Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

95^th & 96^th Meetings (AM & PM)

states parties to law of sea convention hear reports from heads of main organs

as sixteenth meeting begins at United Nations headquarters

 

Delegates Pay Tribute, Express Condolences at Passing

Of Louis B Sohn, Eminent United States Scholar on International Law

States parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea opened their sixteenth meeting at Headquarters in New York today, hearing from the three organs established by the landmark treaty, often referred to as “the Constitution of the Oceans”.

Having entered into force in 1994, the Convention 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.  With the addition of Estonia last August, the number of States parties to the Convention now stands at 149.

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 addresses 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.

Following his election as President of the sixteenth Meeting, Raymond O. Wolfe ( Jamaica) said the Convention provided for an overall balance of interests and equitable solutions of all peaceful uses of the oceans.  It was the responsibility of States parties to ensure that it was used to its fullest potential.  The Meeting would receive reports and information from all three bodies established under the Convention, and it was in the best interests of all States parties that those bodies received adequate support in their functioning.

Also addressing delegates, Nicolas Michel, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, noted that 2006 was a special year for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which would be celebrating its tenth anniversary.  The Tribunal had contributed significantly to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to the maintenance of the rule of law on the oceans.  With 10 years of experience, the Tribunal now represented a well-established and smoothly functioning body that was ready to deal with any new dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

Presenting the annual report of the Tribunal, Rudiger Wolfrum, its President, said the Tribunal had established a reputation for the expeditious and efficient management of cases and had dealt with 13 cases, 11 of which had been instituted on the basis of the Tribunal’s compulsory jurisdiction.  In the prompt release cases connected for the most part to fisheries, the Tribunal had developed a coherent jurisprudence, particularly in applying relevant factors for determining the reasonableness of bonds.  The Tribunal had also dealt with marine environmental issues in provisional measures proceedings, which had enabled it to contribute to the development of international environmental law.  Taking advantage of the Tribunal’s broad competence in disputes and questions relating to the law of the sea, possible litigants could certainly make more use of its judges’ expertise and efficient procedures, he added.

Also presenting the reports of their respective organs were Nii Odunton, Deputy to the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, and Peter Crocker, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

In addition, States parties paid tribute to the late Louis B. Sohn, an eminent United States jurist and scholar, who had played a crucial role in the elaboration of international law, in particular the law of the sea.

Addressing the Meeting today were the representatives of Austria (on behalf of the European Union), Germany, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Senegal, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Italy, France, Namibia, United Republic of Tanzania, Sierra Leone, United States, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago, China, Nigeria, Japan, South Africa, Kenya, Indonesia, Australia, Russian Federation, India, Norway, Mexico, New Zealand, Guatemala, Malaysia, Croatia and Gabon.

The States parties will resume their sixteenth Meeting at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 20 June.

Background

The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea met today to begin their sixteenth meeting, which will conclude on 23 June.  (For background on the meeting, see Press Release SEA/1859 issued on 16 June.)

Statements

Following his election as President of the meeting, RAYMOND O. WOLFE ( Jamaica) noted that, since the fifteenth meeting, one additional State, Estonia, had become a party to the Convention, bringing the total number to 149.  The Convention provided for an overall balance of interests and equitable solutions of all peaceful uses of the oceans.  It was the responsibility of States parties to ensure that the Convention was used to its fullest potential.

He said that the three bodies 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 -– continued their work according to their mandates, each facing different but significant challenges.  The meeting would receive reports and information from all three bodies and it was in the best interests of all States parties that they receive adequate support in their functioning.  He also noted the role of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, which provided the necessary support not only to the Meeting, but also to the Review Conference, the Consultative Process, and, perhaps most importantly, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Highlighting a series of regional workshops organized by the Division to help developing States in preparing submissions to the Commission, he noted that several countries had expressed their appreciation of the Division’s work during the General Assembly consultations on the review of United Nations mandates and requested an increase of the Division’s resources.  They had also stated that the reports on oceans and the law of the sea produced by the Division, as well as other special reports dealing with oceans, were among the most comprehensive and informative produced by the Secretariat.  States parties should continue efforts to strengthen the regime of the oceans and not hesitate to address other emerging issues, using the Convention as a strong legal foundation.

He welcomed the heads of the three bodies established by the Convention, and recalled that this year the Tribunal would celebrate its tenth anniversary.  Since the last meeting of States parties, the International Seabed Authority had convened the eighth in its series of workshops aimed at initiating collaborations for the protection and preservation of the marine environment from the effects of exploration for and mining of cobalt-rich ferromanganese.  Also, since the last Meeting, the Commission had received new submissions from New Zealand and a joint submission from France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Statement by Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs

NICOLAS MICHEL, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, said this was a special year for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which would be celebrating its tenth anniversary.  It had contributed significantly to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to the maintenance of the rule of law in the oceans.  Having 10 years of experience, the Tribunal now represented a well-established and smoothly functioning body, ready to deal with any new dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.  One of the most important items on the agenda for the current Meeting was the draft budget proposals of the Tribunal.

He said that, during the past year, the Secretariat, through the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, continued to maintain its close relationship with the International Seabed Authority, and to provide a high level of service to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  Regarding the Commission, there had been several noteworthy developments.  Since the last meeting of States parties, the Commission had received two additional submissions, the first from New Zealand in April and the second from France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom in May.  Thus, the Commission now had before it a total of five submissions and several other ones were on the way.

The Secretariat had been doing, and would continue to do, its utmost to provide adequate support to the Commission.  Significant resources had been spent on upgrading premises, hardware and software to serve the needs of the Commission and its subcommissions.  He also underlined the important and sensitive challenges posed by the projected workload of the Commission as a result of the present and future submissions by coastal States.  The Commission had addressed that matter and approved a proposal submitted to the Meeting of States parties.

