Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

108^th  & 109^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Heads of international tribunal, seabed authority, continental shelf commission,

Brief states parties to law of sea convention

 

The States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea addressed a full agenda today with comprehensive briefings by the heads of the three bodies established by the treaty -- the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf -– and reports on the Tribunal’s external audits, budgetary matters and staff pension committee. 

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea celebrated its tenth anniversary in September 2006, and that had been a perfect time to reflect on the court’s contribution to the settlement of maritime disputes, Tribunal President, Judge Rudiger Wolfrum said.  The Tribunal had established a jurisprudence that had already contributed to the development of international law of the sea in a notable way and played an important role in the pacific settlement of disputes relating to the Convention’s application, he said.

Noting the presence at the event of International Court of Justice’s President, Justice Rosalyn Higgins, with whom the Tribunal had cordial relations, Judge Wolfrum recalled Justice Higgins remarks: “Within a decade, the Tribunal has pronounced an interesting law, built on a reputation for its efficient and speedy management of cases and shown innovative use of information technology”.  She had also emphasized the “common goal of a mutually reinforcing corpus of international law in the settlement of international legal disputes”, he said.

Recalling also the General Assembly’s satisfaction through the consensus adoption of resolution 61/222 on 20 December 2006 with the court’s “continued and significant contribution” to the settlement of disputes, and its important role and authority concerning the application of the Convention, Judge Wolfrum appealed to States parties to take greater advantage of the Tribunal’s broad competence and consider selecting it as their preferred forum for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. 

Judge Wolfrum cited a number of possibilities that States parties might use to confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal, adding that a further advantage of having recourse to the Tribunal was that no court costs were incurred for the States parties.  Developments during the period covered by the report, from 1 January to 31 December 2006, had included the establishment of a new chamber to deal with maritime delimitation disputes, and it was ready to act whenever seized of such a case.  A further important question currently under consideration related to the prompt release of vessels and crews in the event of marine pollution.

Peter Crocker, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf -- which considers the data submitted by coastal States concerning claims to outer limits of the continental shelf that may extend beyond 200 nautical miles –- told States parties that the Commission continued its consideration of submissions made during the previous session and a new one submitted by Norway.  It had also adopted recommendations on the limits of the continental shelf in regard to the submission made by Brazil on 17 May 2004, and in regard to the partial submission made by Ireland on 25 May 2005 of the proposed outer limit of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the area abutting the Porcupine Abyssal Plain. 

He said that the Commission also continued its discussion of matters related to its increasing workload and increasing number of submissions.  During the last two sessions, the Commission had five subcommissions at work simultaneously.  That situation would likely further deteriorate in view of the 2009 deadline for the majority of coastal States.  At the Commission’s request, Mr. Crocker had prepared a separate and more detailed presentation on the workload and on certain proposals made at the sixteenth meeting of States parties, which he could make available immediately following his statement. 

Additionally, he said that the Commission had decided to reintroduce at the present meeting of States parties its proposal that the Commission members receive emoluments and expenses while performing Commission duties concerning the submissions made by coastal States on the outer limits of the continental shelf under article 76, and that such emoluments and expenses be defrayed through the regular budget of the United Nations.  That proposal was originally contained in the “Draft decision for consideration by the sixteenth meeting of States parties” (SPLOS/140, annex).  The Commission also requested the Secretariat to provide the necessary information on the programme budget implications of such a decision.

Headed by Satya Nandan and situated in Kingston, Jamaica, the International Seabed Authority is the body through which States parties organize and control activities relating to the deep seabed’s mineral resources in the international seabed area, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.  Mr. Nandan said the Authority’s 2007-2008 budget was $11.78 million, but due to the failure of some members to contribute to the budget, cumulative arrears stood at $384,253.  He urged all members in arrears to review the status of their contributions and “pay up”.  He also appealed to the States parties, relevant international organizations and others to contribute to the Authority’s Endowment Fund, whose purpose was to promote marine scientific research for mankind’s benefit.  At the end of May 2007, 54 members of the Authority were in arrears for two years or more.

Turning to the prospects for commercial mining of minerals from the seabed, he said the economic situation was becoming increasingly favourable in the light of recent high commodity prices.  There was growing demand for metals for commercial use in polymetallic nodules, including copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese, and in hydrothermal polymetallic sulphides, including copper, sliver, lead and zinc.  In addition, the Authority’s regular workshops on technical matters had been extremely useful to scientists engaged in research in the deep seabed environment and most helpful on some very difficult technical issues.  Since the sixteenth meeting of States parties, the Authority had convened its ninth workshop series.  He regretted, however, that the meetings of the Assembly of the Authority were not well attended by States parties and that frequent absences of a quorum had hampered decision-making on important substantive matters. 

Also today, Judge Wolfrum introduced the report of the external auditors for the financial year 2005-2006 (document SPLOS/153).  The report on budgetary matters of the International Tribunal for the financial period 2006-2007 (document SPLOS/154) was introduced by the Registrar, Philippe Gautier, and Raymond Wolfe introduced the report on the establishment of the staff pension committee in the Tribunal (document SPLOS/155), as well as a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jamaica to the Convention’s States parties (document SPLOS/158).

