A/42/PV.73 General Assembly

I now call on representatives who wish to explain their votes. I would remind representatives that, in accordance with decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. LUTEM (Turkey): On var ious occasions my delegation has stated in the Assembly its views on the item now under consideration and explained its negative' votes on the draft resolutions. Those negative votes should not, however, be construed as a sign of indifference on the part of my delegation to the law of the sea in general, as Turkey has striven for many years for the codification of that law. Indeed, Turkey has always joined in the efforts in this field. It contributed to the drafting of the 1958 Convention, worked in the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and worked closely with other delegations at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Turkey, wi th regret, had to vote against the final result of that Conference since it had) and still has, difficulties with some of the provisions of the Convention, provisions which run counter to its vital and legitmate interests. Accordingly my delegation will, as in previous years, cast a negative vote. Mr. SILJANDER (United States of America): My delegation must again, reluctantly, cast a negative vote on a draft 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 achievement in the development of international law relating to the oceans. Unfortunately, the Convention contains one part - part XI - that runs counter to United States policy and to that of others which share our views concerning the future development of resources on the deep sea-bed. Therefore the United States has not signed the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Nevertheless we welcome the resolution of the deep-sea-bed mining conflicts, which affected the commercial interests of United States companies, and commend the efforts by the respective parties to find practical solutions to commercial problems. We recognize that it is in the interest of all States to avoid conflicts over uses of the ocean, regardless of their positions with respect to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the United States is opposed to this draft resolution because it contains a reference to funding from the general budget of the United Nations for the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for 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 which are parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Preparatory Commission was created by a treaty separate from the United ~ations Charter, therefore its costs cannot be assessed against all United Nations ~embers as part of the United Nations bUdget, as they do not represent legitimate 'expenses of the Organization" within the meaning of Art icle 17, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter. We remain opposed to such improper assessments and ar~ determined to resist such abuses of the United Nations budget and the United Nations Charter. The United States will therefore 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-se a-bed resources under international law is also well 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 draft 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 uni fied 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 this, 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 the parts of the Convention other than part XI are widely respected. Mr. SCHRICKE (France) (interpretation from French): The French delegation would first like to welcome the successful solution in the summer of this year of the practical problems facing the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The overall settlement relating to the resolution of the overlap conflicts is a decisive step and my delegation is very pleased at this result. The Preparatory Commission, which has already decided by consensus to register India as a pioneer investor, should be able to take a decision very soon on the applications of France, Japan and the Soviet Union. My delegation has noted with satisfaction the place given to these results and prospects in draft resolution A/42/L.20. We also welcome the spirit which prevailed in the preparation of that text and we shall vote in favour of it. I should like to take this opportunity to recall the position which we expressed in 1986 with regard to developments in the Preparatory Commission and to stress that we wish to continue to participate actively, in the same spirit as we have always demonstrated, in the work of the Commission, so that a system may be created which can be accepted by the entire international community. I would not like to conclude this explanation of vote without paying a tribl e to the Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea - the new title of the Office, as explained in paragraph 168 of the report of the Secretary-General (A/42/688), of which note is taken in the last paragraph of the preamble to the resolution. Under the leadership of the Special Representative of the Secretary-GenEJral for the Law of the Sea, the Office will continue to carry out competently the tasks assigned to it, the wide variety of which is clear from the Secretary-General's report. That excellent report, like the reports of previous years, is a veritable mine of information on developments during the year with regard to maritime affairs and the law of the sea. The Office of the Special Representative is also responsible for the publication of some very useful documents, particularly the periodic Bulletin. W hope that the Bulletin will continue to be pUblished regularly and, without discrimination, in the working languages of the Secretariat.

I have to announce that Bahamas and the Byelorussian SSR have become sponsors of draft resolution A/42/L. . The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/42/L.20. 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, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byeloru8siar Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Centra] ~frican 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, Equatorial Guinea, (Mr. Schricke, France) Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, 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, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaraqua, Niger, Nigeria, Nor~ay, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, 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: Ecuador, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Peru, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela Draft resolution A/42/L.20 was adopted by 142 votes to 2, ~ith 6 abstentions (resolution 42/20).