The Division continued to provide support and training to wide-continental-margin developing countries, he said.  It had recently concluded its series of regional workshops to assist developing States in the preparation of submissions to the Commission.  A total of four regional workshops had been held between February 2005 and May 2006 in Fiji, Sri Lanka, Ghana and Argentina.  He also drew attention to the preparation by the Division of a 600-page training manual for those training courses.  In conclusion, he hoped States parties would remain united in advancing the goals of the Convention, in particular the promotion of the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, and to deploy all their efforts with a view to effectively implementing that key instrument.

Statement by President of the International Tribunal for Law of Sea

RUDIGER WOLFRUM, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, said the Tribunal’s report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2005 provided an annual review of its activities and stated its financial position.  The Tribunal’s nineteenth session, from 7 to 18 March 2005, and twentieth session, from 26 September to 7 October 2005, had been devoted essentially to legal matters bearing on the Tribunal’s judicial work and other administrative and organizational matters.  During the past year, the Tribunal and the Committee on Rules and Judicial Practice had dealt with matters including a review of the Tribunal’s rules and judicial procedures.  Some of the main issues included the implementation of the rules in prompt release proceedings where a statement in response had not been submitted by a respondent pursuant to article 111 of the rules; access to case-related documents; and the preparation of a guide to proceedings before the Tribunal, as well as rules regarding evidence.

With respect to the Tribunal’s judicial work, he noted that its Special Chamber had been formed to deal with a dispute between Chile and the European Community over the conservation and sustainable exploitation of swordfish stocks.  That case was the first case submitted to an ad hoc chamber, which combined the advantages of a permanent court with those of an arbitral body while avoiding the considerable expense often incurred in arbitral proceedings.  In another case, by signing an agreement on 26 April 2005, Malaysia and Singapore had settled their dispute over the latter’s land reclamation in and around the Straits of Johor.

Having held its first session on 1 October 1996, the Tribunal was approaching its tenth anniversary, he said.  In nearly a decade, it had established a reputation for managing cases expeditiously and efficiently, having dealt with 13 cases, 11 of which had been instituted on the basis of the Tribunal’s compulsory jurisdiction.  In the prompt-release cases, which for the most part had been connected to fisheries activities, the Tribunal had developed a coherent jurisprudence, particularly in applying relevant factors for determining the reasonableness of bonds.  It had also dealt with marine environmental issues in provisional measures proceedings, thereby enabling it to contribute to the development of international environmental law.

He said that by taking advantage of the Tribunal’s broad competence in disputes and questions relating to the law of the sea, possible litigants could certainly make more use of the judges’ expertise and the efficient procedures before the Tribunal.  States parties might avail themselves at any time of the possibility offered by article 287 of the Convention to make written declarations nominating the Tribunal as their preferred forum for the settlement of maritime disputes.  Pursuant to that provision, when both parties to a dispute had accepted the Tribunal as the preferred dispute settlement forum, either party might have recourse to the Tribunal by way of unilateral application.

Of the current 149 States parties, 38 had so far filed declarations under article 287, representing approximately one quarter of the States parties, he said.  Twenty-two of them had chosen the Tribunal as their preferred means, or one of the means, for the settlement of their maritime disputes and, as a consequence, arbitration under annex VII had become the compulsory means for the settlement of disputes for the large majority of States parties.  However, that situation did not fully reflect the expectations of the Convention’s drafters.  In practice, arbitration became the mandatory forum not only in the event that the relevant declarations did not identify the same forum but also whenever a dispute involved any of the 111 States parties that had not made a declaration.

He said that the present situation, therefore, made recourse to arbitration the rule and the choice of the International Court of Justice or the Tribunal the exception, despite the fact that the two judicial bodies represented the community of States.  Hopefully an increasing number of States would make declarations under article 287 with regard to their choice of procedure, as had been recommended by the General Assembly on more than one occasion.  Notwithstanding declarations made under article 287, parties might at any time submit a particular dispute to the Tribunal, or to one of its chambers, by notification of a special agreement.  Indeed, parties had done so on two occasions.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction might also be based on jurisdictional clauses inserted in international agreements relating to the law of the sea, he noted.  Through such clauses, jurisdiction might be conferred on the Tribunal or, alternatively, a special chamber of the Tribunal.  A number of international agreements had provisions contained in Part XV and conferring therewith jurisdiction on the Tribunal, a prominent example being the 1995 Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement.  With respect to those agreements, the procedures of Part XV applied, whether a party to the agreement was a State party to the Convention or not.

Regarding Assembly resolution 60/30, he said States parties to an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention might submit any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of that agreement to the Tribunal, if a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal was contained therein.  The inclusion of such jurisdictional clauses had become an established practice and, in fact, could only be of benefit to the parties if such a clause was inserted into every new maritime agreement.  Such jurisdictional clauses might also be included in bilateral agreements in order to facilitate the settlement of disputes regarding those agreements.

Similarly, he said, article 22 of the Statute allowed the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over disputes relating to the interpretation or application of treaties which were already in force, and which were related to the subject-matter covered by the Convention, provided that all the parties to that Treaty so agreed.  The Seabed Disputes Chamber might give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council of the International Seabed Authority on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.  In particular, the Chamber might be requested to give an opinion on the conformity with the Convention of a proposal on any matter before the Assembly.  Resort to advisory proceedings might be a way to overcome conflicting legal views.

He said the Tribunal’s advisory function might offer an alternative to contentious proceedings and could be an interesting option for those seeking a non-binding opinion on a legal question or an indication as to how a particular dispute might be solved through direct negotiations.  Such proceedings could be of particular assistance to parties in the process of reaching a solution by negotiation, for example in maritime delimitation cases.  While recourse to the Tribunal incurred no court costs for the States parties, each party had to bear its own costs, for instance, for the preparation of pleadings, the professional fees of counsel and advocates or travel expenses.  In that regard, there was a trust fund to assist States parties in the settlement of disputes through the Tribunal, which was administered by the United Nations.