Kenya’s representative expressed concern that coastal States, especially developing ones, would have difficulty meeting the 2009 deadline for submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, owing to the required scientific resources and skill.  She said she supported the creation of the trust fund, but said its objective was not being achieved due to the stringent rules that made it difficult for developing countries to have access to it.  That must change.  The biggest, most expensive task was gathering and evaluating data.  The trust fund must be expanded in order to enable developing countries to carry out their work, in that regard.

A number of countries agreed with her proposal, including Benin’s representative, who urged that Kenya’s statement be adopted as a document of the meeting.  The United Nations Secretariat should raise Governments’ awareness on the need for more active cooperation, in order to help obtain the necessary data in the process of delineating the continental shelf.  Some countries were against extending the deadline for that purpose, but the international community should recognize the problem developing countries had in terms of mobilizing the necessary resources and address it. 

Seychelles’ speaker said his country, a small island developing State in the middle of the Indian Ocean off Africa’s coast, had taken steps to delineate its extended continental shelf.  The main impediment was access to funding, especially in light of other vital, competing national priorities.  He joined the delegations of Kenya and Benin in requesting that the matter be properly appraised, especially since the deadline was fast approaching.  Perhaps, it was possible to broaden the scope of the trust fund.  Or, perhaps, the deadline for submissions could be reviewed, and consideration could be given to “stopping the clock”.  States should not lose their right to claim and extend the shelf purely because they could not make their submission on time, owing to insufficient funds and insufficient time.

Additional statements in today’s meetings were made by the representatives of Brazil, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), India, Indonesia, Chile, Cameroon, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Bahamas, Russian Federation, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Philippines, and El Salvador.

The seventeenth meeting of States parties will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 19 June, to continue its work.

Background

The States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea met this morning to continue its seventeenth meeting.

Introduction of Report of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Presenting the report (document SPLOS/152), Judge RUDIGER WOLFRUM noted that the annual report covered the Tribunal’s activities from 1 January to 31 December 2006 and its financial position in that year.  The report was self-explanatory, but it appeared useful to present the main aspects of the court’s work and report on recent developments. 

On 19 September 2006, the Tribunal re-elected Philippe Gautier as Registrar, and on 6 March 2007, Doo-young Kim was re-elected Deputy Registrar.  Both would serve terms of five years.  The Tribunal held two sessions in 2006, the twenty-first and twenty second.  Those were devoted to matters relating to the court’s judicial work, as well as to other organizational and administrative matters.  The different committees discussed various budgetary and administrative matters, including issues such as budget proposals, budget performance, status of contributions, conditions of service and contributions for members, the audit report, staff rules and regulations, staff recruitment, the library’s extension, and buildings and electronic systems. 

A question of great significant examined by the Tribunal concerned its general competence in maritime delimitation cases, he said.  In that regard, article 288 of the Convention conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal, as well as on the International Court of Justice or on an arbitral tribunal, to deal with any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.  Maritime delimitation disputes were those concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention and, therefore, such disputes were subjected to compulsory binding settlement under Part XV, section 2, of the treaty if, and to the extent, that section 1 did not provide otherwise. 

Last year, he recalled, he had informed the meeting of States parties that the Tribunal was considering the need to establish a new chamber to deal with maritime delimitation disputes.  At the Tribunal’s twenty-third session, on 16 March, the Tribunal adopted a resolution to form a standing special chamber.  Known as the Chamber for Maritime Delimitation Disputes, it would be available to deal with disputes in that field, which the parties agreed to submit to it concerning the interpretation or application of any relevant provision of the Convention and of any other agreement that conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal.  The Chamber was composed of eight members of the Tribunal whose term would end on 30 September 2008.

Continuing, he said that the Chamber was an alternative for States facing problems in that field.  Its members had been selected on the basis of their special knowledge, expertise and previous experience in maritime delimitation matters.  Its composition was global, and provision had also been made to safeguard the interests of particular States since, if there was no judge of the nationality of a State concerned in the Chamber, any member of it should give place to a judge of the Tribunal having the nationality of the State concerned.  Should that prove impossible, the State concerned was entitled to choose a judge ad hoc.  The Chamber was also ready to act whenever seized of a maritime delimitation case.  Its decisions were considered decisions of the Tribunal and, therefore, final and binding.  Like other proceedings before the court, States parties to the Convention would incur no court costs or fees before the Chamber.

He said that a further important question currently under consideration related to the prompt release of vessels and crews in the event of marine pollution, under the Conventions article 292.  He emphasized that applications for the prompt release of vessels and crews did not necessarily have to be submitted by the flag State, as the competent authorities of the flag State might, for instance, authorize the ship owner to submit an application “on behalf of the flag State”.  A further provision relating to prompt release is article 226, which was concerned with the following scenarios:  the arrest by coastal States of vessels in cases of pollution by dumping; the arrest by port States in respect of any discharges outside the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone; and the arrest by coastal States in respect of any violation of its anti-pollution laws and regulations. 

