A/41/PV.58 General Assembly

I should like to make the following announcement regarding some changes in the tentative plogramme that I read out on Tuesday, 7 OCtober. On Wednesday, 12 November, in the morning, the Assembly will begin its consideration of agenda item 36, "Question of Namibia". On Friday, 14 November, in the morning, the Assembly will hold the election of the members of the International Law Commission. On Monday, 17 November, in the morning, the Assembly.will begin its consideration of agenda item 42, "The situation in Central America: threats to international peace and security and peace initiatives·.

I call on the representative of Cape Verde, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/41/L.20. Mr. JESUS (Cape Verde): I shall start my statement by speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Group of 77 of the Law of the Saa. The Law of the Sea has been an area of international co-operation where substantial progress, has been achieved. The successful adoption of the Law of the Sea Convention in 1982 by the Third United Nations Confetence on the Law of the Sea gave concrete meaning to that progress, and the overwhelming support that it enjoys is reflected in the 159 signatures it received in a short time after its adoption, this is a fact totally unknown before in the history of treaty making. '!'his unprecedented su~rt fot the Law of the Sea Convention translates the firm convict,ion of the Group of 77 and of the interna.tion51 cOllUlunity at large that the COnvention establlshea. a balanced legal regime for the use of the oceans and their resources, that takes into consideration the legitimate interests of all nations and the historical c\onditiens we live in tod5Y. With the Convention, the international community is 1n possession of a useful, timely and balanced legal instrument whose regime and guidelines introduce a clear direction for marine activities and a much aeeded order in the exploration and exploitation of marine resources. The usefulness of such a legal instrument and the convincing force of its judicious provisions are reflec~ed in the positive impact that the regime established therein has already had on various national legislations and on the work of international organizati~ns concerned with marine affairs. The compilation made by the Secretariat of domestic legislation enacted by different countries in this field and the accounts given in the report of the Secretary-General on this item bear witness to the unilateral acceptance by a SUbstantial segment of the international community of the regime established in the Convention, even before its entry into force, convinced as they are that the solid premises on which it was'negotiated, the extensive search for compromises which led to its adoption, and the careful consideration of various interests couched in its articles, has made of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea a kind of sacrosanct document, a charter of the seas, Which we cannot live without, if we are to live in peace and accord with one'another. We are aware of the alleged difficulties that some countries have with cert&in provisions of the COnvention. Who, in one way or another does not have difficulties with it? In fact there is no nation whose interests and positions (Mr. Jesus, Cape Verde) were tot~lly taken into account by the Convention, since it was thought to be a compromise, a common denominator of differe~t and conflicting national approaches. The international strength of the Convention arises precisely from the fact that it is a compromise and, under the historical circumstances, the best compromise. It is, therefore, in the interest of all nations, including those which have claimed difficulties with some of its provisions, to refrain from t~king actions which undermine its object and purposes. As we said at the last meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: "It is in the interest of all nations not to undermine the Law of the Sea ConventionJ it is in the interest of international peace and security not to . defeat its purposes by attempting the replacement of its jUdicious international legal regime by domestic and unilateral regimesJ it is a sign of diplomatic wisdom to adapt the Convention to the changing sltuations in accordance with its own provisions and framework, rather than opposing it in the name of national interests. "We all have national interests and the interests of all nations deserve equal protection. Together, as a collective body and in accord with one another, we can protect our national interests without disrupting other nations' legitimate interests. If we follow separate ways, no nation, however powerful it might be, will have its interests protected. Instead we shall be confronting uncertainty and dangerouc sources of world-wide conflict." (Mr. Jesus, Cape Verde) FOrtunately, the ever-increasing support lent by ~~e international community to the Convention is conclusive evidence that reaso~ has prevailed and will always prevail. For the overwhelming majority of us, the Law of the Sea Convention has thus become a landmark of international co-operation and has established an irreversible legal approach to the uses of the oceans and their resources. The Group of 77 participated in the negotiation$ which led to the adoption of the Chairman's statement during the _ast session of the Preparatory COmmission, in New York - which demonstrates the Group's traditional flexibility and willingness to compromise. The concessions made are the expression of the high sense of responsibility, realism and pragmatism that all of us should display in order to reach generally accepted compromises when dealing with important issues of collective and universal concern. We are of the view that the adoption of the statement on the implementation of resolution 11 strengthens the legal regime of the Law of the Sea COnvention and shows our determination to implement the international system of sea-bed mining. 'Ibe unanimous adoption of that statement by the Preparatory COmmission at its last session, in New York, has cceated conditions to facilitate the registration of the pioneer investors, due to start at the next session of the preparatory Commission. Speaking now on behalf of the co-sponsors, I have the honour to introduce the draft resolution on this item contained in document A/4l/L.20. As of now, the co-sponsors are: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Brazil, cameroon, canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Camoros, Congo, C8te d'Ivoire, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, Guinea_ Bissau, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, NOrway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, the Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, (Hr. Jesus, Cape Verde) Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia and my own country, cape Verde. This draft resolution is, in essence, the same as last year's resolution, with the following changes, introduced as a result of the consensus achieved in the consult&tions held among interested delegations. First, in the first,preambular paragraph the word -recallinghas been changed to -reaffirming-. Secondly, in an effort to shorten the text of the draft resolution the second preambular paragraph of last year's text has been deleted and the idea therein has been merged with operative paragraph 2. ~llrdly, the fifth pr~ambular paragraph of last year's text has also been deleted. Fourthly, three new paragraphs have been added in this year's text. the ninth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 8, which refer to the important decisions taken by the Preparatory 'commission, at its last sess~on, on the implementation of resolution II v to which I referred earlier, and operative paragraph 7v which notes the progress being made by the preparatory commission in all areas of its work. The draft resolution, like last year's resolution, was negotiated by consensus of the signatories of the Convention and takes into account the views and concerns of all participating delegations. We therefore commend it to all Members of the United Nations. Mr. BERNAL (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish). I shall begin by expressing my delegation's gratitude to the Special Representative of the Secretary-Gener.al for the Law of Sea for having prepared the report in document (Hr. Bernal, Mexico) A/41/742. The report is a timely and clear source of information on very many aspects of this item. The united Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has been p:lgned by 159 countries, is a masterpiece of understanding among all nations. The Convention, in all its aspects, ls an i~reversible triumph. Its international impact is obvious. Decisions by the International Court 01: Justice and international organizations, such as the International Maritime Organization, testify to the fact that it is now enshrined as an international legal framework for all the maritime zones and spaces. The Government of Mexico, in k0eping with its foreign policy, deposited its instrument of ratification on 18 March 1983. The 32 ratifications that have been deposited demonstrate ever-increasing support for the Convention. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to appeal to all States to speed up their internal constitutional processes so that the Convention may enter into force as soon as possible. My delegation is especially pleased to announce that on 8 January this year, in strict compliance with the tenets of the Convention, we promulgated the Federal Act relating to the Sea. Th~t legislation is reproduced in the Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 7, dated April 1986, edited by the Secretariat. This Mexican legislation responds to the ~ediate, urgent need to bring internal law into line with international law. It is not the result of aoy unilateral claim, but is ~e legislative consequence of the desire to put into effect the international legal framework embodied in the Convention. The law contains 65 articles and four transitional provisions, and is divided into two parts. The first consists of general provisions on the scope of application of the law and the rules applicable to maritime ins~allations, conservation and utilization of living and non-living natural resources, economic (Hr. Bernal, Mexico) exploitation of the sea, protection and preservation of the marine environment, and marine scientific research. The second refers to the more sPeCific regime applicable to the various Mexican maritime zones - that is, the territorial sea, the internal maritime waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental or insular shelf - and sets out, for each of these, the definition, the powers, the rights, the ju~isdiction and competence exercised by Mexico, the delimitation of breadth and internal and external limits as well as contiguity with neighbouring States, and the navigation and overflight regtMe. In that context, my delegation would emphasize operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution now before us on this item. The Convention on the Law of the Sea, on which there is general - although not unanimous - agreement, is undoubtedly a universal treaty. It is a uniform whole which should not be undermined by internal acts or legislation that would change th~ purpose of the COnvention, especially in regard to the only valid regime applicable to the area of the sea-bed and ocean floor ~nd the sub-soil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources - which, as is laid down in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 and in article 136 of the COnvention, are the common heritage of mankind. As ·stated by Hr. Tamay Koh, President. of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. -The COnvention, while it ls made up of a series of COIllpr.:>mises, is an inseparable whole. That is why it does not provide. for the possibility of reservations and that is why States cannot choose what they like and leave aside what they do not like. In international law, as well as in municipal law, rights and obligations are inseparable. Therefore, from a legal standpoint it is not possible to claim rights under the COnvention unless one is ready to enter into the corresponding obligations. -No nation should destroy this memorable achievement of the international community.