united nations conference on the law of the...

United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea

Geneva, Switzerland 24 February to 27 April 1958

Documents: A/CONF.13/C.3/SR.11-15

Summary Records of the

11th to 15th Meetings of the Third Committee

Extract from the Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of The Sea, Volume V (Third Committee (High Seas: Fishing: Conservation of Living Resources))

Copyright © United Nations 2009

26 Summary records

Those documents set forth the main aspirations of hiscountry, which could be summed up as consisting ofthe special right of a State to exploit natural resources,regulate fishing and adopt methods for conserving theliving resources of the sea in a zone adjacent to its ter-ritorial sea. Tn support of that claim he would ask whe-ther other countries would be prepared to look on withindifference while foreign fleets, sometimes of no well-defined nationality, exploited a form of natural wealthwhich constituted an essential source of food for peoplevaliantly struggling to secure even a modest existence.

32. The importance of fisheries to Chile was evidenthaving regard to its geographical position. Some two-thirds of its total area was either mountainous or desertand only one-third was cultivable. Great efforts wouldbe made to increase agricultural production, but it wasunlikely that the increase would keep pace with thegrowth in the population. According to statisticspublished by the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, 3.2 metric tons of fish per thousandinhabitants were being landed in the country, which wasthe eighth in the world in regard to the quantity of fishcaught per inhabitant.

33. The choice of the 200-mile limit in 1947 had notbeen at all fortuitous. It had been based on a seriousstudy on the effects of the Humbolt current, the outerfringe of which lay about 200 miles from the Chileancoast. The scientific arguments in support of his coun-try's case had been brilliantly expounded by the repre-sentative of Peru, who had demonstrated the need forprotecting the biological complex, which experts de-scribed as the " bioma ". Some delegations had arguedthat protection should be confined to one or more in-dividual species. On the other hand, there was noessential contradiction between the view that all speciesshould be protected or that some should be protected,and the protection of the " bioma " did not exclude thesimultaneous conservation of a migratory species. Theessential point was that the resources of the sea shouldbe protected. Arguments in favour of the freedom offishing had been based on the inexhaustibility of thoseresources, but they were no longer valid.

34. His country had been particularly interested in oneof the resolutions adopted by the third meeting of theInter-American Council of Jurists, held in Mexico in1956, which attributed to a coastal State the right toadopt measures of conservation to protect the livingresources of the sea adjacent to its coast. Efforts hadbeen made to under-estimate the value of that reso-lution, but he would ask how delegations which quotedGidel and other legal authorities could overlook theconsidered opinion of distinguished representatives ofthe American legal world.35. At the Inter-American Specialized Conference onConservation of Natural Resources held in the same yearit had been recognized that a coastal State had a specialinterest in conservation, but later it had been stated thatthere was no agreement on the nature or the scope ofthat special interest. It was obvious that, on a reso-lution designed for unanimous adoption, there couldbe no agreement if any State dissented, but there wasno doubt that Latin-American legal experts had devel-oped a principle which was now being applied through-out the world. If that had been understood in good time,

there would in all probability have been no need tosummon the present conference, and agreement wouldhave been reached on the law of the sea in morefavourable circumstances during the eleventh session ofthe General Assembly.36. Finally, he pointed out that the International LawCommission had virtually put the coastal State on thesame footing as a State protecting the interests of itsfishing companies, since the former was only permittedto adopt measures of conservation if no agreement hadbeen reached with any other interested State. Thatmeant that the right to take conservation measureswould rest in the first place with the latter State, whilethe State that would suffer most directly from preda-tory action was only allowed to play a passive andsubsidiary role. In his delegation's view, that provisionwas unjust and resembled the open-door policy where-by the supervision of lunatics was entrusted to thelunatics themselves. Only a coastal State was in a posi-tion to adopt a prudent conservation policy untaintedby the motive of profit.

The meeting rose at 4.30 p.m.

ELEVENTH MEETING

Wednesday, 19 March 1958, at 3.20 p.m.

Chairman: Mr. Carlos SUCRE (Panama)

Consideration of the draft articles adopted by theInternational Law Commission at its eighth session(articles 49 to 60) (A/3159) (continued)

General debate (continued)

STATEMENTS BY MR. QURESHI (PAKISTAN), MR. OLAFS-SON (ICELAND), MR. GOHAR (UNITED ARAB REPUB-LIC), MR. TREJOS FLORES (COSTA RICA) AND MR.GONCALVES (BRAZIL)

1. Mr. QURESHI (Pakistan) said that, notwithstand-ing his country's vital interest as a coastal State in ma-rine fisheries, his Government firmly believed in thefreedom of the high seas, and did not see how the bestinterests of mankind could be served by drawing ima-ginary lines in the ocean. Proclamations of artificialcontrols over the sea might satisfy man's desire for ap-propriation, but could not appease the appetite of theever-increasing millions of mouths which had an equalright to participate in the wealth of the ocean. Fish wasby nature both perishable and renewable, and huma-nity would be deprived of valuable protein if restric-tions were imposed before there was a genuine need forthem.2. The normal aim of commercial fishing was to derivethe maximum sustainable yield, but that was not synony-mous with keeping stocks at their highest level. While itwas true that fishing depleted stocks below their natu-ral maximum, it was equally true that it simultaneouslydiminished competition for food and permitted a vastrate of growth for the remaining stock. A well-fishedstock, as distinct from an over-fished one, had a lowerproportion of old and slow-growing fish which were a

Eleventh meeting — 19 March 1958 27

drain on available food, and the total annual incrementin a well-fished stock was far higher than in an unex-ploited, old and dense fishery stock, preserved merelyto perish by the laws of nature. The aim of rationalfishing should be to make the optimum use of resourcesand to obtain the optimum yield from fishing. Beforeconsidering conservation measures, it was necessaryto make a reasonably accurate estimate of thepotential commercial productivity of the areas of the seaconcerned, to establish the ratios of production andbasic organic formation under given conditions of sun-shine and temperature and of nutrients and oxygen sup-ply, and to determine whether the rate of catch perunit of effort in specified fishing grounds was such asto make them a commercial proposition.

3. Marketing conditions also played a prominent partin commercial fishing, and could not be ignored in plan-ning deep-sea fishing operations. The report preparedin November 1951 by a group of European experts inco-operation with the Fisheries Division of the Food& Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) for the Sub-Committee on Fisheries of theOrganization for European Economic Co-operation(OEEC) had stated that there was a grave danger of afish surplus in Europe for both white fish and herring,the term " surplus " being taken to mean the quantitywhich could not be sold at prices acceptable to the pro-ducer. A further report published under the auspicesof OEEC in 1957 had shown that most fishing admi-nistrators were seriously concerned with the problemof marketing at remunerative prices. That was anotherargument against the premature and unrestricted appli-cation of conservation measures.

4. His delegation recognized, nevertheless, that, in viewof the improvement in fishing techniques and fishinggear, conservation measures of some kind were essen-tial, and it agreed with the definition of conservation setout in article 50. It attached great importance to agree-ments between States for effective conservation meas-ures, and was opposed to unilateral action. He believedthat the articles dealing with the living resources ofthe sea should explicitly require all States concernedwith a given area or resource to negotiate a conventionor, failing that, a bilateral or multilateral agreement.The virtues of multilateral agreement on conservationmeasures were clearly indicated by the extensive mutualbenefits which had accrued to the participants in theInternational Commission for the North-west AtlanticFisheries, the Permanent Commission under the 1946Convention for the Regulation of Meshes of FishingNets and the Size Limits of Fish and the Baltic Con-vention of 17 December 1929 and by the success ofinternational co-operation in the conservation of furseals and Pacific halibut.

