Page images
PDF
EPUB

Committee are divided among its three subcommittees. Subcommittee I is concerned with the future regime for the seabed area beyond national jurisdiction and the powers and functions of international machinery to administer this area. Subcommittee II prepared a comprehensive list of issues for the Conference, including issues concerning the regimes of the high seas, the continental shelf, the territorial sea (including questions of its breadth), international straits, and fisheries. Subcommittee III is concerned with marine pollution and scientific research.

The Seabed Committee met in Geneva for 4 weeks in July and August 1972, in New York for 5 weeks in March and April 1973, and is scheduled to meet in Geneva for 8 weeks during July and August 1973.

At the July and August 1972 Seabed Committee meeting, Subcommittee I devoted four sessions to a debate on seabed machinery (i. e., the institutions and organization of the international seabed regime). Discussion centered on the scope, structure, and functions. of the regime to be established. The United States continued to maintain that the international seabed authority should have only restricted licensing and management jurisdiction over seabed resources, and should not be permitted to explore and exploit seabed

resources.

The U.S. Delegation indicated that the United States would be prepared to support the concept of broad coastal State jurisdiction. over resources in adjacent waters and seabed areas beyond the territorial sea as part of an overall law-of-the-sea settlement if this coastal state resource management jurisdiction were subject to international standards. The standards would be designed to prevent unreasonable interference with other uses of the ocean, to protect against pollution, to protect the integrity of investment, to provide for arrangements for the sharing of revenues for international community purposes, and to require compulsory settlement of disputes.

A Working Group in Subcommittee I considered draft principles for a regime for the portion of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, based in part on the Declaration of Principles adopted by the U. N. General Assembly in December 1970. The Working Group reviewed, during the July and August 1972 session, the draft proposals submitted to the Seabed Committee in an effort to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. It then produced a set of draft texts which reflected various points of view without resolving differences. Among the issues considered were the problem of definitions, the extent of the seabed area, questions of whether resources should be limited to mineral wealth or should include living resources as well, and whether resources are included in the concept of common heritage.

Within Subcommittee II, the United States continued to work vigorously towards an agreement which would set a maximum

width of the territorial sea at 12 miles, coupled with free transit through and over international straits. There appeared to be fairly general agreement on the 12-mile limit, but considerable differences remained on the question of free transit through international straits. On July 28, 1972, the United States made several proposals designed to meet straits states' concerns regarding navigational safety of ships and aircraft when exercising the right of free transit. It was emphasized that the right of free transit is limited to transit only and that the United States was willing to observe reasonable traffic safety regulations consistent with the basic free transit right. These regulations must be internationally agreed upon, not imposed unilaterally by coastal states. The United States suggested that the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) were the best international organizations to establish such regulations. It was proposed that the convention provide: (1) for mandatory IMCO traffic separation schemes for vessels: (2) that states exercising free transit rights over straits normally respect ICAO civil aircraft standards and at all times operate with due respect for navigation of civil aircraft; and (3) for strict liability when accidents are caused by deviations from IMCO and ICAO rules.

The United States submitted a revised fisheries draft article at the Summer 1972 session of the U.N. Seabed Committee. The draft advocates the species approach as the best method of assuring rational use and conservation of all fish stocks. It provides that coastal states be granted effective control over conservation and exploitation of adjacent coastal species, including inspection and arrest authority. This control would extend as far offshore as the range of each fish stock. The coastal state could reserve for itself as much of the allowable catch as it could utilize. The remainder would be made available for catching by fishermen of other nations, subject to conservation measures and reasonable management fees of the coastal state. The extent to which coastal state fishing preference would diminish traditional distant-water fishing would be determined through negotiation between the coastal and distantwater fishing states on the basis of criteria to be agreed upon at the Conference. Anadromous species, such as salmon, would be handled in the same manner as coastal species, with the state of origin exercising control throughout their migratory range. Highly migratory ocean stocks, such as tuna, would be managed by international organizations in which all fishing states and interested coastal states could participate. A compulsory dispute settlement procedure within a special commission would be provided. The United States believes that the species approach accommodates the interests of both coastal and distant-water fishing states and takes into account the biological characteristics of the fish. Thus, the United States supports broad coastal state jurisdiction over coastal and anadromous fisheries beyond the

territorial sea subject to international standards designed to ensure conservation, maximum utilization, and equitable allocation.

With regard to marine pollution, the United States proposed, at the July and August 1972 session, that Subcommittee III focus attention on basic legal principles which could be drawn from the conclusions of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, June 5-16, 1972. Such principles could form the basis for general treaty articles. The United States urged the Subcommittee to concentrate on controlling pollution from vessels and identified several important steps to be taken in this regard to support IMCO's activities. The United States also suggested that the Subcommittee urge IMCO to give greater consideration to coastal states' concerns and proposed that IMCO should require all new commercial tankers to carry an international construction certificate with port-state verification of possession. The U. S. Delegation further proposed that international traffic separation schemes, which are now voluntary, should be mandatory for all ships, with strict liability for accidents caused by deviations from IMCO regulations. The United States also suggested that the 1969 Intervention Convention, which gives coastal states certain limited rights to take actions on the high seas to prevent oil pollution of their coastlines following maritime accidents, should be expanded by IMCO to apply to other noxious substances.