A series of events would take place at the end of September 2006 to celebrate the first decade of the Tribunal’s existence, he said.  The Tenth Anniversary Ceremony would take place at the Tribunal’s seat on 29 September 2006.  The Tribunal was cooperating with the International Foundation for the Law of the Sea in organizing a series of regional law of the sea workshops in different regions of the world to promote knowledge of the Convention and its dispute settlement procedure.

Regarding the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Tribunal, he reported that, since last year, seven States had become parties to that Agreement, bringing the total to 23.  The Tribunal was looking forward to the entry into force of the Headquarters Agreement between the Tribunal and Germany, which had been signed on 14 December 2004.  The Tribunal had taken further steps to develop its relations with other international organizations and bodies.

On the Tribunal’s budget, he said that, as of 31 May 2006, there was an unpaid balance of assessed contributions in relation to the budgets of the Tribunal for the periods 1996-1997 to 2005 in the amount of €1.82 million.  The outstanding amount in relation to the 2006 budget was €2.24 million.  He appealed to all States parties to pay their assessed contributions to the Tribunal in full and on time.

Statements

NORMA ELAINE TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica) commended the Tribunal for the work that it had accomplished over the years, saying that the successful settlement in 2005 of prior cases on which judgements had been delivered was a positive outcome.  Jamaica also recognized that other aspects of the Tribunal’s work had continued through its various committees.  The ongoing review of the rules and judicial procedures was an important process.  While there was a tendency to focus on the cases brought before the Tribunal, and rightly so, its effectiveness was also influenced by its ability to conduct appropriate reviews and stay current on new developments.  One such review was that of practice followed by international courts and tribunals regarding the use of experts in maritime delimitation cases.

Noting that the Tribunal had continued to review the question of expenses relating to cases brought by non-State entities or the International Seabed Authority, she said that was a budgetary issue of direct interest to Member States, and wondered whether there were any further developments regarding the review by the Tribunal last year of the question of a code of conduct for counsel appearing before it.

She welcomed the generosity of the Korea International Cooperation Agency in making available funding for internships at the Tribunal for participants from developing countries.  Noting the contributions made by the United Kingdom and Finland to the Trust Fund established to assist States in the settlement of disputes by the Tribunal, Jamaica encouraged those States in a position to do so to contribute to that Fund, and noted the establishment of a new Committee on Public Relations to promote the Tribunal’s work in the dissemination of information and to maintain relations with other international entities and processes.

THOMAS LOIDL (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Tribunal’s President for the comprehensive annual report for 2005, saying it demonstrated that, in its tenth year, the Tribunal was in a good position to fulfil its functions.  The European Union was pleased to note that the Tribunal’s jurisprudence had already made an important contribution to the development of international law, that it was easily available to parties and that it was conducive to the peaceful settlement of disputes by facilitating negotiated solutions.  However, still more use could be made of the Tribunal.

STEFAN KEIL (Germany), referring to the Headquarters Agreement between the Tribunal and the Federal Republic of Germany, noted that it had been signed in December 2004, and submitted to Parliament in the beginning of 2006.  Hopefully it would enter into force in the very near future.  Even without the Agreement being formally enforced, relations between the Tribunal and Germany were excellent and in that context, Germany had contributed considerably to the maintenance of the building housing it, with a view to keeping the premises in excellent condition.

HOLGER MARTINSEN ( Argentina) said the Tribunal’s work was being carried out in such a way that was easily accessible to potential users and that information on its decisions and communication with the general public were optimal.  In the years since its inception, the Tribunal had accomplished the work that its negotiators had set out to accomplish.  Argentina appreciated in particular paragraph 18 of the report, which referred to the competence of States parties to call for advisory opinions from the Tribunal.

GRITAKUMAR CHITTY ( Sri Lanka) said the Tribunal was an essential component of the Convention, which continued as a basis by which to influence all activity regarding the law of the sea.  It was a matter of great interest to developing countries to keep abreast of the Tribunals’ work, through such publications as its Yearbook and the publication of its judgements.  There was also interest in the work of the judges and the registry.  Sri Lanka looked forward to the presentation of the guide to the Tribunals proceedings.

He expressed concern, however, about the availability of the Tribunal’s publications, which were not always affordable for distribution nationally and to government agencies and institutions.  In that regard, could the Tribunal respond to those needs without great expense, such as by issuing paperback versions of its work, and by including full text versions of the report on the Tribunal’s website?  Asking also for information on the distribution pattern of the Tribunal’s publications, he said he recognized the importance of the Tribunal’s maintaining the facility in Germany so that the public could learn of its activities.

MARCUS SONG ( Singapore) expressed his appreciation to the President for his report, and commended the professional and impartial manner in which the Tribunal had contributed to the settlement of the dispute between Singapore and Malaysia.

DIENE BAIDY ( Senegal) said that over 10 years, the Tribunal had enjoyed positive growth, going beyond the organizational problems it had encountered.  It had also dealt in a speedy and effective manner with the cases before it.  The Tribunal, which would shortly celebrate 10 years of existence, was not only organizing a solemn ceremony for that occasion but was also seeking to decentralize its activities by organizing workshops at the regional level, one of which Senegal was pleased to host.

The meeting then took note of the report presented by the President.

Statement by Deputy Secretary-General of International Seabed Authority

NII ODUNTON, Deputy to International Seabed Authority Secretary-General Satya N. Nandan, said that the body’s Assembly, during its eleventh session, had held a debate on the Secretary-General’s annual report and considered the report of the Finance Committee.  The Authority’s Council Authority, acting on the recommendations of the Legal and Technical Commission, had approved Germany’s application for a work plan to explore for polymetallic nodules in the international seabed area.  The Secretary-General had been requested to take the steps necessary to issue the work plan in the form of a contract, the application for which was the first to have been made since the Convention’s entry into force.  As such, it represented confidence in the Authority and in the system established to administer the mineral resources of the international seabed area.