5. In the case of the seas adjacent to the Indo-Pakistansub-continent no man-made laws were required to meetthe needs of conservation. The majority of the fishingcraft were small, light boats without motor power, whichdid not venture far afield, but generally remained with-in the ten-mile belt. Owing to the monsoon, sea fishingcame practically to a standstill during the months ofJune, July and August, when overhead expenses had tobe met without any income. The maximum period forfishing was about 150 days per year, and even in the

peak periods fishing was circumscribed by a numberof economic limitations. If, however, any conservationmeasures in that area were desired, his Governmentwould always be prepared to negotiate for agreementon them, but it could not tolerate the adoption by acoastal State of unilateral measures which would de-prive the fishermen of other States of the traditionaluse of the high seas.6. In that connexion he feared that the provisions ofarticle 51 might be abused to proclaim fishing rightsunilaterally and to promulgate conservation measureswhich, even if described as non-discriminatory, couldin fact be directed against the nationals of other States.His delegation therefore believed that it would benecessary to introduce some additional safeguards intothe text of the article.

7. Mr. OLAFSSON (Iceland) regarded the draft arti-cles proposed by the International Law Commission asgenerally acceptable, though his delegation felt thatthe articles could only be applied outside the area ofcoastal jurisdiction, that was to say on the high seasthemselves.8. The economic importance of fisheries to his countrywas immense, greater even than had been indicated inthe report prepared by the secretariat of FAO (A/CONF.13/16). In the Summary Extract from Table 1,section 1, giving the product of sea fisheries as a per-centage of aggregate domestic product in selected coun-tries, the figure for Iceland was shown simply as over3 per cent, whereas the exact figure was 14 per cent or,including the value added in processing, 24 per cent. Inthe Summary Extract from Table 2, sections 2 and 3,indicating sea fishery landings per hundred inhabitantsfor selected countries, the figure mentioned for Ice-land was " 100 tons or more ", whereas the true figurewas over 300 tons. In the Summary Extract from Table2, section 4, it was stated that external trade in fish-ery products represented over 20 per cent of the totalmerchandise trade of Iceland, whereas the exact figurewas 97 per cent. Further, fish constituted the basic food,and the fishing industry was the main source of em-ployment for the greater part of his country's popu-lation. Most of the other industries in Iceland wereeither ancillary to the fisheries or dependent on importsof raw materials and machinery which in turn wouldbe paid for out of the fishing industry's export earn-ings. The economy of the coastal communities in Ice-land in particular was so entirely dependent on the fish-eries that a failure of the catch for one or more seasonswould deprive them almost entirely of their livelihood,since there was no other industry to which they couldturn. There could thus be no doubt that Iceland had avital interest in maintaining and conserving fish stocks.

9. For a long time, however, it had been evident thatover-fishing had been taking place in Icelandic waters,particularly in the case of halibut, haddock and plaice.Even before the First World War the effects of over-fishing had been so serious that the Icelandic fisherieshad been faced with an unpredictable disaster, unlesssome drastic measures were adopted. To avoid such anoutcome, Iceland had taken part in every internationaleffort aimed at the conservation of the fisheries in Ice-landic fishing grounds or other areas where Icelandicvessels took part in fishing. His Government had par-

28 Summary records

ticipated in the unsuccessful efforts to secure protectionof the valuable nursery grounds in the Faxabay area onthe south-west coast of Iceland ; and it had subscribedto the Conventions of 1937 and 1946 concluded underthe auspices of the International Commission for theNorth-West Atlantic Fisheries. It was also displaying agreat interest in the preparation of the new conventionfor the conservation of fisheries in the North-eastAtlantic, and sincerely hoped that the present confe-rence would result in the establishment of a new systemwhich would lead to positive results of great benefitto all.10. On the other hand, such co-operation alone couldnot solve all problems. His delegation would certainlyagree to the establishment of a really effective systemfor the conservation of the fisheries in the high seas,but within the coastal fishery areas of Iceland it was in-dispensable for his Government to exercise its own pow-ers of conservation and utilization in order to ensureits people's means of subsistence. The two systemscould be complementary to one another.11. Such a policy had in fact been adopted by his Gov-ernment when in 1950 and 1952 it had stipulated thatIceland was entitled to regulate the fisheries on the con-tinental shelf. That step had originally met with con-siderable objections from foreign fishermen operating inIcelandic waters, but experience showed that it had hada very beneficial effect, not only on the catches of cer-tain important species inside the extended fishery limitsbut also outside, thus benefiting all fishermen operatingin those waters.12. His delegation welcomed the provisions proposedin article 54, paragraph 1, and felt that an incontrover-tible case in their favour had been made out in the com-mentary to the article. His country firmly supportedthe principle of the freedom of the seas, which was in-deed indispensable for a nation living in a sea-lockedland far away from other countries, but the principle ofthe freedom of the seas could also lead to extremes, asactually occurred in the case of the fisheries aroundIceland. For 50 years Iceland had been bound by anagreement to allow foreign fishing vessels to operate upto a three-mile limit including all bays more than tenmiles wide. The steps taken to bring that situation toan end had been taken in self-defence, to secure free-dom from want for the Icelandic people.13. He must, however, utter a warning that the estab-lishment and enforcement of a system such as that pro-posed by the Commission would not provide a finalsolution to Iceland's fishery problems. His Governmentand people were devoted to the principles of fisheryconservation, both on the national and the internationallevels. However, even when all necessary conservationmeasures had been taken and when the maximum sus-tainable yield had thus been secured, a situation mightarise — and as far as Iceland was concerned it had in-deed arisen — in which the total yield was not suffi-cient to satisfy the demands of all who wanted to fishin the area. In such a situation, his delegation main-tained, the Icelandic people should have priority insatisfying their requirements.14. The draft articles on conservation would be a wel-come supplement to coastal fisheries jurisdiction, but, asfar as his country was concerned, they were not accep-

table as a substitute for such jurisdiction, and in the de-tailed discussion of the articles his delegation would co-operate in evaluating the amendments which undoubted-ly would be submitted.

15. Mr. GOHAR (United Arab Republic) said that asolution of any oceanographic problem required carefulstudy of the wide variety of geological, hydro-biologi-cal and biological factors involved. Conscious of theneed for more information on the subject, his countryhad established hydro-biological, oceanographic and bio-logical institutes and stations along its Mediterraneanand Read Sea coastlines. It firmly believed in inter-national co-operation as a means of contributing to anunderstanding of fishing problems, warmly welcomedvisits by marine scientists from many parts of the world,and was always prepared to participate in joint pro-grammes for the rational exploitation of its resources.16. The growing population of his country dependedlargely on the resources of the sea for their protein re-quirements ; and the poverty of the Mediterranean andRed Seas in living resources was offset to some extentby the abundance of marine life in, and the fertility of,the Nile delta. Moreover, the five great lakes connectedto the Mediterranean were among the most productivein the world ; however, their stocks of fish left them tospawn in the Nile delta, and even the sardine fisherydepended almost exclusively on the flow of Nile siltinto the Mediterranean. His country, which obviouslyhad a vital interest in the conservation of the living re-sources along its coasts, had imposed strict regulationson fishing with bottom gear in the Nile delta and care-fully regulated and supervised its Mediterranean spongefisheries. Red Sea prawns and edible crabs were alsocaught in large quantities in the Nile delta and the Medi-terranean lakes. In short, the importance of the Nileto his country's fisheries could not be over-emphasized.17. Clearly, therefore, strict fishing regulations werenecessary and no country other than the coastal Statewas really in a position to decide what measures werenecessary.18. He pointed out that foreign nationals were encour-aged to co-operate with Egyptians in the exploitationof his country's living resources, even in the territorialseas, and negotiations were under way between his Gov-ernment and Japanese, Portuguese and Spanish com-panies with a view to drawing up exploitation projects.His country was keenly interested in ensuring a maxi-mum sustainable yield from its waters ; for that reasonit had always observed a twelve-mile breadth of theterritorial sea for fishing purposes and maintained thata coastal State had an exclusive right to the exploi-tation and conservation of the living resources of itscontinental shelf and to the adoption of any necessaryconservation measures in the superjacent waters.19. In conclusion, his delegation was in broad agree-ment with the Commission's draft.