Subcommittee III established a Working Group on marine pollution. The Group has a mandate to examine the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment and the Stockholm principles on marine pollution with a view towards drafting articles on marine pollution for a law of the sea treaty.

The issue of scientific research was addressed by the delegations of 18 nations during the July-August 1972 meeting of Subcommittee III. The African, Asian, and Latin-American nations in general took a position which did not recognize the freedom of scientific research. They felt, instead, that all research should be regulated by the coastal state or an international regime to be established. This stance against the freedom of scientific research by African, Asian, and Latin-American nations stems from their belief that the developing nations derive no economic benefits from the research conducted off their coasts by the developed countries.

In contrast to the views of African, Asian, and Latin-American nations were the positions of the developed nations, such as the United States, Japan, and generally speaking, the nations of both Western and Eastern Europe. These nations wanted no additional restrictions on the freedom to conduct scientific research, or they wanted such restrictions to be kept to a minimum. They also generally desired to adopt principles or guidelines which would facilitate research within waters under the control of the coastal state. They generally recognized the importance of transferring marine scientific knowledge and technology to the developing

countries so that the latter may benefit from advances in the marine sciences.

The United States is prepared to explore practical means whereby technical assistance can be improved in the field of marine science education and technology transfer. We have indicated our willingness, in principle, to commit funds to support multilateral efforts in all appropriate international agencies with a view towards creating and enlarging the ability of developing states to interpret and use scientific data for their economic benefit and other purposes.

Marine Pollution

International recognition of increasingly serious ocean pollution has stimulated the development of treaties and regulations to control dumping at sea and to prevent ship collisions and ensuing cargo and fuel release. By participating in the development of these regulations the United States and other nations hope to improve protection of the marine environment.

One of the recommendations of the Stockholm Conference was to convene a conference on ocean dumping with a view toward drawing up a treaty. Such an intergovernmental conference was held in London, October 30-November 13, 1972, and succeeded in completing an Ocean Dumping Convention. Extensive preparatory work for the Conference was accomplished by an Intergovernmental Working Group on Marine Pollution at meetings held in Reykjavik in April 1972 and London in May 1972.

The Ocean Dumping Convention regulates the dumping of wastes at sea from vessels, aircraft, platforms, and other man-made structures when the wastes are not derived from the normal operations of such craft. The dumping of certain hazardous materials, high-level radioactive wastes, persistent synthetics, chemical and biological warfare agents, and oil taken aboard vessels for the purpose of dumping is prohibited. An exception to this prohibition is allowed only in emergencies posing unacceptable risks to human health and admitting no other feasible solution. The dumping of other wastes is to be regulated by means of national permit systems created under domestic legislation by each of the Contracting Parties to the Convention.

The Convention was opened for signature on December 29, 1972 at Washington, Mexico City, London, and Moscow. After fifteen. nations have ratified the convention, a meeting of the Parties will be held to establish organizational procedures and to select an existing international organization to carry out secretariat duties. President Nixon in his Environmental Message to Congress in February 1973 requested the Senate to advise and consent to the Convention. During 1972, the United States played a leading role within the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). The organization is attempting to deal in a comprehensive way with

the various aspects of the problem of pollution from ships. In October an IMCO-sponsored conference completed work on the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, which revised, expanded, and made binding on all parties the international regulations governing safe navigation precedures and shipping traffic lanes. It is expected that this Convention and the further development of IMCO traffic separation schemes will reduce the likelihood of maritime accidents and thus the potential for pollution damage to coastal areas.

Preparations are also continuing in the IMCO Legal Committee for the completion in 1973 of a protocol expanding the 1969 Intervention Convention, which presently deals only with oil, to other harmful substances. The Convention now gives coastal states the right to take action on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastlines or related interests from pollution of the sea by oil, following maritime casualties which may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences. The United States suggested expansion of the Convention at the summer 1972 Seabed Committee meeting.

Intensive preparations were also made during 1972 by the IMCO Subcommittees on Marine Pollution and Ship Design and Equipment for the completion in 1973 of the proposed Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. In its present draft form, this Convention would replace the existing 1954 Oil Pollution Convention with stricter regulation of oil discharges. It would also regulate those aspects of ship construction and operating proIcedures which contribute to the deliberate or accidental release of oil. Furthermore, the Convention would regulate the carriage and discharge of other harmful substances, and in some cases the construction and operation of ships carrying such substances, as well as place controls on the discharge of sewage and garbage from vessels.

Within IMCO preparations have begun to put together the machinery necessary to efficiently administer the Fund created by the 1971 Compensation Fund Convention to compensate victims of oil pollution damage from ship discharges.

International Marine Science Organizations and Bilateral
Agreements

Although UNESCO's Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission has been operating for over a year under new statutes which broadened its responsibilities, the Commission's work has been productive only in a few areas, such as the Cooperative Investigations of the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (CICAR), the development of the Integrated Global Ocean Station System (IGOSS), and the international exchange of oceanographic data. The Commission's lack of activity in other areas can be attributed to a

« PreviousContinue »