- In this regard we draw attention to various applicable paragraphs of resolution A/41/L.20 as well as to paragraphs 123 and 124 of the Secretary-General's report (A/41/742), and to decisions taken by the Preparatory Commission of on 30 August 1985 and 11 April 1986. These decisions were taken by the Preparatory Commission not as a court of law but as a United Nations forum protecting the rule of international law and the unity of the COnvention. Mexico attaches special importance to the work of the Preparatory Commission. Progress in the Commission, While at times slow or paralysed by the disagreement of a minority of countries, has been considerable. Several documents which are before the Commission are being analysed and discussed on ~ second reading. My delegation is pleased to say that the climate in the plenary and the special commissions has been constructive, and we hope that progress will continue to be made in the coming sessions of the Commission. It was thanks to the efforts of Mr. Joseph Warioba and the Acting Chairman that the Preparatory Commission was able to adopt, without a vote, on 5 September this year, an Understanding which marke a new stage in the future work of the.Preparatory Commission. In an effort to achieve universality Mexico, together with the members of the Group of 77, accepted various changes to resolution 11 of the Third united Nations Conference on the Law of the· Sea, being convinced that the Understanding which est~blishes mechanisms and procedures to speed up the registration of pioneer investors as well as of applicants for registration. We hope that this flexible and positive position on the part of the Group of 77 will be met by the registration of at least the pioneer investors at the next session of the Preparatory Commission in Kingston in the spring of 1987. In co-sponsoring and voting in favour of the draft resolution (A/4l/L.20) Mexico wishes to reiterate its deep conviction as to the historic importance of the Convention which ensures the basis for the peaceful, civili~ed and fruitful coexistence of all States in the oceans. Mr. LUPINACCI (Uruguay) (interpretation from Spanish): uruguay is a co-sponsor of draft resolution A/4l/L.20 on the Law of the Sea, an item which has been the subject of resolutions adopted at suc~essive sessions of the General ,.ssembly. Very often there has been critici~mt and rightly so, of the routine and ineffective repetition of General Assembly resolutions. However, in this case, the repeated adoption of resolutions enables us to ascertain and at the same time encourage real advances in a field whose importance in and of itself warrants the attention given to it by the most important international forum. The united Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the most outstanding achievement ef codification and progressive development of international law carried out by the united Nations. At the same time it is one of the most passionate challenges which the Organization and the international community as a CM:-" LU2inacc:i, uruguay) whole are facing in their efforts to gradually build and consolidate peace and justice through law. At this tima of crisis of confidence, crisis of multilateralism, crisis in the obser~,lnce of international law, crisis in international relations, steps taken towards establishing a legal order in the vast expanse of the oceans, which account for three auarters e2 the planet, offer a glimmer of hope in a picture which is for many reasons a sombre one. Indeed, the adoption of the Convention in 1982 as the climax of an enormous unprecedented effort in the history of internat!~n~l negotiations was already an extraordinarily important step. The overwhelming majority by which it was adopted gave that moment a special significance. Thus began a process of crystallization and generalization of the new law embodiod in the Convention, by means of the increasingly extended practic~ of States and the support of 159 signatures, at the end of the deadline for signing. That process has been advancing year after year and we note wAth satisfaction that the number of ratifications has been increasing. It is now 32, beyond the half-way ~int of the reauired number of 60 ratifications or accessions for the Convention to en~er into force. In Uruguay constitutional procedures leading to the ratification of the Convention are very well advanced. But despite the growing support for the Convention we must not forget that it has not yet been signed by a small but important group of states. Furthermore, we cannot disregard certain attempts to undermine the regime governing the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction laid down in the Convention. The draft resolution which we are considering thus expresses serious concern, one which we fully share, and it also urges States to desist from taking actions which undermine the Convention or defeat its object and purpose. (~upinacci, Uruguay) We should therGfore recall the DeclaratiOn adopted by the Preparatory COIlmiesion for the International Sea-Bed Authority'and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, dated 30 August i985 J reaffirmed in the Declaration adopted by the same COIImission on Ul\pril 1986, which states that the c~ly regime for exploration and exploitation of the area is the one established in the COnvention and related resolutions adopted by the Third UnU:ed Nations COnference on the LAw of the Ses, and that no claim, agreement or ac~ion will be recognized wit~ regard to the area and its resources which may be concluded outside the Preparatory commission or may be incompatible with the Convention and its related resolutions. (Hr. Lupinacci, Uruguay) My delegation~ together with a majority of the delegations taking part in the work of the Preparatory Commission, agrees with the substance of this Declaration, which further reflects the view of the overwhe~ng majority 0t th~ States members of the internation~l community, expre~ded repeatedly in various forums, beginning with the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea itself and contained in documento which have been issued by Mbny States or g~oups of States, including the Group of 77. Going beyond these factors, which may delay the universal implementation of the Convention or impede its integral unity, including all measures aimed at implementing its provisions selectively or in a manner incompatible with its objective and purpose, steps which have been and continue to be taken in the direction of a full acceptance of the Convention are encouraging. In this regard, we wish to emphasize, in addition to what we have already stated, the significant progress made at the last session of· the Preparatory Co~ission, especially with regard to the prompt implementation of the pioneer investor regime provided for in resolution II adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. After difficult, arduous and lengthy negotiations and consultations in which the various interest groups involved participated, an understanding was reached establishing machinery and procedures for the registration of ap~licants for pioneer investor status, establishing appropriate conditions for registering the first group of applicants during the next session of the Preparatory Commission. This understanding was adopted unanimously on 5 September of this year. (Mr. Lupinacci, Uruguay) My delegation wishes to point out that this understanding entails a number of !' concessions by count~ies of the Group of 77, in some of which valid reservations were sacrificed rela\~ing to the strict interpretation of resolution Il, with,. view to overcoming o~Atacles which were delaying and could ultimately prevent the Preparatory Commission's fulfilment of its mandate with regard to the implementation of that resolution. It mwst be recognized that some of those obstacles stemmed from practical problems which were not foreseen in resolution 11, but, even so, the understanding was achieved largely because of the fact thst basically the countries of the Group of 77 acted in a flexible and pragmatic manner and focused on the attainment of their. fundamental objectives for the prompt and effective implementation of resolution 11, thus acting with a keen sense of responsibility. Thus we reached a reasonable reconciliation of all the interests involved, including those of the Enterprise. Agreement was reached on procedures and exceptional mechaniams adapted to special circumstances, and essential principles were safeguarded - in particular that of the equal estimated commercial value of the areas allotted to applicants and parallel areas reserved for mining operations by the international authority through the Enterprise or in association with developing countries. Appropriate guarantees were established to ensure respect for these principles by the creation of a group of technical experts to determine whether the requests were in conformity with resolution 11 and the establishment of appropriate procedures• . A time-table was drawn up for the registration of the first group of investors, which implies an end to the indefinite delay in such registration which has already resulted in a two-year backlog and threatened to paralyse the work of the Preparatory Commission. Obstacles were overcome to the normal operation of the COmmission and, therefore, to the fulfilment of its mandate, which is of vital importance for the effective establishment of the regime for the exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed, the fate of which is directly related to that of the Convention itself. We are now entering a crucial stage in which goodwili and good faith will play a vital role in putting into practice the understanding adopted by the Preparatory Commission on 5 September 1986. In that context, we regard as promising the step taken towards the full and effective establishment of a legal order of the sea ~9 set forth in the COnvention. In this regard, Uruguay attaches very special importance to the work of the Preparatory Commission and wishes to emphasize the progress made in preparing rules, regulations and procedures relating to the organs of the authority, the draft regulations on prospecting, exploration and exploitation of polymetallic modules in the area and·on the consideration of the financial provisions of contracts, as well as the preparation of the draft rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. It is Qn these areas that the Commission should concentrate. We also wish to mention other promising aspects of what might be termed a process of consolidation of the new law of the sea. Before entering into force, the Convention is already having considerable influence on State practice in regard to maritime areas. This is mentioned in the interesting report of the Secretary-General contained in document A/41/742 of 28 October 1986. My delegation wishes to state that it appreciates the work that has gone into that report, and in particular we commend the fruitful activities of the Office of the Special Representative. For example, the report refers to the impact the Convention has had on the adoption of national laws which have embodied the concepts and regimes of the COnvention and on the conclusion of agreements and the adoption of declarations and other bilateral or regional instruments. Special mention could be made of the area of the peaceful settlement of disputes among States over maritime questions, especially those arising from the implementation of the new economic zone regime as mentioned in the Secretary-Generales report. It is comforting to note that many States are resorting to jurisdictional procedures for settling disputes, bringing them either to the International COurt of Justice or to arbitral tribunals. Specifically, the International Court of Justice has been supporting the relevant provisions of the COnvention in resolving disputes on the basis of its interpretation and developing a body of law in that regard, especially with regard to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. We also wish to point out that there have been many de1'elopments relatad to the law of the sea in regard to which the COnvention has been a catalyst or has served as inspiration, ranging from the peacefUl uses 02 the sea, the safety of navigation, conditions for the registry of vessels, of special importance for determining the responsibilities of users of the sea, up to the prevention and control of contamination of the marine environment from various sources, the administration of fisheries, the development and protection of species and the conduct of ma~ine scientific research and technological development. It is obvious that the adoption of the Convention, which was preceded by intensive negotiations, has emphasized the importance of the oceans for the development of peoples and in many cases has created a greater awareness of their potential and a true marine mentality. Very positive responses have also been received from international agencies, especially within the United Nations system, through their programmes, reports and activities. (Hr. Lupinacci« Uruguay) The Secretary-Generalis report, in particular, gives us a broad picture of the important work done by the Office of the Special Representative, which has been significantly expanded in response to requirements of the Governments and insitutions which have requested assistance ~ way of advisory services and studies. It has also provided services for the Preparatory Commission, .and has developed a very useful system of information on the new law of the sea, including interesting pUblications, as well as or£anizing a scholarship programme. Uruguay will vote in favour of draft resolution A/4l/L.20, and reaffirms its conviction of the historic importance of the Unite(' Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, once again expressing the hope that the few States which have not yet done so will sign the Treaty as soon as possible and that ratifications will continue to increase rapidly, so that its entry into force, ac-=:eptance and universal application will take place in the not too distant future, thus laying the foundation for peacefUl, orderly and fruitful co-existence of all States in the oceans. Mr. BATlOUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian), The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist RepUblic was one of the first to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because on a whole its provisions are designed to promote the conversion of the world's oceans into a zone of peace and co-operation in the interest of all peoples. On the basis of the Convention a new, unique international organ has been established whose future commercial activities will confer practical benefits upon all Member States. In the report of the Secretary-General on this item ample info~mation is provided concerning the activities of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Of crucial importance for the P=eparatory Commission's further success is the (Mr. Batiouk, Ukrainian SSR) practical implementa~ion o~ the consensus understanding adopted within its framework concerning the implementation of resolution 11 of the Conference on the Law of the Sea. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR concurs with the following conclusion in the Secretary-General's reports WThis decision marks a new stage in the developments of the law of the sea since the adoption of the COnvention in 1982. w (A/41/742, para. 119) The 5 September understanding not only contains all the necessary legal elements for the registration of applications of pioneer investors but also presents a specific programme of action whose implementation will make it possible to effect the registration of applications at the COmmission's forthcoming 1987 spring session in Kingston. The document adopted at the last session is based on existing realities and takes due account of the present situation in the Preparatory COmmission. It takes more fully into account the interests of all sides: the Group of 77, the first applicants, and potential applicants. The document sets out fundamental principles and procedural provisions for site allocation for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the procedures for registering applications of first applicants. This opens the door to the operation of an eqUitable regime governing international sea-bed activities. The implementation of these provisions will make it possible to create in the ~unctional organs of the Preparatory Commission material possibilities for the implementation of the regime that is established in part XI of the Convention.* * MC. Ferm (Sweden), Vice-President, took the Chair. (Mr. Batlouk, Ukrainian SS~) The COnvention has been signed by 159 States and ratified by 32, it has become eloquent testimony of the fact that the countries of the world, acknowledging each otherls interests and demonstrating restraint and patience, can, by compromise and on a mutually advantageous basis, settle the most complicated global issues at the negotiating table. While noting progress in the Preparatory oommissionls work and the growing trend to comply with and implement the conventionls provisions, at the same time we cannot overlook the fac~ that certain states are still trying to boycott thia important mUltilater&l Treaty because of their own selfish interest. By arbitrary unilateral acts, they are attempting to undermine the regtme agreed on under the Convention governing maritime space and deep sea-bed mining in the worldls oceans. In this connection, the Preparatory Oommissionls position of principle is praiseworthy. on 11 April of this year the Commission adopted a declaration in which it rejected any claim, agreement or action that is incompatible with the Convention and related" resolutions, and asserting that such actions were wholly illegal and devoid of any basis for creating legal rights. At the fourth session of the Preparatory Commission the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR was among those who voted in favour of the adoption of that declaration, referred to in paragraphs 123-124 of the Secretary-Generalis report. As before, a significant obstacle for the successful implementation of the agreed provisions of the COnvention is the policy pursued by same States invo17ing unilateral, selective use of its articles concerning the economic zone, the continental shelf and other matters. Such a selective approach is illegal, because the Convention represents an indivisible package of compromises and precludes the enjoyment of its privileges without a concomitant fulfilment of its obligations. (Mr. Batiouk, Ukrainian S~R) The policy pursued by. certain Stetes involving unilateral acts and selective application of certain provisions of the Convention has the obvio~s purpose of: delaying and undermining the process of its adoption. In the policy of unilateral acts and claims can be seen the approach, which has been rejected by the international community, involving the seizure of ocean space and resources, , substituting the imperialist rule of force for the rule of law. Tbe Ukrainian deiegation is of the view that the General Assembly should once again state its adverse view of separate acts and call upon all States to preserve the unified nature of the Convention. Unfortunately, we are compelled to note that there a~e States that verbally and formally declare their accession to the Convention but in signing and ~atifying enter reservations, and also promulgate national laws which in essence are not in keeping with the important provisions of the Convention. The General Assembly should therefore appeal to those States to review their position and enact the measures necessary to bring their national legislation into line with the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Draft resolution A/41/L.20, which has been submitted for our consideration, on the whole reflects the compromises reached in the consultations carried out by the delegations of numerous States. Its adoption by the General Assembly would promote intensified action by the United Nations and interested agencies in support of the Convention. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR is in favour of the adoption of this draft resolution by consensus. Mr. TREVES (Italy): In considering the main developments concerning the law of the sea during 1986, the understanding reached at the end of the New York session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea seems particularly important. (Mr. Treves, Italy) The understanding can be seen 8S a major step towards eliminating the obstacles that have bitherto blocked the iq»lementation of resolution II as far BS regia~ration of pioneer investors is concerned. As everybody knows, according to ~eso1ution 11 of the Third United Nations Conferance on the Law of the Sea, conflicts deriving from overlaps of ll:.i?eaS for which applications for registration are to be made have to be sett1eO by the interested parti-es before applications are made. In fact, early attempts at settling these conflicts between all pioneer investors mentioned in resolution 11 were not successful, mostly for political reasons. Later, four pioneer investors submitted applications befo~e having eliminated their overlaps. In February 1986, with the help of the Chairman of the preparatory Commission, Mr. Warioba, they agreed on a tllechanism for settling their conflicts. This agreement - the so-called Arusha.understanding - diverged from resolution 11 in various points, the most important being that overlaps be eliminated after and not before the applications were submitted. Moreover, as far as all the other members of the Preparatory Commission and all the other pioneer investors were concerned, the Arusha understanding was res inter alios acta, in other words, something in which these other States had had no part and that could not be opposed by or imposed on them. Conseauently, these other states could not be supposed to accept the Arusha Understanding as it stood without seeing that· their interests, collective and individual, were properly protected. The negotiations conducted between the interested groups directly, with the active guidance of Chairman Warioba and later of Acting Chairman Jinghram, had indeed this purpose and, it seems to us, obtained this result, at least within the limits in which a compromise solution can be satisfactory for all concerned. As regards the group of countries to which Italy belongs in this particular context, the so-called potential applioants - in other words, the pioneer investors mentioned in resolution IX who have not submitted applications for registration although entitled to do so - the main positive observation we wish to make on the Understanding of 5 September is that for the first time, through this Understanding, the Preparatory Commission takes into account the interests of the potential applicants. This seems to us a very significant recognition of the role of a group of States that have a stake in sea-bed mining and are actively engaged in the work of the Preparatory COmmission with a view to creating the conditions for the sea-bed mining regime of the Convention to be universally accepted. In particular, the mention of intersessional discussions for resolving ·practical problems· - in other terms, situations of overlap between applicants and potent~al applicants - and the indication that the time for holding these discussions could be prolonged by the Preparatory Commission are signs that the position of the potential applicants has been considered relevant. FOr our part, we wish to indicate that we are actively engaged in the preparation of the aforementioned intersessional discussions and that we will approach them with a businesslike attitude based exclusively on commercial considerations and with a firm will to reach positive results. Other points. in the Understanding that we consider important area the provision according to which the interests of potential applicants have to be taken into account in the so-called relinquishment of areas, the paragraph that provides that potential applicants will have, as from the moment of their application for registration, treatment similar to that of the first group of applicants - a point that implies that they will be entitled to ·self-allocation" of areas, as has been agreed for the first group of applicants, and the provision accord~ng to which the (Hr. Treves, Italy) possible allocation of pioneer sites additional to those mentioned in \ resolution 1I, which was agreed in the Understanding, will be wit.hout prejudice to the interests of the potential applicants. Of course, not everything in the understanding is fully to our liking. We would have preferred a much more direct and explicit mention of the conflicts deriving from ~erlaps, now masked behind a smoke-screen of code words understandable only to the initiateGl, and especially that the solution of the outstanding problems had not been reached through various substantial deviations from the provisions of resolution 11. The other developments in the Preparatory Commission are, in our opinion, much less relevant than the major and positive one I have just considered. We cannot, however, avoid indicating our deep disappointment at the fact that the preparatory Commission, on 11 April 1986, adopted a resolution in which it insisted on the trend that it had initiated on 30 August 1985 with another such resolution of pronouncing jUdgements on the legality or illegality of the behaviour of specifically indicated States. In the view of my delegation, these resolutions are mistakes, in terms of law and of policy. While we were able in 1985 not to impede a consensus on the first of these two resolutions, although noting our dissent, we could not do the same this year when the same mistake was made for the second time. We had to vote against it. We explained our reasons in Kingston. As these reasons are the same as were given last year in the General Assembly in order to explain our attitude concerning the first of the two resolutions, we need not repeat them once again. (Me. Treves, ItalY) 'l'he infort\\al plenary ~d the "four Special Commissions of the Preparatory Commission are continuing their work. With som~ exceptions, the ~ogress they have made is, however, less important than it might seem frOll the amount of paper produced. Most of the qQestions of some political importance, such as the status of observers, decision-making and financial and budgetary matters, have been left pen2ing, as faithfully noted in the valuable report of the Secretary-General (A/41/742) 0 Moreover, it is becodng clear that the informal