A/38/PV.96 General Assembly

In subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 of its sixth report [A/38/250/Add.5], the General Committee recom- mends that the General Assembly include in the agenda of the current session an additional item entitled "Com- memoration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations in 1985" and consider it directly in plenary meet- ing. May I take it that the General Assembly approves that recommendation? It was so decided.

I call on the representative of Singapore, who will intro- duce the draft resolution in document A/38/L.18/Rev.1. 3. Mr. KOH (Singapore): We have before us draft reso- lution A/38/L.18/Rev.l, which is sponsored by 52 dele- gations. In addition to the 37 sponsors listed in the document, the following 15 delegations have joined as sponsors: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mali, Norway, Senegal, the Solomon Islands, Sweden and Uruguay. 4. I should like also to draw the attention of members of the Assembly to the report of the Secretary-General in document A/38/570 and Corr.l and to the revised estimates in the proposed programme budget for the biennium 1984-1985 contained in document A/38/570/ Add.l and Corr.1. 5. I have been requested by the sponsors of draft reso- lution A/38/L.18/Rev.l to introduce it. For the sake of brevity, I shall confine my remarks to the operative paragraphs. 6. In paragraph 1, the Assembly recalls the historic sig- nificance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea I as an important contribution to the main- tenance of peace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world. How does the Convention do this? It does this in several ways. First, it promotes the maintenance of international peace because it replaces a plethora of con- flicting claims by coastal States with universally agreed limits on the territorial sea, on the contiguous zone, on the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf. Secondly, the world community's interest in the freedom of navigation is facilitated by the important compromises *Resumed from the 41st meeting. NEW YORK contained in the Convention on the status of the exclu- sive economic zone, on the regime of innocent passage through the territorial sea, on the regime of transit pas- sage through straits used for international navigation and on the regime of archipelagic sea-lanes passage. Thirdly, the provisions of the Convention relating to the exclusive economic zone and the high seas will enhance the world community's interest in the conservation and optimum utilization of the living resources of the sea. Fourthly, the Convention contains important new rules for the protection of the marine environment from pollution. Fifthly, the Convention contains new rules on marine scientific research which strike an equitable balance between the interests of the research States and the inter- ests of the coastal States in whose economic zones or continental shelves the research is to be carried out. Sixthly, the international community's interest in the peaceful settlement of disputes has been enhanced by the mandatory system of dispute settlement in the Conven- tion. Seventhly, the Convention has succeeded in trans- lating the principle that the resources of the deep sea-bed constitute the common heritage of mankind into fair and workable arrangements and institutions. Finally, though far from the ideal, we can nevertheless find elements of international equity in such Convention provisions as those relating to revenue-sharing on the continental shelf beyond 200 miles, to giving land-locked and geographic- ally disadvantaged States access to the living resources of the exclusive economic zones of their neighbours, to the relationship between coastal fishermen and distant- water fishermen and to the sharing of the benefits derived from the exploitation of the resources of the deep sea-bed. 7. In paragraphs 2 and 3 the Assembly expresses its satisfaction at the large number of countries which have signed or ratified the Convention and calls upon States which have not done so to consider signing and ratifying the Convention at the earliest possible date. The Con- vention was opened for signature on 10 December 1982 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. A total of 119 countries signed the Convention on that day. The Secretary-General has stated, "Never in the history of international relations have such a large number of countries immediately signed the result of their deliberations, thereby committing them- selves to act in accordance with their obligations."2 8. The number of signatories has risen to 132, and nine States, together with the United Nations Council for Namibia, have ratified the Convention. We need an addi- tional 51 ratifications in order to bring the Convention into force. I wish, therefore, to appeal to States that have not already done so to consider ratifying the Convention at the earliest possible date, so as to allow the effective entry into force of the new legal regime for the uses of the sea and its resources. 9. In paragraph 4 the Assembly calls upon all States to safeguard the unified character of the Convention and its related resolutions. 