Meeting of States Parties

 to Law of Sea Convention

148^th Meeting (AM)

Future Adjustments to Tribunal Judges’ Annual Base Pay Will Be Aligned with Those

 

Affecting International Court of Justice Salaries, According to Text

 

Decision Adopted by Consensus as Twenty-First

Meeting of States Parties to Law of the Sea Convention Concludes

Concluding its annual session today, the twenty-first Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea decided to link future adjustments to the annual base salary for members of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to those of the judges of the International Court of Justice.

Consensus on that draft decision was reached after lengthy debate on a series of oral amendments, which were offered after Guatemala’s representative expressed concerns that the text as originally drafted implied an “automaticity” that did not conform the to the duties afforded to States parties by article 18, paragraph 5 of the Statute of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea.

Persuaded of the need for caution on that matter, however, several delegations called for the inclusion of a reference to article 18 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, dealing with judges’ remuneration.  To bridge the divide, the representative of the Russian Federation proposed including an additional operative paragraph stating that the Meeting of States Parties was “acting in accordance with the Statute of the Tribunal”.  Delegations supported that “all-encompassing” amendment on condition that it would be inserted as the fourth preambular paragraph, just before the text’s single operative paragraph.

In addition to adopting the draft decision, as orally amended, the Meeting took note of the Registrar’s report on budgetary matters for the financial periods 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 (document SPLOS/224), and of the information provided on 13 June by Harald Brekke (Norway), Acting Chairperson of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Argentina’s representative requested, in that regard, that the Meeting’s records note his delegation’s rejection of a reference in Mr. Brekke’s presentation to certain maritime spaces, as it was not part of his official report.

As the States parties took up reports of the Secretary-General, pursuant to article 319 of the Convention, a number of delegations emphasized that the Law of the Sea furthered a rules-based system, which one representative described as the “great equalizer” in international affairs.  Moreover, the breadth of continuing and emerging maritime concerns underlined the collective responsibility to protect the marine environment and ensure sustainable development, several delegates added.

Brazil’s representative said the issues at the heart of the Secretary-General’s reports — including biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, as well as the progress made in, and challenges to, implementation of the outcomes of major summits on sustainable development — were particularly important to developing States.  The report recognized that States had highlighted the importance of increased capacity-building and other forms of cooperation and coordination, and that limited training and financial resources were recurrent challenges to effective implementation of international instruments, he added.

Expressing great concern over the lack of a comprehensive global assessment of States’ capacity-building needs in terms of ocean affairs and the Law of the Sea, he urged the United Nations system to continue supporting the building of developing nations’ capacities in ocean affairs.  He also welcomed the comprehensive information contained in the Secretary-General’s report on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, particularly in terms of marine genetic resources, calling for further progress on the legal regime governing them.

Viet Nam’s representative said that, as a coastal State bordering the South China Sea and a State party to the Convention, his country strictly implemented the Convention.  All claims of national sovereignty or sovereign rights and jurisdiction over maritime zones that were not in accordance with the instrument, such as the nine-dotted lines in the South China Sea — as shown in the map that China had presented to the Secretary-General on 7 May 2009 — were “totally illegal and unacceptable”.

He went on to recall that on 28 May 2011, Chinese maritime surveillance vessels had cut surveying cables from Binh Minh 02, a vessel conducting seismic surveys for the Viet Nam National Oil and Gas Corporation 120 nautical miles off the coast and 340 nautical miles off the coast of China’s Hainan Island.  On 7 June, a Chinese fishing vessel supported by two fishery administration vessels had hindered the operations of Viking II, a seismic survey ship chartered by the same corporation, by trying to sever its surveying cable.  The incident had taken place 170 nautical miles from the closest point of Viet Nam’ s baselines and 700 nautical miles from Hainan Island.

Such actions were in serious violation of Viet Nam’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, he stressed.  They were based on “groundless territorial and maritime claims to mislead the public into believing that incidents of such nature take place in disputed areas”.  Moreover, they hampered peace and security in the South China Sea and ran counter to the 2002 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.  He called on States in the South China Sea area to cooperate more closely in ensuring peace and stability, implement the Declaration and eventually adopt a code of conduct.

Echoing that call, a number of other delegates urged all parties to exercise utmost restraint in light of escalating tension over competing claims and escalating tensions in the South China Sea.  The representative of Lao People’s Democratic Republic called for the peaceful settlement of the dispute through all relevant international instruments, including the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The representative of Indonesia, which currently holds the ASEAN presidency, said the matter had been discussed in various ASEAN meetings, and her country planned to further intensify efforts to conclude the code of conduct.  The Government of Indonesia hoped that all parties would recall all prior agreements reached under the Association’s auspices and refrain from any action that could undermine peace and stability in the region.

