Page images
PDF
EPUB

Do you think that in the forthcoming meeting we will be able to attain the objectives that Mr. Stevenson outlined in that speech?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, I do, in fact, Mr. Chairman, I believe that that speech defines for what, in essence, would be a successful conference, of course in very broad, general terms. While the specifics of many of these matters are yet to be worked out, the speech emphasized the inportance for nations in these negotiations to determine what their fundamental interests were. And it then proceeded to discuss those interests for the United States both with respect to resource and nonresource interests.

Senator METCALF. In order that the record may be complete I am going to order that Mr. Stevenson's speech, the statement before the committee on the peaceful uses of the seabed on August 10, 1972, be incorporated at this point.

[The document referred to follows:]

STATEMENT BY HON. JOHN R. STEVENSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OF THE SEABED AND THE OCEAN FLOOR BEYOND THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL JURISDICTION

Plenary Committee, August 10, 1972.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: In recent weeks, both you and your colleagues on the Bureau have emphasized that this is a critical session for the United Nations to consider the future of these negotiations and, in that context, the future of the law of the sea. It is over 2 years since the President said:

The stark fact is that the law of the sea is inadequate to meet the need of modern technology and the concerns of the international community. If it is not modernized multilateralally, unilateral action and international conflict are inevitable.

Mr. Chairman, if we are to find negotiated, international solutions to the law of the sea, we must do two things promptly.

First, we must all be prepared to accommodate each other's interests and needs. We are preparing a comprehensive law-making treaty to govern not only the conduct of sovereign states and private persons in the ocean, but also the natural resources of an area comprising two-thirds of the earth's surface. Its effectiveness will depend in large measure on the extent to which it represents a consensus of all, rather than a group of states. To achieve this, we must identify those national interests that are of fundamental importance to each of us, and avoid time-consuming and potential divisive debate on less important matters.

Second, we must achieve agreement before events overtake our ability to do so. I cannot stress too strongly that none of us can or should stop technology and its use. If we act wisely and in a timely manner, we can ensure by agreement that the technology will be used in a manner that provides maximum benefit for all mankind.

Our efforts here, Mr. Chairman, are known to many people in my country and in many others represented here today. The people who use the seas, and the people whose livelihoods either now or in the future depend on the sea. are watching us. In the United States there is a growing uneasiness about our work. Most Americans concerned with the sea are dedicated to multilateral solutions to problems which have international ramifications, but they are becoming increasingly skeptical about the chances for success. Other Delegations here may perceive similar developments taking place in their own countries. We must not allow confidence to be shaken in our ability to negotiate timely solutions to the problems we face.

Against this background, I would like to comment on some aspects of the substance of these negotiations.

Ocean uses can be divided into two broad categories: resource uses and non-resource uses. The first group principally concerns fishing and seabed resources. The non-resource uses includes such important interests as naviga

tion and overflight, scientific research and the preservation of the ocean environment.

The view of my Delegation on non-resource uses have been clearly stated on a number of occasions. It is our candid assessment that there is no possibility for agreement on a breadth of the territorial sea other than 12 nautical miles. The United States and others have also made it clear that their vital interests require that agreement on a 12-mile territorial sea be coupled with agreements on free transit of straits used for international navigation and these remain basic elements of our national policy which we will not sacrifice. We have, however, made clear that we are prepared to accommodate coastal State concerns regarding pollution and navigational safety in straits and have made proposals to that effect in Subcommittee II.

The views of my Delegation of resource issues have also been stated on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, some Delegations appear to have the impression that maritime countries in general, and the United States in particular, can be expected to sacrifice in these negotiations basic elements of their national policy on resources. This is not true. The reality is that every nation represented here has basic interests in both resources and non-resources uses that require accomodation.

Accordingly, we believe it is important to dispel any possible misconceptions that my Government would agree to a monopoly by an international operating agency over deep seabed exploitation or to any type of economic zone that does not accommodate basic United States interests with respect to resources as well as navigation. I would like to amplify this point with a few remarks on some of these basic elements.

COASTAL RESOURCES GENERALLY

Mr. Chairman, in order to achieve agreement, we are prepared to agree to broad coastal State economic jurisdiction in adjacent waters and seabed areas beyond the territorial sea as part of an overall law of the sea settlement. However, the jurisdiction of the coastal State to manage the resources in these areas must be tempered by international standards which will offer reasonable prospects that the interests of other States and the international community will be protected. It is essential that coastal State jurisdiction over fisheries and over the mineral resources of the continental margins be subject to international standards and compulsory settlement of disputes.