The scope of the prompt release procedure under article 292 was limited, as it related to the situations described in articles 73, 220, and 226, he added.  However, vessels could be arrested for violations of other provisions.  In those cases, even if proceedings under article 292 could not be instituted, States could still request the release of the ship and its crew as a provisional measure under article 290, paragraph 5.

Turning to the court’s judicial work, he noted that a case was pending on the docket, namely the case concerning the conservation and sustainable exploitation of swordfish stocks in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Community).  It had been submitted to a Special Chamber of the Tribunal formed to deal with that particular dispute.  On the basis of information provided by the parties, the Special Chamber, by its order dated 29 December 2005, extended the time limit within which preliminary objections might be made to 1 January 2008, while maintaining the rights of the parties to revive the proceedings at any time. 

Last year, the Tribunal celebrated its tenth anniversary, he noted.  To mark the occasion, a ceremony had been held on 29 September 2006 in the presence of the President of the International Court of Justice, the Legal Counsel of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, among others.  The anniversary ceremony had been a perfect time to reflect on the court’s contribution to the settlement of maritime disputes.  The Tribunal had established a jurisprudence that had already contributed to the development of international law of the sea in a notable way and played an important role in the pacific settlement of disputes relating to the Convention’s application. 

He said that the anniversary had also been an opportunity to reinforce cordial relations with the International Court of Justice.  Its President, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, had declared that: “Within a decade, the Tribunal has pronounced an interesting law, built on a reputation for its efficient and speedy management of cases and shown innovative use of information technology.”  Judge Higgins had also emphasized that the mutual respect prevailing between the two judicial institutions helped them in achieving their “common goal of a mutually reinforcing corpus of international law in the settlement of international legal disputes”.

In that context, he said he was pleased that the General Assembly, in its resolution 61/222 of 20 December 2006, had noted with satisfaction the continued and significant contribution made by the Tribunal to the settlement of disputes.  The Assembly had also underlined the Tribunal’s important role and authority concerning the application of the Convention and Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the treaty.  States parties should take greater advantage of the Tribunal’s broad competence and consider selecting it as their preferred forum for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. 

He then cited a number of possibilities that States parties might use to confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal, adding that a further advantage of having recourse to the Tribunal was that no court costs were incurred for the States parties.  In order to raise awareness of the court’s advantages in settling disputes relating to the law of the sea, the Tribunal had organized a series of workshops in different regions of the world, with the support of the Korea International Cooperation Agency and in cooperation with the International Foundation for the Law of the Sea.  Together with the Nippon Foundation, the Tribunal had established a capacity-building and training programme on dispute settlement under the Convention.  The programme would offer five young Government officials and researchers working in the field of the law of the sea or dispute settlement in-depth knowledge of the dispute settlement mechanisms available to States under Part XV of the treaty. 

He also reported that, since he last addressed the meeting, seven States had expressed their consent to be bound by the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Tribunal, namely, Argentina, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Slovenia and Uruguay, bringing to 30 the total number of States.  The headquarters agreement between the Tribunal and Germany entered force on 11 April 2007.  The Tribunal had also taken further steps to develop its relations with other international organizations and bodies.  For example, in March, it concluded an administrative arrangement with the Food and Agriculture Organization.  Concerning the court’s budget, he referred to the appeal made by the General Assembly in resolution 61/222 to all States parties to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time. 

PIRAGIBE DOS SANTOS TARRAGÔ ( Brazil) said the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf had made considerable progress in their respective areas, but more must be done.  He welcomed the Commission’s decision in paragraph 50 of document CLCS/52 to address general technical issues.  Common criteria, methodology and approaches must be established in order to uphold and safeguard the Commission’s recommendations.  The absence of such criteria and their possible relevance for recommendations to be made to several coastal States prompted Brazil’s Government to request that the Commission, through Note Verbale 36, identify a consistent methodology and approaches for the subcommission’s referral, as necessary.

He said that no reference was made in paragraph 19 of document CLCS/54 of the Commission Chairman’s Statement to Brazil’s note verbale.  The matter had yet to be properly addressed.  He trusted that the Commission would duly do so, and would consistently apply all criteria in its recommendations to different States.  The Commission’s work was of paramount importance for coastal States and for the international community as a whole.  It required the competent support of the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.

Ms. VON ROEDERN ( Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Tribunal had significantly contributed to the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, as well as to the development of the law of the sea.  Its 2006 annual report demonstrated that the Tribunal was well equipped to fulfil its important functions.  She welcomed measures by the Tribunal to further promote its capacity, such as publication of a guide to proceedings before the Tribunal, creation of a standing Special Chamber for Maritime Delimitation Disputes and the holding of regional workshops.  However, the Tribunal’s potential could be better used.

