General Assembly Session 55 meeting 44

The President

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 51/204, of 17 December 1996, I call on the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Mr. Chandrasekhara Rao.

Mr. Rao (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea)

It is an honour to address the Millennium General Assembly in connection with the discussion of the item entitled "Oceans and the law of the sea".

I extend to you, Sir, our congratulations on your election as President of the General Assembly.

I regret to inform the Assembly of the death, in Beijing, on 10 October 2000, of Judge Lihai Zhao. Judge Zhao had been a member of our Tribunal since October 1996. His term was due to expire in September 2002. Steps are being taken to fill the vacancy created by his death, in accordance with the Statute of the Tribunal.

I am glad to report that the official opening of the headquarters building of the Tribunal in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg took place on 3 July 2000 in the presence of several high dignitaries, including Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Tribunal is grateful to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg for their efforts in erecting the magnificent new headquarters building. It is a matter of special satisfaction that the Federal Republic of Germany and the Tribunal concluded, on 18 October 2000, an agreement on the occupancy and use of the premises of the tribunal. We hope to operate from the new building very soon. However, negotiations with regard to the Headquarters Agreement have not been concluded. It is also our hope that we will soon reach agreement in this matter.

During this year the Tribunal heard the Camouco case between Panama and France. Panama brought the case to the Tribunal on 17 January 2000, and the Tribunal was able to deliver its judgement within a period of three weeks thereafter. This case has once again demonstrated the Tribunal's ability to bring about dispute settlement without unnecessary delay or expense.

Speaking on the occasion of the official opening of the headquarters building of the Tribunal, Secretary-General Kofi Annan observed that the Tribunal was "the keystone" of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that it was

"the central forum available -- to States, to certain international organizations and even to some corporations -- for resolving disputes about how the Convention should be interpreted and applied"

and that it had

"already built a reputation among international lawyers as a modern court that can respond quickly." (SG/SM/7477)

We are thankful to the Secretary-General for his support for the Tribunal. It is also very encouraging to note that the draft resolution under consideration underlines the Tribunal's important role and authority concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention.

I wish to bring to the Assembly's attention the fact that under the Convention the Tribunal can offer flexible mechanisms for the settlement of disputes. Parties may choose between having a dispute heard by the full Tribunal, which includes all its judges, and having a dispute heard by one of its special chambers. The Tribunal has formed the following special chambers for dealing with particular categories of disputes: the Chamber of Summary Procedure, the Chamber for Fisheries Disputes and the Chamber for Marine Environment Disputes. It may form other special chambers, depending upon need.

Mr. Rao (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea)

The Tribunal is also required to form an ad hoc chamber to deal with particular disputes submitted to it, if the parties so request. The composition of such an ad hoc chamber is required to be determined by the Tribunal, with the approval of the parties. This option would be of particular interest to parties that are considering arbitration. The costs of an ad hoc chamber are met from the general budget of the Tribunal and are not borne by the parties to the case. Parties also have the option of choosing ad hoc judges on their behalf. And a judgement given by any of the special chambers of the Tribunal shall be considered as having been rendered by the Tribunal. Some States have shown interest in ad hoc chambers.

The rule of law in international relations cannot be maintained unless international disputes are resolved by peaceful means. It is equally important that judgements rendered by international courts or tribunals be implemented in good faith and in time by States and other parties to international adjudication. It is encouraging to note that the United Nations Millennium Declaration found it appropriate to call upon Member States of the United Nations to ensure compliance with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, in cases to which they are parties. This exhortation is equally relevant in respect of decisions of all international courts or tribunals, whether within the framework of the United Nations system or outside it. We are very happy to see that the draft resolution notes the obligations of parties to cases before a court or a tribunal referred to in article 287 of the Convention to ensure prompt compliance with the decisions rendered by such court or tribunal.

Not many States parties to the Convention have filed declarations as regards choice of compulsory procedures for the settlement of disputes under article 287 of the Convention. Only 25 States parties have filed such declarations. It is satisfying to note that the draft resolution under consideration calls upon States parties to the Convention to consider making a written declaration choosing from the means for the settlement of disputes set out in article 287.

The establishment of new tribunals in recent years is indeed a positive development, since such bodies fulfil complementary needs. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea offers States a wide choice among several procedures for dispute settlement entailing binding decisions. Those forums are of equal standing and effect. The effect of more tribunals being available to litigants is that more disputes have come to be resolved by parties by means of their choice. There is also the additional, but in no way less important, factor that several of the newly created tribunals are also accessible to non-State entities.