I now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes. Mr. VERGAU (Federal Republic of Germany) The Federal Republic of Germany, in abstaining in the voting on the draft resolution on the law of the sea, has had regard, as in previous years, to its position as a State that is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, we would like to take this opportunity to express our satisfaction at the resolution of the problem of overlaps between the mine-site claims of certain pioneer investors. We are particularly satisfied that this has been achieved with the participation in a constructive and pragmatic way of all those concerned. We consider this progress to be important for the further work of the preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in which we take a great interest. The results achieved in connection with the implementation of resolution 11 of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea lead us to hope that other problems too related to the deep-sea-bed mining regime of the Convention on the Law of the Sea may be addressed in this way. As we all know, very important problems are still ahead of us. In co-operating in the solution of those problems we feel deeply committed to a comprehensive, universally acceptable convention on the law of the sea. As we had occasion to state in June of this year in the Economic and Social Council, we welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General in providing assistance and advice to Member States in the development of marine areas under their jurisdiction in accordance with international law. The Federal Republic of Germany relies very much on co-operation with all interested States in this field. Mr. VILLAGRA DELGARDO (Argentina) (intepretation from Spanish): My country interprets the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 4 of the resolution just adopted in accordance with the statement of 5 October 1984 when it signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (C.N.253.l984. Treaties-lO), and in particular the last paragraph of that statement. Mr. BIRCH (United Kingdom): As in the case of similar draft resolutions in previous years, the United Kingdom abstained on the draft resolution just adopted. We did so against the background of our position as a non-signatory to the Convention. The United Kingdom still maintains its objection to the sea-bed regime set out in part XI of the Convention. My delegation would like to take the opportunity, however, to say that we welcome the registration this year of the Indian deep-sea-bed mine site and look forward to the successful registration of sites for France, Japan and the USSR in December. We are also pleased to see that the concerns of a number of other countries which have interests in deep-sea-bed mining have been taken into account in the recent discussions, so that conflicting claims will not hamper future efforts to achieve a universally acceptable deep-sea-bed regime. This augurs well for future efforts to achieve an acceptable regime as envisaged in General Assembly resolution 2749 (XXV). We continue to work towards this in the Preparatory Commission. Lastly, we welcome the reference in the resolution to the work of the Secretariat. This work promotes a number of useful elements of the Convention, much of which is, as we have frequently stated, acceptable to the United Kingdom. Mr. VELASCO MENDIOLA (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Peru recognizes the historical and legal value of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and considers that its contribution to international co-operation is inestimable as a basis for the development of peoples. Peru follows the work of the Preparatory Commission with great interest and congratulates the new Chairman on the negotiations that resulted in the solution of the problem of overlaps and pioneer investors contained in peN.90 and PCN.91 adopted without a vote at the session of the Commission last summer. (Mr. Birch, United Kingdom) The delegation of Peru highly values the registration of India as a pioneer investor 20 years after the proposal to declare the use and exploitation of the sea-bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction as a common heritage of manKind. Also important to the development and implementation of the mechanisms provided for in the Convention are the agreements reached on the registration of France, Japan and the soviet Union also as pioneer investors before 30 september 1988. We should note that, in the Secretary-GeneralIs report in document A/42/68B there is a detailed account of the progress made by the Preparatory Commission and the spirit of co-operation which prevailed in the negotiations as well as recent events with regard to the Convention. For those reasons, Peru's abstention in the vote should not be construed as moving away from an understanding of the historic advances made with regard to the mechanisms of the Convention. Rather, it reflects a situation which is under constant review and, bearing in mind the progress made, should enable us to take a prompt decision in keeping with our national interests.