The Council had also carried out a first reading of the draft regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts prepared by the Legal and Technical Commission, he said.  After the first reading, the Council had considered that further explanation and elaboration was required with respect to:  prospecting; the size of the areas for exploration; the proposed system for the Authority’s participation; and the proposed draft language in the draft regulations relating to protection of the environment and their relationship to the provisions of the Convention and the 1994 Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention.

Highlighting a number of workshops convened by the Authority, noting that since the fifteenth meeting of States parties, he said the Authority had continued its work on establishing a geological model of polymetallic nodule deposits in the Clarion-Clipperton fracture zone of the Pacific Ocean.  At the Authority’s eleventh session, it had been proposed that the application fees paid by contractors be transferred to a special endowment fund account, the income from which would be utilized to promote marine scientific research and provide opportunities for qualified scientists from institutions in developing countries to participate in research activities.  The Assembly had requested the Secretary-General to make a detailed proposal for the establishment and use of the proposed endowment fund for the consideration of the Finance Committee and the Assembly at its twelfth session, to be held from 7 to 18 August in Kingston.

He reminded delegations that it was incumbent on all States parties to support the institutions that they had established under the Convention, not only financially through their contributions but also through their active participation in the meetings of those institutions.  Therefore, all States parties who were members of the Authority should be represented at the Authority’s meetings, which could not conduct its business effectively in the absence of a majority of its members.  In addition, those countries that had not yet ratified or acceded to the 1994 Agreement and to the Authority’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, should take the necessary steps to do so.

Urging member States of the Authority to make their assessed contributions to the administrative budget on time and in full, he also appealed to them to contribute to the Authority’s Voluntary Trust Fund in order to enhance the participation of members from developing countries in meetings of the Legal and Technical Commission and the Finance Committee.

Statements

JULIO LAMARTHEE ( Uruguay) noted that on 22 May 2006 his country had adopted a law approving the protocol and immunities of the Seabed Authority and it was currently being processed.

Ms. TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica) said her delegation was pleased that the Authority, established to control mineral-related activities in the international seabed area had been successfully affecting its mandate.  While there had been no actual mining of such minerals, Jamaica was also pleased with the very innovative way in which the Authority had carried out its mandate, in particular the organization of the eight workshops, which were aimed at promoting research and looking at gaps in information.  The Authority had been active in the area of environmental protection, which was very important given the scientific breakthroughs in biodiversity in the international seabed area and the need to protect such resources.  As the country in which the Authority had its headquarters, Jamaica stressed its commitment to the institution.

NGUYEN BA SON (Viet Nam) noted that, on 19 April of this year, his country had decided to accede to the 1994 Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

Mr. LOIDL ( Austria) expressed, on behalf of the European Union, his appreciation for the information provided on the important work that the Authority had carried out last year.

Mr. MARTINSEN ( Argentina) expressed regret that the Secretary-General of the Authority had been unable to be present as it would have been useful to hold an exchange of views with him on the Authority’s work.  Perhaps in the course of the week his representative could field questions from delegations.

As recognized in its report (document A/61/63), the Authority was entrusted with functions that implied the application of ecosystem approaches.  Argentina hoped the Authority would enhance its functions in the protection of the marine environment and the application of ecosystem approaches, given that it was the organ tasked with protecting the marine environment beyond national jurisdictions.  Argentina considered those functions as particularly relevant.

Mr. DIENE ( Senegal) noted that the report showed that over the years, the Authority was improving its working methods and achieving excellent results.  It was not only implementing its mandate, but had successfully organized workshops on the creation of a framework of rules covering exploitation of minerals and to ensuring better understanding of the marine environment.  Senegal encouraged the Authority to continue its work in that direction and echoed the appeal by the representative of the Authority’s Secretary-General that all States parties participate effectively in its meetings and deliberations so as to facilitate its work.

CARLOS SERGIO SOBRAL DUARTE ( Brazil) highlighted the work done by the Authority on the protection of the marine environment and thanked it for having organized workshops throughout the year.

The meeting then took note of the report of the International Seabed Authority.

Mr. PARK ( Republic of Korea) underscored the Convention’s significance as a unique and comprehensive legal framework for every aspect of the uses and resources of the world’s oceans, including the breadth, jurisdiction and legal status of maritime zones, conservation of marine living resources, marine scientific research and protection of the marine environment.  Since its adoption, the Convention had been referred to by a wide variety of governmental, intergovernmental and private actors as the source of international law in guiding their activities and the daily operation of oceanic affairs.  It was not an overstatement to say that the Convention had reached virtually universal participation with its current membership of 149.  In that regard, the recent accession of Estonia to the Convention in August 2005 was highly welcomed and States that had not yet done so should also become parties to the Convention.

Highlighting the Tribunal’s judicial work, he noted that there was one pending case on the Tribunal’s docket, namely that concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile-European Community).  The Special Chamber had been established in December 2000 in accordance with article 15 of the Tribunal’s Statute and upon the request of the parties.  By the Chamber’s order dated 29 December 2005, the time limit for making preliminary objections with respect to the case had been extended to 1 January 2008, to enable the parties to reach a settlement.  The decision, if rendered by the Chamber, would shed light on the rules and principles applicable to fishing activities on the high seas adjacent to coastal States and conservation measures relating to the fish concerned.

He also noted that a final settlement had been reached between the relevant parties in 2005, following the decisions and orders taken by the Tribunal in the Juno Trader case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines versus Guinea-Bissau) and the Case concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia versus Singapore).  Having dealt with 13 cases so far, the Tribunal had not only provided a legal basis for resolving contentious maritime disputes but had also made a significant contribution to the development of the law of the sea with its authoritative jurisprudence.  While the Tribunal had been praised for its swift handling of cases relating to prescription of provisional measures and prompt release of vessels and crews, only two cases had been instituted on the basis of consensual jurisdiction rather than on the compulsory jurisdiction provided for in the Convention.  With no new case having been brought before the Tribunal in 2005, there was room for more frequent use of it.