The financial situation of the Tribunal remains far from satisfactory. I regret to inform the Assembly that as many as 35 States parties to the Convention have never paid their assessed contributions. Timely payments of contributions have an important bearing on the ability of our Tribunal to discharge its functions effectively. I thank the sponsors of the draft resolution for inviting the General Assembly to make an appeal to States parties to the Convention to pay their assessed contributions to the Tribunal in full and on time.

The establishment of trust funds with a view to providing financial assistance to States for costs incurred in connection with disputes before international adjudicative forums is not a new concept. The availability of such funds would serve as a device to overcome financial impediments to the judicial settlement of disputes and to promote peaceful settlement of disputes. We welcome in this regard the decision of the Tenth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention to recommend to the General Assembly the establishment of a trust fund, to be financed through voluntary contributions, for the purpose of providing financial assistance to States in order to help them in proceedings before our Tribunal. I wish to thank again the sponsors of draft resolution A/55/L.10 for inviting the Assembly to request the Secretary-General to establish such a voluntary fund. I convey my appreciation also to those delegations that have announced contributions to the proposed fund.

There has not been much progress in the matter of ratification of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Tribunal. Since I addressed the Assembly on 22 November 1999, only two more States have ratified the Agreement, making the total number of ratifications four. As members are aware, for the Agreement to enter into force, at least 10 instruments of ratification or accession need to be deposited with the Secretary-General. Here too, we welcome the provision of the draft resolution calling upon States that have not done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the Agreement.

The Acting President

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 51/6 of 24 October 1996, I now call on the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, Mr. Satya N. Nandan.

Mr. Nandan (International Seabed Authority)

I wish to express the appreciation of the International Seabed Authority to delegations which have expressed their support for the work of the Authority. I also express appreciation for the various references to the Authority in draft resolution A/55/L.10, which is now before the Assembly. In particular, I would like to emphasize the importance of paragraph 1 of the draft resolution, which calls upon all States that have not done, in order to achieve the goal of universal participation, to become parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention. In that regard, I would like to note that there remain some 35 States which, despite being parties to the Convention, have not yet completed the necessary procedural steps to become parties to the Part-XI Agreement. Many of them ratified the Convention before the Agreement was adopted, and it is therefore necessary for them to complete the internal procedures to become parties to the additional Agreement.

By paragraph 12 of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the adoption of the Regulations on Prospecting for Polymetallic Nodules in the international seabed area. Indeed, the adoption of the Regulations by the Assembly of the Authority on 13 July 2000 was the most important legislative achievement of the Authority to date. The Regulations elaborate upon and give effect to Annex III of the Convention and the Agreement for the implementation of Part XI of the Convention. They provide the mechanism for implementation of the provisions of Part XI and Annex III and are therefore a critical element of the definitive regime created by the Convention and the 1994 Agreement. The Regulations establish a standard form of contract for exploration for polymetallic nodules as well as standard terms and conditions for such contracts.

Now that the Regulations have been adopted, the Authority is in a position to issue the first set of seven licences or contracts for exclusive exploration for polymetallic nodules by seven applicants who were registered as pioneer investors by the Preparatory Commission. The plans of work submitted by the seven registered pioneer investors were approved by the Council of the Authority in August 1997, thus bringing those investors from the interim regime in resolution II of the Conference into the definitive regime created by the Convention and the 1994 Agreement. The plans of work were approved by the Council on the basis that, as soon as possible following the adoption of the Regulations, the pioneer investors would enter into contracts with the Authority.

I wish to inform the Assembly that, in accordance with that understanding, immediately following the adoption of the Regulations, and given the long delay in proceeding to the contract stage, I submitted draft contracts for exploration to each of the registered pioneer investors and invited them to review the draft contracts and to update the programmes of work that they had submitted in 1997. It is my hope that these contracts can be concluded in the very near future so that a report can be made to the next session of the Authority on the progress of exploration under the contracts.

The final comment I wish to make on draft resolution A/55/L.10 is in relation to paragraph 14, which calls upon States which have not already done so to ratify or accede to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Authority. The Protocol is of benefit to representatives of member States who participate in meetings convened by the Authority, as it deals with the immunities and privileges of such representatives on their journeys to and from the meetings as well as while they are in the territory of the host country. I would urge all member States to consider acceding to the Protocol at the earliest opportunity.

