Meeting of States Parties

to Law of Sea Convention

117^th & 118^th Meetings (AM & PM)

STATES PARTIES TO LAW OF SEA CONVENTION HEAR BRIEFINGS ON MAIN TREATY BODIES,

CONSIDER TIGHT DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSIONS ON CONTINENTAL SHELF LIMITS

The States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea today heard briefings by the heads of the three bodies established by the treaty -- the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, International Seabed Authority and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf -- as they continued their annual session, which started on Friday, 13 June.

Taking note of the reports of those bodies, they also heard general statements on matters related to the Convention and discussed the budget of the International Tribunal.

Outlining the cases adjudicated by the Tribunal in the past year, Rudiger Wolfrum, its President, said that they had demonstrated that the court could make an important contribution to the principle of resolving international disputes peacefully through negotiation.  In that light, he invited States to avail themselves of advisory opinions from the Tribunal, which had broad competence in disputes and questions relating to the law of the sea.  Any form of international agreement, bilateral or multilateral, would qualify under its jurisdiction.

Towards the goal of promoting knowledge about the Convention and its dispute-settlement procedures, he said that workshops had been held in Dakar, Libreville, Kingston and Singapore, and elsewhere; two more would be held in Bahrain and Buenos Aires.  Noting that there were considerable arrears in payment of assessed contributions to the Tribunal, he appealed to all States parties to pay such fees in full and on time.

Satya N. Nandan, the outgoing Secretary-General of the Seabed Authority, said that the Authority had received applications, for the first time, from private sector entities that wanted to conduct commercial mining of the seabed.  That was not surprising, amid growing demand for minerals such as manganese and cobalt. 

At the same time, he said, the Commission was considering a proposal to set aside areas of the seabed to maintain their ecological integrity, as a follow-up to the Kaplan project, involving the Authority and international scientists and agencies, whose goal was to establish criteria for a “network of ecologically-related areas”, where no exploration or mining activity should take place.

He described progress in the development of draft regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides, which he said involved some difficult issues on which there had been divergent views.  He also noted that Brazil and Uruguay had become parties to the Convention’s 1994 Implementing Agreement, relating to the area at or beneath the seabed, but another 23 States remained outside the Agreement.  He urged action to encourage those States to become parties.

In addition, he repeated an appeal by the Authority’s Council and Assembly to members to pay all outstanding contributions, and to pay future contributions on time and in full.  He also urged greater participation at meetings.

The Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Alexandre Tagore Medeiros De Albuquerque, said his organization was facing an increasingly higher volume of submissions from States parties delimiting areas where the continental shelf extended beyond 200 miles.  It was currently considering submissions made by Australia, New Zealand and Norway, as well as a joint submission made by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom, and submissions by France, Mexico, Barbados and the United Kingdom, acting on their own.

In response to the presentation by Mr. Medeiros De Albuquerque, speakers from many developing States noted that their countries were preparing their submissions, but needed more time and/or technical help to finish the complex task.  The representative of Indonesia stressed that the rights of coastal States should not expire because they were unable to present their submissions on time, since the procedure was a complex one.  Australia’s representative said that, in those cases, information sharing was crucial.

Also speaking on that matter were Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), Namibia, South Africa, Canada, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Japan, Argentina, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Australia, Russian Federation, Mexico, Bangladesh, Barbados, Mauritius and New Zealand.

After the presentation of the Tribunal’s report, the representatives of Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), Argentina, India, South Africa, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Japan, Bahamas and Russian Federation welcomed that report, congratulated the newly-elected judges and expressed appreciation for the court’s work.

Voicing support for the report of the Seabed Authority were the representatives of Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), Indonesia, Canada, China, India, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Singapore, Norway, Tonga, Fiji (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum), Argentina, Iceland, Japan, Sierra Leone, Jamaica, Nigeria, Egypt and Brazil, as well as the observer of the United States.

Representatives of Japan and Guatemala posed questions related to the budget of the International Tribunal.

The representatives of Nigeria, Brazil and Canada made general statements.

The Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea will convene again tomorrow morning, 17 June, at 10 a.m.

Background

The States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea met today to take up the report of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Meeting of States Parties for 2007 (document SPLOS/174), and to hear reports by the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority and Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

The Tribunal adjudicates disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention, and has exclusive jurisdiction in disputes concerning deep seabed mineral resources; in cases relating to the prompt release of vessels and crew; and with regard to requests for the prescription of provisional measures pending constitution of an arbitral tribunal.  Serving on the Tribunal are 21 judges elected for nine-year terms by the States parties.

The International Seabed Authority is the organization through which States parties organize and control activities relating to the deep seabed’s mineral resources, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.  In 2002, the Authority adopted a “mining code”, which regulates prospecting and exploration for poly-metallic nodules in the seabed and ocean floor.