The Tribunal’s authority and role could be further bolstered if more States had recourse to it and if a much wider range of cases, including those relating to maritime boundaries, were brought before it, he said.  In that regard, more use of the Chambers established by the Tribunal would facilitate the settlement of disputes in a user-friendly and efficient way and help broaden the Tribunal’s work.  Composed of so many judges of exceptional experience and learning in law of the sea matters, the Tribunal would play a stronger role in the peaceful settlement of maritime disputes.  In that connection, the Korea International Cooperation Agency Grant could hopefully contribute to enhancing awareness about the Tribunal.  The decisions to be taken on the Tribunal’s budgetary and administrative matters were crucial to realizing its potential and smooth functioning.

Turning to the Commission’s work, he noted that several new submissions had been made since the previous meeting and expressed concern that, with the growing number of submissions expected, the Commission’s workload would increase rapidly requiring its members to be present at United Nations Headquarters for up to four months a year between 2007 and 2012.  Practical solutions were urgently required to address the difficulties facing the Commission.

Noting that the Authority’s Council had completed its first reading of the draft regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, he said the development of a legal exploration regime was a daunting task, but the Council had made a small but solid step towards that goal.  While upholding the principle that the activities in the international seabed area should be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, the Republic of Korea, as one of its pioneer inventors, kept in mind the international community’s concern for the deep seabed environment which might be affected.  As such, the “Kaplan Project” launched by the Authority would hopefully help provide the necessary scientific information to predict and manage the impact of seabed mining on the marine environment.

In conclusion, he reaffirmed his country’s commitment to participate actively in global and regional efforts to establish a legal order for, and promote the peaceful and sustainable use of, the seas and oceans.  Great momentum was gathering with respect to the development of the law of the sea and it should continue for the Convention’s global ratification and full implementation.

Tribute to Louis B. Sohn

Mr. CHITTY ( Sri Lanka) drew attention to the recent passing of Professor Louis B. Sohn, who had served as the United States representative to the Law of the Sea Conference and a renowned personality in international law.  Professor Sohn had been part of the informal working group preceding the official discussion of dispute settlement, and one of the first people to advance the idea of setting up an international tribunal for the law of the sea.

Mr. LOIDL ( Austria) said it was with much regret that he had learned about the passing of Professor Sohn, who was not only crucial in the elaboration of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but was also one of the drafters of the United Nations Charter.  His outstanding qualities were very much appreciated, and the international community had lost a great legal mind.

DOMENICO DA EMPOLI ( Italy) also paid tribute to the memory of Professor Sohn and extended his condolences to his widow.

JEAN FRANÇOIS DOBELLE ( France) reminded delegations that Professor Sohn had played a major role at the inception of international law on the environment, including at the 1972 Stockholm Conference, and emphasized the eminent role he had played in drafting the section of the Law of the Sea Convention on the settlement of disputes.  Professor Sohn had also participated in the complicated construct of the 1994 Agreement, which had paved the way for the Convention’s entry into force.  Professor Sohn had been a courteous and modest individual and a friend of many French professors.

Mr. WOLFRUM, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, said he had learned with much regret of the passing of Professor Sohn, one of the initiators of Part XV of the Convention and paid tribute to his untiring efforts to establish a dispute settlement mechanism.

JENS PETER PROTHMANN ( Namibia) joined others in mourning the passing of Professor Sohn, whose contribution to the development of international law, and the law of the sea in particular, were immense.

ANDY A. MWANDEMBWA (United Republic of Tanzania) also paid tribute to Professor Sohn and conveyed his condolences to the bereaved family.

ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU ( Sierra Leone) registered his country’s condolences and said the United States had lost several eminent jurists in the past few years.

Mr. ROACH (United States) thanked delegates for their condolences and tributes on behalf of the Government and people of the United States and said he shared their comments about Professor Sohn, who had been “unfailing until his death” in his openness, fairness and rationality.

Statement by Chairman of Continental Shelf Commission

PETER F. CROKER, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, outlining developments since June 2005, recalled that article 76 of the Convention set out the definition and the various methods by which a coastal State could establish the outer limits of its continental shelf, including beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.  Since the fifteenth Meeting of States parties in June 2005, the Commission had held its sixteenth and seventeenth sessions and in particular, it had begun considering the submission of Ireland pursuant to article 76, paragraph 8, of the Convention.  The Commission had also continued its consideration of the submissions by Brazil and Australia through the respective subcommissions established for that purpose.

Ireland had indicated that its submission was partial as it contained information only with respect to a portion of the outer limits of the continental shelf appurtenant to Ireland that lay beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines, namely the area abutting the Porcupine Abyssal Plain.  It was the first time a partial submission had been made to the Commission by a coastal State, a possibility envisaged by paragraph 3 of annex I to the rules of procedure of the Commission (document CLCS/40).

He said Ireland had specified that that portion of the shelf was not the subject of any dispute and, in the view of Ireland’s Government, its consideration by the Commission would not prejudice matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries between Ireland and any other States.  The Commission had decided that, as provided for in article 5 of annex II to the Convention and in rule 42 of the rules of procedure, Ireland’s submission would be examined through the establishment of a subcommission.  A subcommission had been established, taking into account, among other things, the provisions of the Convention and the Commission’s rules of procedure and the need to ensure a scientific and geographical balance.  The subcommission had completed its preliminary analysis of the submission and, in view of the volume of work required in examining it, the subcommission had decided to hold resumed meetings in 2006.

