Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

86^th & 87^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Opening fifteenth meeting, states parties to law of sea convention

 

welcome three new states -- Burkina faso, denmark, latvia

Meeting Considers Budgetary Issues, Work of International

Tribunal, Seabed Authority, Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf

States Parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea opened their fifteenth meeting today by welcoming three new States -- Burkina Faso, Denmark and Latvia -- to the fold, bringing the total number of Parties to 148.

Often referred to as “the constitution of the Oceans”, the Convention, which entered into force in 1994, governs all aspects of ocean space and maritime issues, ranging from navigational rights, maritime limits and marine scientific research to management of resources, protection of the marine environment and settlement of disputes.

The Convention established three organs:  the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which, among other things, adjudicates disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention; the International Seabed Authority, which organizes and controls activities regarding the deep seabed’s mineral resources; and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which addressed the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.  [For additional background information, see Press Release SEA/1822 of 14 June.]

In his opening statement, Andreas D. Mavroyiannis (Cyprus), the newly elected President of the Fifteenth Meeting of States Parties, said the Convention provided the legal basis for all ocean-related activities and ought to be fully and effectively implemented and its integrity maintained.  He hoped that, in the near future, the list of parties would see new additions and that the Convention, as the constitution for the oceans, would be used to its fullest potential.

Introducing the 2004 annual report of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, its President, L. Dolliver M. Nelson, said the Tribunal, having dealt with 13 cases so far, had already made an important contribution to the development of international law and to the peaceful settlement of disputes.  He underlined the Tribunal’s important role and authority concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Agreement concerning the implementation of Part XI.  It was, however, clear that more use could be made of the Tribunal in the future.

He noted that 11 cases had been referred to the Tribunal on account of its compulsory jurisdiction (prompt release of vessels and crews, and provisional measures pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal).  Two cases had been instituted by special agreement between the parties.  With article 287 of the Convention offering States the choice of one or more means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, 35 of the 148 States Parties had filed declarations under that article, and 21 States Parties had chosen the Tribunal as the means or one of the means for the settlement of disputes under the Convention.

Mr. Nelson also introduced six reports on the budgetary issues related to the work of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Reporting on the work of the International Seabed Authority, its Secretary-General, Satya Nandan, said the Council [the Authority’s executive organ] was currently reviewing the draft regulations for the exploration and prospecting of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts.  In support of the regulations, the Authority had convened the seventh in its series of workshops with the title “polymetallic sulphides and cobalt crusts -- their environment and considerations for the establishment of environmental baselines and an associated monitoring programme for exploration” in Kingston, Jamaica, in September 2004.

The previous annual workshop had been held in 2003 to consider the various data that should be included in a geological model and resource assessment of the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, he said.  That workshop had been followed up by a series of meetings involving technical experts, as well as contractors and prospectors working in the zone.  Recently, the Authority had received the second annual progress report on the Kaplan Project.  The purpose of that project was to acquire information on biodiversity, species ranges and gene flow in the abyssal Pacific nodule-bearing province with a view to predicting and managing the impacts of deep seabed mining.  To date, the Kaplan Project had resulted in three scientific, peer-reviewed publications.  The Project was due to be completed in July 2006.

Peter Croker, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, reported on the Commission’s work since the last meeting of States Parties.  It had begun its consideration of the submission of Brazil to establish the outer limits of the continental shelf where it extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines, from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.  A subcommission was subsequently established to consider the case.  The Commission had also taken up the submission by Australia –- the third country after the Russian Federation in 2001 and Brazil in 2004 to make an application for extended continental shelf jurisdiction.

He informed the Meeting that Tonga intended to proceed with its submission prior to December 2006, Nigeria by mid-2006, New Zealand in 2006, the United Kingdom before 2007, Uruguay in 2007, Japan in the first half of 2009, Myanmar and Guyana before the 10-year limit expired in 2009, and Canada by 2013.  In view of recent voluminous and complex submissions, the Commission could not proceed efficiently without receiving far more support from the Secretariat in terms of staff and additional computer hardware and software, as well as data and relevant reference materials.

Nicolas Michel, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, introduced the Secretary-General’s Report on the Oceans and the Law of the Sea, which contains information concerning the state of the Convention and agreements relating to its application, as well as declarations made by States and requests by coastal States to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

The Meeting of the States Parties took note of the reports and information provided by the Convention’s three bodies and also approved the provisional agenda (document SPLOS/L.43) as orally amended.