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf facilitates implementation of the Convention by considering the data submitted by coastal States concerning claims to outer limits of the continental shelf that may extend beyond 200 nautical miles.

Also today, States parties were expected to consider budgetary matters relating to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, having before it a report on budgetary matters for the financial periods 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 (document SPLOS/175) and a document on the appointment of auditors for financial years 2009-2012 (document SPLOS/176).

Introduction of Reports

Introducing the report of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Meeting of States Parties for 2007 (document SPLOS/174), RUDIGER WOLFRUM, President of the Tribunal, said the body had dealt for the first time last year with two simultaneous applications seeking the release of fishing vessels, the Hoshinmaru and the Tomimaru.  In both cases, the Russian authorities had arrested the vessels while fishing in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation.  Both held fishing licenses granted by the Russian Federation and, in both cases, the Russian authorities alleged that the vessels had infringed national fisheries legislation by violating conditions set down in the license.

He said Russian authorities had demanded a bond of 22 million roubles for the release of the Hoshinmaru, whose Master had been charged with inaccurately reporting the fish species caught by the vessel, and that one species had been wrongfully declared to be another cheaper one.  Since the Convention required that bonds be “reasonable”, a fundamental question addressed by the Tribunal concerned the reasonableness of the bond being demanded.  Observing that any bond should be “proportionate” to the gravity of an alleged offence, the Tribunal concluded that 22 million roubles was too high an amount.  However, the Tribunal observed that the offence was serious, stressing that “monitoring of catches requires accurate reporting as one of the essential means of managing marine living resources”.  It had fixed the bond at 10 million roubles, which Russian authorities had received only 10 days after the Tribunal’s judgment. 

The speed of payment had demonstrated the importance placed on promptness when commercial interests were at stake, and showed the difference that the Tribunal’s intervention could make in speeding up such cases, he added.

As for the Tomimaru, he said that the case against that vessel had reached an advanced stage within the Russian legal system before Japan had decided to seize the Tribunal on the matter.  By that time, the vessel had been legally confiscated, which meant that the Tribunal’s action had come too late to act on its owner’s application for prompt release.

He said that the Tribunal had one case still pending -- between Chile and the European Community -- concerning the sustainable exploitation of swordfish stock.  The Special Chamber of the Tribunal was currently considering a request of the parties to grant more time to reach provisional arrangements concerning their dispute. 

Those cases showed that the Tribunal could make an important contribution to facilitate the solving of international disputes through negotiations, he said.  Indeed, States parties should avail themselves of advisory opinions from the Tribunal, which had broad competence in disputes and questions relating to the law of the sea.  Any form of international agreement, bilateral or multilateral, would qualify under its jurisdiction.

He said that States parties did not bear any court costs, although they might have to cover considerable costs in preparing written pleadings and pay professional fees of counsel and advocates, or travel expenses.  A trust fund had been established to help defray such costs, and he thanked the Government of Finland for its voluntary contribution of $104,412 in 2007.

The Tribunal was also actively involved in promoting knowledge about the Convention and its dispute-settlement procedures, he said.  Towards that goal, workshops had been held in Dakar, Libreville, Kingston and Singapore, and elsewhere, two more would be held in Bahrain and Buenos Aires.  Government officials also received training on negotiations and maritime delimitation through the Tribunal’s capacity-building programme.  Meanwhile, a Summer Academy organized by the International Foundation for the Law of the Sea, and which had been convened for the first time in 2007, had covered issues relating to both law of the sea and maritime law.  On 3 May, the Tribunal had received an award for “meritorious contribution towards the development, interpretation and implementation of international maritime law” by the International Maritime Organization and the International Maritime Law Institute.

Regarding the Tribunal’s budget, he said that there was an unpaid balance of assessed contributions in the amount of €547,520 for the periods 1996-1997 to 2005-2006, and that the outstanding amount in relation to the 2007-2008 budget was €3.4 million.  He appealed to all States parties to pay their assessed contributions to the Tribunal, in full and on time.

Action on Tribunal Report

Before the States parties took note of the Tribunal’s report, the representatives of Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), Argentina, India, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Japan, Bahamas and Russian Federation welcomed that report, congratulated the newly-elected judges and expressed appreciation for the Tribunal’s work.  They encouraged the continuance of regional workshops, which they said could help reinforce the rule of law, disseminate knowledge of marine law and encourage the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The representative of Slovenia, in addition, welcomed the outcomes of the Hoshinmaru and Tomimaru cases, saying the former had demonstrated the effectiveness of prompt release proceedings, and suggested that means should be found to enable the Tribunal to handle two or more prompt release cases at the same time.  The representative of the Russian Federation expressed concern that such a caseload now put an undo burden on the Tribunal.