She called upon States parties to honour their commitments to the trust fund aimed at helping States settle disputes.  She urged them to pay any outstanding contributions in full and on time.  She welcomed the 1 May 2007 entry into force of the headquarters agreement between the Tribunal and Germany.  It defined the Tribunal’s legal status in Germany and enabled the Tribunal to effectively function in the host country.  She also welcomed the accession by Argentina, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Slovenia and Uruguay to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and encouraged other States parties to follow suit.

NEER CHADHA ( India) welcomed the coming into force of the headquarters agreement between the Tribunal and Germany.  The Tribunal was the focal point between consolidating and further developing the law of the sea.  Noting the court’s tenth anniversary last year in September, she hoped the Tribunal would be fully utilized in the coming decade.

EDDY PRATOMO ( Indonesia), Director-General for Treaties Affairs, said there was no doubt that the Convention provided a universally agreed legal framework for the use of all ocean space and its resources, and its 155 member States were a testament to that universal character.  In that regard, he welcomed Morocco and Lesotho to the treaty.  One special characteristic of the Convention was its provision of a comprehensive dispute settlement mechanism.  While acknowledging the free choice of means of the parties to settle cases over law of the sea disputes, it also incorporated an obligatory system for the settlement of disputes.  Part XV regulated that if parties failed to reach a settlement by voluntary means, they were obliged to resort to compulsory dispute settlement procedures entailing binding decisions.

In that regard, he said, the Tribunal constituted one of the four compulsory means that the States parties might choose for resolving their disputes concerning the Convention’s interpretation, in accordance with article 287.  Nowadays, the Tribunal, together with the International Court of Justice, had played a significant role in ensuring the Convention’s implementation through peaceful means, thereby strengthening the regime of the oceans.  Thirteen cases in the first decade of its work had established the Tribunal’s good reputation for settling cases expeditiously and efficiently relating to the freedom of navigation, prompt release of vessels and their crews and protection and preservation of the marine environment.  The Tribunal’s contribution in shaping international norms on the law of the sea had been further recognized by the International Court of Justice.  He also appreciated the regional workshops, aimed at assisting Member States to better understand the complexity of the dispute settlement mechanism under the Convention.

NORMA TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica) noted that the proceeding relating to the one case pending before the Tribunal had been further suspended at the parties’ request.  The Tribunal had not reported any new cases during the period under review.  While that would be reassuring if there were existing controversies or disputes, she did not believe that was the case.  Thus, she joined the Tribunal’s President in encouraging States parties to seek the adjudication of the Tribunal on such matters.  At the last meeting of States parties, the President had spoken of the initiative to hold regional workshops to provide Government officials with an insight into the procedure for the settlement of disputes.  She was pleased to note that, subsequently, two such workshops had been held and another was scheduled in Singapore for later this year.

Despite the dearth of new cases over the past two years, she noted the various activities and deliberations taking place at the plenary sessions and in the respective committees, including a review of the rules and judicial procedures and questions relating to the competence of the Tribunal in maritime delimitation cases.  She also noted that the guide to the proceedings before the Tribunal, which had been published last year, would be available this year in all official languages of the United Nations.  She supported the Tribunal’s work and, in that regard, as president of the sixteenth meeting of States parties, had been pleased to have participated in the celebrations marking its tenth anniversary last September.  She looked forward to ratification of the headquarters agreement between the Tribunal and Germany as an important step in defining the legal status of the Tribunal and regulating its relations with the host country. 

ALVARO ARÉVALO ( Chile) said the Tribunal’s publication of a guide to the proceedings before it were very useful.  He applauded the fact that several countries had recently joined the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  He also supported the 1 May 2007 entry into force of the headquarters agreement between the Tribunal and Germany, saying it would contribute to the Tribunal’s proper functioning.  The Tribunal’s regional workshops and seminars were very helpful, as well.  Ten years after its inception, the Tribunal was well qualified and prepared to contribute to the development of the Law of the Sea.  He expressed hope that its jurisdiction would expand in time.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU ( Cameroon) stressed the importance of the Agreement of Privileges and Immunities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and lauded its new members for joining the agreement.  He also supported the Tribunal’s regional seminars and workshops and said he hoped they would continue in 2008.  Cameroon was firmly committed to the peaceful settlement of all disputes concerning the law of the sea between States.  He supported a Tribunal that contributed to the creation of a community of justice, laws and mutual respect, and lauded the Tribunal’s expanded role as an advisory body.

WENDELL SANFORD ( Canada) stressed the importance of providing the Commission with the support necessary to face its increasing burdens.  Canada had begun, in cooperation with Denmark, Russian Federation and the United States, scientific work in the Atlantic and Artic oceans, and expected to make its submissions on time in 2013.  Canada had recently launched a public website on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea framework and Canada’s continuing efforts to map its extended continental shelf.  Conservation and sustainable use of marine resources –- particularly in the context of bottom trawling –- was a complex, current issue that must be carefully considered.  Eight parties had joined the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement in the past year, bringing the number of States parties to that agreement to 66, representing more than 70 per cent of world fish imports and more than 50 per cent of world fish exports.  The agreement should be used worldwide as a basis for the renewal and reform of regional fisheries organizations and arrangements.