At its sixteenth session, he said, the Commission had taken note of the legal opinion contained in the Legal Counsel’s letter to the Commission’s Chairman, dated 25 August 2005, on whether it was permissible, under the Convention and the rules of procedure, for a coastal State that had made a submission to the Commission, in accordance with article 76 of the Convention, to provide information relating to the limits of its continental shelf or substantial part thereof, which constituted a significant departure from the original limits and formula lines that had been given due publicity by the United Nations Secretary-General in accordance with rule 50 of the Commission’s rules of procedure.

The legal opinion had been prepared at the request of the Commission, which had decided to act in accordance with the legal opinion, he said.  Furthermore, the Commission had decided to forward the legal opinion to the four States that had made submissions to date and to issue it as a document of the Commission.  The Commission had also noted the importance of due publicity given to the submissions and expressed the view that any new information submitted by a coastal State during the consideration of its submission by the Commission should, in case of significant departures from the originally proposed outer limits of the continental shelf, be given due publicity.  It had also been noted that States should be aware of the practical consequences in the event that new particulars regarding the outer limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles were submitted during the examination of a submission.

He said that the seventeenth session of the Commission, held at United Nations Headquarters from 20 March to 21 April 2006, and its plenary from 3 to 7 April, as well as the periods 20 to 31 March and 10 to 21 April had been devoted to the technical examination of submissions at the Geographic Information System laboratories and other technical facilities of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.  The submissions of Brazil, Australia and Ireland had been simultaneously examined during the session by their respective subcommissions.

Following the expression of concerns regarding the consistency of rule 52 of the Commission’s rules of procedure with the provisions of article 5 of annex II to the Convention, at its sixteenth session the Commission had exchanged views on rule 52 of the rules of procedure and the related section VI of annex III to those rules.  Views had been exchanged on possible mechanisms to accommodate the concerns of coastal States, as conveyed in the note verbale from Brazil and in the statements of several delegations during the fifteenth Meeting of States parties.  In particular, the Commission had contemplated a possible mechanism by which the coastal State would be appraised of the content of the recommendations proposed by a subcommission and would be given the opportunity to express its position at the final stages of the Commission’s consideration of the submission and draft recommendations.

Following an extensive discussion on rule 52, an amendment to that rule had been adopted, he said.  According to the amendment, the Commission should, through the Secretary-General, notify the coastal State which had made a submission, no later than 60 days prior to the opening date of the session, of the date and place at which its submission would be first considered.  The coastal State should, in accordance with article 5 of annex II to the Convention, be invited to send its representatives to participate, without the right to vote, in the relevant proceedings of the Commission pursuant to section VI of annex III.

During its seventeenth session, he said, the Commission had been informed of the activities with regard to training courses for the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, the preparation of submissions to the Commission and the training manual.  At the seventeenth session, it had been reported that the Trust Fund established for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of submissions to the Commission for developing States, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, had assets of approximately $1 million.  Regarding the Trust Fund for defraying the cost of developing-country Commission members’ participation in the body’s activities, five members had received assistance to participate in the sixteenth session and four to take part in the seventeenth session.

In 2005, he had drawn attention to two issues of urgent importance, he said, the first concerning additional requirements regarding staff, facilities, software and hardware essential for the consideration of submissions.  The Commission had since been informed that despite the recent limitations imposed by the General Assembly on the disbursement of funds from the 2006-2007 budget, the Secretariat had managed to upgrade the technical facilities, as well as the conference room of the Division, which was now fitted with state-of-the-art equipment allowing it to be used as a third Geographic Information System laboratory.  As a result of those improvements, the premises of the Division could now accommodate the work of three subcommissions at any given time.  The Commission greatly appreciated the Secretary-General’s efforts to enlarge its office space, improve its technical facilities and provide it with new equipment.

He said the second issue related to the workload for members and funding for those attending meetings of subcommissions, which had been extensively discussed during the previous sessions.  At the fifteenth Meeting of States Parties, attention had been specifically drawn to the workload facing the Commission in connection with the examination of submissions and the time required to complete the necessary tasks.  There had been a widespread feeling that under current arrangements, the Commission might not be in a position to perform its functions in an efficient and timely manner.  With the receipt of the submission by New Zealand and the joint submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom at the forthcoming eighteenth session, the Commission would be faced with the task of examining five submissions simultaneously.  Linked to that problem was the duration of the examination of submissions, which could extend for long periods of time, both during the sessions and the intersessional periods, which created difficulties for all members.

Since the Commission had already brought that issue to the attention of the Meeting of States parties last year, he said, it had been agreed that it was important to bring up specific proposals in 2006 for consideration by States parties.  The Commission had approved a proposal for submission to the Meeting of States parties, according to which the Meeting had recommended that, taking into account the importance of the Commission’s responsibilities, adequate additional funding from the United Nations regular budget would be provided to ensure the full participation of the Commission’s members in its work with the requirement of up to four months a year of full-time work at United Nations Headquarters.

Also, States parties would be called upon to propose, through a draft resolution for consideration by the General Assembly, that the Commission’s members receive emoluments and expenses while performing Commission duties concerning the consideration of submissions made by coastal States on the outer limits of the continental shelf under article 76, and that such emoluments and expenses would be defrayed through the United Nations regular budget.

Statements

Mr. PROTHMANN ( Namibia) said the oceans covered 60 per cent of the earth’s surface and required urgent and increased attention.  The Commission’s demands were high, as was the need to build the capacity of developing countries.  As such, the Meeting might wish to adopt a corresponding recommendation to the General Assembly.  Namibia appreciated the capacity-building of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Seabed Authority and the Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea and they should increase such activities with the support of adequate resources from States parties.

Regarding staff recruitment by international governmental organizations, he said Namibia supported the principle of equitable geographic representation, as well as that of competence.  There would be vacant posts at the Division in the future, including higher-level posts, and Namibia looked forward to their wide announcement.  Regarding emoluments, Namibia, while conscious that such arrangement were unprecedented, looked forward to the views of other delegations.