The States parties then took note of the report.

Report of Secretary-General of International Seabed Authority

SATYA N. NANDAN, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, delivered a report on the Authority’s fourteenth session, which took place recently in Kingston, Jamaica.  The Authority had received two applications, for the first time, from private sector entities seeking to explore the seabed for “polymetallic nodules”, which seemed to suggest that commercial seabed mining was moving closer to reality.  That was not surprising, amid growing demand for minerals, such as manganese and cobalt.  Those applications for exploration were currently under consideration by the Authority’s Legal and Technical Commission.

At the same time, he said, the Commission was considering a proposal by a group of scientists to set aside areas of the seabed to maintain their ecological integrity and balance.  That proposal was a follow-up to the Kaplan project, involving the Authority, and international scientists and agencies, whose goal was to establish criteria for a “network of ecologically-related areas”, where no exploration or mining activity should take place.  The Commission had requested a subgroup of ecological and legal experts to formulate a more complete proposal for consideration by the Commission, at the Authority’s next session in 2009.

He said that draft regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides had been left pending at the end of the thirteenth session, including a key concern of delegations regarding the definition and configuration of the area to be allocated to contractors for exploration; the fees to be paid to the Authority; and the question of how to deal with overlapping claims, should that arise.  Those were difficult issues on which there had been divergent views, but the Council of the Authority had been able to make some progress during the fourteenth session, although more detailed analysis of the technical problems involved was still needed.

An initial request had been made in 1998 to develop a regulatory regime for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, he recalled.  The Authority was required to develop those regulations within three years of the request, but that task remained unfinished, owing to lack of scientific knowledge.  Even though the Authority, since then, had benefited from a broad range of technical and scientific opinion and advice, it would cause considerable uncertainty if an application for plans of work covering seabed resources were approved before the regulatory regime was complete.  For that reason, the Authority agreed at its fourteenth session on a review clause, under which the Authority’s Council would undertake an automatic review of the regulations five years following their approval.  In addition, any member State of the Authority, the Legal and Technical Commission, or any contractor through its sponsoring State would be able to request the Council to consider revisions to regulations, in light of improved knowledge or technology.

He noted that Brazil and Uruguay had become parties to the Convention’s 1994 Implementing Agreement, relating to the area at or beneath the seabed, but another 23 States remained outside the Agreement.  States parties should request the United Nations Secretary-General to write to those States, asking that they become parties.  In addition, he repeated an appeal by the Council and the Assembly of the Authority to members to pay all outstanding contributions, and to pay future contributions on time and in full.  He also urged their participation at meetings, since lack of adequate attendance remained a major problem. 

He ended by congratulating Nii Allotey Oduntun ( Ghana), his deputy since 1996, who was to take up the Authority’s presidency on 31 December.  The Authority had worked effectively and harmoniously during his term of office, and he had been honoured to have been associated with the Meeting of States Parties for the past 14 years.

Action on Seabed Authority Report

The representatives of Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), Indonesia, Canada, China, India, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Singapore, Norway, Tonga, Fiji (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum), Argentina, Iceland, Japan, Sierra Leone, Jamaica, Nigeria, Egypt and Brazil, as well as the observer of the United States, congratulated the outgoing Secretary-General of the Authority on his work and expressed support for his report.

The States parties then took note of the Seabed Authority’s report.

Report by Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf

Alexandre Tagore Medeiros De Albuquerque, Chairman of the Commission, reading the contents of a letter he submitted to the President of the Meeting of States Parties on 18 April (document SPLOS/177), recalled that the Commission’s task was to consider the data and other material submitted by coastal States concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf in areas where those limits extended beyond 200 nautical miles.  Following the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution to ensure enhanced support and assistance to the Commission and its subcommissions, the Commission was expecting a high volume of submissions in the coming years.  It was currently considering the submissions made by Australia; New Zealand; Norway; a joint submission made by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom; France; Mexico; Barbados; and the United Kingdom, acting on its own.

Action on Continental Shelf

Before taking action on the report, the representatives of Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union) and Argentina said they understood that there had been amendments to the Commission’s rules of submission and requested a more comprehensive report on those amendments.  Meanwhile, the representative of Indonesia stressed that the rights of coastal States should not expire because they were unable to present their submissions on time, since the procedure was a complex one.  For that reason, the Commission’s suggested timeline for submissions should be taken as a general reference.

Those representatives also thanked the Commission Chair for his report and congratulated those States that had already submitted their applications to that body, sentiments that were subsequently echoed by the delegates of Namibia, South Africa, Canada, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Japan, Argentina, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Australia, Russian Federation, Mexico, Bangladesh, Barbados, Mauritius and New Zealand.  They expressed hope that the Commission would be able to cope with the expected increase in its workload. 