plenary and the three Special Commissions have tasks of unequal magnitude and of unequal urgency. We wonder whether this should not be duly taken into account in organizing future sessions. I have already said that the Secretary-General's report is valuable. May I now expand that by saying that we can confirm in 1986 what we said in 1985. that the report is "the most authoritative and complete survey of what is going on in connection with the law of the sea in the world". (A/40/PV.lIO, p.26) Some of the developments recorded in the report can be the sta~ting point for some observations. First, various of these developments confirm the important role of the Un;,ted Nations law of the sea Convention's non-sea-bed provisions as accelerating and stabilizing factors in the growth of customary law. We consider it partiCUlarly significant that eight States that had proclaimed territorial seas exceeding 12 miles have new modified their legislation in order to conform to the 12-mile limit se~ forth in the Convention. We hope that others, especially in our region of the world, will follow. It is also interesting to note the expansion of the concept of the exclusive economic zone, which broad concept is now recognized as corresponding to customary law in MOre than one international judi~ial and (Mr. Treves, ItalY) arbitral decision. We must however voice some concern as regards some of the specific details included in legislation adopted by some States on the economic zone as they seem to go beyond what is provided in the COnvention. It is also interesting to note that the new definition of the outer limits of the continental shelf set forth in the Convention is being adopted in the legislation of various States and that when continental shelves adopted under such legislation have been considered contrary to international law by some States this has been indicated not . by saying that the rules of the Convention do not correspond to current international law but by saying that those rules have been inappropriately applied. It is even more interesting to note that some of the States concerned are not signatories to the convention. Secondly, it is worth noting with satisfaction that the law of the sea is the SUbject-matter of an increasing number of international arbitral and judicial proceedings. The indication given in the Convention as to the necessity of submitting to third-party settlement any'disputes that may arise on the law of the sea seems to be followed even before the entry into force of the Convention by an increasing number of States. We welcome this development. We wish also to note with appreciation the well-balanced assessment of the impact on customary law of various provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea that seems to emerge from the judgements and awards rendered so far. Thirdly, the developments in various multilateral frameworks reviewed in the report confirm the impact of the Convention on all the organizations and conferences active on the .law of the sea. We welcome in particular the adoption of the Convention on the Conditions for Registration of Ships, which defines and develops the concept of a "genuine link" which was introduced in 1958 into the Geneva Convention on the High Seas and Which, although repeated in the United Nations Convention of 1982, was not clarified therein. (Mr. Treves, Italy) We note with partioular appreoiation the impressive activities of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). We wish to emphasi~e that, while Italy is satisfied with the measures so far taken regarding violence at sea, there is still need to provide the international community with an appropriate conventional instrument f~r combating unlawful acts against the safety of navigation. For this reason Italy, together with Austria and Egypt, has throughout this year been elaborating, in consultation with numerous oountries of all gloups~ a draft convention on the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation. ~at draft is now completed and was SUbmitted to the ~O at the end of September. In this way Italy, along with the other co-sponsors, is trying to contribute to the implementation of resolution 40/61, on international terrorism, adopted last year by the General Assembly. In our draft, which we hope will soon become a convention, the basic concepts of the new law of the sea are taken into account. The activities of the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, as reviewed in the report, are a olear reflection of the endeavours of a dedicated staff of hi~".I motivated and professionally qualified people, led by the 'Special Representative, Mr. Nandan, to whom we wish to pay a special tribute. The activities ai~ed at developing and co-ordinating co-operation with other agencies and organizations are important and so is the assistance given to various, and especially developing, States. We attach particular importance to the development of the c~nputerized information system mentioned in the report and look forward to information being made available on the modalities for access to this important tool for research. The docume~tary material and the analytical studies announced last year have been duly published. We look forward to seeing the further studies and pUblications announced in ~he present report. In particular we hope that the (Mr. Treves, Italy) Master File Containing References to Unofficial Documents of the Third united Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was mantioned in laat year's report, will soon be available. The Law of the Se~ BUlletin, the seventh issue of which was published rec~ntly, has confirmed itself as a timely source of information and documentation on current de~elopments regarding the law ot the sea. My delegation is of the opinion that ~~3 continuan~ and expansion should be given the highest priority. It would moreover be useful to make it more widely and easily available beyond governmental circles. In conclusion, the report demonstrates once again that there is much more in the law of "~'i!:' sea than deep-sea-bed mining. We are none the less satisfied to note tha~ -Llm as far as the activities on this aspect of the Convention are concerned aome important developments in the Preparatory Commission permit us to see this aspect of the law. of the sea also in a reasonably optimistic perspective. Mr.. GARVALOV (Bulgaria): Allow me first of all to extend to the Secretary-General the gratitude of the Bulgarian delegation for his report on agenda item 32, entitled "Law of the sea". The report outlines the new developments relating to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of 1982, and the implementation ot General Assembly resolution 40/63, of 10 December 1985~ Of particular interest from our point of view is Part One of the report, which analyses the effect of the Convention on the activities of States and of relevant international organizations as well as on the decisions of the International Court of Justice and other tribunals. I should also like to note the useful work performed by the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea in discharging its mandate pursuant to resolution 40/63 and under the medium-term plan. (Mr. Garvalov, Bulgaria) The Bulgarian delegation wishes once again to reaffirm its position of principle in support of the united Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, its full implementation by all States and the new legal regille thereunder regulating the utilization of the sea for economic and transportation purposes, the protection and conBerva~ion of the marine environment and marine scientific reserrch. In this connection, I should like to emphasize the great ~portance of the positive results achieved by the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which undoubtedly contribute to developing a consistent and unifo~ approach to the legal regime established under the Convention. !Or this reason I should like to explain in more detail the position of the Bulgarian delegation concerning the work of the last session of the Preparatory Commission. (Hr. Garvalov, Bulgatia) 'the People IS RepubUc of BU19aria comraends the results achieved by the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for ·the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea at the summer meeting of its fourth session held in New York from 11 August to 5 September 1986. The adoption by consensus of the Declaration on the implementation of resolution 11 of the Conference, which has successfully ref~ected the interests of the first group of pioneer investors, the other pioneer investors and the Preparator1 Commission as a whole, constitutes an important step towards the establishment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea of the sea-bed regime beyond national jurisdiction, as well as of a viable and effective organization for exploration and exploitation of marine resources for the benefit of all maRkind. 'the period for developing count~ies to submit applications for registration as pioneer investors has been ~xtended, while the socialist countries, which had been left out and discriminated against, are now provide~, along with the rest of the pioneer investors, with a mine site. This makes us confident that at the next session of the General Assembly, the Preparatory commission will be able to report on ·the registration of the first group of pioneer investors. 'the Declaration on the. implementation of resolution II is beyond question a substantial step toward achieving the goals of the Preparatory commission. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of extensive and complex work to be done. Particular attention ~hould be paid to questions relating to the effectiveness of the future sea-bed authority. In this context, the issues of equitable geographical and political representation are assuming particular importance. 'the mechanical manipUlation of the qualitative factor, taking no account of other (Mr. Garvalov, Bulgaria) elements, appears to be neither the most equitable method, nor the most useful one. The question of consensus in adopting decisions is acquiring greater importance, particularly in financial matters, for the purpose of avoiding certain difficulties now encountered by international organizations. Bulgaria considers that with a view to assisting exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed under the regime of the united Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, pioneer investors should be encouraged, rather than burdened with excessive financial, technical and other obligations which would only make research and production more costly. As recent research has shown, no sizeable exploitation of marine resources is envisaged for the immediate future. That is why, at this stage, it is diffi~ult to foresee the adverse effects which the exploitation of the mineral resources of the sea-bed may have upon the·land-based producers from developing countries. Under these circumstances, Bulgaria deems it inappropriate at this time to establish a universal compensation system. On all these and other substantive problems, the Bulgarian delegation in the Preparatory Commission has, together with other delegations, put forward concrete proposals. These proposals are based on well-known realities and interests and are within the framework of the regime established by resolution 11 of the Conference. We hope that these proposals will be given due consideration. The positive development in the wor~ of the Preparatory Commission which would facilitate implementation of the regime governing the exploration, the exploitation and management of the resources of the international area and, in the final analysis, the strengthening of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, is only one of the issues which have attracted our attention. As on previous occasions, the BUlgarian delegation declares its adherence to the principle and practice of the unified implementation of the Convention by all States. Moreover, my delegation is authorized to declare that the People's Republic of Bulgaria will make all necessary efforts for the consistent and uniform implementation of the Convention. In this connection, it is our view that the Declarations of the Preparatory Commission adopted at Geneva in 1985 and at Kingston in 1986 are still topical. We call once again for all activities of .. . States relating to utilization of the sea to conform with the provisions of the 1982 Convention. Mr.,ORAMAS OLIVA (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): The Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea recently concluded its fourth session when, after four weeks of complex'negotiations, it reached a consensus agreement which clears the way for registration at the next session of the four pioneer investors - the Soviet Union, France, Japan and India. That would mark the beginning of the international regime for developing the sea-bed as laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. TO