EDEN CHARLES ( Trinidad and Tobago) said that over the past 10 years, he had witnessed the tremendous work done by the Tribunal as it continued to establish itself as an organ for the pacific settlement of disputes.  The Tribunal continued to gain the confidence of the States parties and other members of the international community.  As a State party, Trinidad and Tobago honoured its obligations and recognized the Convention as the “constitution” of the oceans and seas.  As a coastal State situated in a region of complex geography, he saluted the established of the Chamber for Maritime Disputes; his country was very familiar with the exorbitant costs associated with matters before an ad hoc tribunal, so it was giving active consideration to accepting the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal. 

He said he also saluted its efforts to gain universal acceptance, not only among States parties, but also among all members of the international community.  Hopefully, under President Wolfrum, the Tribunal would continue to “go from strength the strength”.  He also hoped everyone would give active consideration to accepting the Tribunal’s competence under all articles.

GODFREY ROLLE ( Bahamas) said he was familiar with the Tribunal’s effort in organizing regional workshops.  He thanked Jamaica for hosting the workshop for the Latin America and Caribbean region, from which his Government had certainly benefited.  He was gravely concerned, however, about the funding for participants.  His country had been one of the few in the region not afforded the benefit of funding, although he now noted the establishment of a trust fund for States parties.  He sincerely hoped, however, that the Bahamas, which was a small island developing State with pressing maritime needs, would benefit from all capacity-building programmes.  He appealed to those States and international organizations that provided funding for such events to assist States, such as his, and to take note of their needs and include rather than exclude them. 

EVGENY ZAGAINOV ( Russian Federation), noting that the Tribunal has worked well over the past year, said it should continue to focus on improving its work and structure.  The emphasis on dissemination of knowledge in the area of law of the sea was very important, and the Tribunal had great potential in that regard.  He also noted the publication of the related register, which should be published in all United Nations languages, including Russian.  On the eve of this meeting, the President of the Russian Federation had signed a law on privileges and immunities of the International Tribunal, official information on which would be submitted in the near future.

HOLGER MARTINSEN ( Argentina) thanked the Tribunal’s President for his report, specifically for raising the visibility of the court and strengthening its capacity.  His country was nearing the point where it was fully up-to-date on its obligations with respect to the Tribunal.  He congratulated the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, among other incoming officers, on the assumption of their new duties.

G. CHITTY ( Sri Lanka) welcomed the new States parties to the Convention and also congratulated the new Director of the Division and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  He was pleased that the excellent relationship and functional arrangement between Germany and the Tribunal had now been formalized under the headquarters agreement.  He expressly welcomed the Tribunal’s efforts to inform people about its work, as well as the generosity of those foundations that had made it possible to spread information globally about the Tribunal’s competencies and procedure for making applications to it, as well as the availability of a trust fund for States parties. 

As for the prompt release of vessels and crews, he noted that it had been a standing practice to go before the Tribunal for that purpose and for it to act expeditiously and positively.  The President had referred to applications made on behalf of ship owners authorized to do so.  That had been a very important clarification, which should be well emphasized.  Also positive had been the creation of the Chamber on the delimitation of disputes.  Noting the Tribunal’s tenth anniversary, he said he hoped it would continue to exercise its jurisdiction and jurisprudence in the next decade.

EMMA ROMANO SARNE ( Philippines) said that, as the Convention neared universality, the presence and role of the Tribunal gained in importance.  She stressed the importance of capacity-building programmes, and was keenly interested in the training programmes, especially on disputes settlement under the Convention, as those would go a long way towards ensuring the Tribunal’s future success.  She, therefore, thanked the various States and institutions for their continued support of those programmes.

JOSE LUIS L. CASTOLAR ( El Salvador) joined previous speakers in thanking the President for his statement and stressed the importance his delegation attached to the Tribunal’s work.  His country had recently consulted the court and been invited as an observer to the seminar held in Jamaica.  Thus, his Government had learned directly about the progress being made in the study and dissemination of the Tribunal’s proceedings.  It was very important that different regions were given the opportunity to become familiar with the proceedings, so that the Tribunal could be urged to settle future disputes peacefully. 

Statement by Commission Chairman

PETER CROCKER, Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, referred to the letter dated 23 April 2007 from the Chairman of the Commission addressed to the President of the seventeenth meeting of States parties, as contained in document SPLOS/1565, in order to update delegates on the Commission’s work since its sixteenth meeting in June 2006.  He said that, during its eighteenth session, the Commission continued its consideration of submissions by Brazil, Australia and Ireland through their respective subcommissions.  The Commission also began consideration of a new submission received from New Zealand and a joint partial submission made by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom.  He stressed that the technical and other resources of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea were severely overstretched.