The representatives of Jamaica, Germany, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Namibia, Tunisia, Japan, Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), United States, and Chile also took the floor.

The Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Vladimir Golitsyn, answered representatives’ questions, as did the Tribunal’s Registrar, Philippe Gautier.

The Fifteenth Meeting of States Parties will meet again tomorrow, Friday,  17 June, at 10 am.

Background

The Fifteenth Meeting of States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea began its work this morning (for background information on the Meeting, see Press Release SEA/1922 of 14 June).  Among the matters to be considered in the course of the day are reports by three institutions established by the Convention:  the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority, and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Statement by President

ANDREAS D. MAVROYIANNIS (Cyprus), the newly elected President of the Fifteenth Meeting of States Parties of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, welcoming three additional States -- Burkina Faso, Denmark, Latvia -- as Parties to the Convention, said the total number of Parties now stood at 148.  Every ratification or accession brought the common objective of universal participation in the Convention closer.  He announced the passing of Kenneth Rattray, Solicitor-General of Jamaica and Rapporteur-General of the Conference on the Law of the Sea, who had devoted an important part of his life to the creation of the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  [A minute of silence was observed in his memory.]

He said that during the recent Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, from 6 to 10 June, many delegates had stated that the Convention provided the legal basis for all ocean-related activities and ought to be fully and effectively implemented and its integrity maintained.  Echoing those statements, he hoped that in the near future, the list of parties would see new additions and that the Convention, as the constitution for the oceans, would be used to its fullest potential.

Since the last meeting of States Parties, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea had entered the thirteenth case on its list, he said.  The International Seabed Authority had held its seventh in a series of workshops aimed at increasing understanding of the potential impact of exploration of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt crust on the marine environment.  The Authority had also been involved in the “Kaplan Project” in order to acquire information on biodiversity, species range and gene flow in the abyssal pacific nodule-bearing province with a view to predicting and managing the impacts of deep seabed mining.  The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf had received, in addition to the submission of Brazil, two other submissions from Australia and Ireland.

Report of Tribunal President

Introducing the 2004 annual report of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, its President, L. DOLLIVER M. NELSON, recalled that the triennial election of seven judges of the Tribunal would be held during this Meeting.  He also described the Tribunal’s two sessions over the past year, adding that the Tribunal had also met from 30 November to 18 December to deal with the Juno Trader case.  The seventeenth and eighteenth sessions had been devoted to legal and judicial matters, as well as administrative and organizational issues related to the discharge of the judicial functions of the Tribunal.  In the course of the year, the Committee on Rules and Judicial Practice and the plenary had reviewed the rules and procedures of the Tribunal.  Among the main issues discussed were procedures for revision or interpretation of a judgement or order with respect to urgent proceedings, code of conduct for the counsel, contributions towards the expenses of the Tribunal, rules regarding evidence, and implementation of the decisions of the Tribunal.

Regarding the judicial work, he said that the Juno Trader case involved urgent proceedings concerning the prompt release of the vessel Juno Trader and its crew under article 292 of the Convention.  Proceedings had been instituted on 18 November by an application filed on behalf of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines against Guinea-Bissau.  The judgement -- adopted unanimously -- was delivered on 18 December.  Consistent with its jurisprudence, the Tribunal applied to the case various factors relevant to an assessment of the reasonableness of bonds or other financial security, which it had identified in previous judgements.

He also noted that, in this case, the respondent had questioned the status of the applicant as flag State of the vessel.  In particular, it maintained that, by operation of the law of the detaining State, the ownership of the Juno Trader had reverted to the State of Guinea-Bissau and, therefore, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines could no longer be considered as the flag State of the vessel.  In that respect, the Tribunal stated that whatever the effect of a definitive change in the ownership of a vessel upon its nationality, there was no legal basis in this particular case for holding that there had been a definitive change in the nationality of Juno Trader.

A case still pending in the docket concerned conservation and sustainable exploitation of swordfish stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Community), he said.  By Order dated 16 December 2003, the time-limit for making preliminary objections with respect to the case had been extended at the request of the parties until 1 January 2006, to enable them to reach a settlement.

Having dealt with 13 cases so far, the Tribunal had already made an important contribution to the development of international law, he continued.  In its resolution 59/24 of 17 November 2004, the General Assembly had noted with satisfaction the continued and significant contribution of the Tribunal to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with Part XV of the Convention and underlined the Tribunal’s important role and authority concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Agreement concerning the implementation of Part XI.