Those who have followed the work of the Authority will be aware that in June this year the Authority convened the third in its series of international workshops on issues relating to deep seabed mining. The subject of this year's workshop was mineral resources other than polymetallic nodules, including hydrothermal polymetallic sulphides, cobalt-rich crusts and gas hydrates. I am very pleased to report that the workshop was even more successful than the previous workshops, which were on environmental issues associated with exploration and on deep seabed mining technology. A very large number of experts participated in the workshop, along with representatives of member States, members of the Legal and Technical Commission and representatives of the community of non-governmental organizations. I believe the workshop was extremely useful in broadening the international community's knowledge of the resources of the deep seabed and in highlighting the potential mineral wealth of the oceans. While it is clear that much work needs to be done to unlock this potential, it is equally clear that the Authority has an important role to play both as a global repository of data and information and as a catalyst for collaborative research at the international level.

The Authority's next workshop, to be convened in 2001, will deal with the standardization of data collection and evaluation of information obtained from research and exploratory activities undertaken in the deep seabed, both in respect of mineral resources and in respect of protection and preservation of the marine environment.

I would like to take this opportunity once again to urge those member States that have not yet done so to pay their contributions to the administrative budget of the Authority in full and on time. I am pleased to say that the response to previous requests both by the Assembly of the Authority and by this Assembly has been encouraging and that the majority of member States have fulfilled their obligations promptly. This is important, because it has in turn helped the Authority to manage its finances in a responsible and efficient manner, to the extent that this year I was able to present a budget for the financial period 2001-2002 which involved no increase in expenditure in real terms. I am grateful to all member States for their cooperation in this regard, and I would once again urge those who are in arrears, including former provisional members of the Authority, to pay their outstanding contributions in full and as soon as possible to enable the Authority to continue its work in an efficient and effective manner.

I would also like to repeat the call I made during last year's debate for all Member States to consider seriously their participation in the meetings of the Authority. The Convention and the Agreement establish a very high threshold for the quorum necessary for the convening of the Assembly and the Council; in the case of the Assembly it is half the total membership of the Authority. It is apparent, therefore, that without the presence of members at the meetings of the Authority its ability to take decisions will be affected. For its part, recognizing the burden imposed on Member States, particularly smaller States, of travelling to meetings, the Authority has done its best to streamline the calendar of meetings so that, for example, there will be only one two-week meeting in 2001. Accordingly, the seventh session of the Authority will be held from 2 to 13 July 2001.

I would like to express appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report, contained in document A/55/61, and to congratulate my friends and colleagues in the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea on their fine work. As usual, the report is comprehensive, and, indeed, very useful.

I would like to say a few words about the new Open-ended Informal Consultative Process, the first meeting of which took place in May 2000. The Informal Consultative Process was developed, among other reasons, to provide a more inclusive forum for all those interested in oceans and the law of the sea -- that is, States, international organizations and non-governmental organizations -- to freely discuss developments relating to the oceans in a manner which promotes an integrated approach to the oceans in the spirit of the unified and comprehensive nature of the Convention.

The process would reinforce the role and responsibilities assumed by the General Assembly in resolution 49/28 as the global institution having the competence to undertake an annual review of overall developments relating to the oceans and the law of the sea and would help to avoid a proliferation of forums, sectoral or otherwise, which would detract from the responsibilities of the General Assembly.

I commend the Co-Chairpersons of the Informal Consultative Process, Neroni Slade of Samoa and Mr. Alan Simcock of the United Kingdom, for their excellent work, and to thank them for their report, contained in document A/55/274. While I consider that the process was extremely useful, I also believe that some of the procedures followed might be improved upon to better achieve the objectives established by the General Assembly.

Many important subject areas were addressed in the meeting and the discussions were constructive and wide-ranging. I particularly appreciated the participation of a broad cross-section of representatives from a number of the specialized agencies and other international organizations and bodies, as well as representatives of the non-governmental organizations. The problem, however, is how best to reflect the discussions in a report. The procedure followed at this first meeting seemed to lead to a situation in which the meeting as a whole became engaged in the drafting of the report. Given the short time available for that exercise, it necessarily created problems. In the end, we were still drafting the Co-Chairperson's report late into the evening, after the interpreters had left.

While the desire for a perfect report is commendable, the procedure was not very helpful. In the first place, apart from the cumbersome nature of the process, it did not reflect the wide-ranging nature of the debate and the breadth of the subject matter. With so many different views expressed, many parts of the report merely reflect the lowest common denominator. Perhaps consideration might be given to streamlining the procedure and allowing the Co-Chairpersons to produce a summary report on their own responsibility, with the help of the Secretariat, on the basis of the discussion and debate during the week.