The Commission also took up consideration of paragraph 4 of its “Decision on issues related to the proposals by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (SPLOS/144).  It deliberated extensively on that matter, particularly concerning paragraph 71 of the report of the sixteenth meeting of States parties (SPLOS/148), containing a list of suggested options, other than financing the Commission from the regular budget of the United Nations, that the meeting deemed worth exploring.  It discussed options related to length and frequency of sessions and meetings, scheduling/queuing of the consideration of submissions and setting time limits for the consideration of individual submissions. 

In view of the increasing number of submissions and in order to organize its work more efficiently, the Commission decided that, beginning with submissions received after the end of the eighteenth session, only three subcommissions would function simultaneously while considering submissions; submissions would be queued in the order received; and the submission next in line would be considered by a subcommission only after one of the three working subcommissions presented its recommendations to the Commission.  That decision would be a temporary and partial measure only, and would be subject to review if circumstances, including the availability of additional funding and related resources in order to increase the length and frequency of sessions, so warranted.

He said that during its nineteenth session, the Commission continued consideration of submissions made during the previous session and a new one submitted by Norway.  The Commission also adopted the “Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the Submission Made by Brazil on 17 May 2004 on Information on the Proposed Outer Limits of its Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles” by a vote of 15 in favour to two against, with no abstentions.  Further, it adopted the “Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the Partial Submission Made by Ireland on 25 May 2005 of the Proposed Outer Limit of its Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles in the Area Abutting the Porcupine Abyssal Plain” by a vote of 14 in favour to two against, with two abstentions.

The Commission also continued its discussion of matters related to its increasing workload and increasing number of submissions, taking into account the decision made at the sixteenth meeting of States parties (SPLOS/144, paragraph 4).  He noted that during the last two sessions the Commission had five subcommissions at work simultaneously.  That situation would likely further deteriorate in view of the 2009 deadline for the majority of coastal States.  At the request of the Commission, Mr. Crocker said he had, at the Commission’s request, prepared a separate and more detailed presentation on the workload and certain proposals made at the sixteenth meeting of States parties.  He said he could make that presentation to the meeting of States parties immediately following his statement.

In addition, the Commission decided to reintroduce, at the seventeenth meeting of States parties its proposal that the members of the Commission 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 be defrayed through the regular budget of the United Nations.  That proposal was originally contained in the “Draft decision for consideration by the sixteenth meeting of States parties” (SPLOS/140, annex).  The Commission also requested the Secretariat to provide the necessary information on the programme budget implications of such a decision.

Ms. MESQUITA PESSOA ( Brazil) said that, while she appreciated the need for the Commission to deal expeditiously with the increasing number of submissions by States parties, that process should not be done at the expense of the due interest of the States parties in question.  Brazil needed extensive financial resources to determine the outer limits of its continental shelf.  Brazil, like others, had presented a complex, lengthy proposal that could not be duly evaluated and acted on in a single session.  Brazil would have preferred more considerate treatment by the Commission, just as it expected that the interest of other States parties be duly taken into account.

Ms. VON ROEDERN (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, stressed the importance of ensuring that the Commission be able to function under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea effectively and maintain its high level of quality and expertise, and that its members be able to fulfil their duties effectively.  She acknowledged that article 2(5) of Annex II of the Convention –- which provided that the State Party that submitted the nomination of a Commission member should defray that member’s expenses while in performance of Commission duties –- had caused financial constraints for some Commission members from developing countries in attending Commission meetings. 

Since it had been impossible to reach consensus on funding the Commission from the United Nations regular budget, States Parties should consider other options to ensure the Commission’ effectiveness as its workload increased, she said.  That posed a challenge.  The Commission could receive submissions from as many as 50 coastal States before 2009.  Possible solutions included: improving the Commission’s working methods, strengthening the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, requesting that the Commission scrutinize submissions at a sustainable level without prejudicing quality; possibly retaining subcommission members as experts in order to ensure continuity; and queuing the consideration of submissions to the Commission in the order received.  She also supported a review of the terms of reference of the trust fund by the General Assembly in order to financially assist Commission members from countries with economies in transition. 

Mr. MARTINSEN ( Argentina) supported Brazil’s request to have the right to present additional documentation to the Commission on its submission.  He encouraged the Commission to express any concern on legal matters it might have to States parties to the Convention.  Argentina was ready to help the Commission with any concerns it may have in that regard. 

Ms. NKOROI ( Kenya) thanked said implementation of article 76 continued to pose serious financial challenges to coastal States.  Its proper implementation required scientific resources and skill.  She supported the creation of the trust fund, but said its objective was not being achieved due to the stringent rules that made it difficult for developing countries to have access to it.  That must change.  The biggest, most expensive task was gathering and evaluating data.  The trust fund must be expanded in order to enable developing countries to carry out their work, in that regard.

Report by Secretary-General of International Seabed Authority

SATYA NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, said the Authority’s 2007-2008 budget was $11.78 million.  Due to the failure of some members to contribute to the budget, cumulative arrears stood at $384,253.  He urged all members in arrears to review the status of their contributions and pay up.  According to the rules of procedure of assembly, a member in arrears would not have a vote if the amount due equalled or exceeded the amount due from it for the preceding two years.  At the end of May 2007, 54 members of the Authority were in arrears for two years or more.

