asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make, either by way of reply to this question or in some form that he may find more convenient, a full statement on the progress to date of the Conference on the Law of the Sea, with particular reference to the significance of the results to date to Irish interests.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Conference on the Law of the Sea.
14.
The information sought by the Deputy is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply and, therefore, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to have it circulated with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
As Deputies are of course aware the role of the conference is to review existing international law relating to the sea, to establish rules for those areas where none exist already and to incorporate these into a generally acceptable international convention. This is a daunting task and in view of the number, variety and complexity of the issues it is not surprising that there already have been seven sessions of the conference and that the work has not yet been completed.
Nevertheless, it is possible to say that at each session progress has been made. After the second session the main trends of the proposals put forward at the conference were identified by the appropriate chairmen of the three main working committees. After the third session each chairman produced a single negotiating text which provided the basis for the negotiations at the fourth session and these texts were revised after that session in the light of the negotiations thereat. The fifth session concentrated in each committee on those issues on which agreement was proving most difficult and in particular those dealing with the international seabed regime with a view to resolving these and the chairmen reported on such progress as was made on these issues. Although progress slowed somewhat as the more difficult issues came to the fore in the negotiations a degree of agreement on some of the more important issues was apparent. A number of topics were not even discussed and were assumed at that stage to virtually command a consensus. An informal composite negotiating text— (i.c.n.t.)—was produced at the end of the sixth session and this document still forms the basis for the negotiations at the conference. Copies of the i.c.n.t. are available in the Dáil Library.
The session which has just ended was the seventh session which in fact took place in two parts. It convened for eight weeks in Geneva in the spring and resumed for four weeks in AugustSeptember in New York. The length of this session was due primarily to problems concerning the Presidency of the conference which was in dispute and which resulted in lengthy procedural debates before being resolved. Commencement of negotiations on substantive issues was therefore delayed. For this session open-ended informal negotiating groups were set up to deal with what are now accepted by the conference to be the hard-core issues. These issues are: (1) the system of exploration and exploitation and resource policy for the international seabed area outside national jurisdiction; (2) the financial arrangements for the International Seabed Authority, for its operating arm the enterprise and for the contractors who will be operating in the international area; (3) the organs of the International Seabed Authority, their composition, powers and functions; (4) the right of access of landlocked states and certain developing coastal states in a sub-region or region to the living resources of the exclusive economic zone; (5) the question of the settlement of disputes relating to the exercise of the sovereign rights of the coastal states in the exclusive economic zone; (6) definition of the outer limits of the continental shelf and the question of revenue sharing; and (7) delimitation of maritime boundaries between adjacent and opposite states and settlement of disputes thereon. Other issues which the conference agreed required further consideration were (1) regime of islands, (2) enclosed and semi-enclosed seas and (3) preamble and final clauses.
Satisfactory resolution of the problems relating to the international seabed area while not of immediate interest to this country, is essential if the conference is to succeed and produce a generally acceptable convention. The hard-core issues which are of most importance for Ireland relate to the definition of the continental shelf, delimitation, the regime of islands and access to the living resources of the exclusive economic zone. Since these issues are currently under consideration a full detailed statement on progress to date is not possible at this time. However a general outline of the present situation follows.
The present provision in the composite text relating to coastal state jurisdiction over the continental shelf gives jurisdiction to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of 200 nm. but it does not define the continental margin. It also provides that the continental shelf comprises the seabed and subsoil that extend throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of 220 nm. from baselines. The problem with this provision is that it does not define what is meant by the continental margin and thus provides no clear indication as to how the outer edge of the continental shelf of a coastal state may be delineated. Ireland has a wide expanse of continental shelf area and thus we have a direct interest in ensuring that a satisfactory and unequivocal provision regarding the location of the outer edge of the continental shelf is included in any future convention. Landlocked states and others with differing interests at the conference seek to curb the extent of the shelf coming within coastal state sovereignty so that as much as possible of the seabed will fall within the international area. Ireland has taken a leading role both in the wide-margin states group and in conference negotiations on the continental shelf with a view to rectifying the position regarding an acceptable definition. The Irish amendment to the present article, which was put forward informally at the fourth session of the conference, provides an identifiable limit to the continental margin and seeks to allay the fears of those delegations who see the existing provision giving rise to exaggerated claims by coastal states. The amendment contains a formula which proposes how the outer edge of the shelf of a coastal state may be identified by reference to sedimentary thickness and the Irish delegation at future sessions of the conference will be endeavouring to ensure that the amendment has sufficent support to permit of its acceptance by the conference as a whole. This amendment is already supported by other wide-margin states at the conference.
It appears that in return for agreement on definition of the continental margin coastal states must be prepared to share with the international community a certain proportion of the revenue earned from exploitation of the resources of the area of shelf beyond 200 miles. No detailed discussions of revenue sharing took place during the seventh session and this will be one of the crucial issues to be negotiated during forthcoming sessions as we continue to seek support for the Irish amendment. At present there are two other variably supported proposals concerning the definition of the continental margin. Firstly the Arab group proposal which states that jurisdiction should not extend beyond 200 nm. This is also the formal position of the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states.
