AFTER LENGTHY CONSULTATIONS, STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION REACH CONSENSUS ON TWO PROPOSALS ON APPLICATION OF KEY ARTICLE

AFTER LENGTHY CONSULTATIONS, STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION

REACH CONSENSUS ON TWO PROPOSALS ON APPLICATION OF KEY ARTICLE

Difference of Views on Handling General Issues, Administrative Concerns

Following lengthy consultations and breaking a diplomatic impasse, the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted two proposals by consensus, as it continued its fourteenth session today.

The Meeting was discussing article 319 of the Convention, which obliges the Secretary-General to report to States Parties and Convention bodies on general issues linked to the treaty.  Some of the Parties had stressed that article 319 should lead to discussion of substantive issues within the Meeting, while others took the opposite stand.

The first adopted proposal obligates the Secretary-General’s annual report on oceans and the Law of the Sea, which is presented to the General Assembly, to make reference to the fact that it is also being presented to States Parties pursuant to article 319.  The second allows that report to address issues of a general nature, for the information of and relevant to States Parties, which have arisen with respect to the Convention.

Following adoption, the representative of Jamaica stressed that the second proposal did not constrain her delegation from discussing any type of matter or from proposing any action for decision in the future.  Her viewpoint was supported by several other representatives.

The speaker from Iceland represented the opposing view when he said it was clear from the proposal that the Secretary-General’s report was for information purposes only, and limited to general issues that were relevant to States Parties.  The Meeting would have no substantive role and would continue to limit itself to administrative and budgetary concerns.

Vladimir Golitsyn, Director of the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, explained that the Secretary-General was responsible for preparing a comprehensive annual report for the General Assembly on issues related to the Law of the Sea, taking into account scientific and technological developments.  That report could also serve as a basis for reports to the States Parties, which the Secretary-General is required to provide under the Convention.

Since the adoption of that resolution, only one report had been submitted, in April 1996, to the Meeting of States Parties with reference to article 319 of the Convention.  It suggested that future reports of the Secretary-General under article 319 should focus on identifying and treating issues of importance to States Parties, but should not replace the Secretary-General’s annual report to the General Assembly.  Since no specific issues had been identified for consideration by the Meeting since 1995, no further reports had been issued under article 319.

Later on, the Meeting heard from Douglas Stevenson, Director of the Seamen’s Church Institute for Seafarers’ Rights, who expressed concern that some coastal States treated ships’ crews as potential terrorists, rather than potential victims of terrorism, or allies in preventing it.  In that context, he encouraged States Parties to add an agenda item on the protection of persons employed “in the workplace of the sea”, as well as a review of how Parties implement the relevant provision of the Convention.

The Parties also heard from Philippe Gautier, Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  He explained the history and make-up of the Tribunal, and reminded delegates that it dealt with all disputes that arose within the articles of the Convention, ranging from the limitation of maritime spaces to the rights of dispute and of the flag state.

In other matters, the Parties decided that India and Singapore, from the Asian Group, would be serving on the Credentials Committee.

Also participating in today’s discussion were the representatives of Trinidad and Tobago, Oman, Uganda, Senegal, Norway, Australia, Chile, Guyana, Barbados, Japan, Sierra Leone, Saint Kitts and Nevis, China, India, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Nigeria, Jordan, Russian Federation and Canada. The United States spoke as an observer.

The States Parties will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, to conclude its session.

Statement by Director of Ocean Affairs Division

VLADIMIR GOLITSYN, Director of the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, explained that the Secretary-General, according to resolution 49/28 (1994), was responsible for preparing a comprehensive annual report for the consideration of the General Assembly on developments related to the Law of the Sea, taking into account scientific and technological developments.  That report could also serve as a basis for reports to all States Parties to the Convention, the International Seabed Authority and competent international organizations, which the Secretary-General is required to provide under the Convention.

Since adoption of that resolution, only one report had been submitted to the Meeting of States Parties with reference to article 319 of the Convention, in April 1996, and on the Law of the Sea, in November 1995.  The 1995 report drew the attention of States Parties, the Authority and international organizations to issues that warranted their consideration.  The 1996 report suggested that future reports of the Secretary-General under article 319 should focus on identifying and treating issues of importance to States Parties, but should not replace the Secretary-General’s annual report to the General Assembly, which gives the comprehensive overview of all relevant development.  Since no specific issues had been identified for consideration by the Meeting of States Parties since the 1995 report, no further reports had been issued under article 319.