Turning to the Authority’s Endowment Fund, he said its purpose was to promote and encourage marine scientific research for mankind’s benefit.  The Fund’s remaining balance from application fees of registered pioneer investors and interest accrued since 1987 was approximately $2.8 million.  Detailed rules and procedures to administer the Fund proposed by the Secretary-General would be considered by the Finance Committee and submitted to the Council and the Assembly for approval.  He called on all relevant parties to contribute to the Fund, as called for by the General Assembly.  He also appealed to other States to also contribute to the Voluntary Fund to assist developing country members of the Legal and Technical Commission and the Finance Committee in their participation in those bodies’ meetings.

During the twelfth session, the Council of the Authority elected 25 members of the Legal and Technical Commission for a five-year term, he said.  The Council also considered the draft regulations on polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts, and requested that the regulations on the two types of deposits be separated.  There was general agreement that a block system would be appropriate regarding the areas to be allocated for exploration.  However, there was disagreement on the way the blocks should be configured and on the issue of the geographic proximity of the block, as well as the number of blocks to be allocated for exploration and retained for exploitation. 

Turning to the prospects for commercial mining of minerals from the seabed, he said the economic situation was becoming increasingly favourable in the light of high commodity prices in recent years.  There was increased demand for metals for commercial use in polymetallic nodules, including copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese, and in hydrothermal polymetallic sulphides, including copper, sliver, lead and zinc.  Since 2003, the Authority had been developing a geological model of polymetallic nodule deposits for the Clarion Clipperton zone seabed area.  The Authority had issued seven exploration licenses in that zone for polymetallic nodule resources.  During the twelfth session in 2006, the Legal and Technical Commission was given a progress report on the geological model, which stated that the resource evaluation of polymetallic nodule resources had been completed and that preliminary reports from consultants on bathymetry, tectonics and volcanism, carbonate compensation depth and the oxygen minimum zone had been received.  All work products would be submitted for peer review by September 2007 and a final draft of suggestions from peer and internal reviews made available by year’s end.

The Authority’s regular workshops on technical matters had been extremely useful in gathering up-to-date information from scientists engaged in research in the deep seabed environment and most helpful on some very difficult technical issues.  Since the sixteenth meeting of States Parties, the Authority had convened its ninth workshop series.  He regretted that the meetings of the Assembly of the Authority were not well attended by States parties and that frequent absences of a quorum had hampered decision-making on important substantive matters.  He urged all members to participate in the sessions. 

Ms. VON ROEDERN (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the creation of the Endowment Fund for marine scientific research and the separation into two draft regulations the regulations on prospecting and exploring for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts.  The European Union would actively participate in considering those two draft regulations in the Council and the Legal and Technical Commission at the Authority’s thirteenth session in Kingston in July.  She lauded the accession by Germany, Italy and Portugal to the Authority protocol on privileges and immunities.

RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica) said as the host country Jamaica fully supported the Authority’s work.  He shared Mr. Nandan’s concerns regarding financial arrears and his general concern over declining participation of members at Authority meetings.  He expressed hope that the date changes of meetings would facilitate members’ full participation.  He also supported creation of the Endowment Fund for marine scientific research and the Voluntary Fund to assist developing country members of the Legal and Technical Commission.

Mr. PRATOMO ( Indonesia) provided information on a series of national efforts in Indonesia to promote awareness of new developments that might affect existing regulations pertaining to deep sea mining.  Such mining also affected the surrounding environment.  He supported the innovative approaches of the Authority regarding environmental protection, damage to fauna and deep seabed environments.  He stressed the importance of the effective management of fish stocks.

Ms. NKOROI ( Kenya) said that, although the report stated that Kenya was in arrears in terms of its financial contribution to the Authority, it had in fact, as of 11 June, paid in full.  She thanked the Tribunal for holding workshops on dispute settlements, and encouraged more of their kind in the future.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU ( Cameroon) encouraged greater efforts to strengthen the Authority’s activities and the development of a legal framework for activities in the Clarion Clipperton zone.  He supported research on the seabed and the creation of a database at the Authority’s headquarters in Kingston.  More workshops were needed on international technological cooperation.

Taking the floor again, Commission Chairman Peter Crocker said that since the issuance of the report (document SPLOS/156), there was a further update: In May 2007, the Commission received its eighth submission, that of France.  It was a partial submission relating to French Guyana and New Caledonia, and it would be on the agenda of the Commission’s twentieth session beginning in August. 

Financial and Budgetary Matters of Tribunal

When the meeting turned to financial and budgetary matters, Judge Wolfrum introduced two reports concerning the court’s budget and finances (documents SPLOS/153 and 154), explaining that there would be no budget proposals since the Tribunal was in the first year of its 2007-2008 biennium.