SAKIAS TAMEO ( Papua New Guinea) said the work on delimitation of the continental shelf was of particular importance for his own and several other Pacific nations.  Given the technical nature of the work and the resource constraints, completing the task of delimitation for 14 Pacific countries might not be done within the deadline.  Therefore, it might be necessary in the future to seek an extension of the deadline.

EDEN CHARLES (Trinidad and Tobago), recognizing the importance of the Commission as the only legitimate mechanism to make recommendations to coastal States on the limits of the continental shelf, said he had taken note of the strides it had made on submissions made to it.  Its work should be given the unequivocal support of States parties, which must include necessary resources to ensure that it carried out its legal mandate.

Mr. DUARTE (Brazil) said the purpose of the Commission was to consider submissions by coastal States concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf in areas where they extended beyond 200 nautical miles, and to make recommendations on matters relating to the establishment of those outer limits, which would be established by the coastal States, by depositing with the United Nations Secretary-General charts and relevant information permanently describing the outer limits on the basis of those recommendations.  The Commission’s recommendations must allow the coastal State concerned to proceed with that deposit regarding its continental shelf, in the case that it agreed with what was recommended by the Commission.  However, even where the coastal State agreed, the establishment of the outer limits would ultimately depend on the required specificity of the recommendations.

Regarding the prospect of an increase in the Commission’s workload, he said that increased submissions to the Commission by 2009 would require a doubling of the required time for Commission members to remain in New York each year, from two to four months.  It was being suggested that the current meeting adopt a decision to address that situation, recommending that adequate funding be provided by the regular budget of the United Nations in order to ensure full participation by members of the Commission.  States parties would also be called on to propose a draft resolution to the General Assembly allowing for members of the Commission to receive emoluments and expenses, to be defrayed through the regular budget.

In considering those proposals, he said a number of issues should be taken into account.  There was a need to estimate precisely the number of new submissions and how they would impact on the Commission’s workload, given also the prospect of the Commission concluding its work on submissions currently under examination.  There was also a need to establish how many submissions the Commission should take up concurrently, given the increased number of submissions.  The issue was how to provide for an increase in the Commission’s work without overburdening States’ financial obligations.

WANG ZONGLAI ( China) said the Commission’s work was important not only to coastal States but to the entire international community.  According to the Convention, the international seabed area was the common heritage of humanity and its exploration and development should be shared by all members of the international community.  The Commission’s work had increased substantially and completing it would require increased financial resources.  States parties should provide the necessary support.

I.A. AYUA ( Nigeria) said his country had been able to carry out several functions, including concluding a survey in the claimed area of the standard continental shelf and a successful seismic survey.  Nigeria was currently reviewing its maritime legislation to accommodate the continental shelf and would intensify its efforts to ensure its submission by 2006.

He commended the Commission for successfully undertaking a regional training workshop in Nigeria, saying it had facilitated the country’s preparation of its submission to the Commission.  Nigeria supported the need for adequate funding to ensure the full participation of the Commission’s members, especially given the requirement for up to four months of work at the United Nations.

MASASHI MIZAKAMI ( Japan) said his country had some difficulties with the Commission’s report.  If the total period of its work was to be extended to four months it would be difficult for some countries to send highly qualified experts to stay in New York for such a long time.  Given the increase in the Commission’s workload, it should seek efficient ways to cope with the anticipated increase, including the possibility of conducting work in home countries rather than increasing the sessions in New York.

Mr. DIENE ( Senegal) expressed appreciation for the issuance of the Commission’s procedural handbook by the Commission, which was available in English and would soon be made available in French.  At the Secretariat level, it should be made available in French and other working languages as it would facilitate the work of countries that worked in languages other than English and Spanish.  Much progress had been made on the important issue of article 76 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which enabled some States to extend the continental shelf.  In order to discharge its mandate in the best way, the Commission had set itself up in subgroups and Senegal welcomed that step, as well as the Secretariat’s contribution to help modernize the Commission’s equipment.  Interaction between the Commission and countries that were to make submissions was crucial and should be encouraged.

He said that, while the Commission’s operations had been somewhat restricted, the workload would become heavier in future.  The Commission was designed to support States preparing submissions, an aspect that had been somewhat hidden.   Senegal called for additional finances and staff.  The Chair of the Commission had suggested four work months and ways must be found to enable it fully to discharge its mandate.

Mr. LOIDL ( Austria) said the European Union had noted the information provided by the Chairman of the Commission, and took note also of the draft decision forwarded to the meeting.  Interested in ensuring the Commission’s effectiveness in a period of increased workload, the European Union noted also the incompatibility of the proposal to provide funding from the regular budget with the provisions of annex II of the Convention, by which a State party that submitted the nomination of a Commission member should defray the costs incurred in that member’s participation.  The European Union was willing to consider other proposals, such as altering working methods.

Mr. TALDI ( South Africa) said the submission deadline was looming for South Africa and it was committed to meeting its deadline.  Given the complexity of establishing the outer limits of the continental shelf, some countries might not be able to meet their deadline.  Secondly, the constantly increasing workload might make the Commission’s work difficult.  Also, the Commission was requesting that the current meeting make recommendations regarding emoluments, which led South Africa to believe that it might be wise to reconsider the pragmatism of the 2009 deadline.

Ms. NKOROI (Kenya) said that, while delimitation was very technical work, her country was determined to submit its claim by the 2009 deadline and counted on the Commission’s support in that respect.

Ms. TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica) noted favourably the work carried out by the Commission, as well as the challenges it faced, including the new submissions and the need to update its rules of procedure to ensure adherence to the provisions and spirit of the Convention.  Regarding the work outlined by the Chairman of the Commission, she noted the training workshops were critical in helping States understand the technical work involved in making submissions.