guarantee this extraordinary success, ~heCuban delegation appeals to the four pioneer investors and to the six potential applicants for pioneer investor status to ensure the success of the negotiations that were held. As well as assuring the registration of these investors, Cuba appeals strongly to all countries which recognize the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of' the Sea which, for the first time, establishes an overall regime governing the peaceful uses of the sea and its vast resourc~s - and in particular the developing countries - to ratify the Convention. They would thus ensure that it will come into force as the hig~est expression of the decision of the majority (Mr. Oramas Oliva, Cuba) of peoples to establish new, more equitable and more humane international economic relations. In so doing, they would score a victory over those States which absolutely refuse to recognize the norms on the law of the sea which were drawn up and agreed to by the overwhelming majority of the international community. -11... because they want for themselves all of the waters of the oceans and all of the minerals of the sea-bed within reach of their sophisticated technologies- •. Those were the words of our President, Fidel Castro, at the eighth summit Conference of non-aligned countries recently held in Karare. In the view of my delegation, the General Assembly should reiterate and reaffirm in the draft resolution on this item the illegality of all actions to develop the resources of what has come to be called, -the common heritage of . mankilid-, except those provided for in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and by the Preparatory Oommissio~ for the' International Sea-Bed Authori~ and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. To that end, we support the resolutions adopted by the Preparatory Commission at its fourth session. In conclusion, my country wishes to become a co-sponsor of draft resolution A/41/L.20. Mr. YAKOVLEV (Union of Soviet SOCialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian). The world's seas and oceans and their development by mankind are a global issue. The United Nations created a sound and lasting basis for c~peration between States in this .field when, in 1982, it adopted the United Nations COnvention on the Law of the Sea. The comprehensive legal regime established ~ the Convention teflects the legitimate rights and interests of all States. The Convention contains mutually-acceptable compromise agreements that resolve in a single package the most acute and complicated issues of the legal regime of the world's seas and oceans. It defines the rights and duties of all States and creates a unified structure for the international legal settlement of matters relating to ways in which the world'S seas and oceans and their resources can be used. The Convention serves as an example of settlement by negotiations, within the United Nations framework, of important global issues that are of concern to mankind. Its prep.aration and adoption constitute the most impressive and important achievement of the United Nations in recent years and a significant stage in the codification and progressive development of contemporary international law. The Convention makes a major contribution to the strengthening of peace and co-operation between States at sea. The Soviet Union was one of the first to sign the Convention. The Convention bears the signatures of almost all countries - with one exception - from all five continents. The number of States that have already ratified the COnvention is growing. This is the decisive response of the overwhelming majority of States to those forces Which, because of their narrow selfish interests, are trying to boycott the Convention and undermi~e it by unilateral and arbitrary acts. Like the overWhelming majority of States, the Soviet Union condemns such unilateral and arbitrary acts which are sapping the Convention. Nor can we (Mr. Yakovlev, OSSR) agree with those states whioh, when signing or acoeding to the Convention, make declarations at varianoe with its prinoiples and purposes. For example, we oannot reoognize the reservations made by the Philippines with respect to important provisions of the Convention paokage oonoerning the regime governing arohipelagio States. The Convention does not permit such reservations and exoeptions. Basically, arohipelagic States and their regime oan exist only pursuant to a convention. Without a oonvention there oan be no such regime. The new draft Constitution of the Philippines oontains a provision that replaoes the oonventional ooncept of arohipelagic waters by the oonoept of internal waters; this undermines the package agreement embodied in the Convention on the Law of the Sea. We should remember that the Co~vention represents" a single indissoluble package of oompromise understandings between all States. It does not permit the use of certain privi~eges to the detriment of other duties and obligations providgd fo~ under the Convention. Outside the Convention, outside the general and speoifio regime established in the Convention, any unilateral act to establish a regime for maritime spaoe and to appropriate their resouroes cannot be regarded as legal. Unilateral aots and arbitrary deolarations in violation of the Convention are today the manifestation of an illegal policy to partition and grab maritime space and its resou~oes. The irresponsible and adventuristio nature of that polioy oonsists in the fact that it undermines the basis of the use of the world's seas and oceans as a sphere for international oommunioation, trade and oo-operation. Suoh a policy is prejUdicial to the interests of all States, including those pursuing the policy. We oall upon states not to embark on a course of undermining the legal order established by the Convention for the world's seas and oceans. As oan be seen"from the report of the Seoretary-General subnitted to the General Assembly, the Convention has not yet entered into force, but it is having a great positive effect on the activities of States at sea. Many provisions of the (Mr. Yakovlev, USSR) Convention ate acquiring the nature of generally-recognized norms of international law. These norms are becoming norms of conduct for States. This is borne out by the legislation of States, decisions of the International Court, arbitration and many specialized organizations, and above all the International Maritime Organization. An important task for the ~nited Nations and the entire international community is to strengthen the legal order created by the Convention and to oppose acts and declarations which undermine the Convention. Only on that basis can international co-operation in this field develop. Of great significance in strengthening the Convention is the work of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-bed Authority. The Commission recently adopted important declarations which condemn unilateral acts committed by a number of States aimed at seizing the resources of the international sea-bed area. We support those decisions. Clearly the States to which they are addressed should heed the demands of the world community and put an end to their acts which undermine the Convention. Some positive results were. achieved at the last session of the Commission in August and September 1986 here in New York. The understanding reached at the session regarding the implementation of resolution 11 comprises a list of specific measures, the implementation of which should lead to the adoption by the Preparatory Commission of a decision concerning the registration of applications in the .spring of next year. The implementation of those decisions and the registration of applications of pioneer investors will to a large extent determine the results of the work of the .commission and the fate of the International Sea-bed Authority. However, one must be· wary of feeling any possible euphoria and bear in mind that despite their positive significance, the decisions adopted do not put an end to individual acts in violation of the Convention or attempts to block the practical implementation of decisions ~opted by the Commission at its l~st session. Nor can we close our eyes to the ,fact that positive results were achieved by the Commission' at its' laifft:-'session after. a delay of some two years and in conditions when the positions of various participants in the negotiations were guided by their narrow, egotistical considerations rather than by the interests of the Convention. This almost torpedoed the negotiations, and that would have had obvious implications. We consider that the ~plementation of the decisions adopted by the Commission would do much to strengthen the regime set up by the Convention, and the Soviet Union will do everything possible to promote the successful solution of all the important problems facing the Commission, and above all that of the registration of pioneer investors. Now it is necessary not only to maintain and strengthen the understandings reached but also to ensure strict compliance with the procedures and machinery decided upon. Any departure from the understandings and the creation of any artificial obstacles to and delays in the registration of the first batch of applications would undermine the Convention and reflect an unwillingness to provide conditions that would promote the speedy entry into force of the COnvention. The Soviet Union has consistently advocated observance of the principles and purposes of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea. We call upon States to sign the Convention and to participate constructively in the important task of establishing an international legal order on the world's seas and oceans. The Soviet Union, for its part, will do everything possible to make the Convention on the Law of the world's seas and oceans become a cornerstone of lasting international co-operation and peace at sea. We support the .agreed draft resolution contained in document A/41/L.20 presented on behalf of the Group of 77 ·and other States. This draft is aimed at (Hr. Yakovlev, USSR) strengtheninq the Convention and stepping up united Nations activities in this field. We support the ongoing effe@rcts being made in this direction by the Secretary-General as well as· the work being done by the Office of the special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea, under the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Handen. The world'·s seas and oceans represent a global issue for mankind. The Soviet union believes that all States must and can unite their efforts to resolve the problems connected with this issue. From the rostrum of the 27th Congress of the Supreme Soviet, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, at the beginning of this year came out with a proposal aimed at confirming the compreher~sive system of international security. An important role will be played in that system by the co-operation of states in their use of the world's seas and oceans and development of their resources. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea creates a mutually-acceptable legal regime for such co-operation. The United Nations is under a duty to ensure the entry into force of this Convention r~ime, Mr. von WULFFTEN PAL~ (Netherlands)c -The Netherlands delegation wishes to state its position on two tmportant aspects of draft resolution A/41/L.20, na~ before us. The first aspect relates to the developments in the Preparato~y Commission, especially during the New York session, the second aspect, to the status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As regards the developments in the sessions of the Preparatory Commission in 1986, my delegation was pleased to note that the atmosphere in the four sub-eommissions, the informal plenary and the plenary was constructive. Owing to the continued co-operation of all participants - members and observers - important issues were identified more clearly, and, owing to free and frank discussions, considerable progress was made in understanding the problems and the positions of the various delegations. This spirit of co-operation was further evidenced by the fact that the Preparatory Commission adopted by consensus the statement on the implementation of resolution 11, which we see as a hopeful sign for the future work of the Preparatory Commission. My delegation is of the view that the adoption of this statement is an important step towards the actual implementation of resolution 11. I stress "an important step" since we all know that for those directly involved much work has still to be done. We sincerely hope that the time between the adoption of the statement and the beginning of the forthcoming session of the Preparatory Commission will prove to be sufficient· to solve the difficult problems still pending. I assure the Assembly that the Netherlands will make every effort to ensure that the goals embodied in the statement are achieved. The Netherlands delegation participated actively in the negotiations on draft resolution