He said that the report on budgetary matters for the financial year 2005-2006 (document SPLOS/154) consisted of four parts:  the performance report; the report on action taken pursuant to the decisions on budgetary matters taken by the fifteenth and sixteenth meetings; the report on action taken pursuant to the Tribunal’s financial regulations; and other matters.  In June 2004, the fourteenth meeting of States parties had approved a budget amount of 15,506,500 euros, but because no new cases were submitted during the period, there were substantial savings -- amounting to 2,068,915 euros.  In addition, there were also savings under staff costs amounting to 288,300 euros, owing to vacant positions in the registry.

Among the other highlights, he said there was no over-expenditure in budget lines relating to the judges’ pension schemes under “recurrent expenditure” and special allowances of judges and compensation to judges ad hoc under “case-related costs”.  That might be explained by the fact that two judges were re-elected in June 2005, which had enabled some savings to be made from judges’ pension payments, and that no new cases had been submitted in 2005-2006. 

Also notable, the Korea International Cooperation Agency trust fund, which was the special fund created in 2004 from a grant given by that Agency to provide financial support for the participation of interns from developing countries in the Tribunal’s internship programme, this year, with the Nippon Foundation, signed an agreement to set up a capacity-building and training programme on dispute settlement under the Convention.  The programme, intended for young Government officials and researchers, would provide participants with further knowledge of the dispute settlement mechanisms under the Convention.  Further to the agreement, the Nippon Foundation contributed 200,000 euros to finance the programme. 

Next, Judge WOLFRUM introduced the report of the external auditor (document SPLOS/153).  He drew States parties’ attention to the mission that auditors were given, as outlined on page 3 of the document, and their subsequent general statements, including on the nature and scope of the audit.

On behalf of the European Union, Ms. VON ROEDERN ( Germany) said she appreciated the early availability of the report of the external auditor.  The Union attached great importance to the sound financial management of the Tribunal, given the need for the sound functioning of that independent judicial body.  It also welcomed the report, which concluded that the Tribunal’s financial statements were in accordance with the financial rules and regulations, and gave a true and fair view of the court’s operation. 

RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica) said he also appreciated the work of the external auditor.  At the same time, he urged Member States to make their necessary contributions, in order to facilitate the Tribunal’s work.

The Meeting then took note of the report.

Then, the Registrar, Philippe Gautier, introduced the report on budgetary matters (SPLOS/154).  Recalling that a supplementary budget had been adopted to finance over-expenditures in the amount of 351,000 euros, he said, however, that it had not been necessary to use it.  He proposed, therefore, to “surrender” that amount this year and deduct it from the 2008 budget.

In response, the meeting President said the Secretariat would have to draft a decision on that proposal for the consideration of States parties. 

Next, Mr. WOLFE ( Jamaica) introduced the report on the establishment of the staff pension committee in the Tribunal (document SPLOS/155), as well as a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jamaica to the Convention’s States parties (document SPLOS/158).

Ms. VON ROEDERN (Germany), on the European Union’s behalf, took note of the report on the staff pension committee, saying she was grateful to Jamaica’s ambassador for having conducted consultations in order to select a member of the committee.  She appreciated Senegal’s readiness to take that on, and Canada’s readiness to serve as an alternate.

The meeting President then appointed Senegal and Canada as alternate to the Tribunal’s staff pension committee. 

JEAN-FRANCIS REGIS ZINSOU ( Benin) expressed his support for Kenya’s proposal to ensure the rights of developing coastal countries, specifically the least developed countries, in the framework of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  Kenya’s statement should be adopted as a document of the meeting.  He also drew attention to the difficulties of least developed countries in terms of meeting the deadline for submissions on the continental shelf limits. 

He said it was important, therefore, for the United Nations Secretariat to take a proactive stance, to raise Governments’ awareness, on the need for more active cooperation, in order to help obtain the necessary data in the process of delineating the continental shelf.  Some countries were against extending the deadline for that purpose, but the international community should recognize the problem developing countries had in terms of mobilizing the necessary resources and address it.  He also supported the very important work being done by Namibia’s delegation in the context of equitable geographical distribution and the International Tribunal. 

Mr. TAVE ( Seychelles) said his country, a small island developing State in the middle of the Indian Ocean off Africa’s coast, had taken steps to delineate its extended continental shelf.  It had completed a study in December 2004 identifying certain areas where geosciences and seismic surveys were required, in order to comply with the Commission.  The main impediment was access to funding, especially in light of other vital, competing national priorities.  He joined the delegations of Kenya and Benin in requesting that the matter be properly appraised and that solutions be sought for those States, namely, the small island developing States, trapped in delineating the continental shelf, taking into consideration that the deadline was fast approaching.

He said he wished to put forward some options.  Perhaps, it was possible to broaden the scope of the trust fund.  Or, perhaps the deadline for submissions could be reviewed, and consideration could be given to “stopping the clock” before the time line was reached.  It was difficult to expect that States would lose their right to claim and extended shelf purely because they could not make their submission on time, owing to insufficient funding and insufficient time.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record