the establishment of new rules for governing marines spaces and resources, which had laid the groundwork for work at the Conference.  In addition, the countries of the region had endorsed the proposal made by Arvid Pardo to declare the seabed as a common heritage of mankind.  Many countries of his region had already ratified the Convention.  The others might be awaiting better conditions that would allow them to join the Convention, although they had already adopted many of its provisions. 

PIERRE SCHORI (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the Western European and Other States Group, (one member State was not associated with the statement) paid tribute to the late Arvid Pardo of Malta, an almost legendary personality and founding father of the ideas leading up to the Convention.  He said the twentieth anniversary of the opening of signature of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea tomorrow was a historic moment and one of the greatest achievements in international legal cooperation of the last century.

The situation today was quite different from the Commemoration 10 years ago.  Now, all the major organs provided for in the Convention -- the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf -- were now up and running.

He said the 1982 adoption of the Convention stood out as a major legal and political achievement for the international community.  Since its adoption the Convention had exercised a dominant influence on the conduct of States in maritime matters and was a primary source of the international Law of the Sea.  Further, it had formed the legal framework by which all activities in the oceans and seas were carried out and was of fundamental importance for the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security and the sustainable development of the oceans and seas, he said.

DON MACKAY (New Zealand), President of the meeting of States parties to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, said the Convention was fast approaching universal acceptance, evidenced by widespread application and implementation of its principles in domestic law and practice by States and non-parties alike.  Procedurally, the Convention represented the success of the international legal process of the highest order. Doctrinally, it provided the cornerstone of all modern efforts to develop and implement the legal framework for the oceans and seas and their resources.  Practically, it had secured rights and benefits for all States, coastal and landlocked, and played a critical role in contributing to international peace and security.

He thanked all those individuals and bodies that had contributed to the Convention and its implementation.  The active engagement of the delegations in the annual meetings of States parties confirmed the continued relevance of the Convention.  The goal of universal participation by States parties in the annual meeting had been met this year and he hoped that the broader goal of universal participation in the Convention itself would be met before its next anniversary.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon), President of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority, said the seas and oceans were no longer a source of division, but of solidarity.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was an immense act of faith and a hymn to cooperation and international solidarity.  It had declared the seabed outside of national jurisdictions to be the “common heritage of mankind”, and to this end had created a new organization to preserve its resources, the International Seabed Authority.

In addition to its activity in making necessary organizational decisions, the Authority had, since its creation, tackled the definition of norms, he said.  This included the adoption of rules covering the exploration and mining of polymetallic nodules, the conclusion of contracts with the seven pioneer investors and the elaboration of a programme of scientific and technical workshops to consider questions related to the mining of the seabed.  After adopting a range of decisions to define its institutional framework, the Authority had now taken up a more technical series of questions. 

Even if the possibility of mining the seabed remained uncertain due to economic, physical and technological obstacles, the Authority would encourage research on the seabed, he concluded.  Thus, the future work of the Authority would be concentrated on monitoring exploration contracts, the promotion of scientific marine research and the dissemination of its results, the creation of scientific and technological databases for the better understanding of the seabed environment and the continued development of appropriate regulations for the development of other mineral resources.  States should continue to support the Authority; their reduced participation at Authority meetings had made it difficult at times to take important decisions.

SATYA N. NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, said the greatest contribution of the Convention had been to resolve important jurisdictional questions, some of which had eluded agreement for centuries.  The Convention reflected a delicate balance between competing interests in the use of the ocean and its resources, by taking a functional approach in establishing the various maritime zones and the rights and duties of States in those zones.

As far as the legal framework was concerned, the Convention was clearly recognized as the pre-eminent source of the current international law of the sea.  It was truly a constitution for the oceans, in the sense that it set out the basic structure, or framework, for ocean management.  Its norms were precise, but it also established principles which lent themselves to further development of the law of the sea.  In that sense, there was an inbuilt flexibility which allowed for

the development of new norms in response to evolving circumstances.  Within those parameters, the Convention had created the conditions necessary for resolving the contemporary problems of ocean management.

There would always be, he noted, practical problems associated with the implementation of the Convention’s provisions, as well as areas in which further progress needed to be made within the framework of the Convention.  Some of the most pressing current issues included the problems of burden-sharing among users of straits used for international navigation, the need to deal with the problems of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and equitable sharing of the benefits of marine scientific research.