Other Statements

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said that, as she understood it, the Secretary-General had not reported to the Meeting of States Parties since 1996 because there had been no new issues identified.  However, she did not want to eliminate the prospect of the Secretary-General reporting to the States Parties in the future.  In that context, she proposed inclusion of an item concerning the Secretary-General’s reports to the States Parties, on the agenda.  Such reports should contain separate segments on issues related to article 319.

The representatives of Oman, Uganda and Senegal supported the position of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. GOLITSYN reiterated that the general obligations of the
Secretary-General under article 319 of the Convention were covered by the annual comprehensive report to the General Assembly.  It would be close to impossible to provide a report to the Parties each year under article 319 -- to decide what to report under the comprehensive report and under Article 319.  Much of the information in the comprehensive report also pertained to that required under article 319.

The representative of Norway vigorously opposed the proposal by the representative of Trinidad and Tobago.

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago insisted on her proposal, stressing that future reports should be submitted under relevant Assembly resolutions and article 319.

The representative of Australia highlighted the potential for duplication between the two reports, but said he was willing to engage in further discussion to reach consensus as soon as possible on the agenda item related to article 319.  Similar comments were later made by the representative of Chile.

The representative of Oman requested that Mr. Golitsyn provide his statement to Parties in writing.

This afternoon, the States Parties met to continue their discussion of article 319 and hear a statement from the Seamen’s Church Institute.

After announcing that India and Singapore, from the Asian Group, would be joining the Credentials Committee, the Meeting President Allieu Kanu (Sierra Leone) put forth two proposals, which were arrived at after lengthy consultations.  The first proposal would have the Secretary-General’s annual report on oceans and the Law of the Sea, which was presented to the General Assembly, make reference to the fact that it was also being presented to States Parties pursuant to article 319.  The second would have that report address issues of a general nature, for the information of, and relevant, to States Parties, which had arisen with respect to the Convention.  Both proposals were adopted by consensus. 

Following adoption, the representative of Jamaica stressed for the record that the second proposal did not constrain her delegation from discussing any type of matter in the future or from proposing any action for decision.  Her viewpoint was supported by the representatives of Trinidad and Tobago, Senegal, Guyana and Barbados.

The representative of Australia added that States Parties would retain “other matters” on their agenda, which might be of some use in the future.

The representative of Japan spoke about greater efficiency in implementing the Convention.  Acknowledging that today’s consensus represented a big step, he expressed concern that more than five delegations had already felt it necessary to comment on the “precious agreement”.

The representative of Chile noted that the proposal did not impede but actually encouraged the discussion of matters of substance.  In that context, he expressed hope that the new agenda item would give rise to important debates.

The representatives of Sierra Leone and Saint Kitts and Nevis stressed that they were accepting the proposal with the understanding that the phrase “for information” did not mean that States Parties would not be restricted from discussing issues emanating from report.

Iceland’s delegate said it was clear from the proposal that the Secretary-General’s report was for information purposes only, and limited to general issues that were relevant to States Parties.  The Meeting would have no substantive role with respect to the report, and would continue to limit its role to administrative and budgetary concerns.

Oman’s representative said he was perplexed to see that the Parties were now going back to square one.  The phrase “for information” did not restrict any Party from raising any issue, including those of substantive matter, within the purview of the Convention.

The representative of Norway agreed with Oman, and wished to distance himself from delegations who, after reaching a compromise, were now attempting to bring the Meeting back into controversy.  Some had even referred to the Meeting making decisions on matters of substance, which it did not do.  The words “relevant to the States Parties” were included for a purpose.  Not all issues were to be put before the Meeting.  The constraints in the compromise must remain, despite declarative statements made after it was adopted by Japan and Iceland.

The representative of the United States would adopt the positions of Iceland, Norway and Japan, and urge the Parties to move forward without tearing at the fragile agreement that had been reached.

