Meeting of States Parties

 to Law of Sea Convention

146^th & 147^th Meetings (AM & PM)

States Parties to Convention on Law of the Sea Adopt Draft Decision

 

on Additional Working Weeks, as Twenty-first Meeting Continues

 

Election Fills Vacant Seat on International Tribunal for Law of the Sea

The twenty-first Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea today asked the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to consider meeting in New York, simultaneously with its subcommissions, for up to six months annually over the next five years, and recommended that any request for Secretariat resources to facilitate more working weeks be presented to the General Assembly during its sixty-sixth session.

Adopting a draft decision by consensus, the Meeting recalled the obligation of States with experts serving on the Commission to defray all their related expenses, and urged those States to ensure their experts’ full participation in the Commission’s work.  The text also urged those States parties in a position to do so to make contributions to the Voluntary Trust Fund, and to provide medical insurance coverage to Commission members carrying out their duties in New York.  The Commission is a subsidiary body established by the Convention to make recommendations on the outer boundaries of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles.

Commenting on the text, Eden Charles (Trinidad and Tobago), Coordinator of the Meeting’s Informal Working Group, said that despite its shortcomings, that body remained committed to helping the Commission in its work.  “I’m requesting States parties not look at all the imperfections contained in the document, but to take it as another step […] in ensuring that States that have made submissions to the Commission on the establishment of the outer limits of this continental shelf receive recommendations within a reasonable time frame.”

Earlier today, the Meeting elected David Joseph Attard (Malta) to fill a vacant seat on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  Robert Eric Borje (Philippines), Chair of the Credentials Committee, said that seven new credentials had been accepted, and information had been received concerning the appointment of representatives from another eight States parties.

Philippe Gautier, Registrar of the Tribunal, introduced that body’s report on budgetary matters for the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 financial periods, as well as the external auditor’s report for the 2009-2010 period.  According to the first report, total expenditures for 2009-2010 stood at €15.83 million, 89.32 per cent of the total approved for that financial period, he said.  The underperformance was largely explained by the optimum use of resources, an urgent request for provisional measures related to a case submitted to the Tribunal, and a request for an advisory opinion, filed before the Seabed Disputes Chamber.

He said that annexed to the report was a draft decision that would authorize the Tribunal, in case of future revisions of remuneration for judges of the International Court of Justice, to apply the salary-adjustment mechanisms that would revise the Tribunal judges’ salaries in line with those of the Court.

The representatives of China and Japan, among others, supported the text and highlighted the external auditor’s judgment that the Tribunal’s financial statement was in line with its regulations, and gave a “true and fair” view of its operations.

The European Union’s representative, expressing concern that some sections of the budget showed some overexpenditure, stressed the importance of making optimal use of resources, while also voicing support for the “zero growth” principle that guided the Tribunal’s work.

However, the representatives of Guatemala and Mexico took issue with the text with regard to the remuneration of Tribunal judges, and called for the creation of an independent technical body to review that matter, as well as the Tribunal’s other financial and budgetary concerns.

The Meeting of States parties will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday 17 June, to conclude its annual session.

Report of the Credentials Committee

ROBERT ERIC BORJE (Philippines), Chair of the Credentials Committee, said it had accepted for the twenty-first Meeting the credentials of representatives from Albania, Burkina Faso, Guyana, Papua New Guinea, Serbia, Seychelles and Tonga.  It had also received information concerning the appointment of representatives from Belize, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Moldova, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania.  He asked the Meeting to adopt a draft resolution approving the Committee’s second report (document SPLOS/228/Add.1), which includes information on credentials received and approved.

Election of Members to International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

The Meeting then voted to fill a vacant seat on the Tribunal, choosing from among a pool of remaining candidates from the African, Asian and Western European and Other Groups following yesterday’s elections.  (See Press Release SEA/1955)

In the first round of voting, no candidate won the required two-thirds majority.  David Joseph Attard (Malta) received 84 votes, Kathleen Quartey Ayensu (Ghana) 48 votes and Sayeman Bula-Bula (Democratic Republic of the Congo) 16 votes.  In the second round, the Meeting elected Mr. Attard to a nine-year term beginning 1 October 2011 with 99 votes.

Report of Informal Working Group

EDEN CHARLES (Trinidad and Tobago), Coordinator of the Informal Working Group, presented its report on the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, saying that the draft decision contained therein was far from what had been intended when efforts to address the Commission’s workload had begun two years earlier.  Despite its shortcomings, however, the Working Group remained committed to assisting the Commission in its work, he stressed.  “I’m requesting States parties not look at all the imperfections contained in the document, but to take it as another step […] in ensuring that States that have made submissions to the Commission on the establishment of the outer limits of this continental shelf receive recommendations within a reasonable time frame.”