This is not an unusual procedure. It was followed from 1983 to 1986 in the Preparatory Commission for the International Seabed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the same procedure continues to be followed in the Assembly and Council of the Authority, where the Chairman's statement at the end of each session is a summary of the discussions and proposals made and records all the important legislative and substantive issues. The procedure is also followed at the Meetings of States Parties to the Convention. This approach has the merit of saving a lot of time, as well as of highlighting the key issues which, in the opinion of the Co-Chairpersons, might be useful for the consideration of the General Assembly.

I hope that these observations will not be construed in any way as a criticism of the process, which was highly successful. They are intended as a constructive contribution to the development of the process, which has already been very useful and constructive and which, as most Members know, I strongly support.

I would like to comment briefly on draft resolution A/55/L.11, relating to large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing, unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas, fisheries by-catch and discards, and other developments. There have been important developments in fisheries management practices in recent times. Most fisheries management organizations predate the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21 and the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the 1982 Convention relating to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, as well as the 1982 Convention itself.

The evolution in the approach to fisheries management is reflected in new fisheries arrangements, in the light of the reality of international fisheries, with their problems of over-capacity and ever-diminishing fish stocks. It is with great satisfaction, therefore, that I note the progress and the status of the United Nations fish stocks Agreement. With 28 ratifications out of the required 30, we can confidently expect this important instrument, which is an essential complement to the 1982 Convention as it relates to the conservation and management of fisheries resources, to enter into force in the very near future.

Already the fish stocks Agreement has had a profound effect. It has become the reference point for the review of fisheries management organizations worldwide. It has been used as the basis for the establishment of at least two important regional fisheries management organizations -- in the western and central Pacific Ocean and the south-east Atlantic Ocean. It has also been used as the basis for a review of the structure and mandates of several existing regional fisheries management organizations, including some which were established before the adoption of the 1982 Convention. In this regard, impressive work has been carried out under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, particularly in relation to combating the problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

I wish to commend the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for the work it has done over the past year and for the great contribution it has already made to ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of the system for the peaceful settlement of disputes established under part XV of the Convention. In all of the cases it has dealt with so far the Tribunal has shown an impressive ability to respond quickly to applications and to bring about dispute settlement without unnecessary delay.

I should also like to add the condolences of the Authority to those that have already been expressed on the untimely demise of Judge Zhao Lihai. I have already sent a message to his family in Beijing.

May I conclude by taking this opportunity once again to thank all of those who spoke earlier in support of the Authority. I look forward to the continued and constructive participation of Member States in the Authority's future work.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/55/L.10 and corrigendum 1 and draft resolution A/55/L.11.

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of vote before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Uykur (Turkey)

With reference to the two draft resolutions before us on the agenda item entitled "Oceans and the law of the sea", Turkey will vote against the one contained in document A/55/L.10. The reason for my delegation's negative vote is that some of the elements contained in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that had prevented Turkey from approving the Convention are retained in this draft resolution.

Turkey supports the international efforts to establish a regime for the sea that is based on the principle of equity and is acceptable to all States. However, the Convention does not make adequate provisions for special geographical situations and, consequently, is not able to establish an acceptable balance between conflicting interests.

Furthermore, the Convention makes no provision for registering reservations on specific clauses. Although we agree with the Convention in its general intent and most of its provisions, we are unable to become party to it owing to these serious shortcomings.

This being the case, we cannot support a draft resolution that calls upon States to become Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and to harmonize their national legislation with its provisions.

Regarding the draft resolution entitled "Large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing, unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas, fisheries by-catch and discards, and other developments", contained in document A/55/L.11, we would like to state that we welcome the efforts aimed at achieving the sustainable use and management of fisheries, as well as the establishment of regional organizations and arrangements.

Nevertheless, we are unable to give our consent to certain elements in the draft resolution, in particular the context in which the Convention on the Law of the Sea is referred to. In this respect, we cannot accept the reference made to the Convention in connection with the rights and duties of coastal States in zones under their national jurisdiction, and this reference cannot have any effect upon these States' rights as far as the question of the delimitation of such zones is concerned. It is our view that those States, while wishing to strengthen the international legal framework for intergovernmental cooperation, will comply only with those international treaties to which they are parties, and with the principles emanating therefrom; and their respective rights will not be affected by any international convention to which they are not parties.

Mr. Albin (Mexico)

My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution A/55/L.10 entitled "Oceans and the law of the sea", as a demonstration of our firm support for the regime set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to support the efforts of the General Assembly to promote greater understanding of marine and ocean issues.