Against that backdrop, a number of speakers, including those representing Iceland, Norway, Pakistan and the Russian Federation, cautioned that the Meeting had no role to play in specific issues beyond financial and administrative matters, stressing that such matters should be raised in the General Assembly.

In a similar vein, the representative of the United States said that the Meeting’s role was not equivalent to that of a Conference of Parties with plenary authority.  Proposals to that effect had not garnered support during a debate held during the third Meeting of States Parties, and nor were any such provisions included in the Convention itself.

Emphasizing the importance of discussing “the right things under the right agenda item in the right forum”, China’s representative said his country’s Government had always advocated the promotion of a harmonious maritime regime.  Special consideration must be given to developing countries, while the rights of coastal States must be balanced with the overall interest of the international community.  Moreover, maritime disputes must be addressed through peaceful means.

Arguing that consultations and direct talks were effective ways to settle disputes, he said the current Meeting was not the proper forum for discussing maritime disputes.  China’s position on the South China Sea was unequivocal, and recent developments were prompted by irresponsible statements by one party that were not factual.  That was the crux of the issue, he said, reiterating his country’s commitment to preserving peace in the South China Sea, maintaining regional stability and upholding the code of conduct.

Iran’s delegate noted that a “fake name” for the Persian Gulf had regrettably been used in a submission referenced in paragraph 26 of the Secretary-General’s report on oceans and the law of the sea (document A/65/69/Add.2).  Iran wished to place on record that inventing or using a name other than “Persian Gulf” — the only true and historical designation for the sea located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula — was rejected and therefore void of any legal precedence.

Following that exchange of views, the Meeting took note of the reports of the Secretary-General under article 319 of the Convention.

As the Meeting turned to other matters, Naomichi Hiro Terasaki, Senior Adviser of the Japan-based Ocean Policy Research Foundation, said that for more than 30 years, the Foundation had been actively engaged in wide-ranging activities, including capacity-building.  Its aim had expanded from promoting the ship-building and related manufacturing industries through management diagnosis, the financing of business operations, supporting technology development and measures to prevent marine oil pollution while carrying out research and study on ocean affairs overall.  The Foundation had granted more than 400 scholarships to students at the World Maritime University in Sweden, he said, adding that a broader spectrum of coastal and marine issues must be considered in order to manage marine resources and safeguard coastal zones.

Douglas Stevenson, Director of the Centre for Seafarers Rights at the Seaman’s Church Institute, said that the gravest threat to maritime security and shipping today was the global crisis affecting the recruitment of sufficient numbers of skilled crew to operate vessels due to piracy and abandonment.  “I urge all Member States of the United Nations Law of the Sea to use the powers of the Convention to protect seafarers and to make their careers more satisfying,” he said.  “The world’s economies and prosperity depends on it.”

Recalling that the impact of piracy on seafarers had worsened in 2010, he said 47 merchant ships had been hijacked and 1,090 seafarers taken hostage in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.  More than 4,000 seafarers had been on vessels attacked with firearms and 1,432 seafarers on vessels boarded by pirates.  So far this year, 21 merchant vessels had been hijacked and were being held hostage, he said, adding that at least 108 more had been attacked, but not hijacked.

Even worse, pirates off the Somali coast had become more violent, he continued.  Seafarers released from captivity this year had reported physical and psychological abuse.  Some had been severely beaten, physically and mentally tortured, and even murdered.  Pirates were using hijacked vessels as “mother ships” to increase their operational range in the Indian Ocean, and crews as human shields.  Such disturbing reports had increased the stress and anxiety of seafarers and their families, but the full extent of how seafarers were treated in captivity and the after-effects remained unknown.

He said that his institution, the Disaster Psychiatry Outreach at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, as well as the New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, were conducting a multi-year clinical study to assess piracy’s effect on merchant mariners, provide them with short- and long-term mental health treatment and assist their families during prolonged piracy episodes.  Presenting guidelines for the post-piracy care of seafarers, he said they had been developed as a result of the study, which aimed to help prepare mariners for the potential trauma of transiting pirate zones and to guide follow-up care, urging the Meeting to distribute them among maritime stakeholders.

The continuing abandonment of seafarers in ports far from home by insolvent ship owners was a “shameful reflection” on the maritime industry and nations dependent upon shipping, he stressed.  Although flag States were principally responsible, under article 94 of the Convention, for assuring the well-being of seafarers on their ships, all nations had an interest in ensuring that they were not abused or abandoned.