We have thus concluded consideration of agenda item 32. AGENDA ITJ:i:JIo1 144 APPLICATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU TO B~COME A PARTY TO THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (A/42/L.25)

I call on the representative of Vanuatu to introduce the draft resolution. Mr. VAN LIEROP (Vanuatu): I have been asked to announce that Papua New Guinea and Samoa have joined in sponsoring the draft resolution. On behalf of Papua New Guinea, Samoa, and Vanuatu, I have the honour of introducing and recommending to the Assembly for its adoption draft resolution A/42/L.25 on the application of the Republic of Nauru to become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. By now, most delegations are well aware of the fact that the South Pacific is a region of the world which contains many of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories. The importance of the United Nations system to those Territories and the newly emergent nations of the region is obvious to everyone and can never be overstated. There are, however, a number of South Pacific island States which, for a variety of reasons, have not yet become Members of the United Nations and its various affiliated bodies. In some instances, economic constraints are obstacles; in other instances, very small populations and geographic remoteness are the obstacles. None the less, the countries of the South Pacific region continue to be steadfast believers in the united Nations and in the rule of law, particularly with regard to relations between free and sovereign States. Accordingly, we are pleased to sponsor and urge the unanimous adoption of Nauru's application to become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. We look forward to the day when all the island States of the South Pacific will be positioned to contemplate becoming full and active participants in the United Nations system. We believe that the draft resolution nOw before us to be another of the many steps on the path of our co~non journey to universality of the United Nations and universal acceptance of the rule of law as exemplified by the In the past there have been other instances of non-Members of the United Nations becoming parties to the Statute. Thus, Nauru's application is both consistent with our Charter and supported by precedent. This application has already received the support of the Security Council and is a most timely reminder to us all of the proper place of law and respect for jUdicial institutions in contemporary civilization.

The General Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/42/L.25. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt the draft resolution? Draft resolution A/42/L.25 was adopted (resolution 42/21).

We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 144.

I call on Mr. Kenneth McKenzie, Rapporteur of the sixth Committee, to present that Committee's report on agenda item 131. Mr. McKENZIE (Trinidad and Tobago), Rapporteur of the Sixth Committee: I have the honour to present to the General Assembly the Sixth Committee's report on agenda item 131. The Treaty on the non-use of force in international relations was originally included in the agenda of the thirty-first session of the General Assembly in 1976 at the request of the Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics. At that session, the Assembly decided to allocate the item to the First Committee and, at the appropriate stage, to refer it to the Sixth Committee for examination of its legal implications. At its thirty-second session, the General Assembly decided to establish the Special Committee on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Use of Force in International Relations, composed of 35 Member States. The Special Committee started its important work in 1978. At its thirty-third to thirty-ninth sessions, the General Assembly continued its consideration of the item and renewed the Special Committee's mandate. At its fortieth session, the General Assembly decided that the Special Committee should continue its work with the goal of drafting a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations and, at the earliest possible date, as an intermediate stage, a declaration on the non-use of force in international relations, as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes or such other recommendations as the Committee deemed appropriate. At its forty-first session, the General Assembly decided that the Special Committee should complete a draft declaration and submit its final report to the Assembly at its forty-second session. The Special Committee met in March 1987 and successfully concluded its work on the draft Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations. In the course of the current session of the General Assembly, the Sixth Committee considered the report of the Special Committee on the work of its 1987 session, and, on 13 November, adopted without a vote draft resolution A/C.6/42/L.4, sponsored by Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyrpus, Egypt and Italy, approving the Declaration. The report of the Sixth Committee is contained in document A/42/766 and Corr. 1. The Sixth Committee hereby recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the draft resolution entitled, "Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations·, with the text of the Declaration annexed thereto.

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the report of the Sixth Committee which is before the Assembly this morning. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Sixth Committee in paragraph 9 of its report (A/42/766 and Corr.l). The Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May 1 take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 42/22).