China’s delegate said he accepted the consensus reached on article 319, since it was the best one that could be reached at the moment.  However, he had reservations about the Parties making decisions on substantive issues.  If the Parties discussed substantive issues, they should not make decisions on them without consensus, rather than the two-thirds majority required by the States Parties Rules of Procedure.

The representative of India understood that the Secretary-General’s report, as referred to in article 319, was like any other report by the Secretary-General.  Thus, States Parties could discuss any portion of that document.  The freedom of States Parties to discuss whatever they wished was also supported by the representatives of Sri Lanka, Mexico, and Nigeria.

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said it was disappointing that a few minutes after consensus had been reached, some delegations were insisting that things were now “unravelling.” 

The representative of Jordan took the floor briefly to remind delegates that while they could discuss whatever they wanted, decision-making was left for other forums.

The representative of the Russian Federation, declaring that no one should upset the fragile compromise reached, nevertheless expressed support for the viewpoints put forth by the representatives of Norway and Iceland.

The representative of Canada said he hoped that the compromise signalled the end of the five-year discussion on this topic.

Statement for Seaman’s Church Institute

DOUGLAS STEVENSON, Director of the Seaman’s Church Institute for Seafarers’ Rights, said the maritime community would reach a significant milestone when the International Ship and Port Security Code (ISPS) became mandatory on 1 July.  The fundamental principle for ensuring security was “domain awareness” -- knowing your environment, recognizing unusual things, and paying attention to them.  The ISPS relied on ships’ crews observing and reporting suspicious activity on-board their vessel and its surrounding area, in saving lives and preventing destruction.  However, some coastal States treated ships’ crews as potential terrorists, rather than potential victims of terrorism, or allies in preventing it.  Such States restricted shore leave, among other measures, which discouraged crews from cooperating with security authorities.

He was also concerned about the effects that security measures could have on the safety of stowaways.  At least one coastal state was detaining ships’ crews and making owners post guards on arriving in its ports with stowaways on board.  Such policies produced expensive delays and guard bills, as well as unfair denial of shore leave for the crew.  They were also chilling incentives for ships to jettison stowaways from their ships on the high seas.

Another disturbing occurrence was the rise in punitive measures coastal states inflicted upon crews of ships involved with pollution incidents, where no criminal culpability existed, he said.  As coastal States looked for someone to blame in pollution cases, ships’ crews became convenient scapegoats.  The criminalization of ships’ officers and crews for pollution accidents was counterproductive to marine safety and pollution prevention, since it discouraged crews from participating in casualty investigations, where they could jeopardize their rights and risk criminal sanctions by testifying.

He reminded Parties that he had encouraged them to put a new item on their agenda last year, adding that the need for that item had since increased.  The item would read:  The protection of persons employed in the workplace of the sea
-- and a review of how Member States implement the relevant provision of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention.

Briefing by International Tribunal Registrar

PHILIPPE GAUTIER, Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, explained the history and make-up of the Tribunal, and described its current location in Hamburg, Germany.  He went on to speak about jurisdiction for cases that were adversarial, as well as those with opposing parties.  He said the Tribunal dealt with all disputes that arose within the articles of the Convention, ranging from the limitation of maritime spaces to the rights of dispute and of the flag state.  The Seabed Authority could submit cases, as could parties to contracts, whether they were legal or natural persons.  

Noting that 12 cases had so far been submitted to the Tribunal, he said that cases could be submitted through a special agreement or a unilateral request.  A special agreement, the classical method of submitting a dispute, contained an obligation to submit the dispute to a judge.  A forum must also be chosen, such as the Tribunal or the International Court of Justice.  A unilateral request did not require a declaration, but if States had not made a declaration, or if the two had chosen different courts, arbitration was necessary.  Since arbitration could take several months, which could endanger the rights of parties, States could request provisional measures from the Tribunal.  The Tribunal also took part in advisory proceedings, offering opinions on legal questions that could arise with respect to the Convention.

He then explained the procedure of cases, noting that the Rules of Procedure contained the essential rules, supplemented by the Guidelines on Submission of Cases.  Cases dealing with the prompt release of vessels could be submitted by a State or on behalf of States by lawyers’ offices.  Thus far, the Tribunal had reacted to all cases rapidly and efficiently. The time between introduction of a case and the reading of judgement was about one month.

* *** *