Some members said they would appreciate any additional technical assistance that might be provided by the Commission and its secretariat as countries strove to meet their deadlines.  Most would be making their submission next year, with some developing States -- like Kenya -- benefiting from a financial aid programme financed by the Commission’s trust fund.  A few asked for further clarification on how to submit joint applications.

The representative of Australia also expressed gratitude to the Commission for the time and effort it had given to Australia’s presentation, which would enable that country to declare the outer limit of much of its continental shelf.  He looked forward to engaging with other countries in the preparation of their submissions.

The representative of the Russian Federation added that, when his country had made its presentation in 2002, it had undergone a far more complex procedure compared to those making later submissions.  Looking forward, the Commission should continue to find ways to enhance its rules of procedure.  Also, Russia was collecting geological data from oceans in the north in the hope that that would enable the Commission to have a positive outcome to Russia’s submission.  In his view, the 10-year timeline should not apply to updated submissions such as Russia’s, where additional information had been requested of the submitting country.

Thanking delegates for their comments, the Commission Chair acknowledged that the Commission had made some amendments to its rules of procedure, which were recorded in document CLCS/40/Rev.1 and could be found on the Commission’s website.

The States parties then took note of the Commission’s report.

General Statements

B.K. KAIGAMA ( Nigeria) said that the economy of his country, like many others, depended a great deal on the sea, the health of which, in turn, depended on the international legal framework and its enforcement.  Illegal fishing, smuggling of persons and illicit drugs and weapons, piracy and pollution were immense challenges to the international community, which must be met.  Nigeria was engaged in many activities for that purpose, including the holding of a recent conference in Abuja.  Climate change must also be countered. 

Regarding the preservation of biological diversity, he said that the seabed and sea beyond national limits were part of the heritage of mankind and must be protected and used for the benefit of all.  He invited representatives to an upcoming seminar on seabed minerals in the African region, and said that his country was also working on an integrated coast guard network for West Africa, on which progress already had been made. 

Finally, with regard to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, he said it was helpful that Member States were now being allowed to make partial submissions with the intention of making further submissions later on.  Those States wishing to make submissions should be assisted in every way possible.  He urged States to continue to support the two trust funds established to assist countries in that process.

PIRAGIBE DOS SANTOS TARRAGO ( Brazil) said the Commission’s work had gained depth in the past five years, as it reviewed the submission of several States parties, including that of Brazil.  Certainly, the anticipated increase in submissions next year would require the Commission to further refine its working methods.  However, in fulfilling its mandate, the Commission should strive for quality and a sense of fairness.  Furthermore, as the 13 May 2009 deadline approached, that body should heed the pleas for flexibility from developing States, who found the process to be complex and costly.

He noted that a large portion of the text of the General Assembly resolution on oceans and the law of the sea was focused on maritime safety and security, which, in turn, would be the focus of the upcoming United Nations ninth Informal Consultative Process (ICP) on the Law of the Sea.  ICP’s mandate would be up for consideration at the sixty-third General Assembly session.  In reviewing that mandate, Member States might consider returning its focus to sustainable development objectives.  The topic of maritime security involved so many overlapping issues that it had become unwieldy -- touching on environmental protection, poverty eradication, internal conflict, the spread of biological weapons, transnational crime, pollution from ships, and so on.  Continuing in that fashion would hardly make discussions focused or productive.

WENDELL SANFORD ( Canada) welcomed the extension of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, which should now be used for the reform of fisheries management organizations worldwide, particularly those dealing with migratory species.

Mr. WOLFRUM, Tribunal President, presenting the draft budget proposals for the Tribunal contained in documents SPLOS/2008/WP.1 and SPLOS/175, explained that they dealt with budgetary matters for the financial periods 2005-2006 and 2007-2008.  He also spoke briefly about the appointment of an auditor for the financial period 2009 to 2012 (document SPLOS/176). 

He said that the draft budget proposals for 2009-2010 had been drawn up on the basis of an evolutionary approach intended to optimize efficiency, allowing increases only where absolutely necessary.  The Tribunal had tried to remain, where possible, within the equivalent value in euros of the 2007-2008 budget, although there were increases and decreases within specific budget lines.

In response to a question from Japan’s representative, Mr. Wolfrum said the proposed budget for 2009-2010 would amount to more than €17 million -- increase of 1.7 per cent from 2007-2008.  To a question from the representative of Guatemala regarding judges’ remuneration, for which an increase had been approved in a recent General Assembly resolution, he said that the Tribunal had had no opportunities to discuss the resolution and its potential impact.  For that reason, he requested that more time be given to his successor to return to that issue at a later date.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record