10. In paragraph 5 the Assembly appeals to all States to refrain from taking any action directed at undermining the Convention or defeating its object and purpose. I wish to recall in this connection three of the themes that ~6. Substantively, the understandings consisted of five : I]ints: first, it was agreed that the law of the sea secre- tariat should be kept at the level of staff and grades pre- viously allocated and used, that is to say, 18 professional officers for 1983. Secondly, that secretariat should be a unified secretariat. Thirdly, it would have two duty sta- tions: New York and Kingston, each of which initially would have nine professional staff, that is, half of the staff would remain in New York while the other half would be transferred to Kingston. Fourthly, the staff assigned to the two duty stations would be mutually rein- forcing. Fifthly, the law of the sea secretariat would continue to depend upon the other departments of the United Nations Secretariat and the specialized agencies for experts in carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary-General. 57. As is clear, the understandings mainly dealt with two problems: the composition and nature of the secretariat and its organization of work. 58. We are pleased to note in paragraph 57 of the report of the Secretary-General that no changes in the number or level of posts are requested. The only change entails the conversion of the 18 professional posts from tem- porary to established posts as a result of the proposal contained in paragraph 53 of the report. However, we view with some concern the request for six additional temporary professional posts, which were approved on a yearly temporary basis only for 1983. No true limits for temporary posts or plausible justification of the need for such posts are offered. 59. Mr. Koh has offered, we believe, a new under., standing linked to the interpretation of paragraph 58 of the report. We feel that the new understanding departs from last year's, as well as from the intended objectives of paragraph 58. We are of the view that paragraph 58 reflects more accurately the general feelings of the par- ticipants in the work of the Preparatory Commission during t983 than the interpretation of its intention offered by Mr. Koh. We hold this view for the following reasons. 60. First, we all agree that the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the -Sea will be entrusted with the temporary servicing arrangements for the Preparatory Commission. 61. Secondly, we all agree that the secretariat will func- tion as a unified secretariat on the basis of the organiza- tional arrangements established and employed for the servicing of the Conference on the Law of the Sea from 1973 to 1982, as described in paragraphs 61 to 63 of the report. We are disappointed to see that a very important section of the se~retariat, namely, the Sea and Ocean there, and regular communication between our repre- sentatives and our capital was impossible. Some under- standings were reached at Kingston without consultations with the respective capitals. Under these circumstances, the taking of decisions on the very important matters entrusted to the Preparatory Commission could be impos- sible. These organizational arrangehlents would delay considerably the work of the Commission and therefore put off for years the entry into force of the Convention. Such arrangements would play into the hands of those who oppose the Convention and are trying to destroy it. Furthermore, under the present cin: Jrnstances we do not feel that the political climate in the area would be con- ducive to creative and beneficial work of the Preparatory Commission. The two meetings of the 1983 session of the A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colom- bia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Domimcan Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salva- dor, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic 00, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peo- ple's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malay- sia, Maldives, Mali, M!'Ha, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, .Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal~ Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SwaziIand, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, ~f the insistence by many delegations that the Conven- tIOn on the Law of the Sea and the institutions it seeks to create remain a direct fiscal responsibility of this Organization. 99. The United ~tates, as we have stated in the past, VIews the ConventIon on the Law of the Sea as a major accomplishment in the development of international law relating to the oceans. Unfortunately, the Convention contains one part, Part XI, which runs contrary to United States policy and to that of others which share our views concerning the future development of resources on the bottom of the deep sea-bed. Therefore, the United States has not signed the Convention and will not do so. 91. The resolution just adopted by the General Assem- bly does two things that are of particular concern to the United States and, il". our view, are inconsistent with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. 92. First, the United Nations is being requested to fund from its general budget the Preparatory Commission established by the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States believes that the costs of the law of the sea Preparatory Commission should be borne by those nations which are a party to the treaty. Such costs cannot be assessed against all United Nations Members as part of .the United Nations budget. They do not represent legItimate expenses of the Organization within the mean- ing of Article 17, paragraoh 2, of the Charter. In this regard, the United States hc.s withheld its pro rata share of the cost to the United Nations budget which pertained to the funding of the Preparatory Commission. The United States remains steadfast in its opposition to improper assessments, and we are determined to resist such abuses of the United Nations budget and the Char- ter. The Preparatory Commission is established pursuant to a treaty regime separate from the Charter. It is legally independent of and distinct from the United Nations and is not answerable to the United Nations. Membership in the United Nations does not obligate any Member to finance or to otherwise support any other independent organization. 