LAW OF SEA DELEGATES DIVIDED ON WHETHER MEETING OF CONVENTION STATES PARTIES SHOULD REVIEW WIDER POLICY CONCERNS
| Press Release SEA/1812 |
Meeting of States Parties
to Law of Sea Convention
81st & 82nd Meetings (AM & PM)
LAW OF SEA DELEGATES DIVIDED ON WHETHER MEETING OF CONVENTION
STATES PARTIES SHOULD REVIEW WIDER POLICY CONCERNS
Some Say Focus Should Stay on Administrative, Budgetary Matters
Whether the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea should branch out from administrative and budgetary matters to discuss substantive concerns related to implementing the Convention was the focus of a lively debate, as the Parties continued their fourteenth session today.
The Meeting was discussing Article 319 of the Convention, which obliged the Secretary-General to report to States Parties and Convention bodies on general issues linked to the Convention. Some of the Parties stressed that Article 319 should lead to discussion of Convention issues within the Meeting of States Parties, while others took the opposite stand.
Canada’s representative said the Meeting of States Parties should raise Convention issues of common concern, exchange best practices and note issues that should be pursued in other forums. Such issues should include fisheries governance, the link between a vessel and its purported flag state, marine pollution, and the state of marine biodiversity. He stressed that depriving States of a forum to discuss such concerns could encourage unilateral action; open the door to ill-considered amendments; encourage other forums to take over sea law issues; or lead to atrophy of the Convention.
Agreeing with Canada, other speakers noted that Article 319 explicitly stated that the Secretary-General should report to States Parties on issues arising with respect to the Convention, which clearly included substantive matters. Perhaps the Meeting should seek the advice of the United Nations Legal Office vis-à-vis the Article to clear the matter up. They also observed that the Secretary-General had not reported to States Parties during the present meeting, and stressed that he should do so each year.
Opposing that view, Norway’s delegate recalled that negotiations on the Convention were at times extremely challenging, and that States should not now try to renegotiate article 319 to include substantive discussion of the Convention, which fell outside the competence of the current meeting. Article 319 was unambiguous and needed no further discussion, whether States Parties liked it or not.
Speakers supporting Norway warned delegations that attempting to amend the lengthy Convention would open a whole Pandora’s box of issues. Pointing out that proposals during negotiations on the Convention for a mechanism to review implementation had failed to receive support, they stressed that Article 319 did not empower the Parties to perform periodic reviews. Some even maintained that it was not necessary for the Secretary-General to report to the Meeting on Convention matters.
[For background information on the current Meeting of States Parties to the Convention, see Press Release SEA/1809 of 14 June.]
Earlier today, the Meeting heard from Mexico’s representative on the work of Convention bodies. Among other comments, he stressed the importance of providing scientific and technical advice to developing countries preparing their submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. He also emphasized the need to use modern undersea mining techniques to explore seabed minerals to optimize metal recovery and eliminate environmental damage.
The Parties also decided that the following States would be serving on the Credentials Committee: Madagascar and Namibia, from the African Group; Czech Republic, from the Eastern European Group; Barbados and Costa Rica, from the Latin American and Caribbean Group; and Netherlands and Monaco, from the Group of Western European and Other States.
Also participating in today’s discussion were the representatives of Chile, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Japan, India, Oman, Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand, Iceland, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Australia, United States, Uruguay, Cuba, Algeria, Viet Nam, Bahamas, Madagascar, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Tunisia, Portugal, Cameroon, Venezuela and Senegal.
The States Parties will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, to continue discussion on Article 319.
Statement by Mexico
ALFONSO ASCENCIO (Mexico) stressed the importance of informing countries that one of the key functions of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf was to provide scientific and technical advice to coastal states during the preparation of their submissions. Without such assistance, many developing countries would find it virtually impossible to make submissions by the deadline of 2009. He also encouraged the Commission to seek financing for an experimental training course in preparing submissions, and appealed for greater political and financial support for the submission trust fund. In addition, he urged Parties to contribute to the voluntary fund to facilitate the participation of members to Convention bodies.
