asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the up-to-date position in relation to the Law of the Sea Conference.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Law of the Sea Conference.
6.
I would like to refer the Deputy to the reply I gave to a question on the same subject on 22 November last which was circulated with the Official Report, volume No. 309, columns 1568 to 1575. In that reply I attempted to give a comprehensive resumé of the work of the Conference, the Seventh Session of which had just ended, and in particular I singled out the hard-core issues which remained unresolved at that stage. My present reply gives the up-to-date position on these and other issues discussed during the Eighth Session. 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.
If I may anticipate Deputy O'Keeffe's supplementary, if anything arises out of the six page reply circulated with the Official Report which he would like to raise with me, I should be glad to answer him. I refer the Deputy to my reply to a similar question last year (volume 309 columns 1568-1575) when I gave a comprehensive summary of the work of the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea up to the end of its Seventh Session. This reply summarises what has taken place since that time.
Since the Seventh Session which was held last year and before the Eighth Session an inter-sessional meeting, to which all delegations were invited, was held in Geneva from 23 January to 9 February 1979. Its aim was to facilitate the work of the Eighth Session and discussions therefore were concentrated on provisions relating to arrangements for the exploitation of the deep seabed, definition of the outer limit of the continental shelf and delimitation of maritime boundaries between neighbouring states. A good basis for further negotiation in some areas was established at this informal meeting and some progress towards tentative agreement was made which was carried forward to the Eighth Session of the Conference.
The Eighth Session was held in two parts. The first part took place from 19 March to 27 April 1979 in Geneva and the second part from 19 July to 24 August 1979 in New York. Conference discussions continued to be based on the informal composite negotiating text which had been produced at the end of the Sixth Session. It was the intention of the Conference that if possible substantive negotiations on a draft Convention on the law of the sea would be completed and the text revised at the Eighth Session. However, only a partial revision of the text was in fact achieved. Copies of the revised text (Informal Composite Negotiating Text/Revision 1) are being placed in the Dáil Library.
When the Eighth Session convened, of those hard-core issues which were discussed during the Seventh Session and which remained unresolved the following were taken up immediately for consideration, namely, the arrangements for the exploitation of the deep seabed—that is the area outside national jurisdiction—definition of the outer limits of the continental shelf, delimitation of maritime boundaries between adjacent and opposite states and settlement of disputes thereon.
In addition the conference also considered marine scientific research, protection and preservation of the marine environment, regime of islands and final clauses.
There were other issues where compromise texts, which received widespread and substantial support, had already been produced. Many delegations opposed the reopening of discussion on these matters and they were not discussed further. In this context I would mention in particular the exclusive economic zone and the question of access by landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states to the living resources thereof. Discussion of the compromise formula relating thereto which had been produced by the Chairman at the previous session was not resumed and the text was incorporated in the revision. The texts negotiated on the question of settlement of disputes relating to the exercise of the sovereign rights of the coastal state in the exclusive economic zone were also considered to command sufficient support to incorporate them in the revised text without further discussion.
A text on salmon agreed between all the parties concerned either as states of origin or as exploiters of the salmon resources which is satisfactory from our point of view has been included in the revision of the text without the question being debated further at the Eighth Session.
One of the main concerns of this country at the conference is to have satisfactory provisions on the continental shelf included in the convention, and Ireland has taken a leading role in the negotiations in order to secure an acceptable definition which would give coastal state jurisdiction to the outer edge of the continental margin. Landlocked and other States with differing interests at the conference seek to limit the extent of the shelf coming within coastal state sovereignty. Ireland, seeking to allay fears of exaggerated claims by coastal states, put forward a definition which proposed how the outer edge of the continental shelf of a coastal state might be identified. The Arab Group at the conference continues to support a 200-mile limit to continental shelf jurisdiction and the Soviet Union also has sought an arbitrary cut-off line. The first part of the Eighth Session concentrated almost exclusively on ways of combining the Irish formula with over-riding cut-off limits.
It appears that in return for agreement on a definition of the continental margin coastal states must be prepared to share with the international community a certain portion of the revenues earned from exploitation of the resources of the area beyond 200 miles. Revenue sharing was not extensively negotiated at the Session but new proposals were submitted which were extreme and therefore unhelpful towards achieving a consensus.
Near the end of the Geneva meeting when support for a revision of the text was growing the Chairman held separate consultations with a number of representative delegations. As a result thereof a compromise package emerged which was included in the revision of the text. This provision preserves the concept that the continental shelf of a coastal state is the natural prolongation of its land territory. It includes the Irish formula for definition of the continental margin and combines it with over-riding cut-off limits of either 350 nm. from baselines or 100 miles from the 2,500 metre isobath. The revision also provides for a boundary commission to which a coastal state shall submit information on the limits of its continental shelf. Also revised was the provision on revenue sharing by increasing the maximum revenue sharing figure to 7 per cent of the value or volume of production at the site.