20. Mr. TRFJOS FLORES (Costa Rica) said that un-der the impact of scientific progress and the introduc-tion of new fishing techniques, revolutionary changeshad taken place in the law of the sea during the pastfew decades. Classical principles were no longer ade-quate to meet the needs of modern conditions and newconcepts such as those relating to the continental shelf

Twelfth meeting — 20 March 1958 29

and the special interest of the coastal State had been de-vised. The Commission had taken those new trends andconcepts into account in its draft, which provided theConference with a sound basis for its work.21. He pointed out, however, that the Commission'srecognition in article 54 of the coastal State's specialinterest was so hedged about with conditions as to beillusory. The preferential interest of the coastal Stateshould be proclaimed in clear terms ; it should be re-ferred to not as an interest, but as a right. That wouldavoid misinterpretations and give explicit recognitionto the coastal State's competence to regulate the exploi-tation of the living resources of the high seas in areasadjacent to its territorial sea. As it stood, the articleplaced coastal States and non-coastal States on anequal footing as regards conservation measures. Thatwas obvious from a comparison of articles 54 and 56,the only difference between them being that in article56 the non-coastal State had to prove its special interestwhereas that of the coastal State was recognized ipsofacto. That was a further reason why the two articlesshould be worded differently, and why in article 54 thewords " special interest in the maintenance of " shouldbe amended to read " special right to maintain ".22. He had already pointed out in the Sixth Committeeof the General Assembly1 that there was a contradic-tion between articles 52 and 54, in that paragraph 2 ofarticle 54 " entitled" the coastal State to do certainthings, whereas article 52 failed to mention such aright. To be consistent, article 52 should state that con-servation measures could be requested not only byStates whose nationals engaged in fishing, but also by thecoastal State even though its nationals did not carry onfishing in the area concerned. Furthermore, the coas-tal State should participate in negotiations embarkedupon by those States.23. His delegation fully accepted the need for thesupervision of conservation measures of all kinds andfor the introduction of a system for the settlement ofdisputes arising out of conservation programmes, butthe establishment of the arbitral commission proposedin article 57 did not appear to be the most suitablemethod. That was particularly true in view of the fateat the Tenth Session of the General Assembly of thedraft convention on arbitral procedure drawn up by theInternational Law Commission at its fifth session,2 andhe felt that States would show even greater oppositionto the rigid procedure contemplated in article 57. Hetherefore agreed with the representative of Ecuador thatit would be better to establish a United Nations bodyunder the Economic and Social Council for that pur-pose. The Mexican proposal (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.1)that any disputes arising out of conservation measuresshould be settled in accordance with Article 33 of theUnited Nations Charter was rather vague, however, anddid not have sufficient support.

24. Mr. GONCALVES (Brazil) said that his country'sefforts to develop its fishing industry by encouragingprivate fishing organizations had been succcessful, and

that the annual per capita fish consumption was increas-ing. The Brazilian Navy and the Fisheries Division ofthe Department of Agriculture were engaged in researchwhich would in time provide much valuable informationon various marine biological and geographical ques-tions. Brazil had not been alone in its efforts and hadreceived valuable assistance from the FAO, which in1955 and 1956 had sent fisheries experts to the coun-try, and also from the Japanese Government, which hadsent a research ship equipped with scientific instru-ments and a laboratory. Brazilians and Japanese work-ing together had obtained valuable technical, biologicaland other data which would be very important in decid-ing upon conservation measures apphcable to the highseas.25. On the basis of that co-operation, it had been de-cided that protective or conservation measures shouldbe put into effect without delay to safeguard Brazil'sliving resources which obtained their food supply in thewaters of the continental shelf or coastal ocean currents.26. He agreed with the United Kingdom representativethat article 57 should stipulate that the arbitral com-mission should consist mainly of experts on the issueunder consideration.


TWELFTH MEETING

Thursday, 20 March 1958, at 3 p.m.

1 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Ses-sion, Sixth Committee, 498ih meeting, para. 5.

2 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighth Session,Supplement No. 9 (A/2456), para. 57.


Consideration of the draft articles adopted by theInternational Law Commission at its eighth session(articles 49 to 60) (A/3159) (continued)

General debate (continued)

STATEMENTS BY MR. FINN (FOOD AND AGRICULTUREORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS) AND MR.CASTANEDA (MEXICO)

1. Speaking at the invitation of the Chairman,Mr. FINN (Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations) said that the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) welcomed the opportunity of ex-plaining its role in regard to the conservation of theliving resources of the sea, which it was enjoined byits constitution to promote through national and inter-national action as well as by research into improvedmethods of fishing. The two elements were closelyconnected, for conservation in its narrow sense of pre-serving stocks for the use of future generations wasoften most effectively ensured not simply by limitingthe catch, but by the use of selective gear and byfishing at the most appropriate times and places so asto increase current yield. In its wider sense, conser-vation meant the husbanding of resources so that theywould produce the optimum yield.2. Conservation and management depended upon tech-nical knowledge, choice of method and agreement toabide by the desirable measures; accordingly, conser-

30 Summary records

vation also involved factors other than purely technicaland scientific considerations.3. In regard to the latter, FAO had an important partto play in stimulating scientific research into the bio-logical aspect of fisheries resources and into the effectsof different methods of exploitation which had longbeen the subject of international collaboration. It hadsponsored regional fisheries councils and had co-operated closely with similar but independent bodiesas well as with national research organizations. On therequest of governments it gave direct help in elabor-ating research programmes, training staff, interpretingresults, ensuring their systematic collation and dis-semination as well as in the development of uniformterminology to facilitate the exchange of information.FAO had organized or taken part in many internationalmeetings concerned with problems of conservation. Inthe exercise of all those functions it helped to deter-mine in what cases conservation was necessary andwhere opportunities existed for intensifying exploitationand raising potential yield: those problems, thoughcomplicated, could be solved scientifically.4. Less progress had been made on the economic sidesince the first serious attempt to apply well-establishedmethods of economic analysis to the problems of thefishing industry and of rational exploitation had beenundertaken barely ten years previously. The orga-nization in 1956 under FAO's auspices of a meeting tostudy the economics of fisheries had done much toclarify the nature of the problems but little had beendone towards assembling the factual information thatwould enable theoretical findings to be applied in prac-tice. Generally speaking that was the responsibility ofgovernments and industrial organizations, but FAOwas endeavouring to help by organizing technicalmeetings. In addition, it regularly issued a Yearbookof Fisheries Statistics and assisted member States inimproving their methods of compiling such data.5. Though non-technical considerations played a greaterpart in determining what conservation measures werenecessary, the efficacy of the latter depended largelyon the proper application of biological, technical andeconomic knowledge. In that respect, FAO could be ofconsiderable assistance, particularly to governmentswhich did not yet possess fully developed research or-ganizations, and, as an impartial international body, itcould clarify the biological, technical and economicfactors involved in the course of the negotiations be-tween States and in the procedure for the settlement ofdisputes envisaged by the International Law Com-mission draft.6. Though constitutionally it was FAO's duty to bringto the attention of the governments of member Statespertinent facts proving the need for agreement onapplying the desirable measures, its contribution in thatsphere was necessarily restricted to helping in thechoice of measures most likely to command generalsupport.7. The whole concept of the conservation and manage-ment of fishery resources was still in a state of evolution,but it was important for the Committee to differentiatebetween its different aspects. For example, there wasalready general agreement on the need to prevent theextermination of resources and a wide measure of