A/41/L.20. There was a constructive atmosphere during the negotiations and a number of important concessions were made by all parties concerned. We are fully aware of the compromise character of the draft resolution on the law of the sea. I am pleased to announce that it enables the Netherlands to vote in favour of the draft as renewed testimo~y of our support of the COnvention on the Law of the Sea and our continuing commitment to the success of the work of the Preparatory Commission. We still ~ish, however, to express some reservations on the draft resolution, and this brings me to the second aspect of the draft resolution - to wit, the status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. My delegation made a clear statement during the debate on the draft resolution that became resolution 40/63 last year, and I want to reiterate this position with regard to the draft resolution we are discussing now. The Netherlands does not agree that the draft resolution accurately refleCts the current status of international law in this matter. We continue to challenge its implicit thesis that the regime for the area, as cont~ined in "the Convention, is binding on all States, regardless of whether they have expressed their consent to be bound. In the debate on the resolution of last year, and during the 1985 and 1986 sessions of the Preparatory Commission, the Netherlands explained its position on this matter at length. My delegation will refrain from repeating itself, but I wish to stress that our position remains equally valid so far as this year's draft resolution is concerned. Finally, the Netherlands expresses its sincere appreciation of the fact that, despite ~hose reservations, it has again been possible this year to maintain unanimity among the signatories of the Uni~ed Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Such unanimity, we are happy to note, has existed ever since the opening of that Convention for signature. Hr. KIRSCB (canada) I It remains canada's view that the 16\'if of the Sea Convention is the only viable me~s by which to bring certainty, stability and international co-operation to the international law-of ~e sea. Although our cOll1l1Dn goal of a regime for the managelllent of the world's oceans and their resources that attracts universal participation has yet ~ be fully realized, we are encouraged by developments this year. We are especi~lly encouraged by the progress made by the Preparatory Commission of the International Sea-bed Authority and the Inter.national Tribunal for the Law of the sea, and by the manner in which the draft resolution that is before us today has been developed. Before addressing myself to these issues, however, my delegation wishes to commend the Law of the Sea secretariat for the usefulness of its many activities, as reflected in the report of the Secretary-General. By ceveloping various computerized data-bases, preparing analytical studies of the legislative history of Convention provisions, and compiling and reporting on State practice, that secretariat is creating not only an invaluable information resource, but also practical tools that can facilitate the task of bringing greater uniformity to the international law of the sea. I referred earlier to the progress made by the Preparatory Commission this year.'Not all of the actions of the Preparatory Commission can be characterized as progress. Some references have been made during this debate, for example, to the declaration adopted by the Preparatory Commission on 11 April 1986. canada was among the States that felt compelled to vote against that declaration. We explained our position at the time, and I shall not repeat it today. Suffice it to say that in our view the declaration did not reflect the current state of international law with respect to the status of the Law of the Sea Convention. Also" it was and remains the conviction of my delegation "that such declarations cannot but create serious divie4~s within the Preparatory Commission - indeed, (Mr. Kirsch, Canada) this became apparent in April. They may result in achieving exactly the opposite of their intended effect, which is the strengthening and general acceptance of the law of th~ sea regime. Subsequent events have been much more en~ouraging. Canada views the understanding adopted at the New York ~eting of the Preparatory Commission on 5 September as a positive development, which refl~ted real efforts by all interested parties to reach a generally acceptable solution to the outstanding prQblems relating to the implementation of resolution 11 of the Law of the Sea Conference. But it is important to realize that this understanding is not an end in itself but only a step in a much more comple~ process. More progress is required before the registration ot pioneer investors can take place, especially with respect to the resolution of overlapping claims between the first applicants and those States, inclUding Canada, that have important interests in sea-bedminin~ and that are identified as potential applicants under resolution 11. The issue of overlapping claims, called ·practical problems· in the understanding adopted in New York, is not within the mandate of the Preparatory Commission, but it is of fundamental importance to us all and its solution is closely related to the full implementation of resolution 11. We are hopeful that real progress will be made in addressing this issue in the inter-sessional period. But it is still too soon to know whether it will prove possible to take a decision on registratioin at the next session of the Preparatory Commission, as is our hope, or whether more time will be required to complete inter-sessional discussions. Both of these possibilities are contemplated in the New York Understanding. More generall~, the main value of the Understanding that was reached in New York is the welcomed tecognition that real progress in the work of the preparatory Commission in all its aspects, and indeed the success of the law of the sea Convention regime in the long term, largely depend on the reconciliatlon of the different but equally valid concerns of a number of States Which Ultimately are working towards the same objectives. We must accept that some problems do not lend themselves to immediate or very quick resolution. Irrespective of developments in the short term, it is essen~~l that the constructive and co-operative spirit demonstrated by the members of the Prepa~atory commission this year remain a permanent featu'e of the Commission's future work. This is true with respect not only to the problem of overlapping claims but also to the development of generally acceptable sea-bed mining rules and arrangements to be developed on the basis of the Convention. Only this approach can succeed in ensuring universal participation in the Convention and ensuring that the law of the sea system will function effectively for the benefit of all mankind. This is and will remain a fundamental tenet of the canadian position. This being said, we consider that developments this year, including the draft resolution that is before us, reflect a commitment on the part of the members of the P~eparatory Commission and the members of the General Assembly to achieve the best possible results through dialogue and co-operation. We recognize and share this commitment. It is in this spirit that Canada has this year, for the first time 'in three years, again joined the sponsors of the draft resolution on this subject. Mr. DAZA (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish) I It is four years since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was signed by 159 countries and has so far received 32 of the 60 ratifications required for its entry into force. We cannot but emphasize once again the enormous importance of this Convention and the impact which it has had, especially in the field of the concrete development of international law, by incorporating new realities and expanding aspects which had been selectively included in previous conventions. Furthermore, it has established new regimes, as in the case of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, which had its origins in Chile 39 years ago and was first recognized internationally in the Santiago Declaration by Ecuador, Peru and Chile in 1952, and that of the sea-bed outside national jurisdiction. '!'he law of the sea Convention has also been able to expand the geographic area of certain institutions which had existed for centuries without changing their fundamental concepts, as in the case of the territorial sea. At the same time, there have been other areas in which the legal regime has been profoundly changed by the provisions of the law of the sea, as in the case of straits used for international navigation. In brief, these adaptations, new interpretations linked to the establishment of new regimes such as those I have mentioned, lead us to conclude that the outcome of the Conference on the Law of the Sea can only be compared to that of the San Francisco Conference in 1945, since both introduced fundamental changes in the structure of the international community. Since the adoption of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, there has bee~ a great surge of activity in that field, from the standpoint of the conduct of States, in the Secretariat and at meetings of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International T~ibunal for the Law of the Sea, as can be seen from the excellent rll'ports subftitted by the Office in char9~ of law of the sea matters. In the case of my country, as a step prior to ratification we have embarked on a process of adjusting the internal regulations in Chile to the provisions of the law of the sea Convention. This is ~articular1y true with regard to the territorial sea, the 200-mile exclusi-ITe economic zone, and the continental shelf, on which the relevant legal provisions have been enacted or are to be enacted in the near future. In this connection, we commend the efforts of the Secretariat to ensur~ universal acceptance of the Convention and its uniform, co-ordinated application. In this regard, the analytical studies on various subjects published by the Secretariat are very useful. We also believe that the-information system covering aspects of national legislation and the documentation of the Commission on the sea-bed and the law of the sea Convention is a very useful instrument which will help countries, especially developing countries, in their search for appropriate ways to implement the Convention in a uniform manner. We are certain that the Secretariat will continue to perform effectively its function of providing assistance and information on all aspects covered by the Convention. Other important activities relating to the Convention on the Law of the Sea are taking place in the preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Created as a concrete expression of the provisions of part XI of the Convention, the Commission, since its establishment, has held four fruitful working sessions. During this period progress has been made in the preparation of norms for the Authority and its organs, the international Enterprise and land-based producers, and in drawing up the mining code for activities in the international zone. That work has been important because it has led to quite accurate identification of the practical problems which the COmmission must resolve. The COmmission should hasten its quest for solutions to those problems. At the same time, in no other area has the work of the Preparatory COmmission been MOre important than in the solution of problems which prevented the implementation of resolution 11. It must be recalled that that resolution establishes, on a provisional basis, pending entry into force of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, conditions for access and activities in the international zone. It was a concession on the part of the developing countries intended to Obtain the signatures of those countries which were in a position to carry out such activities. The problems which delayed its implementation were due on the one hand to the fact that some of those countries did not sign the Convention and on the other to the position' of those which, having signed the Convention, misinterpreted the terms of resolution 11. However, we believe that the results obtained at the last session of the Preparatory Commission are significant. At that session were set forth the rules and procedures for the registration of countries as pioneer investors, a necessary prerequisite for using this provisional regime, which is the first step towards undertaking activities on the sea-bed beyond national jurisdiction under the provisions of the convention on the Law of the Sea. '!be international zone is thus included in the areas in which the conduct of States will begin to be governed by this international instrument. We should like also to emphasize some of the aspects of the difficult agreement reached this year. We must emphasize the fact that the Preparatory