He added that on several occasions, prompt release proceedings had not been instituted, because negotiations between the parties had proven successful.  It was certainly a function of the Tribunal to be easily available to parties -– a factor that could facilitate negotiations between the parties of the dispute.  Thus, the mere existence of the Tribunal assisted States in settling their maritime disputes without resorting to litigation.

It was, however, clear that more use could be made of the Tribunal in the future, he said.  In that respect, he noted that 11 cases had been referred to the Tribunal on account of its compulsory jurisdiction (prompt release of vessels and crews, and provisional measures pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal).  Two cases had been instituted by special agreement between the parties.  With article 287 of the Convention offering States the choice of one or more means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, 35 of the 148 States Parties had filed declarations under that article, and 21 States Parties had chosen the Tribunal as the means or one of the means for the settlement of disputes under the Convention.

He expressed hope that pursuant to the recommendation in resolution 59/24, an increasing number of States would make declarations regarding their choice of means of settlement of disputes concerning the Convention.  In the absence of such declarations, or if the parties had not selected the same forum, the dispute could be submitted only to arbitration, unless the parties otherwise agreed.  In that respect, he drew the delegates’ attention to the possibility for parties to submit their disputes to a special chamber of the Tribunal, in accordance with the Statute.  It was, indeed, a real alternative to arbitration.

Parties could also submit a particular dispute to the Tribunal by means of a special agreement, or confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal through international agreements.  Currently, there were seven international agreements, which made reference to the Tribunal in respect of disputes arising from their interpretation or application.  Among other alternatives that might be of interest to possible users, there were proceedings, under which the Tribunal could give an advisory opinion on a legal question if an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention provided for such a course of action.  While the cases dealt with to date had been largely confined to prompt release of vessels and crews and prescription of provisional measures, the Tribunal had the competence to resolve a much wider range of disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention, including those concerning maritime boundaries.

States Parties appearing before the Tribunal did not bear the expenses relating to the proceedings, he said.  However, they had to finance expenses incurred, for instance, for the preparation of the pleadings, the professional fees of counsel and advocates or the travel expenses.  There was a voluntary trust fund to assist States Parties in the settlement of disputes through the Tribunal, which had been used for the first time last year in connection with the Juno Trader case.

The Tribunal’s Headquarters Agreement with German authorities had been signed on 14 December 2004, he added.  The report also gave an account of the status of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Tribunal, which had entered into force on 30 December 2001.  Since his last report to the Meeting, three States had acceded to the Agreement, which brought the total to 16.  Last year, the Tribunal had also taken further steps to develop its relations with other international organizations and bodies.  Administrative arrangements had been concluded with the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Secretariat of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization.

On the financial situation of the Tribunal, he said that as of 31 May 2005, there had been an unpaid balance of assessed contributions to the budget of the Tribunal in the amount of some €1.6 million for the periods 1996-2004.  The outstanding dues to the 2005 budget amounted to some €2.78 million.  If the outstanding dues were not received shortly, the Tribunal would face short-term liquidity problems and would have to make recourse to the Working Capital Fund.

Among other developments, he mentioned the visit to the Tribunal last September of the President of Germany, Horst Kohler, who had been accompanied by 140 members of the diplomatic corps.  Also, in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention, a symposium on maritime delimitation had taken place on the premises of the Tribunal.  And finally, he drew attention of the delegates to the Internship Programme of the Tribunal and the grant provided by the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) for funding participation in the programme.  In 2004, nine interns from nine countries had benefited from the KOICA grant.

In conclusion, he said the Tribunal continued to seek the material and moral support of the international community as a whole for the successful achievement of its objectives.

Statements

NORMA ELAINE TAYLOR ROBERTS (Jamaica), noting that the Tribunal had one new case before it -- Juno Trader, encouraged States to have recourse to the Tribunal, which continued to discharge its judgements in a very efficient manner.  As to a review by the Tribunal of the code of conduct for counsel appearing before it, she said that, with the current United Nations system emphasis on responsibility and accountability, that review should receive priority consideration.  Another priority should be the question of expenses relating to cases brought by an entity other than a State Party.  The information prepared by the Registry on the issue of implementation of decisions by the Tribunal, of which there was no report available, would be of interest to Member States.