agreement on the need to prevent waste through ex-cessive fishing, but some time would elapse beforeagreement would be reached about the attainment of anoptimum economic yield. Clearly, there was little dis-pute about the elementary consideration that resourcesshould be preserved for future generations. It was sig-nificant that hi Japan already over 80 per cent of theanimal protein consumed came from fish products.8. Though with present methods it was unlikely thatpredatory action by man would lead to the total ex-termination of the majority of species, it was a con-tingency that was not altogether inconceivable. Therewas general agreement also that it was necessary toguard against the wasteful use of labour and equipmentin the fishing industry and that if unrestrained fishingof a certain stock provided a total yield less than couldbe achieved by more restricted exploitation, the neces-sary restraints should be applied. The difficulty wasone of measurement for there seemed to be no generalconsensus of opinion as to which of the criteria orcombination of criteria should prevail, but in practiceit appeared that at the outset the physical yield inweight would be the most useful, rather than themaximum yield of protein or the highest market value.9. While the general agreement at the present stagemust be mainly concerned with the physical aspects ofconservation, which belonged largely to the realm ofbiology, science and technology, other aspects werealready receiving more attention and perhaps wouldsoon be the subject of agreement at least in certainareas. Much would depend on achieving a better under-standing of the economic factors, and of course FAOwould do everything possible to facilitate the inter-national exchange of information and to encourageresearch.10. Similar considerations should apply too to measuresfor protecting resources from other harmful influences,such as pollution. It was also not inconceivable thatsomething might be done in the future against naturalinfluences that were not beneficial.11. The measures intended to restore the yield ofstocks which might have suffered through the failureto take timely restrictive or protective action and themeasures adopted to increase yields beyond theirnatural level by restocking or fertilizing water must alsobe clearly based on adequate knowledge of biological,technical and economic possibilities.12. As the whole concept was in process of develop-ment, the Conference would doubtless wish to ensurethat the rules it adopted which were likely to dominatethe whole treatment of the problem for a long time tocome were so framed as to be capable of adjustmentas knowledge increased. FAO was obviously anxiousthat the best use should be made of information con-cerning means of increasing the world's food supply,and much yet remained to be learned about gatheringin the riches of the sea. According to statistics publishedby FAO in a document concerning the economic im-portance of the sea fisheries in different countries(A/CONF. 13/16), the world catch had risen by aboutone-third in sixteen years — from 19 million tons in1940 to 30 million tons in 1956 — and during the pastfive years the yield had increased by about 5 per centannually. The wise exploitation of those vast resources

Twelfth meeting — 20 March 1958 31

presented many problems which by their nature wereonly amenable to international solution.

13. Mr. CASTANEDA (Mexico) said that the questionof fisheries and the conservation of living resources wasadmittedly closely linked with the other matters per-taining to the law of the sea, but its interdependencewith the question of the breadth of territorial limits hadbeen seriously exaggerated. The small minority ofStates which adhered to the three-mile rule and tried toforce it on the majority naturally did not desire anyfinal solution of the question of the territorial sea, be-cause they knew that their views could not prevail.They therefore stressed the close relationship betweenthe two questions and suggested that the decision onthe breadth of the territorial sea should be postponeduntil the rules relating to conservation had beenestablished. They argued that the provisions on con-servation would enable States to exercise effective pro-tection over the resources near their coast and wouldthus render a wide territorial sea unnecessary. As therepresentative of Norway had shown, however, thatargument could easily be inverted.14. Many of the less-developed States, which weremostly also those suffering from a strong demographicpressure, needed the resources of the sea for theirsurvival. Consequently, they could not stand idly bywhile the wealth of the seas off their coasts was ex-terminated through the reckless fishing methods offoreign fleets from distant countries. In seeking toremedy that situation, the coastal States could choosebetween two courses: they could either widen the zonereserved to their nationals or adopt conservationmeasures on the high seas which would not discriminateagainst foreign fishermen. Their final choice woulddepend solely on the vision or short-sightedness dis-played at the Conference by the large fishing Powers.If the problems raised by claims to wide areas of ex-clusive jurisdiction were to be avoided, the coastalStates would have to be granted sufficient rights, notmerely in theory, but also in practice, to ensure theconservation of the resources they required.15. To that extent, the two questions were indeedclosely related. But no conservation regime, howevereffective, could ever be a substitute for a territorial seain the classical sense, even if the latter was twelvemiles broad. The reason was simple. The purpose of aterritorial sea was not the conservation of marine re-sources, but the defence of security and other interests.Moreover, the resources in that zone were in any casereserved to the nationals of the territorial State ex-clusively. The smaller Powers therefore demanded aneffective conservation regime over and above, and notin substitution for, recognition of the right of thecoastal State to fix its territorial limits at any distancebetween three and twelve miles from the shore.16. In that connexion, he stressed that, in saying thatmany States aspired to a territorial sea of twelve miles,he in no way wished to imply that three miles was theexisting rule which some States merely wished tochange. The truth of the matter was that the three-mile rule was no longer legally valid and was not ac-cepted by the majority of the members of the inter-national community. Practice had created a new ruleof customary law, according to which each State could

adopt any limit between three and twelve miles, with-out any need to justify its action, and that limit wouldbe binding erga omnes.17. Turning to the question of conservation measures,he said that in the first place such measures could notbe effective unless they were based on the ecology ofthe species to be protected. Consequently, they shouldtake into account the morphological and functionalstructure of the various biological communities whichwere fished, or exploited industrially. Secondly, theywould only be adequate if they applied to the entiremaritime area occupied by the biological community orcommunities in question, or better still, to the whole"territory" in the ecological sense. Since the limits ofsuch territories did not coincide with artificial limitstraced by man, the adoption of different conservationmeasures on either side of the outer limit of the ter-ritorial sea would result in chaos. The whole intricatebiological equilibrium which any given biological entityrequired for its survival and well-being would imme-diately be upset.

18. Thirdly, the natural resources of the ocean bedincluded not only the minerals in the subsoil and theliving resources reposing upon the bed or mechanicallyattached thereto, but also the topsoil. The last-namedwas probably even the most important of those re-sources, for within it took place important chemical,physio-chemical and, above all, microbiological pro-cesses on which the fertility of the waters, and conse-quently the abundance of fish, directly depended.Hence — and since trawling practices wrought a mate-rial and serious change in the physical and biologicalconditions of the seabed, with inevitable damagingconsequences — it was necessary not only to protectliving resources, but also to ensure the integrity of theocean bed or at least to create a system allowing therecuperative forces of nature to play their part.19. It was well known that the fishing industry was ina very primitive stage of development. The productwas removed, but little was done to increase or re-plenish stocks through proper technical methods. Onlyvery recently had scientists begun to make progress indetermining the true location of various species. Bycontrast, the fishing methods themselves were dailybecoming more efficient and powerful. That situationhad brought about a serious disequilibrium and ascarcity of resources, and measures to protect the sea-bed where the fertilizing processes originated wouldhave extremely beneficial effects.20. The legal problems relating to fisheries were attri-butable to the concurrence of several factors. As faras fishing was concerned, countries could, with certainexceptions, be divided into two categories. In the firstplace, there were the countries from the higher lati-tudes, especially in the north, which generally pos-sessed substantial technical and financial resources anda developed industry. Their cold seas were very richin fish, because, owing to the abundance of nutritivesalts and the frequency of up-welling, the stocks werereplenished surprisingly fast. The second category con-sisted of countries situated between the tropics. Theywere, for the most part, relatively under-developed.The waters off their coasts were tepid or warm andpoor in fishing resources, and the recuperative process

32 Summary records

in those seas was infinitely slower. The States in thesecond group were therefore justifiably disturbed by thegradual, though constantly more noticeable, southwardmovement of northern fishermen. As soon as any ofthe more accessible fishing grounds were exhausted ordestroyed, or exploitation therein ceased to be pro-fitable, the ships of the great fishing Powers moved tonew regions. Fishermen from the northern States werealready operating in the Caribbean, along the Pacificcoast of the Americas as far as the Galapagos islands,off the western shores of Africa up to the Gulf ofGuinea, and in other areas. The resulting damage tothe stocks of fish in the tropical seas was obviouslyenormous.21. For fishermen from remote countries, the ex-haustion of fishing resources near the coasts of otherStates was of little consequence. They could alwaysalter their routes and move to new zones in which tocontinue their depredation. But for an insufficiently de-veloped State lacking the resources needed to fish farfrom its shores, a diminution in the fish populationcould have disastrous effects. Once the fish populationfell to a "critical" level, it could soon become totallyextinct. Moreover, the principal victims of over-exploitation were the coastal fishermen who could notrange over great distances in search of more productiveareas.22. The crucial problem of the law of the sea thusstemmed from the reaction of the less developed coun-tries situated in the inter-tropical belt against thegrowth of fishing imperialism. That reaction was in-evitable because of the demographic growth and theawakening political conscience of the peoples con-cerned. Furthermore, as the need for urgent measuresof conservation had only recently been understood,those countries could not now accept the argument thatthe only " legal" solution was for them to abstain fromany defensive measure which might violate the sacredprinciple of the freedom of the seas. A solution couldtherefore only be found if all the interests involvedwere duly balanced. That balance could only be at-tained through a recognition of the rights of the lessdeveloped countries. If the great fishing Powers adopteda negative attitude, the problem would only be aggra-vated. Rigid adherence to the traditional rules of inter-national law could prove disastrous to all concerned,for the traditional rules on the regime of the sea hadbeen created by the great Powers for their own pur-poses before many major problems had arisen andbefore the birth of the new States which now formedthe majority. The duty of the Conference, therefore,was to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Failure to doso would leave many States with a feeling of frustrationand ultimately lead to an avalanche of extreme uni-lateral claims.23. His Government believed that, in principle, pro-blems connected with conservation should be resolvedthrough international agreement. The internationalcharacter of the waters in which measures had to betaken usually made an international solution greatlypreferable. At times, however, such a solution was eitherimpossible or difficult. It was therefore necessary toauthorize the coastal State to take unilateral action onthe high seas in certain cases. The need for such acourse was evident. In the first place, there was the

fact of the coastal State's proximity to the resources.Geographical proximity in itself obviously did notentitle it to sovereignty, but the fact that it had somejuridical relevance could not be disputed. If geogra-phical continuity was a reason for recognizing thesovereign rights of the coastal State over the continentalshelf, a fortiori the coastal State's special interest inadjacent fishing areas should be recognized.24. Secondly, not all cases lent themselves equally toa solution based on the concerted action of manyStates. In cases such as whaling — because whaleswere extremely migratory and many countries partici-pated in an exclusively pelagic industry — no othersettlement was possible, but the same was not true incases where a large fishing fleet from a powerfulcountry fished in fixed areas off the coast of a lessdeveloped State. States which fished far from their ownshores did not have the same interests in conservationas those situated in the immediate vicinity of the fishingground. That was why the powerful fishing States de-sired not so much conservation as the passive consentof the coastal State to unrestricted fishing off its coast.25. Lastly, as the Indian representative had pointedout (5th meeting), conservation measures adopted bythe coastal State could be more easily enforced by thatState than by others. Enforcement measures taken byoutsiders off the shores of the coastal State could giverise to serious political and legal disputes.26. Turning to the draft articles proposed by the In-ternational Law Commission, he said that the pivotalpoint was the recognition of the special situation andinterests of the coastal State. That principle had beenconfirmed, after much indecision, in article 54. As wasto be expected, however, the great fishing Powers hadalready voiced their opposition to that provision. Evenas recently as 1955, at its seventh session, the Com-mission had proposed that the coastal State should bepermitted to take unilateral conservation measures onthe high seas only if it could furnish proof of its specialinterest.1

27. Notwithstanding the inexplicable statement in para-graph 14 of the commentary to article 49 that thespecial interests of the coastal State did not take pre-cedence per se over the interests of other States, it wasnow conceded that the coastal State enjoyed a uniqueand privileged position and that, having a special in-terest, it could adopt unilateral conservation measureson the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea. Thatwas the most revolutionary of all the principles pro-posed by the Commission. He could not, however,accept the Commission's subsequent suggestion that thecoastal State and other States fishing off its coast wereon an equal footing and enjoyed the same juridicalstatus.28. Article 54, paragraph 2, seemed to permit thecoastal State to participate in the negotiation of con-servation measures off its coasts purely as an act ofgrace. Thus, under the pretext of granting the coastalState an illusory right, the Commission had tried toauthorize every State to impose measures of conser-vation in areas adjacent to other countries. In practice,

1 Official Records of the General Assembly, Tenth Session,Supplement No. 9 (A/2934), article 29.

Thirteenth meeting — 21 March 1958 33

therefore, every State would be free to establish re-served zones on the high seas opposite another country'scoast. The provision was thus completely unacceptableto the smaller Powers which wished to defend theresources they required. Article 56, paragraph 1, wasopen to the same criticism.29. The fundamental article of the entire draft wasarticle 55, which authorized the coastal State to adoptunilateral measures of conservation. Such a provisionwas the logical consequence of the recognition of thespecial interest of the coastal State. It was regrettable,therefore, that the exercise of that right had been madesubject to conditions which rendered it virtually nuga-tory. As it stood, the provision would offer no pro-tection to insufficiently developed coastal States againstStates with large fishing fleets. In saying that, he wasnot criticizing the conditions regarding scientific evi-dence and non-discrimination against foreign fishermen.The inadmissible clauses were those stipulating that thecoastal State could only take unilateral action if thenegotiations which it had previously entered into withother interested States had led to no agreement " withina reasonable time" and that the legal validity of itsaction would depend on the result of a complex com-pulsory arbitration. In order to realize the true scopeof those conditions, it had to be realized that fisheriesdisputes did not arise in vacua. The disputes which theregulations were designed to resolve were normally notbetween equals but between less developed States, withscanty technical and financial resources, and powerfuladversaries. The conditions laid down by the Inter-national Law Commission might have some sense in aregional convention, but in a universal instrument theywould only mean that the States which really neededeffective legal protection of their interests would inpractice have to renounce all right to take unilateralaction.30. The " reasonable time " proviso was open to fur-ther criticism. It was recognized that the coastal Stateshould not take unilateral measures except in cases ofurgency. But where the need was urgent there wouldbe not time to enter into negotiations. In practice, bythe expiry of a reasonable period of negotiation be-tween a small country and a great Power there wouldbe very few fish left to protect.31. With regard to compulsory arbitration, he feltthat the Commission's proposal might prove very dan-gerous. No compulsory procedure could be moreeffective than means of peaceful settlement voluntarilyagreed upon by the parties. A solution voluntarily ar-rived at as a result of negotiations had the qualities ofpermanence and cordiality which any arbitral decisionlacked. In his opinion, the system proposed by theCommission in articles 57, 58 and 59 was excessivelyrigid, over-complicated and unlikely to prove workable.32. He did not of course dispute that the unilateralactions of the coastal State in areas of the high seasover which it did not exercise sovereign rights shouldbe subject to limitations. Arbitrary, uncontrolled or dis-criminatory action should certainly never be tolerated.He felt, however, that the conditions set forth inarticle 55, paragraph 2, were in themselves adequate.33. Another important point was that articles 57 to 59represented rules of adjective law. A work of codi-

fication which would apply to States and regions ofvery diverse conditions should confine itself to sub-stantive law. Many existing instruments consisted solelyof substantive rules which stated the obligations andrights of States. The absence of detailed proceduralrules had never caused anyone to contend that thoseobligations or rights did not exist or that States lackedthe legal means to fulfil the former or exercise thelatter. With that in mind, the Mexican delegation hadformally proposed that articles 57, 58 and 59 shouldbe replaced by a much simpler and briefer text (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.1), which merely required the partiesto a dispute to resort to one of the means of settlementenvisaged in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.If that provision had proved sufficient in questionsaffecting the maintenance of peace, it should also suf-fice for the solution of fishery disputes.

34. The CHAIRMAN declared the general debateclosed.

35. The CHAIRMAN asked for comments on theorganization of the second stage of the Committee'swork.

36. Mr. CORREA (Ecuador) proposed that the Com-mittee should deal with the articles referred to in thefollowing groups: (1) definition of conservation (ar-ticle 50); (2) rights and obligations of the coastal State(articles 51, 52 and 53); (3) special position of thecoastal State (articles 54, 55 and 56); (4) arbitration(articles 57, 58 and 59); (5) fisheries conducted bymeans of equipment embedded in the floor of the sea(article 60); and finally (6) article 49 (the decision onwhich would depend on the action taken regardingarticle 66).

37. The CHAIRMAN observed that as modes of settle-ment of disputes other than arbitration were mentionedin the draft, group 4 should be entitled " Settlement ofdisputes ".

38. Mr. CORREA (Ecuador) agreed.

39. The CHAIRMAN announced that in the absenceof further proposals a paper based on that made bythe representative of Ecuador would be circulated fordiscussion at the next meeting.

The meeting rose at 5 p.m.

THIRTEENTH MEETING

Friday, 21 March 1958, at 3.15 p.m.


Organization of the Committee's work (continued)

1. The CHAIRMAN proposed that for the study ofthe individual articles referred to it the Committeeshould divide them into three main groups : first, theright to fish (article 49) ; secondly, problems connectedwith the conservation of the living resources of the seas(articles 50 to 56 and article 60), which should be sub-divided into (a) the definition of the right to fish (ar-

34 Summary records

tide 50), (b) competence of coastal States (articles 54,55 and 60), (c) competence of States in general(articles 51, 52, 53 and 56); thirdly, the peaceful settle-ment of disputes (articles 57, 58 and 59).2. It would be better to postpone taking decisions onthe second paragraph of articles 52 and 53 or the thirdparagraph of articles 54 and 55 until decisions hadbeen reached on articles 57, 58 and 59.3. He proposed the following final dates for the sub-mission of proposals and amendments : 25 March, forproposals and amendments relating to articles 49 and50 ; 28 March, for those relating to articles 51 to 56and 60 ; and 8 April, for those relating to articles 57to 59.4. He suggested that after discussion of each article, itshould be voted provisionally. The results of votes wouldbe sent to a drafting committee composed of the offi-cers of the Committee assisted by the secretariat. Thearticles would subsequently be submitted for a secondand definitive vote.5. The Committee should endeavour to finish its workone week before the end of the Conference so as toleave time for the preparation of a report for discus-sion at a plenary meeting. It might accordingly benecessary to hold evening and Saturday meetings.

6. Mr. GARCIA AMADOR (Cuba) had no objectionto the Chairman's plan, but asked at what stage propo-sals claiming exclusive fishing rights on the basis ofspecial economic circumstances were to be discussed.

7. The CHAIRMAN said that claims of exclusive fish-ing rights came within the first group which he hadproposed, the right to fish.

8. Mr. CORREA (Ecuador) thought it would be morelogical to study the rights and obligations of States ingeneral before those of coastal States in particular. Hetherefore proposed that the order of (b) and (c) in theChairman's second group should be reversed. Discus-sion of articles 49 should be postponed until the endof the discussions on other articles, for two reasons :first, the contents of that article were closely linkedwith the First Committee's decisions with regard to pro-posals concerning the contiguous zone ; secondly, thearticle referred to provisions concerning conservation ofthe living resources of the high seas, and it would there-fore be more logical to reach decisions on those pro-visions first.9. The proposed final dates for the submission of pro-posals and amendments to articles might prove to betoo rigid. It would be better not to fix such dates untildiscussion of the group of articles to which they relatedhad begun.

10. Mr. OZERE (Canada) asked whether there was tobe a general final date for submitting amendments toarticles, bearing in mind the fact that additional articlesmight later be approved.

11. The CHAIRMAN said he had discarded the ideaof having a general final date for amendments to allthe articles, and had proposed instead that there shouldbe separate final dates for each group of amendments.

12. Mr. LUND (Norway), supported by Mr. DINE-

SEN (Denmark) en Mr. MESECK (Federal Republicof Germany), asked whether it would be possible tohave the Chairman's proposals on paper before theywere discussed further.

13. Mr. WALL (United Kingdom) asked that the pro-posals of the representative of Ecuador might also becirculated in writing.

14. In reply to a question from Mr. HERRINGTON(United States of America), the CHAIRMAN said thata provisional vote would be taken when the discussionof each group of articles had been concluded and whenthe final date for the submission of amendments hadbeen reached.

15. Mr. HERRINGTON (United States of America)supported the Ecuadorian representative's proposal todefer consideration of article 49, the decision on whichwould depend largely on the outcome of the debate onother fisheries articles.16. He supported the Chairman's proposal concerningfinal dates for the submission of amendments.

17. Mr. GARCIA AMADOR (Cuba) agreed that con-sideration of article 49 should be deferred in so far asit related to the claims of coastal States. Such claimsshould not be examined until the First Committee hadreached a decision on the Canadian proposal (A/CONF.13/C.1/L.77) which had a direct bearing onthem. To act otherwise would lead to confusion asseparate decisions would be taken almost concurrentlyon two related matters.

18. The CHAIRMAN said that the Ecuadorian repre-sentative's and his own proposals would be circulatedas documents at the next meeting.


FOURTEENTH MEETING

Monday, 24 March 1958, at 3.10 p.m.


Organization of the Committee's work(A/CONF.13/C.3/L.17) (continued)

1. Mr. GARCIA AMADOR (Cuba) said that the orderof sub-divisions (b) and (c) in group I of the Note bythe Bureau of the Committee (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.17)should be reversed, for articles 51 to 53 and article 56were less controversial than articles 54, 55 and 60.Besides, the decisions on the proposals concerning thecontiguous zone which were being discussed in the FirstCommittee would have a bearing on the Third Com-mittee's work on the articles relating to the competenceof the coastal State.

2. Mr. CORREA (Ecuador) said that the most impor-tant of the proposals which he had made at the previousmeeting had been that article 49 should be discussedafter the other articles before the Committee, and thatproposal had been embodied in the Note by theBureau. He now felt it was more logical to discuss the

Fourteenth meeting — 24 March 1958 35

competence of coastal States before the competence ofnon-coastal States — although at the previous meetinghe had proposed the opposite — since it would enablerepresentatives to obtain a clear idea of the Third Com-mittee's views on the competence of coastal Statesbefore the First Committee came to discuss the Con-tiguous Zone.

3. Mrs. JAM1OLKOWSKA (Poland) said that her dele-gation agreed with the Bureau's suggestion that claimsof exclusive or preferential fishing rights on the basis ofspecial economic circumstances should be consideredafter the other articles had been discussed, but she didnot think that article 49 should also be postponed untilthe end. Only two amendments had been proposed tothat article, and it was therefore likely to prove accep-table in substance, subject only to drafting changes. Shetherefore proposed that article 49 should be discussedat the beginning of the list of articles before the Com-mittee.

4. Mr. QURESHI (Pakistan) said that some clarifica-tion of the Bureau's proposed sub-division (c) of groupI was needed, since article 56 related exclusively to non-coastal States, while articles 51 to 53 seemed to be ofgeneral application.

5. Mr. POPOVIC (Yugoslavia) said that article 49should be discussed first, since, if the Committee failedto agree on that article, it would find it difficult to reachagreement on the other articles. He proposed thatarticles 49 to 60 should be divided into the followinggroups : (1) article 49 ; (2) articles 50 to 53, and per-haps 56 ; (3) proposals concerning claims of exclusiveor preferential fishing rights of coastal States, togetherwith articles 54, 55 and perhaps 60 ; (4) the last sen-tences of article 53, paragraph 2, and article 55, para-graph 3, together with article 58. He also proposed that1 April should be fixed as the final date for the sub-mission of proposals or amendments to article 49 andfor the submission of proposals concerning claims toexclusive or preferential fishing rights.

6. Mr. KRYLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-lics) said that article 49 should be discussed first. Adecision on paragraph 2 of articles 52 and 53 andparagraphs 3 of articles 54 and 55, which the Bureauproposed should be postponed until a decision had beenreached on articles 57 to 59, could be left until theend of the discussions since they related to formal andnot to substantive questions. He agreed that proposalsconcerning claims to exclusive or preferential fishingrights on the basis of special economic circumstancesshould be discussed last.

7. Mr. OLAFSSON (Iceland) said that the questionof exclusive fishing rights was of especial concern toIceland. In discussing proposals relating to claimsto such rights, the Committee would inevitably refer toarticle 49, and he therefore supported the Bureau'ssuggested treatment of that article.

8. Mr. LUND (Norway) said, with regard to sub-divisions (b) and (c). of group 1 of the Note by theBureau, that the Committee should follow the order ofthe articles as set out in the International Law Com-mission's draft. Articles 51 to 53 concerned all States

and were of a general character. Articles 54 and 55,on the other hand, concerned the special position ofcoastal States, and it was therefore more logical toconsider those articles after articles 51 to 63.9. Article 60 dealt with a special problem, and shouldbe discussed after the articles dealing with the con-servation of the living resources of the high seas. Hisdelegation could not accept the Bureau's suggestionthat a decision on paragraphs 2 of articles 52 and 53and paragraphs 3 of articles 54 and 55 should not betaken before a decision had been reached on articles 57to 59. It implied that decisions could be taken on theother paragraphs of articles 52 to 55, whereas thequestion of compulsory arbitration was inseparablefrom any article in which it was mentioned. On theother hand, the articles which dealt with the machineryof arbitration could be considered as a separate group.

10. Mr. WALL (United Kingdom) said that, althoughhe thought that the Committee should not depart fromthe order of the International Law Commission's draftarticles, it would be difficult to come to a final decisionon article 49 before the end of the discussions. Withregard to the Bureau's sub-divisions (b) and (c) ofgroup I, he felt that the International Law Commis-sion's order to articles should be followed, since, asthe representative of Cuba had said, articles 51 to 53were less controversial than articles 54 and 55. Itwould thus be possible to dispose of articles 50 to 53rapidly.

11. Mr. RUIVO (Portugal) supported the United King-dom representative's views. He thought that the orderof the International Law Commission's draft articleswas the best one. The articles dealing with arbitration,being of a more general nature, might be discussed be-fore those relating to the competence of non-coastalStates.

12. Mr. GOLEMANOV (Bulgaria) considered that theInternational Law Commission's draft was based on alogical plan, which was reflected in the order of thearticles. He therefore believed that the discussionsshould begin with article 49, and he supported theSoviet representative's views relating to the organizationof the discussions on the other articles before the ThirdCommittee.

13. Mr. OZERE (Canada) thought that it would bedifficult to discuss article 49 first, since it was a generalarticle on a general topic, and a discussion on such atopic might merely lead to a repetition of the generaldebate. Moreover, article 49 gave States the right tofish " subject t o . . . the provisions contained in the fol-lowing articles ", and it would therefore be difficult toreach an agreement on article 49 until the "followingarticles " had been agreed on.14. With regard to the suggestion in paragraph 2 ofthe Note by the Bureau, he proposed that the vote onthe first reading should not take place for two daysafter the tentative final date fixed for the submissionof amendments.

15. Mr. HERRINGTON (United States of America)said that it would be more logical to discuss article 49last. The acceptability of articles 53 to 55 would de-

36 Summary records

pend on the nature of the arbitral procedure agreed on,and thus it would not be possible to come to a decisionon those articles until agreement had been reached onthe arbitral procedure itself.16. He supported the Canadian representative's pro-posal relating to the vote on the first reading. Hethought that the purpose of the votes should be clarified,in such a way as to make it clear that the first readingwas to be concerned with the substance of the articles,and was subject to drafting changes. The second readingwould then be for the approval of the final draft.

A proposal by Cuba that the competence of non-coastal States be discussed before the competence ofcoastal States was adopted by 41 votes to 5, with 13abstentions.

A proposal by Poland that article 49 be discussedfirst was rejected by 34 votes to 14, with 9 abstentions.

A proposal by Yugoslavia that proposals concerningclaims to exclusive or preferential fishing rights on thebasis of special economic circumstances should be dis-cussed in conjunction with articles 54, 55 and 60 afterthe discussion of articles 49, 50 to 53 and 56 was re-jected by 32 votes to none, with 22 abstentions.

A proposal by Yugoslavia that the Committee shoulddiscuss article 58 together with the last sentence ofarticle 53, paragraph 2, and the last sentence ofarticle 55, paragraph 3, was rejected by 15 votes tonone, with 23 abstentions.

A proposal by Yugoslavia that 1 April should bethe final date for the submission of amendments toarticle 49 and the submission of proposals relating toclaims to exclusive or preferential fishing rights on thebasis of special economic circumstances was rejectedby 30 votes to 6, with 12 abstentions.

A proposal by Norway that the Committee shoulddiscuss article 60 as a separate group IV was adoptedby 40 votes to 1, with 14 abstentions.

17. Mr. TREJOS (Costa Rica) proposed that, in viewof the decision to constitute article 60 as a newgroup IV, the final date for the submission of proposalsand amendments relating to that article should be8 April.

The proposal was adopted by 30 votes to 8, with12 abstentions.

The Canadian proposal that the first vote should betaken two days after the tentative final date for thesubmission of proposals was adopted by 39 votes tonone, with 16 abstentions.

18. Mr. ALVAREZ (Uruguay) suggested that a com-parative chart of amendments to each article shouldbe drawn up for the assistance of delegates.

19. The CHAIRMAN said that the Secretary wouldkeep that suggestion in mind.

The note concerning organization of work (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.17), as amended, was adopted.


FIFTEENTH MEETING

Tuesday, 25 March 1958, at 10.45 a.m.


Organization of the Committee's work(A/CONF.13/C.3/L.18) (continued)

1. Mr. OZERE (Canada) pointed out that in accor-dance with the decision which the Committee hadreached at its previous meeting, article 50 and anyproposals and amendments thereto, in respect of whichthe closing date mentioned in paragraph 3 of documentA/CONF. 13/C.3/L. 18 had now been reached, wouldbe voted upon on first reading on 27 March.

2. Mr. LLOSA (Peru) agreed that that procedureshould be followed. He suggested, however, that anyproposals or amendments relating to article 50 sub-mitted after the meeting but before 6 p.m. should bediscussed at a subsequent meeting.

It was so agreed.

3. Mr. WALL (United Kingdom) felt that the Com-mittee's decision to divide articles 51 to 56 into twogroups for purposes of discussion (document A/CONF.13/C.3/L.18, paragraph 1, I (b) and (c)) had not beentaken sufficiently into account in fixing the final datesfor the submission of proposals and amendments tothose articles. The Committee's work would be retardedif the same final date were maintained for both groupsand he therefore proposed that the final date for thesubmission of proposals and amendments to articles51 to 53 and article 56 should be advanced to 26March.

4. Mr. ALVAREZ (Uruguay) supported the UnitedKingdom proposal.

5. Mr. MELO LECAROS (Chile) expressed the hopethat the new final date proposed by the United Kingdomrepresentative would be sufficiently flexible and thatallowances would be made for the difficulties it mightraise for the smaller delegations.

6. The CHAIRMAN assured the Chilean representa-tive that any such difficulties would be taken intoaccount.

The United Kingdom proposal that 26 March be thefinal date for the submission of proposals and amend-ments to articles 51 to 53 and article 56 was adopted.

Consideration of the draft articles adopted by theInternational Law Commission at its eighth session(A/3159)

ARTICLE 50 (DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION OF THELIVING RESOURCES OF THE SEA ( A / C O N F . 1 3 / C . 3 / L . 8 )

7. Mr. HULT (Sweden), explaining his delegation'sproposal (A/CONF. 13/C.3/L.8), said that the purposeof conservation measures was to protect fish stock notfor its own sake, but in a form most beneficial tomankind. The valuable proteins of fish meat, with theiressential amino-acids, were indispensable in a world ofprotein shortage. Should any conflict arise between the

Fifteenth meeting — 25 March 1958 37

conservation of fisheries for human consumption andtheir conservation for other purposes, it was vital thatpriority should be given to fisheries maintained forhuman consumption.

Mr. LLOSA (Peru) recalled that the InternationalTechnical Conference on the Conservation of the LivingResources of the Sea held in Rome in 1955 had decided,as a result of a compromise proposal submitted by hisown country in co-operation with Mexico and Cuba, toinclude in paragraph 18 of its report,1 under the heading" Objectives of Fishery Conservation ", a statement that" when formulating conservation programmes, accountshould be taken of the special interests of the coastalState in maintaining the productivity of the resources ofthe high seas near to its coast ". The present wording ofarticle 50 followed closely the text of the first sentenceof paragraph 18, but contained no reference to thespecial interests of the coastal State. His delegationtook the view that it was for the present conference tomake good that omission, and he would be glad tosubmit a written amendment to bring the provisions ofarticle 50 into line with the recommendations of theRome Conference, if other members of the Committeeso desired.

9. Mr. SATO (Japan) observed that there were twoparagraphs in the Rome Conference's report devoted toa definition of the objectives of fishery conservation :first, paragraph 17, which stated that the immediate aimof conservation of living marine resources was to con-duct fishing activities so as to increase, or at least tomaintain, the average sustainable yield of products ina desirable form and that at the same time, whereverpossible, scientifically sound positive measures shouldbe taken to improve the resources ; and, secondly, para-graph 18, which stated that the principal objective ofconservation of the living resources of the seas was toobtain the optimum sustainable yield so as to secure amaximum supply of food and other marine productsand that, when formulating conservation programmes,account should be taken of the special interests of thecoastal State in maintaining the productivity of theresources of the high seas near to its coast.10. The provisions of article 50, as drafted by the In-ternational Law Commission, were closely similar tothose proposed in the first part of paragraph 18, butthere was no reference at all to the recommendationscontained in paragraph 17. In his delegation's view,those two paragraphs of the Rome Conference's reportwere complementary, and neither could stand withoutthe other. It was therefore essential to take into accountthe terms of paragraph 17 of the report of the RomeConference of 1955 in determining the meaning ofarticle 50.11. With that reservation, his delegation was preparedto approve the text of article 50.12. Mr. SERBETIS (Greece) supported the Swedishproposal which amplified, but did not essentially changethe purport of, article 50.13. Mr. CASTANEDA (Mexico) said that his dele-gation approved in substance the present wording ofarticle 50. In any definition of the objectives of fishery

1 United Nations publication, Sales No.: 1955.II.B.2.

conservation, however, account should be taken notonly of economic and utilitarian considerations, but alsofactors affecting the social welfare of the population ofa coastal State. If, for instance, the fishing methodsemployed by the population of a coastal State werevery old-fashioned, they would certainly not contributeto the achievement of the optimum sustainable yield:but they were justifiable on social grounds, because theyrepresented the only source of livelihood for the localpopulation. In his view, the soical aspect of fisheryconservation was recognized, at least by implication,in paragraph 1 of article 54. But, as it would be pre-ferable to include some explicit reference to the matterin article 50, his delegation supported the Swedish pro-posal, which would establish a social, as well as an eco-nomic, criterion in the application of fishery conservationmeasures.

14. The CHAIRMAN declared that further consid-eration of article 50 was deferred to a later meeting.

ARTICLES 51 TO 53 AND ARTICLE 56 (COMPETENCE OFNON-COASTAL STATES) (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.3, L.4,L.7, L.9 toL. l l )

15. U KHIN (Burma), introducing his delegation'sproposal concerning article 51 (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.7),recalled that, since articles 51 and 68 were closelyrelated, he had suggested that the Third and FourthCommittees should hold joint meetings to considerthem simultaneously. If that could not be arranged,however, steps must be taken to ensure that the rightsspecified in article 68 were not affected in any wayby the provisions of article 51 ; that was precisely thepurpose of his delegation's proposal.

16. Mr. POPOVIC (Yugoslavia) said that the firstparagraphs of each of his delegation's two proposalsrelating to articles 51 and 52 (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.9and A/CONF.13/C.3/L.10) were based on the sameconsideration — namely, that in view of the principle ofthe freedom of the high seas proclaimed in the Com-mission's draft articles, a State should be entitled toadopt measures necessary to regulate and controlfishing in any area of the high seas only with respectto its own nationals. That view was confirmed in para-graph 1 of the Commission's commentary on article 51.17. The new parapragh which his delegation was pro-posing to add to articles 51 and 52 was necessarybecause, just as in the case of the measures by thecoastal State referred to in article 55, paragraph 2,sub-paragraph (b), any measures adopted by otherStates should be based on appropriate scientific findings.

18. Mr. KRYLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-lics) said that his delegation intended to submit anamendment to article 53.19. Mr. RAVEL (France) explained that the purposeof the amendments to articles 52 and 53 contained inhis delegation's proposal (A/CONF.13/C.3/L.3) wassimply to specify the time within which the agreementsreferred to should be reached.

20. The CHAIRMAN declared the debate on articles51 to 53 and article 56 closed.