Secondly, there is a proposal by the Soviet Union tabled during the first part of the seventh session. This would restrict coastal state jurisdiction to within 300 nm. from their baselines. It is an arbitrary method of delimitation which takes no account of the natural prolongation concept of current international law.
By including it among the hard-core issues it appears that the conference recognises that a definition of the outer limit of the continental shelf should be included in the convention and every effort will be made by the Irish delegation at the next session to ensure that the Irish amendment has sufficient support to permit its inclusion in any revised or formalised text that may be produced. This will involve renewed negotiations over revenue sharing.
At the third session the Irish delegation joined with other delegations in making informal proposals to the effect that delimitation of maritime areas should be effected in accordance with equitable principles. The opposing delegations proposed re-enactment of the provision in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the continental shelf that the median line, equidistant from the nearest points on the opposite baseline, should be the normal method of that division. The i.c.n.t. reflects our proposal in that it provides for delimitation in accordance with equitable principles but it also mentions the median line as a method of division. The two opposing sides still maintain their positions by proposing appropriate changes in the text. The issue was hard fought at the seventh session at which there was more support for the Irish and like-minded position than for the opposition, but no single proposal for a change in the text had general support.
A related topic to delimitation is the regime of islands. The Irish delegation again joined with others in submitting informal proposals on this subject which are partly reflected in the i.c.n.t. provision. This provision is broadly to effect that islands shall have the same maritime zones as other land territories except rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own. These would have no economic zone or continental shelf. The delegation has opposed deletion of that exception. It has also supported proposals which would expressly provide that the role of any island in a delimitation situation would be determined in accordance with equitable principles.
There is already provision in the i.c.n.t. for a 200 nm. economic zone for the costal state but acceptance by the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states is subject to satisfactory provision for rights for them in these zones. They do not accept that the i.c.n.t. provisions as presently drafted are satisfactory. Ireland adheres to the Community position that such states have a right to participate only in the exploitation of any surplus fish when the coastal state does not have the capacity to harvest the total allowable catch. A compromise formula which offers improved prospects for eventual consensus has emerged and will be the subject of further negotiation at the next session. The question of dispute settlement procedures relating to the exercise of rights in the economic zone has been virtually resolved.
In relation to the regime to be applied to exploitation of the international sea-bed area, that is outside national jurisdiction, discussions on the hard-core issues are proceeding within three negotiating groups. The conflict on this issue is between the industrialised states with the technology to undertake exploitation and the developing countries which hope to be the main beneficiaries from the exploitation of the area which is accepted as the common heritage of mankind. Considerable progress has been made in these negotiations and the hard-core issues identified by the President were the most recent topics for discussion in relation to the regime to be established for the international sea-bed area.
The first of these groups has been considering the conditions to be attached to a contract for exploration and exploitation and it dealt with items such as title to minerals, the qualifications of applicants for contracts, the selection of applicants to get such contracts and the transfer of the relevant data. Given the wide divergence of views between the industrialised countries and the developing countries the chairman of the group has not yet succeeded in bring the positions close together.
The second group considered the financial terms of contracts for exploitation of minerals in the international area. Discussions in this field have reached the stage where concrete financial proposals have now been made by the chairman and these will be examined in detail at the next session of the conference. The main difficulty arises from the fact that this type of mining has never before been undertaken with the result that it is very difficult to forecast accurately conditions which would be such as to encourage exploitation by giving an acceptable rate of return to the contractor and yet provide substantial funds for the International Seabed Authority which will distribute these among developing countries in the form of development aid. The revenue the International Seabed Authority derives from its own mining operations will also contribute to this end.
The third group considered the question of the powers, functions and composition of the organs of the International Seabed Authority. It is agreed that there will be an assembly which will be representative of all the parties to the convention and an executive, called the council. The composition of the latter which is likely to include representation of the main interest groups is proving extremely difficult to agree. The conference has also considered the question of the subsidiary organs without coming to any conclusion.
Other issues, not listed among the hard-core issues, still remain to be agreed but it is generally thought that once the more difficult issues are resolved agreement on other items and on a final text may be achieved more quickly.
I should like to know whether anything useful has emerged from the last session of the Law of the Sea Conference with regard to our potential rights on the continental shelf or in the seabed further out?
When the Deputy has had an opportunity of considering my reply he will be able to assess the position better. In advance of that it would be premature of me to comment on the situation at the moment. I could comment on certain aspects of it but it would be as well to leave that for the moment.
I should like to ask the Minister if the drafting of his reply had the assistance of a permanently appoined legal officer to the Department or is that post still vacant?
That is the second time the Deputy asked that question.
Could I ask the Minister if the reply that has been circulated was drafted with the assistance of such a person?
The appropriate legal officers in my Department were involved in drafting the reply.
Does it specifically mention Rockall?
The Deputy can be sure it does. I had something to do with it too.
I would like to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 335 on today's Order Paper.
I will communicate with the Deputy. The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.