She expressed appreciation to the Governments of the United Kingdom and Finland for their contributions to the Trust Fund to assist States in the settlement of disputes and encouraged other States in a position to do so to contribute to that Fund.  Her country continued to support the internship programme of the Tribunal and commended KOICA for its generous endowment.

STEPHAN KEIL (Germany) thanked the President of the Tribunal for his comprehensive report, adding that as a representative of the host country to the Tribunal, he was very pleased that the Headquarters Agreement between the Tribunal and Germany had been finally signed on 14 December 2004.  The Agreement defined the legal status of the Tribunal in Germany and regulated the relations between the Tribunal and the host country.  Now, it was necessary to see that internal requirements for the implementation of the Agreement were speedily completed.  He also emphasized the excellent relations between the Tribunal and the host country.

The Meeting then decided to take note of the Tribunal’s report.

International Seabed Authority

Reporting on the work of the International Seabed Authority, its Secretary-General, SATYA NANDAN, said the Council [the Authority’s executive organ] was currently reviewing the draft regulations for the exploration and prospecting of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt rich crusts.  The nature of those deposits was different from that of polymetallic nodules, and regulations for those new resources were, therefore, different from those adopted for polymetallic nodules.  The difficult areas of regulations related to the method of allocation of exploration areas and the nature of the Authority’s participation.

He said that in support of the regulations, the Authority had convened the seventh in its series of workshops with the title “polymetallic sulphides and cobalt crusts -- their environment and considerations for the establishment of environmental baselines and an associated monitoring programme for exploration” in Kingston, Jamaica, from 6 to 9 September 2004, with some 40 participants from
18 countries. The proceedings of the workshop would be published by the Authority.

The previous annual workshop had been held in 2003 to consider the various data that should be included in a geological model and resource assessment of the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, he said.  Following the workshop, the Legal and Technical Commission had recognized that such a model could directly benefit the Authority in its administration of the area, as well as contractors and prospectors working in the zone.  A meeting had been held in December 2003 to discuss contributions of the contractors.  A meeting of technical experts had been convened by the Authority in December 2004 to outline, among other things, the scope of the work that would be involved in developing the geological model.  A follow-up meeting had been convened in May 2005, attended by technical experts and contractors.

Recently, the Authority had received the second annual progress report on the “Kaplan Project”, he continued.  The purpose of that project was to acquire information on biodiversity, species ranges and gene flow in the abyssal Pacific nodule-bearing province with a view to predicting and managing the impacts of deep seabed mining.  The project was being undertaken by scientists from the University of Hawaii, the BritishNaturalHistoryMuseum, the Southampton Oceanography Centre; Shizuoka University, Japan, and IFREMER, France, with the possibility for participation by some of the contractors.  To date, the Kaplan Project had resulted in three scientific, peer-reviewed publications.  The Project was due to be completed in July 2006. 

He said the next annual session of the Authority was scheduled for 15-26 August in Kingston, Jamaica, and urged all States Parties, members of the Authority, to be represented at the meeting.  Prior to the session, it was anticipated that the Authority might receive an application for the approval of a plan of work in the form of a contract from Germany regarding a marine site in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone.  That would be the first new application since the entry into force of the Convention.

Of the 148 Parties to the Convention, 117 were also Party to the 1994 Agreement to Implement Provision of Part XI of the Convention, he said, and urged the remaining 26 countries, mainly small developing countries, to take the necessary steps to ratify or accede to the Agreement.

Ms. TAYLOR ROBERTS (Jamaica) conveyed her Government’s continued support to the work of the Seabed Authority.  With that body now reviewing draft regulations for the exploration and prospecting of polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts, she encouraged continuation of that work.  Also, the workshops initiated by the Authority had served to provide a better understanding of the impact of exploitation on the marine environment.  The work of the Seabed Authority was very technical and might not attract general interest, but it was very important and ground-breaking.  It had helped to develop rules to ensure the implementation of the fundamental principle that resources of the area were a common heritage of mankind.  She expressed hope that that concept would become applicable through the work of the Seabed Authority and encouraged States Parties to participate in the work of that body.

The Meeting took note of the report by the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority.

Secretary-General’s Report

NICOLAS MICHEL, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, introducing the Secretary-General’s Report on the Oceans and the Law of the Sea (documents A/59/62 and Add.1), said the report contained information concerning the state of the Convention and agreements relating to its application, as well as declarations made by States and requests by coastal States to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  The decisions to be taken by the States Parties on budgetary and administrative matters were indispensable to the smooth running of the Tribunal.  Its full potential had not yet been realized, but the Tribunal had made a useful contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes during its nine years of existence.