On the Commission’s proposal regarding the use of regular budget funds to finance the participation of Commission members, she said it was necessary to look at all areas to facilitate the implementation of the Convention.  It was not clear whether the proposal was feasible as presented, but Jamaica was prepared to examine it in all its aspects.  One possibility was to ask the Secretariat to request the Budget or Human Resources Division to explain how other expert bodies dealt with similar situations.  States could find other creative solutions to provide financial assistance so as to facilitate the Commission’s work.  Jamaica did not share the view that there would be a contradiction if there were contributions from the regular budget and proposed consultations on the issue during the week, as well as looking at ways to provide more effective financial assistance.

Mr. OEGROSENO ( Indonesia) said his country planned to make its submission next year.  The growing number of submissions and the increasing workload of the Commission required further attention and immediate decisions by States.  Indonesia was ready to have discussions towards a positive outcome.

Mr. KANU ( Sierra Leone) said with regard to the proposal for some emoluments to be paid to members that he would await instructions from his capital.  The proposal was understood to mean that some emoluments would be paid from the Trust Fund, but if it meant that emoluments would be paid from the regular budget, Sierra Leone was inclined to agree there might be a contradiction between the proposal and annex II of the Convention.  At the current stage, Sierra Leone was not prepared to support the proposal as it stood.

Mr. BIALEK (Australia) said he appreciated the amendments to the Commission’s rules of the procedure regarding the participation of submitting States, which were a real step forward in that area.  The Commission and the subcommission should have adequate time to finalize their recommendations.

On the Commission’s anticipated future workload, he said the issues raised by the Chairman were significant and required the attention by States parties.  At present, States parties should continue to fund the participation of their nominated representatives in the Commission’s work.  Assistance for participants from developing countries should be provided by the Trust Fund.  The proposal to have the Commission meet in the countries of members rather than in New York was impractical.  States parties could consider the possibility of allowing members participating in an ongoing subcommission to continue on the subcommission even after their term on the Commission was up.

Ms. LYUBALINA ( Russian Federation) said that legitimate questions had arisen regarding the Commission’s initiatives and that it might be feasible to consider other options for financing sources to defray costs.  The Russian Federation would work actively in preparing an acceptable solution to those problems.

D.S. KANTI ( India) expressed his delegation’s support for the amendment proposed in paragraph 16 of the Commission’s report, by which it would, through the Secretary-General, notify a coastal State that made a submission, no later than 60 days prior to the opening date of the session, of the date and place at which its submission would first be considered.  That amendment would improve dialogue, as well as understanding of approach between the subcommission and the submitting States.

He said his delegation understood the issues involved in view of the Commission’s increased workload.  The availability of experts for four months away from Headquarters was a major area of concern and the Meeting needed a solution in that regard.  Meeting their expenditure from the United Nations regular budget was one acceptable solution.

Mr. EIKAAS ( Norway) said he was ready to look at ways to increase the Commission’s efficiency.  Two additional months of work would be useful in speeding its work along, but the Meeting should look at ways to do that more in line with the Convention, by which States having nominated candidates to the Commission would defray their expenses.  While Commission members needed good working conditions, other ways to ensure efficiency should be considered.  Perhaps States parties should look instead at the working conditions of Commission members at home, where they might be burdened with other tasks.

ALFONSO ASCENCIO ( Mexico) said there should be a continual exchange between States parties and the Commission with a view to forecasting any potential problems.  While there would be a growing increase in the workload, it was hard to plan on the basis of expectations.  Not all of submissions to be presented would have the same degree of complexity and the Commission could, among other things, plan its work on the basis of costs and turn to the plenary only when necessary.  There was a need to discuss the current organization of work.

On financing, he stressed the need to respect the content of the Convention, adding that it was also important to ensure that the Meeting would reaffirm the importance of the Trust Fund established to facilitate the preparation of submissions from developing countries.

JENNIFER McIVER ( New Zealand) said her country had presented its continental shelf submission in April and as a new submitting State, wished to comment on rules of procedure, the burgeoning workload and on how States parties might respond to the length of time members might need to spend at Commission meetings in New York.  The subcommission’s deliberations should be as open and transparent as possible.

New Zealand was happy that the Commission had taken account of views expressed by the States parties last year, she said, noting that its response had been balanced and pragmatic.  At an advanced stage of submission, the sub-commission could provide a submitting State with its views and the State would have a reasonable time to respond.

While emphasizing the need for a transparent process, she expressed concern at the projections for a burgeoning workload, saying that the Commission must continue to have the ability to attract highly qualified experts.  The Commission’s increasing workload would require it to look at more efficient methods of work and it might consider a sustainable level of scrutiny that it could continue to give to each submission.  New Zealand encouraged the increased use of the Trust Fund and further work might help to ensure that it was as accessible as possible to those seeking to benefit from it.

ANA CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ-PINEDA ( Guatemala) said that more information was needed regarding the implications of the draft decision forwarded by the Commission and asked how the Trust Fund designed to assist the participation of Commission members worked if more funds were now needed.  Also, what was the difference between operative paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft decision?  The first referred to the provision of additional funding from the regular budget, and the second called on States parties to propose, through a General Assembly resolution, that members of the Commission receive emoluments and expenses while performing Commission duties.  Guatemala stood ready to find a solution that accommodated the interests of all.

GANESON SIVAGURUNATHAN ( Malaysia) took note of the increased workload that the Commission would be facing, which would require the full support of States parties, including through increased funding.  There should be further consultations.

Ms. MARKOVIC-KOSTELAC ( Croatia) said she understood the challenges facing the Commission, given the significance of its work and the projected increase in its workload.  An open-minded approach should be taken regarding the proposals on future work.  Different solutions should be considered, such as the use of technology and additional funding from the regular budget.

Mr. MAGANGA ( Gabon), noting that the Commission’s workload would increase as many coastal States became increasingly aware of the stakes involved in submissions, said that the 2009 deadline was looming.  Could all States legitimately claim an extension?  It might behove States to revisit the deadline in order to ease the burden on the Commission, as well as the difficulties faced by States in providing the necessary data.  Gabon supported Mexico’s proposal on that issue.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record