all the issues, and we believe that it is through such negotiations that we must seek a solution to the issue of the Palestinians. There are, in our view, two fundamental flaws to this resolution. First, the text is totally devoid of balance, stressing the rights and interests of one party to the Middle East dispute and ignoring the rights and interests of other parties. Second, the draft "affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine...." The political interests of the Palestinians and their role in a final Middle East settlement constitute, in my government's view, a matter that must be negotiated between the parties before it can be defined in resolutions of this Council. The text of the draft resolution follows: The Security Council, Having considered the item entitled "The question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights," in accordance with the request contained in paragraph 8 of General Assembly Resolution 3376 (XXX) of November 10, 1975, Having heard the representatives of the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian people, Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document S/12090), transmitted to the Security Council in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of General Assembly Resolution 3376 (XXX), Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has been achieved, and that this problem therefore continues to aggravate the Arab-Israeli conflict, of which it is the core, and to endanger international peace and security, Recognizing that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the achievement, inter alia, of a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, 1. Takes note of the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document S/12090); 2. Affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. For the full text of Ambassador Sherer's statement, see Press Release USUN-71(76), June 29, 1976; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1935, July 26, 1976, pp. 143–144. The U.N. General Assembly on November 24, 1976, adopted Resolution 31/20, endorsing the recommendations of the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which, inter alia, (1) called for Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories and the return of 1967 war refugees to those territories at the latest by June 1977, and (2) endorsed the "inalienable" right of the Palestinian people to achieve selfdetermination and national independence in Palestine. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 90-16 (U.S.), with 30 abstentions. Ambassador William W. Scranton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, delivered a statement on November 23 criticizing the report as "totally devoid of balance with conclusions that are unworkable and recommendations that prejudge the outcome of negotiations." He noted that the recommendation on complete withdrawal by Israeli occupation forces conflicted with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which called for negotiations between the parties concerned for the settlement of all outstanding problems. Ambassador Scranton stressed, however, that the United States agreed with the apparent intention of the Committee-"to bring to the attention of the General Assembly that the legitimate aspirations and interests of the Palestinian people must be taken into account in, working out a settlement in the Middle East." For the text of Ambassador Scranton's statement, see Press Release USUN-159(76), Nov. 23, 1976. Greek-Turkish Dispute The U. N. Security Council, on August 25, 1976, adopted by consensus Resolution 395 (1976) cosponsored by the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom relative to the Greek-Turkish dispute in the Aegean Sea. The resolution asked Greece and Turkey to resume dialogue toward resolving their differences, to continue to refrain from unilateral actions which might prejudice the dialogue, and to consider all appropriate forums in which elements in the dispute might be settled. The Greek representative, in a letter of August 10, 1976, to the President of the Security Council (U.N. Doc. S/12167) had requested an urgent meeting of the Council to consider what it termed "a dangerous situation . . . threatening international peace and security" resulting from alleged violations by Turkey of the "sovereign rights of Greece on its continental shelf in the Aegean." Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations, stated in the Security Council on August 25, 1976: The legal issues related to the continental shelf are among the most sensitive in the entire field of the law of the sea. I do not believe, however, that this is the place to analyze such complex issues of international law. This Council, instead, should do all it can to encourage the two parties to engage in contacts and discussions that will ensure that the problem between them does not now or at any time in the future lead to a threat to the peace of the area. We now believe that a fundamental basis exists for the kind of discussion and adjudication which must be undertaken if a settlement is to be achieved. I believe that there are two cardinal elements to any advice which this Council might give to Greece and Turkey. First, it is essential that this Council urge Greece and Turkey to continue to exercise utmost restraint and avoid falling into a pattern of action and reaction, the result of which would be an increasing rigidity of position, the raising of the stakes each party considers to be involved in the conflict, and a consequent heightening of tensions between the two countries. Second, both governments should be encouraged to pursue the array of procedures which are available to them for the peaceful settlement of this dispute. . . . [I]t is clear that both countries recognize that it is only through the resumption of direct and meaningful discussions between them that such a settlement can be achieved, or indeed must be achieved. For our part, the United States strongly favors and urges the earliest return by the parties to such discussions. I believe it is also clear that both parties recognize the potentially valuable role of the International Court of Justice to consider matters which remain unresolved after negotiation. The important thing is that the parties find a basis through direct contacts between them for whatever combination of direct talks and supporting adjudication that may be necessary to achieve the peaceful settlement that my government is confident both governments seek. * Press Release USUN-95 (76), Aug. 25, 1976; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1943, Sept. 20, 1976, pp. 373-374. Security Council Res. 395 (1976) reads as follows: The Security Council, Taking note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Greece dated August 10, 1976 (S/12167), Having heard and noted the various points made in the statements by the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey, Expressing its concern over the present tensions between Greece and Turkey in relation to the Aegean Sea, Bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as the various provisions of Chapter VI of the Charter concerning procedures and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes, Noting the importance of the resumption and continuance of direct negotiations between Greece and Turkey to resolve their differences, Conscious of the need for the parties both to respect each other's international rights and obligations and to avoid any incident which might lead to the aggravation of the situation and which, consequently, might compromise their efforts towards a peaceful solution, 1. Appeals to the Governments of Greece and Turkey to exercise the utmost restraint in the present situation; 2. Urges the Governments of Greece and