Turning to the International Seabed Authority, he emphasized the need to use modern undersea mining techniques to explore and possibly use seabed minerals, which would optimize maximum metal recovery and eliminate unnecessary environmental damage. Mining must be pursued in a sustainable way with strict adherence to environmental regulations. Since information about the seabed was published in various scientific journals, he suggested that the Authority reserve a section in its web page where all such articles could be viewed. Noting that marine scientific research in the area was an ideal means of promoting capacity-building in developing countries, he lauded the Authority for gathering and analysing scientific data, as well as for organizing scientific and technical workshop.
Regarding the Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, he said the idea to use the Tribunal’s premises for arbitration merited consideration, and he requested the Registrar to consult about the possibility with the judges. He stressed, however, that any such arbitrations should take place with the institutional support of Registry and participation by at least one of the judges.
Resuming its work this afternoon, the States Parties turned to a discussion of Article 319 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Statements on Article 319
ROBERT HAGE (Canada) said that Meetings of States Parties should not be limited to budgetary and administrative matters, which ignored the unique perspective States could bring to discussions of the Convention, and which underutilized the talent and experience of members. The fact that other forums discussed matters related to oceans and the law of the sea did not disqualify the Parties from also discussing substantive issues related to the Convention. The option to discuss substantive issues should be given through inclusion of a suitable item on the agenda, such as “Issues of concern to States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”.
The Meeting of States Parties should be a place to raise issues of common concern, exchange best practices and note issues that should be pursued in other forums, he continued. Since the Parties to the Convention formed the membership of other United Nations bodies involved in implementation, then discussion or decisions to pursue a goal or course of action created a basis for achieving results on issues which cut across the mandates of multiple organizations, and would hopefully encourage greater cooperation between them. Suitable issues for discussion should include fisheries governance and the continuing decline in the world’s fish stocks, the link between a vessel and its purported flag state, marine pollution, and the state of marine biodiversity.
He stressed that depriving States of a forum to discuss their concerns threatened the Convention by encouraging unilateral action; opened the door to amendments which might not be thoroughly considered; encouraged other fora to take over the discussion of sea law issues; or resulted in the Convention atrophying, unable to respond to changing circumstances.
STALE RISA (Norway), in response to Canada’s statement, said it was not helpful to question the common sense of other delegations. He reiterated his belief that article 319 was unambiguous and therefore did not need to be discussed, regardless of whether States Parties now decided that they did not like it. After all, the article had already been negotiated and agreed upon by consensus. He objected to Canada’s position, which held that the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS) served as a counter to the Meetings of States Parties. Instead, he stressed that the General Assembly was the foundational basis for the debate and that UNICPOLOS was merely a facilitator and late addition to the process. Recalling that the negotiations leading to the Convention were at times extremely challenging, he emphasized that, because the end result was a very delicate compromise, it was not wise for the States Parties to now try to renegotiate article 319. He would not support efforts to modify the text of the Convention, which would merely invite the consideration of substantive issues that the present Meeting did not have the competence to consider.
JOSE MANUEL OVALLE (Chile) said he did not agree with Norway’s position. Paragraph 2 of article 319 explicitly stated that the Secretary-General should report to States Parties on issues arising with respect to the Convention. Such issues clearly included substantive matters. Noting that the Secretary-General had not reported to States Parties during the present Meeting, as he had done in 1996, the Chilean representative stressed that the Secretary-General should do so each year. After all, implementation needed to be considered and reviewed by States Parties.
The representative of Brazil proposed including a new agenda item on information reported by the United Nations Secretary-General with respect to the Convention. He then noted that, until 1996, the Secretary-General issued a report on the Convention under Article 319, which was now embodied in the Annual Report on Oceans and the Law of the Sea. That report could help the Parties avoid certain discussions and increase the Meeting efficiency with respect to implementation of the Convention.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said the Meeting had the potential to play a more meaningful role in substantive matters related to the Convention, such ensuring its implementation. The Meeting should maintain its right in matters of the Convention but should not review or revise the Convention itself. It also was not an appropriate forum to discuss legal matters related to implementation of the Convention.
The representative of Japan said he supported the comments put forth by Norway. After all, the Secretary-General’s duties were clearly stated in article 319. He warned delegations that attempting to amend the lengthy Convention would be very difficult since it would open a Pandora’s box of issues.