Nevertheless, we wish to formulate one or two comments on certain elements contained in the draft resolution. In operative paragraph 17, we believe that the reference to the 10-year time period contained in article 4 of annex II to the Convention is, without prejudice to the decisions adopted in this respect by the third meeting of the States Parties to the Convention, including the possibility of reviewing that time period in light of the circumstances.

We would like to underscore the fact that establishment of the voluntary trust funds, referred to in operative paragraphs 9, 18 and 20 of the draft resolution, do not affect the possibility of taking up, in the meetings of the States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, issues that gave rise to its establishment or of analysing a possible modification of its modalities.

With regard to operative paragraph 41, our understanding is that the organization of the second meeting of the Consultative Process on marine science, piracy and armed robbery at sea will not affect the rights of States to draw the meeting's attention to other issues.

In addition, my delegation will abstain on the vote on draft resolution A/55/L.11, entitled "Large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing, unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction and on the high seas, fisheries by-catch and discards, and other developments". Despite the efforts carried out to achieve consensus, this draft resolution contains a series of elements that prevent my delegation from supporting it. We regret the inclusion of the fifth and sixth preambular paragraphs. We believe inappropriate the formulation of value judgements with regard to instruments that fall outside the framework of the United Nations and to their relationship to agreements that have not yet entered into force. We feel that the General Assembly is not the appropriate forum for this type of statement.

As far as operative paragraph 19 is concerned, Mexico would like to reiterate that all activities relating to fisheries should be in accordance with the international instruments that are in force and are applicable, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

With regard to operative paragraph 26, we regret the inclusion in the title the reference to "illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing". As the Members of this Organization are aware, this issue is in the course of discussion in other international forums. The Mexican delegation understands that the treatment of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing at the next General Assembly will be limited to an analysis of how to facilitate and foster the implementation of agreements that may be reached at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and in no way can the Assembly replace that forum for decision-making on substantive aspects of this issue.

Ms. Di Felice (Venezuela)

The Venezuelan delegation will abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/55/L.10, entitled "Oceans and the law of the sea". In this regard, my delegation would like to point out that we have reservations concerning statements contained in various parts of the draft, in particular in the fourth preambular paragraph and in operative paragraph 3, relating to the operation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In particular, Venezuela, as a country that is not a Party to the Convention, believes that we are not able to accept or oppose the provisions of the Convention as long as we have not explicitly acceded to them.

The Venezuelan delegation supports the international efforts to promote cooperation and coordination among all States on matters related to the ocean and the law of the sea. Nevertheless, we must abstain for the reasons I have just mentioned.

Mr. Alabrune (France)

My delegation is honoured to speak on draft resolution A/55/L.11 on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe associated with the Union, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, as well as on behalf of the associated countries of Cyprus and Malta, and two other States, the Republic of Moldova and Monaco.

We acknowledge that draft resolution A/55/L.11, submitted under agenda item 34 (b), contains a very great number of useful provisions. It is with regret, therefore, that we have decided to request that a vote on the text be taken in the Assembly and that we will abstain in the vote.

This year we were unable to participate in the consensus on the draft resolution, first of all because of the reference in the draft to the Framework Agreement for the Conservation of Living Marine Resources in High Seas of the South-east Pacific, better known as the Galapagos Agreement. This Agreement contains several provisions that cause problems of compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In particular the provisions of the Agreement that provide for the possibility of the parties, outside the limited circumstances set forth in the Law of the Sea Convention, to board, inspect and escort ships found on the high seas.

In addition we would like to draw attention to the importance we attach to international cooperation for the conservation and management of living marine resources. We are engaged in discussions in several forums, in particular the Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans, where we stress the need to strengthen the role of regional fisheries organizations and the need to create new regional organizations of this kind in order to ensure the conservation and management of those resources on the basis of international law. Furthermore, we actively support all efforts under way at the international level to combat illegal, unauthorized and unreported fishing.

However, we cannot condone the use of misinterpretations of international law in the creation of regional fishing organizations. In particular, we are unsure as to the legality of some of these recently created regional fisheries organizations as regards certain fundamental principles, such as the equality of rights and obligations of States on the high seas and the fact that these organizations must be open to all States having a real interest in fisheries, as well as the freedom to fish on the high seas, which comes with the obligation to cooperate.

Nonetheless, we very much hope that it will be possible to once again have consensus on this subject in the future.