Turkey to do everything in their power to reduce the present tensions in the area so that the negotiating process may be facilitated; 3. Calls on the Governments of Greece and Turkey to resume direct negotiations over their differences and appeals to them to do everything within their power to ensure that these result in mutually acceptable solutions; 4. Invites the Governments of Greece and Turkey in this respect to continue to take into account the contribution that appropriate judicial means, in particular the International Court of Justice, are qualified to make to the settlement of any remaining legal differences which they may identify in connection with their present dispute. On Sept. 11, 1976, the International Court of Justice decided not to indicate interim measures of protection in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case. Its Order, adopted by vote of 12 to 1, found that the circumstances did not require the exercise of the Court's power under art. 41 of its Statute to indicate interim measures of protection. The Court set the following time limits in the case: for the Memorial of Greece-Apr. 18, 1977; for the Counter-Memorial of Turkey-Oct. 24, 1977. XV International Legal Materials 985-1009. Conciliation Article IX, paragraph 3, of the U.S.-Poland Agreement Concerning Fisheries Off the Coasts of the United States, signed August 2, 1976, provides for the continuation of the U.S.-Polish Fisheries Board created by Annex I of the U.S.-Poland Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the Western Region of the Middle Atlantic, signed May 29, 1975, as amended (TIAS 8099), and as set forth in Annex II of the 1976 agreement. The text of Annex II follows: AMERICAN-POLISH FISHERIES BOARD Section I Establishment of the Board 1. There is hereby established an American-Polish Fisheries Board (hereinafter called the Board). 2. The Board shall consist of four members, two appointed by the Government of the United States of America and two appointed by the Government of the Polish People's Republic. At least one of the two members appointed by each Government shall have knowledge of the general principles of international law, particularly those relating to fisheries matters. Each Government-appointed member shall serve as an instructed representative of the appointing Government. It is the responsibility of each Government to maintain its full complement of members. 3. Each Government may appoint one non-voting technical adviser to the Board for each matter heard. 4. All decisions of the Board shall be undertaken unanimously by those members present and voting, so long as at least one member appointed by each Government is present. 5. The Board shall normally sit in New York, New York. Insofar as is necessary considering the location of the parties and the availability of evidence, the Board may sit elsewhere. 6. English and Polish shall be the official working languages of the Board. The Governments shall assist the Board in arranging for necessary translations and interpretations. 7. As used in this Annex, the term "national" refers to any vessel or person, natural or juridical, including but not limited to a governmental entity. Section II Conciliation Functions 1. The Board shall consider claims advanced by a national of either State against a national of the other State regarding financial loss resulting from damage to or loss of the national's fishing vessel or fishing gear. 2. No claim may be brought more than six months after the occurrence of the relevant incident, unless the Board decides unanimously to make an exception for a specific incident occurring during the six weeks prior to the entry into force of the Agreement. Section III Conciliation Procedures 1. The Board shall establish its procedures in accordance with this Annex. 2. A claim, as referred to in Section II above, shall be brought before the Board by a written request. The request shall be in the form of a sworn statement which shall include, inter alia, a detailed account of the incident from which the claim arises, the identity of all persons and vessels involved, the remedy sought (damages claimed), and a list of potential witnesses knowledgeable about the incident. All appropriate documentary evidence supporting the claim shall be forwarded with the claim to the Board. 3. Upon receipt of a claim, the Board shall, as soon as practicable, commence an inquiry into the incident, and inform both Governments. Each Government shall immediately notify any of its nationals against whom a claim is made. Its nationals may in turn file with the Board a sworn statement responding to the claim. The response may contain a counterclaim insofar as the counterclaim arises from the same incident upon which the claim is based. A counterclaim shall be in the same form and contain the same information as a claim. The Board may join claims that arise from the same incident, without prejudice to the right of each party to present evidence with or without counsel. 4. The Board may request further information and documents from the parties to the dispute or from appropriate governmental agencies. All statements, reports, or other documents presented to the Board shall be duly sworn and attested as to their authenticity, insofar as reasonably possible. Offical Government reports and documents need not be so authenticated.. 5. If either the claimant or the respondent requests a hearing, or if the Board deems it desirable to hold a hearing, the Board shall convene a hearing regarding the incident. The claimant and respondent may appear at the hearing personally or through a representative, with or without counsel, and may present witnesses. The Board may invite as a witness any person, organization, corporation or other entity which has a direct interest in or knowledge of the matter. The claimant and respondent shall be permitted to question all persons testifying at the hearing, provided that no person shall be required to respond to any question. 6. The Governments will facilitate the work of the Board. Section IV 1. The Board shall prepare a report containing its findings as to: (a) the facts giving rise to the claim; (b) the extent of damage or loss; (c) the degree of respondent's or claimant's responsibility, if any; and (d) the amount, if any, which should be paid by respondent or claimant as compensation for losses arising from the incident. 2. If the Board does not unanimously adopt the findings, this shall be stated in the report, and the report shall contain separate statements of each Board member's opinion. 3. The Board shall transmit its report to the claimant, to the respondent, and to each of the two Governments no later than sixty days after the completion of the procedures under Section III. 4. Within thirty days after receipt of the Board's report, either the claimant or the respondent may request in writing that the Board reconsider its report. The request shall set forth the reasons for the request and material substantiating the request. The Board may decide to reconsider its report and, if it deems appropriate, receive new evidence or convene a rehearing, or both. Section III procedures will be applicable to the reconsideration. 5. The two Governments undertake to encourage settlement of claims in accordance with the findings of the Board. 6. Within sixty days of receipt of the Board's report each Government shall report to the Board in writing the actions taken by its nationals pursuant to the Board's findings. 7. If one of the parties to a conciliation proceeding refuses to settle in accordance with the findings of the Board, the Board shall encourage the parties to submit their dispute to binding arbitration. 8. The Board's report and the report of each Government shall be published in the form agreed by the Board. |