He said that despite the controversies that surrounded Part XI of the Convention, the International Seabed Authority had established itself as a credible, cost-effective and efficient organization.  Through its programmes of scientific and technical workshops, the Authority had also firmly established a role for itself as a forum for cooperation and coordination of marine scientific research.

RAYMOND RANJEVA, a member of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) speaking on behalf of the Court’s President, Gilbert Guillaume, said that the significance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea could not be stressed sufficiently; it was the outcome of long-standing efforts for the creation, the systematic presentation and adaptation of the rules governing the law of the sea.  Furthermore, it represented the culmination of a process of codifying customary law and had contributed to the development of international law.  The constant increase in the number of States party to it bore witness to the significance attached to the Convention.

While applauding the Convention’s provisions for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal, as well as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, he noted that the ICJ had been confirmed as one means available to States for the settlement of disputes under the Convention.  The entry into force of the Convention had not affected the willingness of States to have disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the law of the sea settled by the ICJ.  In fact, matters related to the law of the sea constituted a significant proportion of the Court’s activity, and the Convention was one of the most authoritative instruments available to the Court.

The Court, he added, had directly applied the Convention for the first time in its Judgment of 10 October 2002, in the case of Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.  Moreover, the Court had also referenced the rules codified by the Convention as customary law on four occasions and had otherwise referenced it on three others.  He added that dealing with numerous questions relating to the law of the sea, particularly in the context of the delimitation of maritime areas and maritime navigation and safety, the Court had consolidated the law on a number of points.  It had also established a Chamber for Environmental Matters as a forum to which States could bring disputes related to the maritime environment.  The ICJ, in fact, remained the only Court “with both universal and general jurisdiction capable of dealing with all disputes relating to the sea and to activities pursued at sea”.

ALEXANDER YANKOV, Judge of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, delivered the statement of the President of the Tribunal, L. DOLLIVER M. NELSON.  So far, 11 cases had been submitted to the Tribunal, which began its work

in 1996.  He began by describing several cases that had come before the Tribunal including the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases and the MOX Plant Case.  The primary task of courts and tribunals was to settle disputes.  Nevertheless, those institutions undoubtedly, in the nature of things, helped in developing the law.

The Tribunal had already started making its contribution, he noted.  For example, the judgment in the “Saiga” (No. 2) Case on the merits was particularly noteworthy in that regard.  In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether or not the arrest and detention of the Saiga and its crew by Guinean authorities was lawful and, if not, what amount of compensation had to be paid to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.  That case had raised a number of issues, among them the nationality of claims, reparation, the use of force in law enforcement activities, and classic law of the sea issues, such as hot pursuit and the question of flags of convenience.  On each of those issues, it was generally acknowledged that the Tribunal made a contribution to the development of international law.

It was sometimes said, he remarked, that the multiplication of international tribunals might pose a real risk to the unity of international law.  The Tribunal, for its part, had not shown any disinclination to be guided by the decisions of the ICJ.  In fact, decisions of the ICJ had been cited both in judgments of the Tribunal and in the separate and dissenting opinions of members of the Tribunal.  The Tribunal had not yet fully developed its potential as the specialized judicial organ of the international community for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.  The last six years represented only a chapter of its earliest beginnings. 

PETER CROKER, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, said preparation of the Commission's Scientific and Technical Guidelines, which were formally adopted in May 1999, involved the first authoritative and detailed scientific and technical interpretation of article 76 of the Convention.  The Guidelines rapidly achieved widespread acceptance around the world.

The Commission had now turned its attention to training, an activity that, while outside its mandate, would nonetheless help developing States fulfil their obligations under Article 76.  Training had been carried out in Europe, South America and Asia.  The Commission had also been able to persuade the General Assembly to set up a Trust Fund in October 2001 that would assist such States, particularly least developed and small island States, in the preparation of their submissions to the Commission.

The first submission came from the Russian Federation in December 2001.  It was examined by the Commission at itstenth session in March 2002 and subsequently examined in detail by a sub-commission working from April until June 2002.  He said there were now some 30 to 60 coastal States with an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.  He urged coastal States to make their submissions as soon as possible, reminding them there was a 10-year deadline for submissions and that the costs to do so could be substantial.  In carrying out their delineation responsibility, States could seek advice from three sitting members of the Commission.  He said it had been suggested that the Global Resource Information Database be expanded, as well, to serve the needs of coastal States in their compliance with Article 76.