Citing the plight of two seafarers abandoned by their ship’s flag State without food, water or fuel, he said they had not been paid their wages for more than five months and had no means to return home.  Of seven countries linked with the ship or seafarers, three had clear responsibility, he said.  However, neither the flag State, the port State nor the State of the seafarers’ citizenship had done anything to help them.  They had been reduced to beggars in a foreign land through no fault of their own.

Hariharan Rajun, Deputy Director of the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea in the Office of Legal Affairs, said the voluntary trust fund established to facilitate submissions to the Commission from developing States, particularly least developed countries and small island developing States, had a balance of $690,208 at the end of May 2011, while the balance in a similar fund created to defray the costs incurred by developing-world Commission members attending meetings had stood at $673,296.  He thanked Japan and Australia for their respective contributions of $210,000 and $500,000.

Earlier, Germany’s representative called attention to a document outlining his country’s financial support to the International Tribunal (document SPLOS/226), which showed that Germany had allocated more than €53,496,714 to it between 1996 and 2011, and nearly €406,000 in the last year.  He also assured the States parties that his country would honour its commitments in the future.

Also speaking today were representatives of Trinidad and Tobago, European Union, Senegal, Chile, Cuba, Uganda, Tunisia, Iceland, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Thailand and Kenya.

Background

Meeting this morning to conclude its twenty-first session, the Meeting of States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea had before it a report of the Secretary-General on oceans and the Law of the Sea (document A/65/69/Add.2), Addendum 2 of which provides comprehensive information on that subject, including the implementation of General Assembly resolution 64/71.  Intended to assist the Assembly in its annual review and evaluation of the Convention’s implementation and related developments, the report says it should be read in conjunction with the first part of the Secretary-General’s report (document A/65/69) and Addendum 1 (document A/65/69/Add.1).

Providing an overview of the considerable challenges involved in the sustainable development of the oceans and their resources, the reports says that vulnerable marine ecosystems, such as corals, and important fisheries are threatened by over-exploitation, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, destructive fishing practices, invasive alien species and marine pollution.  Indeed, it stresses that the marine environment remains highly vulnerable to pollution resulting from major accidents linked to maritime activities, and highlights the need to consider whether further national and international regulatory measures may be required.

According to the report, it is largely recognized that the target set by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in respect of significantly reducing the rate of biological diversity loss, including marine biodiversity, as a contribution to poverty alleviation and for the benefit of all life on Earth, has not been met.  Furthermore, piracy and armed robbery at sea continue to threaten the lives of seafarers and the safety of international shipping, causing considerable economic damage through higher transportation costs, including for insurance.  The trafficking of persons by sea and criminal activities related to the smuggling of illegal drugs also continue to endanger human lives, as well as peace and security in the oceans.

The report suggests that, in the face of such considerable challenges, users of the sea need to be aware of the legal status of the maritime zones relevant to their activities, the applicable jurisdiction of unresolved maritime boundary delimitations, and the slow process of depositing with the Secretary-General charts and lists of geographical coordinates concerning maritime limits.  Another challenge is the lack of centrally available, standardized information thereon.

It goes on to note the considerable workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the recommendations of which are crucial for the delineation of the limits of the shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and, consequently, for the establishment of the limits of the Area.  Putting the Commission in a position to work on a full-time basis appears to be the most efficient and effective option to address that body’s massive workload, it adds.

Also before the Meeting was the report of the Secretary-General on oceans and the Law of the Sea (document A/66/70), prepared pursuant to a request by the General Assembly, in paragraph 167 of its resolution 65/37 A, that the Secretary-General include, in his annual report on oceans and the Law of the Sea, information on environmental impact assessments undertaken with respect to planned activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including capacity-building needs, on the basis of information requested from States and competent international organizations.

Also contained in the report is information on activities carried out by relevant organizations since the Secretary-General’s report of 19 October 2009 (document A/64/66/Add.2), including with regard to the scientific, technical, economic, legal, environmental and socio-economic aspects of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction.  It also provides information on possible options and approaches to promoting international cooperation and coordination, and on key issues and questions where more detailed background studies would facilitate consideration of these issues by States.

The report concludes that further actions and cross-sectoral cooperative mechanisms are, therefore, necessary to understand and address the impacts of various sectors on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction, taking into account the interconnectivity among marine ecosystems, as well as between sea, land and air.  It says calls for global guidance on ways to adapt and implement, in a coherent and multidisciplinary manner, management tools commonly used within national jurisdictions, particularly in regard to environmental impact assessments and Area-based management tools.

Stressing that “efforts for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity must match the scale and magnitude of the challenges that it faces”, the report also notes that the 2012 “Rio+20” United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be convened in Brazil presents a timely opportunity for the General Assembly to provide the policy guidance required to facilitate the consistent and uniform application of the Convention and other instruments relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction, for the benefit of present and future generations.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record