The representative of India reiterated that States Parties were autonomous entities, which had the right to discuss whatever they saw fit. Furthermore, article 319 did not place any limitations on the freedom of States Parties to discuss substantive matters.
The representative of Oman said that, since the Meeting was touching upon a voluminous legal document and the role of the Secretary-General, it would be wise to seek the views of the Legal Office of the United Nations. Such an action would not be unprecedented. He added that, because the States Parties were the sole agents of the Treaty, it was not up to the United Nations or the General Assembly to dictate to States what they should or should not discuss. In that regard, he agreed with the positions put forth by Chile, India and Brazil.
The Representative of Trinidad and Tobago said the Meeting of States Parties should not be limited to procedural and budgetary matters, but should discuss other issues of interest to it. She supported the resumption of reports by the Secretary-General on the Convention, which was mandatory under Article 319.
The Representative of New Zealand said the Meeting should not necessarily be limited to budgetary and administrative decisions, but should include discussions of substantive matters.
The Representative of Iceland said it was important that the integrity of the Convention be preserved. Discussing Substantive items in the Meeting would duplicate the efforts made in other forums.
The representatives of Jamaica, Mexico and Nigeria said there was nothing in article 319 which precluded States Parties from discussing or negotiating whatever they wished. Additionally, deliberations of any part of the Convention should be encouraged, since they would clarify misunderstandings.
The representative of Australia said the Meeting should not take up a whole range of issues related to the Convention, since that occurred elsewhere. The suggestion that legal opinion be sought on Article 319 was not useful. Similarly, the representative of the United States noted that proposals during negotiations on the Convention for a mechanism to review implementation had failed to receive support. Article 319 did not empower the States Parties to perform periodic reviews of the Convention, which members seemed to be suggesting today.
The representative of Uruguay supported the view of such States as Canada, Brazil, and Jamaica that there should be no limitation on what member States were allowed to discuss.
The representative of Cuba noted that the Convention and Article 319 recognized the right of vessels to innocent passage through territories of other States. Unilateral interception of a vessel in the territorial waters of a State violated the sovereignty of that State.
The representatives of Algeria, Viet Nam, Bahamas and Madagascar said the Meeting should tackle substantive matters as well as administrative ones.
However, the representatives of the Russian Federation and of the United Kingdom stressed that the Meeting should concern itself only with the administrative, financial and organizational aspects of the Convention. The former emphasized that there was no reason to seek the advice of the Secretary-General’s Legal Counsel, while the latter maintained that the proper forum for substantive discussions was the General Assembly. In that context, they both supported the positions of Norway, Japan, Iceland and the United States.
The representatives of Tunisia and Cameroon also agreed that the Meeting should consider substantive matters, pointing out that there was nothing in Article 319 prohibiting such discussion.
The representative of Portugal supported position of Japan, Australia, Russian Federation and others that the Meeting should not take up issues related to implementation of the Convention. Comments were also made by the representatives of Venezuelaand Senegal.
Mr. Hage (Canada) said he did not want to have to go through this same process next year. To resolve the issue, he suggested inviting the Secretary-General to report to the Meeting of States Parties next year.
Mr. Risa (Norway) agreed with Canada that the same discussion should not be held every year. One option to avoid that would be to delete the item from the provisional agenda, which he had suggested in the first place. Noting that some delegations kept referring to the absence of reports from the Secretary-General, he pointed out that the Secretary-General did indeed report on developments, and he wondered why that information had eluded people. Stating that it would not be helpful for the Secretary-General to report directly to the Meeting of States Parties, he reasoned that the General Assembly was there for that purpose. He also questioned why some delegations continued to refer to article 319 2a and rule 36, since neither had any relevance to the discussion at hand.
The representative of Chile said he supported the Brazilian proposal to have the Secretary-General report to the Meeting.
The representative of Jamaica said the Secretary-General currently reported to the informal consultative process before the General Assembly. She then wondered why an informal body could see the report before the General Assembly, but the State Parties could not. She emphasized that looking at the report earlier would allow States Parties to enhance debates on the Convention during the General Assembly.
* *** *