93. Secondly, this year's resolution once again speaks of the unity of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and appeals to United Nations Member States to refrain from taking action which would selectively apply provi- sions of the Convention. This concept is neither good law nor good policy. It is inconsistent with one of the most basic purposes of multilateral treaties: that is, the codi- fication, and even the development, of customary law. It would also be an unacceptable limitation on the sov- ereignty of States in that it seeks to limit the freedom of

I call on the representative of Mexico to introduce draft resolution A/38/L.35. 115. Mr. MARIN BOSCH (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): For the past six years the General Assem- bly has been considering the question of holding a United Nations conference for the promotion of international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In 1980 a Preparatory Committee was created, and it has been meeting annually. The Committee's work has been summed up in documents A/36/48 11 and A/37148 and Add.1. 12 116. The work of the Preparatory Committee has not been easy, and, for various reasons, progress has not been very encouraging. In the circumstances, a number of delegations felt that this year the Assembly should take another course and confine itself to the adoption of a very specific resolution on the procedures to be followed in the future regarding the holding of the Conference and the work of the Preparatory Committee. The result is draft resolution A/38/L.35~ which I have the honour to introduce on behalf of the delegations of Czechoslovakia and Greece and of my own delegation. 117. The preamble to the draft resolution reaffirms resolution 32/50, which the General Assembly adopted by consensus in 1977, and recalls the other resolutions on the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. It also takes note of the work carried out so far by the Preparatory Committee. 118. Paragraph 1 decides that the Conference shall be held in 1986. Paragraph 2 requests the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee, Mr. Pribicevic, and the Secretary-General of the Conference, Mr. Mehta, to undertake immediately appropriate consultations with Member States which could facilitate the resolution of pending issues as well as the venue and the actual dates of the conference. Paragraph 3 notes with appreciation the work done by the Conference secretariat and requests the Secretary-General of the Conference to continue the preparations. Paragraph 4 decides that the Preparatory Committee shall meet for a maximum of two weeks at Vienna in June 1984 to complete its work on an agreed agenda as well as on other outstanding issues related to the Conference. 119. The Preparatory Committee is requested in para- graph 5 to submit a report to the General Assembly at Wt:,!P"~HS, restrict the freedom of transfer of nuclear tech- nOLogy for peaceful purposes. 132. Yugoslavia does not deny the danger of the pos- sibility of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nor do we deny the crucial significance of that issue and the indispensability of its consideration and solution. How- ever, my country sees this not as a technological issue but as a political one, which can therefore be solved on a lasting basis only by political means. The solution can only be an agreement, to be reached by all countries on an equal footing, that they will not proliferate and further develop nuclear weapons, including also the agreement of nuclear-weapon-States to cease accumulating those weapons and to start gradually reducing their number. The issue of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is a matter of the political responsibiiity of the whole inter- national community and of each individual country, and the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is a matt.er of the freedom, sovereignty and equality of all nations. No policy directed against the proliferation of nuclear weapons is viable if it is conducted at the expense of the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, that is, at the expense of only those countries not possessing nuclear technology. 133. The practice of nuclear countries differs essentially from their proclamations. The selective approach of clas- sifying countries as "reliable" and "unreliable", as parties and non-parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as those which need nuclear energy immediately and those which might not be interested in it·for some time, and so on, has led to these considera- tions being introduced as criteria determining the attitude towards co-operation in this field with specific countries. 134. We have been actively involved in this sphere for a long time. As a developing country seriously lacking conventional sources of energy, Yugoslavia has been compelled to introduce nuclear energy into its energy system. Yugoslavia is vitally interested in all aspects of the conditions under which it has to apply its pro- grammes of utilization of nuclear energy and is en- deavouring to improve these conditions. Therefore, The meeting rose at 6 p.m. NOTES 12Ibid.; Thirty-seventh Session, Supplements No. 48 and 48A.