He said the Secretariat had significantly upgraded the facilities of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in order to allow parallel deliberations by two subcommissions.  A second Geographic Information System Laboratory had also been built.  As the submissions by coastal States were very complex, the Secretariat had recruited another Geographic Information System Officer.

During the past year, the Secretariat had maintained its close relationship with the International Seabed Authority.  That cooperation had resulted in two joint publications:  “Proceedings of the Twentieth Anniversary Commemoration” of the opening for signature of the Convention, and “Marine Mineral Resources -- Scientific Advances and Economic Perspective”.

There were numerous interests at stake, which were not always easy to harmonize, he said.  He trusted that States Parties would remain united in promoting the goals of the Convention, in particular, the promotion of the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, and would use all efforts to effectively implement that key instrument.

Statement by Chairman of Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf

At the outset of the afternoon meeting, PETER CROKER, Chairman of the Commission on Limits of the Continental Shelf, read to the Meeting his letter of 5 May contained in document SPLOS/129.  He said that the Commission had held two sessions since the Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties last June.  During its fourteenth session (30 August to 3 September 2004), the Commission had begun its consideration of the submission of Brazil to establish the outer limits of the continental shelf where it extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines, from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.  A subcommission was subsequently established to consider the case.

He went on to say that at its fifteenth session (4-22 April 2005), the Commission had taken up the submission by Australia –- the third country after the Russian Federation in 2001 and Brazil in 2004 to make an application for extended continental shelf jurisdiction.  As in the case of the Russian Federation and Brazil, the Commission decided that the submission of Australia would be examined through the establishment of a subcommission.  Following its preliminary examination of the data, that body would reconvene in New York from 27 June to 1 July 2005 and also continue its work during the intersessional period, as well as during the sixteenth session of the Commission, scheduled to begin on 29 August.

Also during the fifteenth session, the subcommission considering the case of Brazil had made considerable progress in the examination of the submission, he continued.  It was also decided that the subcommission would meet in the week prior to the opening of the sixteenth session to begin the preparation of its recommendations and the format of their presentation to the Commission.

As far as other matters were concerned, he said that during the fifteenth session, the Commission had been informed of the completion of the draft of a training manual, which had been prepared by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, in cooperation with two coordinators who were members of the Commission.  The Commission was also informed about a series of training courses given by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea on the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and on the preparation of submissions.  The Division was organizing the courses at the regional level, in cooperation with States and relevant international organizations.

The first of the training courses was held in Fiji from 28 February to 4 March 2005; the second one in Sri Lanka from 16 to 20 May 2005, he continued.  The Commission had been further informed that the third regional training course had been proposed for the developing States of West Africa that were expected to make submissions to the Commission, in cooperation with the Government of Ghana and relevant international organizations, tentatively in December 2005. A training course for Latin America and the Caribbean would take place in spring 2006.

A number of trainees from developing countries participating in the first two training courses had benefited from the Trust Fund created by the General Assembly in 2000 (resolution 55/7) for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for developing States, in particular, the least developed and small island developing States, and facilitating compliance with article 76 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  The terms of reference, guidelines and rules of the Fund had been amended by the Assembly in its resolution 58/240.  In view of the benefits that the developing countries could derive through the Trust Fund, the Commission would like to call on States for political and financial support for the Trust Fund.

A second Trust Fund has been established to help developing States defray the costs of the participation of members of the Commission from their countries, he said.  Five developing States had applied for support for the participation of their nationals in the Commission at its two most recent sessions.

He informed the Meeting that Tonga intended to proceed with its submission prior to December 2006, Nigeria by mid-2006, New Zealand in 2006, the United Kingdom before 2007, Uruguay in 2007, Japan in the first half of 2009, Myanmar and Guyana before the 10-year limit expired in 2009, and Canada by 2013.  Since his letter to the Meeting had been written, a submission from Ireland had been received by the Commission, he added.  In that connection, he drew the States Parties’ attention to the need for additional staff and requirements for facilities, software and hardware essential for the consideration of submissions.

It had become clear in view of recent voluminous and complex submissions, he said, that the Commission could not proceed efficiently without receiving far more support from the Secretariat in terms of staff and additional computer hardware and software, as well as data and relevant reference materials.  The attention of States Parties was also drawn to the workload facing the Commission in connection with the examination of the submissions, and the time required to complete the necessary tasks.  In that connection, he proceeded to make a Power Point presentation of the projected workload of the Commission for the period 2005-2009.