He noted that the preambular paragraph of the text recalled the framework for the Commission’s work, as well as the challenges faced by developing countries, which would nominate members to serve on that body.  The operative paragraph requested the Commission to consider, within the existing resources available to the Secretariat, meeting simultaneously with its subcommissions as far as possible, in New York for up to 26 weeks, but not less than an intended minimum of 21 weeks a year, for a period of five years.  Those meetings should be distributed in the manner determined by the Commission to be the most effective, but no two sessions would be sequential.

The text also recommended that any request for appropriate resources required by the Secretariat to facilitate an increased number of working weeks be presented to the Assembly during its sixty-sixth session, he continued.  Recalling the obligation of States with experts serving on the Commission to defray all related expenses, it urged those States to ensure full participation by those experts in the Commission’s work.

By other terms, the draft decision urged those States parties in a position to do so to make contributions to the Voluntary Trust Fund, and welcomed recent contributions made or pledged, he said.  It also encouraged those States parties in a position to do so to provide medical coverage to Commission members carrying out their duties in New York.  Also, the proposed new working schedule would be reviewed at the twenty-sixth Meeting of States parties.  In addition, it decided to take up matters relating to the Commission’s workload at the twenty-second Meeting, under the item “Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”.

The Meeting took note of the report and adopted the draft decision by consensus.

Introduction of Reports on Budgetary and Financial Matters

PHILIPPE GAUTIER, Registrar of the International Tribunal, introduced its report on budgetary matters for the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 financial periods (document SPLOS/224), as well as that of the external auditor for the 2009-2010 period, containing the financial statements of the Tribunal as at 31 December 2010.  The latter, submitted at the Tribunal’s March session, stated that its accounts and operations were in accordance with financial management rules, and the auditor had no reservations.

He said that, according to the first report, total expenditures for 2009‑2010 stood at €15.83 million, 89.32 per cent of the total approved for that financial period.  That underperformance could largely be explained by the optimum use of resources, an urgent request for provisional measures related to a case submitted to the Tribunal, and a request for an advisory opinion, filed before the Seabed Disputes Chamber.  Excluding case-related costs, the performance rate for 2009‑2010 would be 97.52 per cent, he said.

Explaining other reasons for the under use of the budget, he cited €60,898 in savings on “staff costs”, the reduced rate of daily subsistence allowance for judges in Hamburg from €267 to €247, and savings of €107,492 on judges’ transport and other common costs.  The budget section on “judges” showed an overexpenditure of €10,036 in “annual allowances” due to the depreciation of the euro against the United States dollar, and the increase in the 2010 net salary of Tribunal judges, he said.

Of the €54,041 in overexpenditures on “annual allowances” and “judges” pension scheme”, he continued, €23,295, had been absorbed by the redeployment of appropriations in the same section, and the remaining €30,746 had been financed from the additional appropriation of €160,395 allocated to the “judges” section of the report.  The euro’s depreciation against the dollar was also responsible for the €1,277 negative balance in section 3 of the report, on “representation allowance”.

Turning to the remuneration of Tribunal judges, he noted the twentieth Meeting’s decision to ensure, before the twenty-first Meeting, that the remuneration was equivalent to that of International Court of Justice judges.  Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 65/248, adopted in December 2010 — which approved a 1.37 per cent salary increase for United Nations staff in the professional and higher categories, effective from 1 January 2011 — the annual net base salary for the Court’s judges had been revised upwards from $166,596 to $168,878, effective from 1 January 2011.

Annexed to document SPLOS/224 was a draft decision that would authorize the Tribunal, in case of future revisions of remuneration for International Court of Justice judges, to apply the same salary adjustment mechanisms, he said.

On costs relating to the dispute over the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, he said initial deliberations would take place in September 2011.  In line with article 17 of the Tribunal’s rules, judges whose terms of office were due to expire on 30 September 2011 would continue to hear that case until its completion, he said, adding that the number of judges concerned would depend on the results of the triennial election to be held during the Meeting.  That situation would not create any additional expenditure on special allowance and daily subsistence allowance for meetings related to the case.

As of 1 October 2011 and until the completion of the case, however, the Tribunal would have to pay an annual allowance to judges whose terms of office had expired but who continued to hear the case, he said.  The actual amount would depend on the election results, and would be offset to a certain extent by the deferment of pension payments to judges hearing the case, he said, adding that no extrabudgetary appropriation was proposed to cover those additional costs..  Rather, it was proposed that the costs be covered by savings from other budget lines under the “judges” section of the report.  If necessary, the Meeting should be authorized to transfer funds in the “judges” section from “case-related costs” to “recurrent expenditures”.