SEABED RESOURCES-COASTAL AREAS

We can accept virtually complete coastal State resource management jurisdiction over resources in adjacent seabed areas if this jurisdiction is subject to international treaty limitations in five respects:

1. International treaty standards to prevent unreasonable interference with other uses of the ocean.-A settlement based on combining coastal State resource management jurisdiction with protection of non-resources uses can only be effective if the different uses are accommodated. This requires internationally agreed standards pursuant to which the coastal State will ensure, subject to compulsory dispute settlement, that there is no unreasonable interference with navigation overflight and other uses.

2. International treaty standards to protect the ocean from pollution.-As a coastal State, we do not wish to suffer pollution of the oceans from seabed activities anywhere. We consider it basic that minimum internationally agreed pollution standards apply even to areas in which the coastal State enjoys resources jurisdiction.

3. International treaty standards to protect the integrity of investment.— When a coastal State permits foreign nationals to make investments in areas under its resource management jurisdiction, the integrity of such investments should be protected by the treaty. Security of tenure and a stable investment climate should attarct foreign investment and technology to areas managed by developing coastal States. Without such protection in the treaty, investment may well go elsewhere.

4. Sharing of revenues for international community purposes.-We continue to believe that the equitable distribution of benefits from the seabeds can best

be assured if treaty standards provide for sharing some of the revenues from continental margin minerals with the international community, particularly for the benefit of developing countries. Coastal States in a particular regime should not bear the entire burden of assuring equitable treatment for the landlocked and shelf-locked States in that region. Nor should they bear the entire burden for states with narrow shelves and little petroleum potential off their coast. The problem is international and the best solution would be international. We repeat this offer as part of an overall settlement despite out conclusion from previous exploitation patterns that a significant portion of the total international revenues will come from the continental margin off the United States in early years. We are concerned about the opposition to this idea implicit in the position of those advocating an exclusive economic zone.

5. Compulsory settlement of disputes.-International standards such as those I described are necessary to protect certain non-coastal and international interests, and thus render agreement possible. Accordingly, effective assurances that the standards will be observed is a key element in achieving agreement. Adequate assurance can only be provided by an impartial procedure for the settlement of disputes. These disputes, in the view of my Delegation, must be settled ultimately by the decision of a third party. For us then the principle of compulsory dispute settlement is essential.

SEABED RESOURCES-DEEP SEABEDS

In many respects, the deep seabeds present the newest and most exciting aspects of our work. Although we cannot agree that international law prohibits the exploitation of deep seabed resources in accordance with high seas principles, we fully share the desire to establish an equitable, internationally agreed, regime for the area and its resources as the common heritage of mankind. The sooner we do so, the earlier we will terminate essentially divisive and counter-productive disputes over the present legal status of deep seabed exploitation as well as over the position taken by some Delegations, with which we have consistently disagreed, that common heritage means the common property of mankind.

Our interest in the prompt establishment and effectiveness of an equitable international regime for the seabed is demonstrated both by the comprehensive draft treaty we presented two years ago and by President Nixon's statement that any prior exploitation of the deep seabed area must be "subject to the international regime to be established."

The basic interests we seek to protect in an international seabed regime are reflected in the five points to which I referred earlier, coupled with our proposal for international machinery to authorize and regulate exploration and use of the resources of the area. An effective and equitable regime must protect not only the interests of the developing countries but also those of the developed countries by establishing reasonable and secure investment conditions for their nationals who will invest their capital and technology in the deep seabeds. In order to provide the necessary protections for all nations with important interests in the area, it is also necessary to establish a system of decision making which takes this into account and provides for compulsory settlement of disputes. We do not regard these objectives as inconsistent with the desire of other countries for equitable participation in deep seabed exploitation and its benefits.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is our view that the benefits to be derived from the operation of this new treaty should only be made available to those nations who are prepared to ratify or accede to it. Those benefits, as all of us in this room know, are manifold. New technology for mining in the seabeds is rapidly opening up new prospects for important mineral supplies. As development proceeds, vast new ideas will emerge as man begins the serious exploration of the ocean and resources. Mining in the oceans will generate revenues as well. All these benefits, Mr. Chairman, should be shared. We are capable in this Committee of making the decisions which will enable these benefits to be realized, but we must get about the business of making these decisions promptly or we will be precluded from doing so.

97-898 O 73-17

FISHERIES

With respect to fisheries, our basic interest is to assure rational use and conservation of all fish stocks. To achieve this, we believe coastal States should have substantial jurisdiction over all fisheries, including anadromous species, except where the migratory habits of certain fish stocks dictate another system-for example, the highest migratory tuna should be managed pursuant to multilateral arrangements. In coastal areas jurisdiction should be limited by such international standards as would assure conservative and full utilization of the living resources.

It is widely understood that the United States shares the interests of many other coastal States. However, the fact that over 80 percent of our fisheries are off our own coast does not mean that we are prepared to abandon the remaining 20 percent-the distant-water segment of our industry. There are reasonable ways to accommodate the interests of both coastal and distantwater fishing states and to assure the kind of special cooperation between states in a region that many Delegations have urged. We believe that a solution of the fisheries problem should take into account the migratory habits of fish and the manner in which they are fished. Thus, we can support 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 of fisheries, with compulsory dispute settlement, but with international regulation of highly migratory species such as tuna.