Statements

JUANA ELENA RAMOS RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) expressed the hope that the Commission would have the resources it needed to do its important work properly in view of the immense workload.  She underlined the increasing importance of cooperation between the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Commission, in particular on such initiatives as the training manual and training courses, which were very important to the developing countries.  She informed delegates that Cuba was carrying out scientific studies in preparation for a submission to the Commission and asked in that regard for further details regarding access to consultative services and expertise that could be of assistance to developing countries in preparing reports for the Commission.

GRITAKUMAR CHITHY (Sri Lanka) said the training course organized by the Commission in Sri Lanka had been well attended by countries surrounding the Indian Ocean.  The course had been comprehensive and intense.  He asked Mr. Croker to make the protected schedule of meetings available to States Parties as an official document.

Mr. CROKER answered that before making the document available he would like to present it first to the members of the Commission during the meeting at the end of August.

JENS PROTHMANN (Namibia) expressed appreciation for Mr. Croker’s elaboration on several aspects of the work of the Commission, including the information in paragraph 18 of his letter on the potential submissions to the Commission.  He welcomed the holding of regional training courses and asked whether the course planned for developing States of Western Africa would also include those from the South-West of the continent.  Would there be a training course for States of southern Africa?

The Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, VLADIMIR GOLITSYN, said that all African countries eligible to make a submission to the Commission that had not taken part in the Sri Lanka workshop would be invited to take part in a workshop in Ghana.

The Meeting then took note of the information provided by the Commission.

SABRI CHAABANI (Tunisia) said his country was satisfied with the activities of the Tribunal, in particular, with the constructive jurisprudence it had produced.  The documents and information presented by the Tribunal, however, underlined the financial difficulties encountered by the judges.  The request presented in that regard should be favourably considered.  He also expressed satisfaction with the work of the International Seabed Authority and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Introduction of Budget Documents

Introducing six reports on the budgetary issues related to the work of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the President of that body, L. DOLLIVER M. NELSON, highlighted some key points in those documents.

Regarding the proposed increase of the annual maximum remuneration of Tribunal’s members to $170,080, effective 1 January 2005, to be in line with the adjusted level of the emoluments of the members of the International Court of Justice, he said that the financial impact of such an increase would amount to €200 for 2005-2006.  That was due to the difference in exchange rate between March 2004, when the budget proposals of the Tribunal for 2005-2006 had been prepared, and March 2005, when the Tribunal had considered the subject.  The adjustment of the level of the remuneration would also automatically affect the pensions in payment to former judges by virtue of the Pension Scheme Regulations for members of the Tribunal.  That would represent an additional appropriation of €6,500.

The proposal also took into account the increase in the daily subsistence allowance (DSA) applicable to Hamburg, he said.  The DSA was fixed by the United Nations and had increased from €211 for March 2004 to €233 in March 2005.  That required an additional appropriation of €108,800 for 2005-2006.  In order to cover the increases envisaged above, a total of €115,500 was required.  For that purpose, it was proposed that the Tribunal be authorized to finance additional appropriations by transfers between appropriation sections as far as possible and by using part of the savings from the financial period 2002.

Turning to the proposals with respect to an appropriate mechanism for addressing the effects of fluctuation in the exchange rate on the remuneration of the members of the Tribunal, he said that the U.S. dollar had lost, on average, 26.8 per cent against the euro since January 2002.  As a result, the annual and special allowances of the members of the Tribunal had been adversely affected.  By way of illustration, he noted that the monthly payment of the annual allowance of members of the tribunal for October 2000 had amounted to €5,017.  That amount had been reduced to €3,608 in October 2004.  To rectify the situation, the Tribunal proposed to apply the floor/ceiling mechanism applicable to the Court in The Hague to the members of the Tribunal from 1 July 2005.

Should the floor/ceiling mechanism be adopted, an additional appropriation amounting to €764,889 would be required for July 2005-December 2006, taking into account the adjusted level of the annual remuneration of the members of the Tribunal.  To finance that amount, the Tribunal proposed to be authorized to use part of the savings from the financial year 2002 and the savings from the financial year 2004.  In addition, the Tribunal sought a supplementary budget amounting to €351,889 for 2005-2006.