At the second part of the session much of the discussion relating to the continental shelf centred on the problem of ocean ridges. There was concern that the provision on the continental shelf should not be used to permit unjustified claims. Many States feared that coastal states would claim jurisdiction over such ridges, not being true continental shelf, particularly when they made use of the isobath cut-off method. Despite intensive negotiations an acceptable formulation was not produced and this issue remains to be resolved at the next session. Other issues relating to the continental shelf also remain to be resolved. These include the provision on revenue sharing, the role and composition of the boundary commission and a proposal by Sri Lanka which would, because of the special geological circumstances in that area, exempt it from application of the Irish formula.
Agreement on provision relating to delimitation of maritime areas between neighbouring States is proving to be one of the most intractable issues at the conference. The 1958 convention on the continental shelf provides that in the absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line is justified by special circumstances, the boundary shall be the median line. Ireland has always argued that delimitation of maritime areas should be effected in accordance with equitable principles. The negotiating text at the conference reflected our position except in so far as it also mentioned the median line as a method of division. The opposing delegations seek re-enactment of the provision in the 1958 Convention and the negotiations were aimed at reconciling the two views in order to reach agreement on a text which could command substantial and widespread support. It did not prove possible to reconcile views during the session and no change in the text was proposed by the chairman when revision of the text was being considered. The issue will be further taken up at the next session.
A related topic to delimitation is the regime of islands. The provision as previously included in the negotiating text is to the effect that islands have the same maritime zones as continental territories except certain rocks which have no economic zone or continental shelf and this provision is acceptable to us. Ireland's concern is to ensure that the role of any island in a delimitation situation would be determined in accordance with equitable principles. We therefore proposed at the conference a crossreference to the delimitation provisions which would remove any doubt that those provisions should prevail where delimitation is concerned. This did not receive adequate support in the debate but the whole issue remains subject to further negotiation and is likely to be considered further at the next session.
At the end of the Seventh Session the Chairman stated that in his view there was overwhelming support for keeping the texts in the informal composite negotiating text, which required coastal state consent for marine scientific research and are therefore acceptable to us, as they stood without proceeding to further substantive modifications. Some researching states will continue to seek greater freedom for research outside 200 nm. It appears that this aim will still be pursued by them at the next session and has some prospect of being accepted by the conference.
There is a very wide measure of agreement on the provisions relating to protection and preservation of the marine environment. Discussions took place at the Eighth Session based on outstanding proposals relating to pollution from sea-bed activities, pollution from vessels, special areas, suspension and restriction on institution of proceedings, safeguards with respect to straits used for international navigation and monetary penalties. Most of these proposals could not be regarded as commanding more widespread and substantial support than the negotiating text and substantive negotiations on protection and preservation of the marine environment can now be considered as virtually completed. The same applies to the provisions on the development and transfer of marine technology.
Negotiations on the regime for the international sea-bed—that is the deep sea-bed outside national jurisdiction—have always proved among the most difficult at the conference. The most recent issues under discussion in this area related to the financial aspects thereof and considerable progress was made on the question of the payments to be made by a mining operator to the International Seabed Authority. The moneys thus received are primarily intended to be disbursed in the form of development aid to developing countries and payments should therefore be as generous as possible. However, payments must not be so onerous as to discourage sea-bed mining. Progress was also made on certain aspects of the institutional arrangements of the International Seabed Authority, including the inter-relationship of the various organs and decision-making procedures therein. Outstanding issues such as resource policy—which includes the rate of sea-bed mining and participation by the International Seabed Authority in commodity agreements—the transfer of technology, which would facilitate participation in sea-bed mining, and a review conference remain to be considered at the next session.
Final clauses were discussed substantively for the first time at the Eighth Session. Since agreement on many substantive issues has not yet been reached discussion of such matters as revision, amendment and provisional application could only be of a preliminary nature. Nevertheless considerable work was done in identifying legal and technical difficulties and discussion will resume at the next session. An issue of major importance to the European Economic Community is the question of its right to participate in the convention. Therefore the inclusion of a provision therein which would enable the Community to become a party with the member states is essential. This would ensure that treaty obligations regarding matters falling within the competence of the Community can be respected. Ireland, having the Presidency at that time, intervened on behalf of the Community explaining the need for Community participation and seeking to answer queries and allay the fears of other states in the matter. A number of states feel that there would be complex technical and legal problems and possible adverse implications from such participation while others have political objections thereto. Further work remains to be done on this issue.
It is therefore possible to say that considerable progress towards reaching agreement on the text of a convention representing the view of the overwhelming majority of states has been made. The wide range of technical problems, the extreme diversity of the geographical situation and economic development of the countries of the world and their divergent interests have contributed towards the relatively slow progress to date. It is hoped that substantial informal negotiations will be completed during the next session and that formal discussion affording delegations the opportunity to place their positions on record will also take place. The way would then be open for the adoption of what is probably the most comprehensive and complex multilateral convention ever negotiated.
Does the reply give details of the various claims of the different countries involved in the Law of the Sea Conference?
It does not deal specifically with different claims. It deals generally with the subject.
Could we have details of the specific claims?
I think the Deputy will find them in the rather lengthy reply. My offer to Deputy O'Keeffe extends to Deputy Deasy.
I acknowledged that he gave a full and useful reply a year ago. Has anything new happened since that time?
No, except that a year has gone by.