Commission, and in particular the Group of 77, complied with its obligation to resolve the problems which impeded the implementation of resolution 11. The develcping countries gave an example of flexibility and pragmatism by accepting a formula which in a very detailed way describes the rights that it grants and is vague and ambiguous with regard to ~~e obligations it imposes. It is now for those that benefit from. this agreement to comply in good faith with its provisions, so that the-pioneer investors will in fact be registered within the time-frame stated in the agreement. Without prejudice to the foregoing, perhaps the most interesting aspect of what was agreed upon'by the Preparatory Commission was the formula it found which, while preserving the fundamental principles governing the regime, principles we firmly endorse here, provided for the necessary adaptations and adjustments to accommodate the new situations which had arisen since the adoption of resolution 11 four years ago. This approach should not be fortuitous or exceptional, it should be used to resolve those problems that arise when the assumptions on which the specific provisions of the COnvention on the Law of the sea rest have been changed because of new facts or the passage of time. The problems resolved with regard to resolution 11 show that this can be done, with satisfactory results for all interested parties. Perhaps the most important achievement of the Convention on the Law of the Sea . relates to the progressive development of international law. The regime of the sea-bed beyond national jurisdiction is one of the fundamental aspects introduced into the law of the sea by the Convention. It is our duty to preserve these provisions which regulate the modalities for access, use and benefit in the international zone, thus advancing the principles and objectives of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and also those of the United Nations Charter. Hr. BAYASHI (Japan): First of all, I should like to express my delegation's deep gratitude to the Secretary-General and his Special Re~resentative for the Law of the Sea, Mr. Satya Handan, for the excellent report contained in document A/4l/742, prepared in response to the resolution that this Assembly adopted last year under the current item. The report is c'o~rehensive in its coverage of recent developments relating to the united Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and, together with another useful pUblication of the Office of the Special Representative, the Law of the Sea Bulletin, constitutes a valuable source of information for Governments and international organizations, as well as scholars and students, in almost every field of ~he ever-expanding law of the sea. I should like to take this opportunity to express my delegation's special tribute to the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Mr. Joseph Warioba, the Prime Minister of the united Republic of Tanzania, as well as to the Vice-chairman of" the Preparato~y Commission, Mr. Jhingran of India. for the tremendous efforts they made during the year, particularly with regard to the QUestion of implementation of resolution 11 of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. At its summer meeting this year the Preparatory Commission made major progress in one of the key areas of its work. I am referring, of course, to the un~nimous adoption on 5 September of the Understanding establishing mechanisms and procedures for the registration of applicants for pioneer status under resolution 11. My delegation is pleased that consensus was reached on this extremely complicated and difficult question, especially since it participated actively and in a constructive spirit in the negotiations throughout the Preparatory Commission's session this year. We sincerely hope that the agreement, which takes into account the interests of all groups of States as well as those of the Enterprise, will greatly facilitate the COmmission's efforts to fulfil its mandate rf bpl_nting resolution XI in such a way as to be acceptable to all States concerned. There are certainly many more problems which the Preparatory COmmission must resolve before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea enters into force with the participation of a great majority of States as parties. We are encouraged by the progress made in the key area this summer and, perhaps even more importantly, by the constructive and pragmatic spirit deaon~trated by all groups of States. We are convinced that the way is now paved for further progress on those problems. It is essential, therefore, that all States concerned continue to co-operate in the same spirit in order to lay the groundwork for the entry into force of a truly viable and universal regime for managing the sea-bed and its resources. Mr. KOROMA (Sierra Leone). The Sierra Leone delegation is pleased to note that the United Nations COnvention on the Law of the sea has continued to enjoy widespread support, as ~~"idenced by the unprecedented number of signatures appended to it and the growing number of ratifications. It is also clear from the report that, although the COnvention has not yet entered into force, its impact and considerable influence are already apparent in all aspects of the law of b~e sea and marine affaire in general. My delegation would like to express its ~ ~preciation to the Secretary-Gen~ral for the comprehensive report he has presented pertaining to every aspect of the ocean and its use, ranging from maritime safety and navigation, the prevention and ~ntrc:>l of marine pollution and the suspension of all dumping at sea of low-level radioactive wastes, to marine research, while at the same time ensuring the right of free access to and from the sea and freedom of transit for land-locked States. It is indeed a cauprehensive report, and my delegation is accordingly grateful to the SecretarY-General. Also of special importance to my delegation is the progress ~ich the Preparatory commissLon for the International sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea continues to make under its able Chairman, Mr. Joseph Warioba, Prime Minister of the united RepUblic of Tanzania. Under Mr. Warioba the Preparatory Commission has continued to operate in a calm, positive and constructive atmosphere. In the view of the Sierra Leone delegation, the progress achieved during the Commission's fourth session t~is year is·nothing if not remarkable. The adoption of an Understanding providing a mechanism and procedure for the resolution of overlapping sea-bed mine sites is patently positive and represents milestone in the work of the Preparatory Commission - indeed, a new stage in the development of the law of the sea since the adoption of the Convention itself in 1982. That Understanding, as the report suggests, tafc~s_~!'to account the interests of all groups of States and the Enterprise. It should give practical effect to the new regime for deep sea-bed mining under the Convention. The consideration given to potential pioneer investors as reflected in the Understanding emphasizes the fact that the Preparatory Commission has acted equitably to safeguard the interests of all States. The Sierra Leone delegation therefore hopes that all States will lend their support to this Understanding and ensure its full implementation. My delegation continues to hold the view that any agreement or action outside the Convention would be incompatible with it. . Finally, my delegation ack~ledges the catalytic role which the Secretariat - under the leadership of the Secretary-General's Special Representative, Mr. Satya Randan - has continued to play in upholding the Convention and expresses the hope that advantage ~ill be taken of the constructive and workmanlike atmosphere which now prevails in the Preparatory Commission to resolve outstanding differences. Mr. KIBIDI NGOVUKA (zaire) (interpretation from French): Agenda item 32, entitled -Law of the sea-, of which the General Assembly is now seized, gives my delegation an opportunity to comment on certain important problems connected with the implementation of the Convention. My delegation would like to pay a. tribute once again to the legal experts from all over the world for their magnificent work in preparing the outstanding legal instrumeut that is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is the result of patient efforts, concessions of many kinds, pragmatism and the legitimate ambition of States Members to share equitably the mineral resources of the sea-bed and the ocean floor and the zone beyond the Umits of national jurisdiction. What could be more pleasing and important in the annals of international law than the excellent results achieved by the Unil~d Nations, in which the sea-bed and the ocean floor are considered to be the common heritage of mankind? It took nearly 14 years, but when in 1982 at Montego Bay, the States parties signed the convention it was in a spirit of general ,satisfaction. It is certainly a victory over the outdated concept of the law of force. We can thus properly consider the existence of this Convention a historic contribution by the United Nations to the maintenance of peace and justice and to progress for all peoples of the world. As testbnony to this excellent result, Mr. Bernardo Zuleta, the then Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea, wrote as follows: -The Convention, in the multiplicity of its aspects, is a monument to international co-operation in the establishment of treaties. Once the need for a new regime governing the law of the sea was realized, the collective will of the international community was demonstrated on a scale unprecedented in the history of treatie~. The preparation of the Convention, to the extent that it was an attempt to establish a just and eauitable international economic order on all aspects of the seas and oceans, aimed at universality.- My country signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea, with faith and enthusiasm, in 1982 at Montego Bay and, like other Member States, has from the outset participated in the discussions and debates in the Special Commissions established to make the various institutions provided for in the different resolutions operational. Like many other countries. Zaire hopes that the various differences that have emerged over the years between the countries concerned - notably between the pioneer investors of the first group and the Group of 77 - can be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. (Mr. Kibidi Ngovuka, zaire) Zaire commends the results attained at the fourth, summer session of the Preparatory Commission in respect of provision for the speedy and effective implementation ~f the Commission of resolution 11 of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of ~he Sea. Zaire would like to avail itself of this opportunity to pay a tribute to Mr. Warioba, Prime Minister of the united Republic. of Tanzania, for his tireless ~fforts as Chairman of the Preparatory Commission on the law of the sea, and to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Their efforts led to the Arueha understanding, which is considered by all to be an acceptable basis for discussions between pioneer investors of the first group to resolve the problems of the overlap of mining sites. (Mr. Kibidi Ngovuka, Zaire) zaire, iike other countries, is a land producer of minerals such BS copper, cobalt, manganese, wolfram, tin and bauxite. ~ country therefore is particularly interested in the compensatory measures that should be taken to protect our mining industry from the competition that will result from the exploitation of po1ymetal1ic nodules on the sea-bed. Th~s we hope that in the face of scepticism and discriminatory measures envisaged by the developed countries, all countries concerned will rally to the vie~int of the Group of 77 which rightly advocdtes the ~lementationof compensatory machinery. Justice would thus be done to our countries because the prcvisions of the Convention which, not~bly in paragraph 10 of article 151 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, calls upon the Authority to establish a system of compensation or take other economic adjustment assistance measures to assist developing countries which suffer serious adverse effects on their export earnings or economies resulting from a redt~tion in the price of an affected mineral or in the volume of exports of that mineral, to the extent that such reduction is caused by activities in the area. My country, which stands firmly for strict compliance with the Convention, concurs fUlly with the views expressed in draft resolution A/41/L.20 on the law of the sea, hacause we are of t~e view that this draft perfectly covers the concerns of the international community as a whole. It will therefore vote in favour of this draft, even though we hope that it can be adopted by consensus. In the light of all the elements that 1 have developed on this issue, my delegation has decided to become a co-sponsor of dra~t resolution A/4l/L.20.