On common staff costs, he said that in preparing the budget proposals for 2005-2006, the Tribunal had expressed its preference for the method used by the United Nations, that is, to budget common staff costs on the basis of a percentage of the net salary, rather than assessing such costs on the basis of a projection of actual expenses.  In order to determine whether the amount of €896,400 approved for 2005 would be sufficient to cover actual costs in 2005, the Tribunal had made a new estimate, taking into account the performance in 2004, a revised projection of actual costs and the new standard salary costs.  The new estimate amounting to €903,894 was slightly higher than the amount approved for 2005.  In light of the minimal difference, there seemed to be no need to make adjustment to common staff costs for 2005.  The matter could be reviewed, if necessary, in 2006.

Turning to the performance report for the financial period 2004, he said he was pleased to note that the expenditure for 2004, which amounted to $7.83 million, at 97.41 per cent of the budget remained within the approved budget.  The Annex to a relevant report (document SPLOS/128) showed that several budget lines had been overrun in 2004.  Those over-expenditures related mainly to the weakening of the U.S. dollar against the euro.  The lines most severely affected by that depreciation were “Established posts” and “Common staff costs”.  As authorized by the Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties, the over-expenditures had been offset against savings under other appropriation sections.  Therefore, there had been no need to finance the over-expenditures in 2004 by using the savings from 2002.

The external audit of the accounts for 2004 had now been completed, he added.  The audit report would be officially transmitted to the next Meeting of States Parties after its consideration by the Tribunal.  The report on the external audit for 2003 had been submitted this year in document SPLOS/121.

Statements

KAZOHIKO KOBUBU (Japan) asked why the External Auditor’s report for 2004 had not been made available to the Meeting of the States Parties.

The Tribunal’s Registrar, PHILIPPE GAUTIER, replied that the report should be transmitted by the Tribunal to the Meeting of States Parties.  The 2004 report had not yet been submitted to the Tribunal as it had just been completed two weeks ago.

LIESBETH LIJNZAAD (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the External Auditor’s report for 2003 which concluded that the financial statements presented the financial position of the Tribunal fairly.  She said the report submitted by the Tribunal showed that the institution was fully equipped to carry out its mandate expeditiously as had been shown in the Juno Trader case, where it had only taken one month between the filing of the application and the reading of the judgement.  In that case, the Tribunal had insisted upon the elementary considerations of humanity and due process of law that underlined prompt release.

She also noted with satisfaction the positive effects of the implementation by the parties of the Orders of the Tribunal on the settlement of disputes submitted to it.  In the case concerning “Land Reclamation works between Malaysia and Singapore”, the creation of an appropriate mechanism prescribed by the Tribunal had enabled the parties to achieve a negotiated Settlement Agreement, she said.

IGNACIO LLANOS (Chile) said that his delegation understood the reasons underpinning the request for an adjustment of annual remuneration of the members of the Tribunal.  Their maximum annual remuneration was linked to ICJ judges as a result of a decision taken by States Parties themselves.  However, the document before the Meeting invited the States Parties to apply the adjustment retroactively, starting on 1 January 2005.  While supporting an adjustment, he was not in a position to support that proposal, as drafted.  The adjustment should be applied from the moment the Meeting adopted its decision.

Ms. ARVIS (United States) stressed the importance of proper financial management.  She understood the Registrar’s answer to Japan, but wondered whether the procedures should be changed, given the fact that it must be preferable for both the Tribunal and States Parties to have the auditors’ report for 2004 this year.  Could the procedures be changed to have the auditors’ report before the Meeting the year it was issued?

The REGISTRAR said that current financial regulations concerning the audit called for the report to be transmitted to the Tribunal, which should examine the audit report and forward it to the Meeting.  The audit took place after the closing of the accounts for the year. Thus, the audit for 2004 had been undertaken in spring of 2005.  Under those circumstances, it would be difficult for the report to be available in all official languages immediately following the audit.

Ms. TAYLOR ROBERTS (Jamaica) asked about the length of the term of service for an auditor, noting that last year an auditor had been appointed for 2004.  The Tribunal’s general report had made a reference to the pending appointment for an auditor for the years 2005-2006.  Delegates were now requested to appoint an auditor for the period 2005-2008.

Mr. GAUTIER said that regulation 12.1 mentioned that the auditor should be appointed for four years.  Last year, the situation had not been the same, as the financial regulations had not been fully applicable, and the 2004 budget was still covering one year.  Now the budget covered two years.  According to rule 12.1, the auditor would cover two financial periods of two years.

* *** *