Our detailed proposals on this matter have been elaborated further in Subcommittee II. The proposals reflect our continuing belief that both sound conservation and rational utilization must take into account the biology and distribution of living marine resources. But they also respond to the expressed desire of coastal States for direct regulatory authority and preferential rights over coastal and anadromous fisheries. However, it is fundamental that fish stocks must be conserved, and that there must be maximum utilization of stocks not fully utilized by local fishermen. Moreover, account should be taken of traditional fishing activities of other nations, as well as the desire of states to enter into special arrangements with their neighbors. We remain convinced that highly migratory oceanic species can only be promptly regulated through international organizations. It is our hope that our new proposals will move the Committee closer to a solution to the complex fisheries problems involved.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my statement with some general comments. While my Delegation must confess its disappointment in our progress to date, we must also point out those areas where we believe important progress has been made.

Looked at from a broad perspective, we see various signs that make us cautiously optimistic. It is clear that the negotiating positions of various states are not substantially closer together than their jurisdictional positions. This is particularly the case with respect to the width of the territorial sea and coastal State jurisdiction over resources beyond the territorial sea.

Mr. Chairman, I welcomed the interesting reports of the distinguished representatives of Venezuela and Kenya on the results of the Santo Domingo Conference of Caribbean States and the Yaounde seminar of African countries. While applauding their contribution to the continuing development of a generally acceptable agreement, I should point out they do not fully take into account a number of the factors I have discussed earlier in this statement. I note in particular the absence of any reference to international standards and dispute settlement procedures applicable to coastal State resource jurisdiction and of any distinction in the treatment of living resources based on their migratory characteristics. However, these documents certainly provide a starting point for serious negotiations and, if harmonized with my own Delegation's statement today, there might be a potential for merging together in a new treaty what are otherwise widely disparate positions. Perhaps then the very beginnings of an outline might emerge which could become the basis for a successful 1973 Conference. I hope so, Mr. Chairman.

Another source of hope is the work of Subcommittee I. We have given priority to the negotiation of the regime and we are beginning to see not only concrete results but an open and constructive negotiating atmosphere. The distinguished representative of the Cameroon, Chairman of the First Subcommittee, and your distinguished colleagues from Sri Lanka, Chairman of the Working Group, have through their tireless efforts helped break new ground in this Committee which makes us believe that where there is political will, our negotiations will bear fruit.

This new political will, however, must infuse our work in the other Subcommittee as well and it must occur now. The "List" must be disposed of and work begun on the drafting of articles. We are confident, Mr. Chairman, that once such work begins it will move rapidly and a successful Conference will be within our grasp. But if we wait longer, Mr. Chairman, we wonder if a successful Conference will ever be possible. Let us all begin to work now to avoid such a tragedy.

Finally in closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to express to you the sincere appreciation of my Delegation for your wisdom, guidance and firm leadership through what we hope will be one of the most important and successful negotiations to have taken place in our times. We wish you continued success at this endeavor and will give you all our support.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator METCALF. I have some questions and so forth about fisheries problems, but I think that perhaps we can wait. You have various problems in your Conference relative to that and maybe we can wait until the British and Iceland and Canada and others determine some of their policies.

I would like to have you tell me what you mean by "common heritage of mankind," however.

Mr. MOORE. I think basically the term "common heritage of mankind" really means agreement, the kinds of regime, the kinds of machinery that the nations of the world will agree on with respect to the resources of the deep seabed.

I think Mr. Ratiner may wish to supplement that.

Mr. RATINER. Mr. Chairman, the term "common heritage of mankind" has been discussed in the U.S. Seabed Committee very substantially, very repeatedly, and different nations obviously attach different meaning to it.

The best that can be said about its international meaning is that it has no agreed international meaning. Now, the developing countries use the term "common heritage of mankind" to express basically a philosophical approach to the Law of the Sea and I don't need to repeat here all of the various interpretations and permutations on those interpretations which many of the developing countries would apply to the term.

The U.S. delegation in these negotiations has made it clear many times on the record what we mean by the term "common heritage of mankind.” And as recently as last March in the Seabed Committee negotiations the U.S. delegation put forward a definition of-I am sorry, for the record it was last August rather than last March—we put forward our definition of common heritage. It is included in article 2 of the principles being negotiated by the Seabeds Treaty, and it reads: "The Articles contained herein, that is in the Law of the Sea Treaty, determine the meaning of the common heritage concept" and we have indicated on the record in subcommittee 1 that we do not believe the term "common heritage" has any independent

« PreviousContinue »