I no~ call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting on draft resolution A/4l/L.20. May I remind delegations that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to ten minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Hr. LU'l'EM (Turkey): My delegation's views on the item under consideration have been explained on various occasions at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and in the General 'Assembly. Turkey has always joined the efforts of the United Nations in connection with the law of the sea; it contributed actively to the drafting of the Conventions of 1958, pa~ticipated for six years in the work carr,ied out by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses ef the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and toiled for many years at the Third Conference. It is regrettable that the Conference could not satisfy in its entirety the expectations of the international community, as a result of which no consensus was achieved and the Convention was submitted to a vote at the final stage. Turkey was obliged to vote against it with some other countries, as we had difficulties with some of the provisions of the Convention which did not meet Turkey's vital and legitimate interests. That is Why my delegation voted against the draft resolutions submitted on the item during previous sessions and will do so 1n connection with draft resolution A/4l/L.20. Mr. SCBRICKE (France) (interpretation from ?rench): The French delegation first welcomes the adoption on 5 September 1986 by the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Law of the Sea Tribunal of the Declaration on the implementation of resolution 11 (LOS/PCN/L.4l/Rev.l). That decision represents an impor~ant step towards registration of the ap~lications of the first four pioneer investors, and my delegation is gratified that this result was attained by consensus. Attempts to achieve a consensus are essential in the work of the Commission. It is that same spirit which made it possible this year to produce the draft resolution before tis, and my delegation, which noted with satisfaction the significance that it attaches to this important Commission decision, wi1i vote in its favour. We also note that the draft resoluti~n refers to developments in the preparatory Commission. In this connection, the delegation of France, while it recalls the statement made by the Chairman of the Commission on 30 August 1985, and the vote that it had to cast on 11 April 1986, would like to emphasize that it wishes to participate actively in the Commission in the spirit of open-mindedness which it has always shown in order that a system acceptable to the entire international community may be established. Mr. TOBAR ZALDUMBIDB (Ecuador) (interpretation from ~panishJ: Ecuador has not signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea because we consider that it does not reflect fundamental Ecuadorian interests and rights. However, Ecuador contributed largely to the formulation and inclusion in that Convention of important principles on the rig~ts of littoral countries over all living natural resources in their seas up to the 200-mile limit, regardless of the habits of those resources, so long as they are within the maritime ambit. It also did so with regard to the sea-bed under national jurisdiction. My country wishes to reiterate once again its position of firm support for the right of exploitation, use and marketing of the resourees of marine areas beyond the n~tiQnal jurisdiction of littoral countries, in accordance with the principle of tho common heritage of mankind. For that reason it cannot accept any unilateral. exploitation aimed at weakening that principle directly or indirectly. For these reasc~s, the delegation of Ecuador will not participate in the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.20 on' the law of the sea.

Before beginning the voting process, I should like to announce five additional co-sponsors of draft resolution A/4l/L.20. Those additional co-sponsors are Bahrain, Costa Rica, Haitl, L~sotho and Zaire. The Assembly will now begin the voting process and take a decision on draft A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussi;.n Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Centr~l African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican RepUblic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraa~ Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, p~m~nia, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and NevJs, Saint Lucia, Saint ~i~~ent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Turkey, United States of America Abstaining: Germany, Federal Republic of, IBrael, Peru, united Kingdom of Great Britain and No~thern Ireland, Venezuela Draft resolution A/4l/L.20 was adoRted by 145 votes to 2, with 5 abstentions (resolution 41/34) •

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote after the vote. Mrs. GROSS (United States of America): Once again my delegation has reluctantly had to cast a negative vote on a resolution concerning the law of the sea. The United States, as we have stated in the past, views the 1982 United Nations 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, that runs contrary to united States policy and to that of others \~10 share our views concerning the future development of resources on the bottom of the deep sea-bed. Con&equently, the United States has not signed the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. One of the reaSOns why the united States is opposed to this resolution is that it continues fundi~g from the general budget of the United Nations for the Preparatory Commission on the International Sea-bed Authority and .the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. As we have noted in the past, the costs of the preparatory Commission should be borne by nations that are party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. . The Preparatory Commission was created by a treaty separate from the United Nations Charter; therefore its costs cannot be assessed against all United Nations Members as part o~ the united Nations budget, since they do not represent legitimate -expenses of the Organizationwithin the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the united Nations Charter. We remain opposed to such improper assessment and are dp~ermined to resist such abuses of the United Nations budget and the united Nations Charter. The united States will continue to withhold its pro rata share of the united Nations annual assessment from the regular bUdget that pertains to the fUnding of the preparatory Commission or is earmarked to support the implementation of Part XI of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea• The United States position on the legality of exploration .and exploitation of deep sea-bed resources under international law is ~ll known. As we have stated many times, the United States and its nationals, like other States and their nationals, have the legal right to explore and exploit deep sea-bed resources. Under international law such activities are a lawful exercise of high seas freedoms. The United States and its nationals intend to exercise those rights with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in their exercise of high seas freedoms. In addition, this year's resolution once again speaks of the unity of the 1982 Convention on the law of the sea and calls upon all States to safeguard the unified character of the Convention and related resolutions adopted with it. This cannot be understood as a limitation on either the right or the duty of all States to act in accordance with those portions of the Convention which reflect customary international law. Having said that, I wish to emphasize the United States view that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea has many positive aspects. The united States will continue to co-operate with the international community to ensure that the important principles enshrined in parts of the COnvention other than Par~ XI are widely respected. Mr. RIVBRA (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish) a My delegation abstained in the voting on the draft resolution, but that does not keep it from recognizing the historic value of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and its significance for international co-operation as a basis for peace and development. For almost 40 years our country has been promoting the rights of coastal States over their adjacent seas up to a 200-mile limit, and has endeavoured to contribute to the process of establishing a universal regime for the use of the sea-bed. For that reason it looks favourably upon the united Nations COnvention on the Law of the Sea and the work of the Preparatory commission. Peru follows with speci~l interest the development of this new law and the progress made to date, and hopes that all this will contribute substantially to consolidating the new law, with the full participation of all Member States of the Organization. The Peruvian delegation wishes ta state that it is continuing to analyse the implications for Peru of accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This will enable the executive and legislative branches of the Government to adopt a decisi~n in accordance with our national interests. Mr. VILLAGRA DEWADO (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish) I ~gentina interprets the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 4 of the resolution just adopted in the light of the statement it made on 5 OCtober 1984, at the time of the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (C.N 253.1984, Treaties-10), and in particular of the last paragraph of that statement. ~e PRESIDENT. The Assembly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 32.

I give the floor to the representative of Qatar, who will speak on behalf of the Arab States. Mr. AL-KAWARI (Qatar) (interpretation from Arabic): On behalf of the Group of Arab States, of which I have the honour to be Chairman this month, I wish to make a statement on the agenda item before us. The policy of apartheid practised by the Government of the white minority in Pretoria has been under consideration by the General Assembly, in all its heinous aspects, since 1946. (Mr. Al-Kawari, Qatar) The Security Council has also dealt with that question unceasingly since 1960, and yet southern Africa is still a blot on the record of the activities of our Organization. in connection with the struggle against colonialism and raQism. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Porms of Racial Discrimination, which came into force in 1969 and to which the overwhelming majority of the ~mbers of the international community have acceded, categorically prohibits segregation and discrimination among the people of any country for reasons of race or colour, and prohibits recognition of the right of one part of the population to vote while the other part is depr:Lved of tliac r:Lght. It also prohibits the creation of separate parliaments on the basis of colour or race. Regardless of whether South Africa has or has not acceded to that Convention, the provisions of that instrument are not mere contractual rules that commit the signatory countries, but, rather, an integral part of the rules of international law which are binding on and applicable to all countries without exception. Yet the racist regime of South Africa continues to deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of its right to participate in the government of the country. That regime continues to treat the overwhelming majority of the population 1n a humiliating manner, denying them th~ status of citizen, which is reserved for a minority which established itself in the country at the time of the hated colonialism. The white minority regime in South Africa is resisting the irreversible tide of history, and outrageously repressing the majority, which it has deprived of its rights, reso~tin9 to blind, desperate violence in defiance of a situation that everybody now appreciates - namely, that the regime in South Afr:Lca, with its racist ideology and institutions geared to domination by one element of the popUlation, is an ephemeral regime, irretrievably condemned to disappear either peacefully or in an upsurg~ of legitimate and courageous violence. (Mr. ~l-:Kawar i, Qatar) The sanctions prt)vided for by the United Nations and imposed on the racist regime through maD'ly resolutions have not borne fruit ~cause they have not been fully implemented by those that defy the will of the international community and collaborate with the racist regime of South Africa, in particular the zionist entity. Like the Pretoria regime, it is racist in character in that one part of the population arrogates power to itself, ~hile the rest are considered second-class citizens. Everybody knows that the continuance of the co-operation between Israel and the Pretorim regime has serious conseauences for peace and security in southern Africa and throughout the world.. The latest report of the Special Committee against Apartheid contains alarming details of the continuing collaboration between those two racist regimes. The Committee concluded that ftThere is a continuing trend of increasing collaboration between Israel and South Africa in all areas, particularly in t~e military and nuclea~ fields." (A/4l/22/Add.l, para. 39) That conclusion in the report, reached after consideration of all the details of that collaboration in its most recent forms, must ~~ taken fully into account by the international community and should encourage it to take appropriate measures to counteract the effects of that undesirable co-operation, which endangers international peace and security. Despite all the for~'oing, we have recently seen a ray of hope on the horizon in the black night of apartheid. ~verything leads us to believe that the continuing racist tragedy and the stepping up of Pretoria's acts of oppression and violence have shocked the world conscience. Even certain institutions of certain countries whose veto has been the shield that has protected the racist regime of Pretoria against mandatory sanctions have been shocked. (Mr. AI-Kawari, Qatar) . Deve~opments on the question of apartheid a~ in the posit~~ns of States give us cause for opt~ism'and lead us to bel~eve that the manner in which the international community deals with the q~l1estion of the Pretoria regime has changed consideral'!y. We hope that the will of the world community, which for a long t~e has been to put an end to the r&cist regime, will soon be translated into a reality that will wipe out this blot from the face of mankind, that a new page will be turned in the life of the population of South Africa, free from discrimination, that understanding will replace conflict and that all will particip~te in the government of that country in the interest of the whole population. The meeting rose at 8.10 p.m.