Furthermore, the report said that €38,593 would be surrendered to the States parties and deducted from their contributions to the 2012 Tribunal budget, he continued.  That figure represented the balance of a special account established to reimburse Tribunal officials obliged to pay national taxes in respect of their remuneration paid by the Tribunal in 2004 and subsequent years.  The special account would therefore be closed, and the amount surrendered to States parties, in accordance with the relevant provision of the Tribunal’s financial regulations.

He said it had also been proposed that the €176,704 unused balance from the €207,450 in funds appropriated to implement the new salary system be surrendered to States parties in 2011, on an anticipatory basis, and deducted from their contributions to the 2012 Tribunal budget.  Finally, he said the report contained information on the investment of funds and on three special accounts, including the Korea International Cooperation Agency, the Nippon Foundation Trust Fund and the Trust Fund for the Law of the Sea.  He drew the Meeting’s attention to the Nippon Foundation’s fourth contribution, in March 2011, of €230,000 to the capacity-building programme.

Several representatives, including those from China and Japan, highlighted the external auditor’s judgment that the Tribunal’s financial statement was in line with its regulations and gave a “true and fair” view of its operations.  Like several other delegates, they voiced support for the draft decision, which would link future adjustments to judges’ remuneration with those for judges of the International Court of Justice.

The representative of the European Union delegation, expressing concern that some sections of the budget showed some overexpenditure, stressed the importance of making optimal use of resources, while also voicing support for the “zero growth” principle that guided the Tribunal’s work.  The European Union was ready to support the proposal on Tribunal members’ remuneration, she said, noting also that arrears remained a source of concern for the regional bloc, and calling on States parties to pay their contributions in full and on time.

After a lengthy debate on a proposal by the representatives of Guatemala and Mexico to convene a working group to discuss the two financial reports further, the Meeting eventually decided to accept a compromise proposal by the Meeting’s President, to hold an hour-long informal discussion on the questions raised by the delegations.

Pressed to state their specific concerns in plenary before such an informal meeting was convened, Guatemala’s representative listed several annexes and sections, while Mexico’s delegate said he simply wished to pose questions to the Registrar while also depoliticizing the discussion.

YOUSOUF M. RAMJANALLY (Mauritius), Vice-President of the Meeting, reported on the informal consultations, recalling that the delegations of Guatemala and Mexico had posed several questions to the Registrar concerning financial and budgetary issues.  While most of their questions had been answered before the hour-long deadline for the discussion had passed, delegations had agreed to ask all unanswered questions in the plenary.

To that end, the representative of Guatemala, referring to payments, salaries and pensions for judges hearing Case No. 16, asked how many judges were involved and requested further details on the payments.  She went on to note that, while it was the Secretariat’s prerogative to go from one budget line to the next, did the phrase “it is proposed that the Tribunal be authorized to transfer funds from the section ‘judges’ under ‘case-related costs’ to the section ‘judges’ under ‘recurrent expenditures’ to the extent required to cover the difference” require a further mandate from the Meeting?

Mr. GAUTIER replied that four judges would be affected and the payment of daily allowance would not create additional expenditures.  The only additional expenditure was reserved for the payment of the monthly allowance, he said, pointing out that the total would depend on how swiftly the Tribunal dealt with the case.  If it lasted for a longer period, it would certainly cost more, he said, adding that the level of expenditure on pensions would be reduced since pension payments would only continue until 1 October, when the mandate of the judges ended.

He noted further that the Tribunal may deploy resources within sections, but authorization by the States parties was needed to move resources from one section to another.  In the past, that authorization had been accomplished when the Meeting took note of the proposal, he said, adding that it could certainly also be done through a more formal decision.  The report took a broad approach based on early estimations because it did not yet know the actual expenditures.

Following up, the representative of Guatemala asked about the function and current status of the Working Capital Fund.

Mr. GAUTHIER explained that the Fund had been created to cover liquidity shortfalls, particularly when no contributions were made and the Tribunal had to cover expenses.  The current situation of judges continuing to hear Case No. 16 would not require drawing on the Fund.  Moreover, the Working Capital Fund comprised two parts, the first, “classic” part, dedicated to covering shortfalls, and the other for use when unexpected cases were submitted to the Tribunal.