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their positions. Mr. PETROVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): The Soviet delegation fully supported the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, which has just been adopted by the General Assembly. It is a document of great political importance. By fleshing out and developing the principle of non-use of force in international relations, in the context of the realities of the nuclear and space age, the Declaration reinforces the obligations on the non-use of force, as contained in the United Nations Charter, as well as in a series of multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements and treaties of the post-war period. The Declaration is a weighty political document of a multi-dimensional character, in which the basic aspects of the principle of the non-use of force stand out in stark relief. The Declaration focuses the efforts of States on alleviating tensions in the world by removing the threat of war, preventing an arms race in outer space and ending it on 8arth, and achieving general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. As pointed out in the Declaration, in the current international situation there is no reasonable alternative to peaceful relations among States. This reflects the importance of the principle of peaceful coexistence among States as a universal principle of international relations. The philosophical and moral significance of this document lies in the fact that universal values are given top priority at a time when the problem of the survival of mankind is looming large because the advent and threat of the use of nuclear weapons have called into question its very existence. The adoption of the Declaration facilitates the consolidation of the trends towards the internationalization of efforts to safeguard global security and establish a nuclear-free and non-violent world. In the current complex international situation, lending the greatest possible effectiveness to the principle of the non-use of force is in the security interests of all States, large and small. The approval of the Declaration is a major contribution of the United Nations to the process of shaping the international legal order, in keeping with the requirements of safeguarding universal and equal security and instrumental in eliminating the current gap between the political practices of States and universal moral and ethical standards. The Soviet delegation would like to stress that the drafting of tl'le • ~,' ,t, " Declaration became possible thanks to the collective efforts of the entire world community and the broad efficient co-operation of socialist, non-aligned and Western countries. This document is the common achievement of the United Nations. It reflects a reasonable balance of interests of different countries. There are nC losers or those whose interests have been harmed - it is the entire world communitl and the cause of peace that stands to gain. The adoption of the Declaration on the non-use of force gives us particular satisfaction, because from the very moment the Soviet State was born, our country has consistently advocated banishing war as a means of resolving disputes. This underlies precisely the 15 January 1986 programme proposed by the Soviet Union for eliminating nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. This is precisely how we intend to continue striving for peace, not by military means, but by a reliable comprehensive system of security equal for all which would exclude the threat or use of force in any area of international relations. In conclusion, we would like to express our confidence that the Declaration ve have adopted will occupy a special place among the United Nations decisions aimed at promoting political and legal guarantees of global security. The approval of the Declaration is an important political result of the forty-second session of the General Assembly and a major accomplishment on the part of the entire world community. The Declaration, adopted on the basis of the general consensus of all States is, in our view, a manifestation of the new political thinking - the kind of thinking where concrete results which meet universal human aspirations are achieved through compromises and mutual interests. Mr. OTT (German Democratic Republic): The delegation of the German Democratic Republic regards the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, which has just been unanimously adopted, as a significant result of the politics of realism and broad-based constructive dialogue that has also marked the current session of the General Assembly. After 10 years of what were sometimes difficult negotiations, a political and legal docunlent has now been arrived at, ~hich gives additional substance to one of the fundamental principles of international law in conformity with the new international conditions and adds new elements to it. The Declaration, we believe, clearly demonstrates that complex questions which in the past seemed virtually insoluble owing to contrary positions of the sides concerned can be successfully resolved by means of a new political approach and the readiness to take into account the legitimate interests of the other negotiating partners. In the conditions of the nuclear and space age, the adoption of the Declaration by the General Assembly marks a timely and necessary step on the road to a safer world. Today, any attempt at resolving contentious international issues by the threat or use of force is absurd, since that would endanger the existence of mankind as a whole. (Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic) Therefore, the Declaration points to concrete ways and means by which States, in their bilateral and regional relations, and by making full use of the potential inherent in the Charter of the United Nations, could greatly assist in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of refraining from the threat or use of force. The full application of the provisions of the Declaration by States and the competent organs of the United Nations would, at the same time, be a very useful contribution towards the creation of a comprehensive system of international peace and security. The Declaration was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly, and it is now essential for the States Members of the Organization to show the same degree of unanimity in implementing this important document in the practice of international affairs. The common goal of security for all States, on the basis of equality and in all areas of international relations, can be attained only by strict observance of the generally accepted rules of international law, which have been reaffirmed and further elaborated in the Declaration. The German Democratic Republic has been and remains ready to play an active part in this endeavour. Mr. ALZAMORA (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): with regard to the draft resolution which has just been approved, the Peruvian delegation wishes to recall its statement on the subject in the Sixth Committee, which appears in document A/C.6/42/SR.21 of 13 October 1987.

We have thus concluded consideration of agenda item 131. The meeting rose at 1.20 p.m. (Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic)