asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the member states of the European Community have reached any agreement on a common position to be taken by them at the resumed Law of the Sea Conference in New York in August; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Law of the Sea Conference.
1.
Both during the sessions of the Law of the Sea Conference and between sessions European Community co-ordination meetings are held so that, where a common position can be reached on any of the issues before the conference, proposals can be tabled or statements made on behalf of the Community for the consideration of the conference in the course of the discussions. Since the fourth session of the conference has only recently ended there has not yet been time to complete a detailed study of the revised single negotiating text but co-ordination meetings have already been arranged with a view to reaching agreement on a common position on as many issues as possible for the coming session in New York in August.
I missed the last bit of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I take it the Parliamentary Secretary will acknowledge that it is vitally important that these co-ordination meetings will take place in view of the fact that the position of the Community vis-à-vis, for instance, our territorial waters and fishery rights is obviously essential? Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in addition, whether he recognises that our special right as a maritime State—in conjunction with, say, that of France and Holland—could be presented at that conference, not merely in our national interest but also in the Community interest?
I do accept that. But of course the Deputy, in his turn, will accept that our fisheries problems and the problems of our fisheries waters are ones that must be settled mainly within the Nine and not so much as between the Nine and the rest of the world.
In so far as other major powers, such as the United States, have been able bilaterally to declare a 200-mile limit, would not it be open to us, with the support of our partners within the Community, to take a similar step in their interest and ours, with the guarantee that we had their facilities to patrol and protect these waters in our common interest so that we could negotiate together afterwards?
We have been through this before under various heads. I quite accept that it would and I am told that consensus has been virtually reached on a 200-mile limit as a global norm for the world. But, as the Deputy knows, our problem does not arise in the rest of the world; it arises only basically in the Nine. Our problem is both in regard to the admission of foreign trawlers and policing. Until we can achieve a regime with our EEC partners, we are only scratching the problem as far as others are concerned. It is true that a Rumanian was arrested yesterday but such happens once in a blue moon.
Mr. Kennedy
The Parliamentary Secretary has continued to talk about problems, as he did on the last occasion also. Would the Parliamentary Secretary not look at our EEC involvement not just as a problem but as a benefit factor which we could use in this? I wish he would change his thinking on that so that we could get something from the members of the Community in this area.
2.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the determination, if any, made by the Law of the Sea Conference on the nature and extent of islands which can generate exclusive territorial waters; and if he will state the implication of such determination on Britain's claim to ownership of Rockall.
Negotiations at the Law of the Sea Conference are still continuing and the next session of it will resume in New York on 2nd August. No decisions have been taken in relation to any individual issues before the conference the object of which is to produce a comprehensive convention on the law of the sea.
The whole question of the maritime jurisdiction and status of islands is one of the issues before the conference but any determination of the conference would have no implication regarding the ownership of islands or rocks such as Rockall.
At the end of the fourth session a revised single negotiating text was produced by the chairmen of the three main committees and this will form the basis for discussion at the next session of the conference in August. Copies of this text will be made available in the Dáil Library.
If the conference adopted the provisions relating to islands as they now appear in the revised single negotiating text Rockall could not claim an exclusive economic zone or Continental Shelf, and the Irish delegation will continue to support the inclusion of provisions of this nature in the convention.
Acknowledging that this is what we hope will be the outcome, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will have seen recently some expert in the area of international law suggesting that because we did not make a claim in the same fashion as did Britain to the island of Rockall, we may in fact have conceded. Has the Parliamentary Secretary seen that report?
Yes, I saw that opinion. Basically he said that more than 20 years of apparent acquiescence in the British annexation of Rockall had left us with no claim of that kind. But that has not answered the question whether Rockall itself can or cannot generate a jurisdiction of its own. The single negotiating text to which I referred specifically excludes uninhabitable rocks from the definition of islands which are capable of generating their own jurisdiction.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not recognise, at the same time—while that negotiating text is probably what we hope will be adopted—that, in the nature of things—having regard to some views of international lawyers—it would have been and might still be prudent on the part of the Government to protect our flanks by at least stating a formal claim in case that negotiating text is not adopted?
It might or might not be prudent. My feeling would be against it but I will pass on the Deputy's suggestion.