The representative of Guatemala said the document explaining why the draft decision on the Tribunal judges’ remuneration had to be adopted was not satisfactory, and the text contradicted article 18 of the Convention, particularly on the need to take the Tribunal’s workload into account.  How did the States parties plan to finance the adjustments if they were linked to those affecting the pay of judges on the International Court of Justice?

She went on to propose deferring the draft decision’s adoption, saying she wished to understand better why the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) had decided to change the remuneration of International Court of Justice judges and how the States parties would finance the proposed adjustments.  A working group on the issue could be convened at the twenty-second Meeting of States parties since it was a budget question, she said, suggesting also that an expert group might be established to advise on those questions.  However, if such structures were “too revolutionary” for the meeting, it could perhaps enter into an agreement with the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), or even stay in-house and use the Finance and Budget Committee of the International Seabed Authority.

The representative of Argentina then proposed the immediate adoption of the Tribunal’s documents.

The representative of Mexico, agreeing on the need for transparency and openness, said delegations must be absolutely sure of all the budgetary and legal aspects when taking any decision.  Stressing that he was not questioning the Tribunal’s usefulness, he nevertheless proposed the creation of an independent, technical body to deal with the Tribunal’s financial and budgetary matters, such as those established by the International Seabed Authority.  He also expressed support for Guatemala’s proposal to take more time and establish an ad hoc mechanism to review the Tribunal’s financial and budgetary matters, both now and in the future.

The representative of the Russian Federation stressed that the draft decision was entirely legitimate and no further body on budgetary and financial matters was needed.  Guatemala’s Permanent Representative was Chair of the Fifth Committee, and as the direct superior of that country’s representative in the current Meeting, he might share discussions on recent decisions regarding the remuneration of the President and Vice-President of the International Civil Service Commission, he noted.  Indeed, after those issues had been put off for six years, a solution had finally been found in March.

He went to say that he saw no reason why further obstacles should be created in respect of decisions that had already been adopted by the General Assembly, and did not understand why the Guatemalan delegation was creating such difficulties on that track today.  Emphasizing that the question should be approached “very carefully”, he reiterated that he did not see why a decision on the draft decision should be deferred any longer.

The representative of Argentina asked which documents from 2011 and 2010 contained the proposals by the delegations of Mexico and Guatemala to create a body to deal with the Tribunal’s budgetary and financial matters.

The representative of Guatemala said her delegation was not in a position to support the draft decision, and proposed deferring its adoption until the twenty-second Meeting of States Parties.  She reminded other delegations that the Tribunal was not a United Nations body and therefore not part of the United Nations system.

The representative of Mexico said his delegation had made two proposals, the first to discuss questions that may arise over financial and budgetary matters, and the second, which Mexico had been making since the twentieth Meeting, to create a review mechanism.

The representative of Brazil said that while delegations may have doubts about certain issues, there was a way to bring them before the Meeting without introducing constraints to bodies like the Tribunal, for which so many speakers had expressed support.  Brazil saw no reason why an informal meeting had been requested when in fact those questions had just been asked in plenary.  However, there had been a number of comments during the informal meeting that would have caused consternation in the plenary, she noted.

The representative of the European Union delegation said she was prepared to take note of the report and move ahead during the present session.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he was not sure that Guatemala’s proposal was fully justified given that no arguments had been made in its support, stressing that the financial implications of the proposal would have to be taken into account.

The representative of Mexico, referring to his Brazilian counterpart’s questions as to why a review body must be established, said it might have been better to respond to that question first.  While the reports were prepared and issued to the States parties by the Secretariat, there were not enough days during the annual Meeting to discuss budgetary issues, he pointed out, adding that his delegation merely wanted space in which delegations with specific expertise in financial matters could analyse them.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that in her delegation’s view, and perhaps that of others, the Informal Working Group did not seem like the most effective place to address some budgetary questions.  Underscoring the need for transparency, she suggested that a more focused examination of the budget would put the Tribunal on a par with other judicial bodies.  The United Kingdom was prepared, between the present and the twenty-second Meeting, to assist in discussions regarding such matters.

The representative of Brazil said that while she had not put the question to the delegation of Mexico, she understood his explanation.  She asked the Secretariat when the documents currently before the Meeting had been circulated.

An official from the Secretariat said they had been issued in April 2011.

The representative of Viet Nam then proposed that the Meeting take up the matter tomorrow, after the other remaining items had been addressed.

CAMILLO GONSALVES (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), President of the Meeting, then said that the proposal to establish a review body would be deferred to a later date since it was not on the agenda.  Tomorrow’s session would address whether the Meeting would note the current report, in addition to other outstanding agenda items.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record