A/43/PV.41 General Assembly

I propose that th~ list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed this morning at 11 o'clock. I therefore request representatives wishing to participate in the debate to put their names on the speake~s' list as soen as possible. If I hear no objection I shall take it that the Assembly so decides. !t was so decided.

I call first on the representative of Cape Verde, as Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/43/L.18. Mr. JESUS (Cape Verde), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a major achievement of this Organization in its effort to solve through diplomatic negntiations important problems of our time. The international regUlations for the orderly and peaceful use of the oceans and their resources provided fot in the Convention constitute a landmark in the history of the progressive development and codific~tion of the international law of the sea undertaken within the United Nations framework. With the adoption of the Convention in 1982 the international community showed that difficult and complex ftatters such as those that for many years captured the imagination and elicited the dedicatiop and painstaking efforts of the delegations participating in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea can be successfully disposed of through negotiations. The centr ibution of the Cawention on the Law of the sea to a more stable world and to the strengthening of peace and security in the oceans cannot escape anyone. Its beneficial influence in guiding the actions and policies of States regarding the seas and their resources is reflected in the national legislation' of various States, the general trend of which has been to uphold the policies, concepts and rules contained in the Convention, thus contributing to the creation of more uniform State practice in this field. The success registered by the Convention ever Sbl;:;'~ ita adoption and the bread support it has received, as illustrated by the unpreC6dentedly high number of signatures affixed to it, has been, as we all know, the result of hard and protracted negotiations undertaken at the Third Uttited Nations Cooference an the Law of the Sea.. The famous procedure of negotiation by consensus undoubtedly enlarged the prospects of universal support eor the Convention. Today, in the Preparatory Commission, we continue the hard work undertaken in the past by the Conference on the Law of the t;ea. This work has proved to be as time-consuming and sensitive as the work during that Conference. Indeed, the interests at stake are many and the issues complt!!x. The need to accommodate ~verybody's position and to build on the rich legacy left to us by the Conference 00 the Law of the Sea therefor~ invites careful consideration and handli.ng of the issues at the negotiating table. The consensus approach in the negotiating process has always guided us in the Preparatory Commission as it did in the Conference, conscious as delegations are of the importance of the work of the Commission for the future implementation of the CQi7ention's regime for international sea-bed resources, as well as for respect for and universal accession to the Convention as a whole. The progress so far made in the Preparatory Commission, although tiJM-eonsuming, has been based on solid ground, thus boding well for the future worlc and for the univ.ersal1ty of the new law of the sea as contained r.n the Convention. Progress ~•.!ls been registered in one way or'lmOther in all areas fallin9 within the purview of the mandate entrusted to the Preparatory Conunission. Although much still remains to be done, I am confident that we shall be able to finish successfully the task entrusted to the PrePilrator.y COlll1lission. It may take some time, but negotiations on I1IlStters of such importance 6lld magnitude require time, dedication and, above all, a great deal of patience. The registration ef the pioneer investors is a oasa in point. The negotiations that rude it possible took a long time, far more time than anticipated when resolution II was being negotiat3d and adopted in 1982. The goodwill and patiencx shOHn by all delegations involvC!d finally bore fruit when, in 1987, the Preparatory COllllliissicn, thtouqh Ha General COlil18ittee, took the historio d3cision to regiater the first group of pioneer investors pursuant to applications submitted to it by Franoe, Indie, Japen and the SO'1iet Union. Ifi th that registr03tion the Preparatory COII!iilission took C p;lajor step in the fulfilment of its mandate and became itself a pioneer by, or. behalf of mankind and i for the first time in history, granting (~rtain rights to and imposing certain obligations en States with regard to i~~~t&nt resources of our planet. I am hopeful that the spirit of goodwill and compromise that prevailed throughout the negotiating process leading to the pioneers' registration will guide ~ur future deliberations in tha Preparatory Commission and help us to discharge our mandate successfully to the benefit of peace in the oceans and co-operation and just relations among nations. It gives me great pleasuIe and is an honour to introduce, on behalf of the sponsors, draft resolution A/43/L.18 on the agenda item under consideration. The draft resolution was originally sponsored by 44 states - which are listed in the document - representing a wide range of Members of the United Nations from all the regional groups. The sponsors are: Algeria, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Kuwait, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Singapore, SOlomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tunisia, the Ukrainian Soviet SOcialist Republic, the United RepUblic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu and my own country, Cape Verde. Tb these must now be added the following additional sponsors: the German Democratic Republic, Thailand and Trinidad and TObago. This large number of sponsors of the draft resolution before us is certainly a manifestation of the wide support it enjoys. As with similar texts in previous years, the draft resolution is the result of consultations among interested delegations. It follows the same pattern in both its preambular and its operative parts. Fbr the most part the draft resolution retains the wording used in the past, with just a f2W necessary editorial changes. (Mr. Jesus, Chairman of the Preparatory Commi~sion for the International Sea-bed Authority and for the International Tribunal f0t;. the Law of the seal I will endeavour to explain the substantive changes introduced into this year's draft resolution. In the fifth preambular paragraph, the term "the Area" is now defined in accordance wi th the Convention and the declara tion of 1970. In the ninth preambular paragraph, there is a reference to the progress made in the Preparatory Commission since its inception, including the registration in 1987 as pioneer investors of Institut fran9ais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer, the Government of India, Deep OCean Resources Company Limi ted and YtJZIMORGmIOGIYA, whose applications were submitted by the Governments of France, India, Japan and the SOI1iet Union, respectively, bearing in mind that such registration entails both rights and obligations. The tenth preambular paragraph notes with 8atisf~ction "the designation by the Preparatory Commission of reserved areas for the Authority frolll the application areas submitted by the pioneer investors, pursuant to resolution II·. The fourteenth preambular paragraph notes with appreciation "the important initiative of the secretary-General in c01'1\"enin9 an inter-agency meeting on international and ~egional developments in ocean affairs and law of the sea". This meeting, the first of its kind since 1982, was to facilitate co-ordination and co"'Operation in marine affairs between the agencies of the United Nations system. The fifteenth preambular paragraph reflects the deep concern of the international commy~ity at the current state of the marine environment. (Mr. Jesus, Chairman of the preparatory Commission for the International Sea-bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the sea) Turning new to the operative part of the draft: resolution, there are no significant changes in operative paragraphs 1, 2, 3r 4, 5, 6 and 7. Operative paragraph 8 expresses the General Assembly's satisfaction ·at the historic decisions of the Preparatory Commission of 17 August 1987 and 17 December 1987 to register the four pioneer inv~stors sponsored respectively by India, France, Japan and the Union of SOviet Socialist Re~blics and to dasignate reserved areas for the Authority·. Operative paragraph 9 reflects the sentiments of the General Assembly, which ·Looks forward to the early and satisfactory conclusion of the current consultations in the Preparatory Conunission on the i~lementation of the obligations of the registered pioneer investors and the· certifying States·" The wording of operative par:graph 10 is identical to that in previous years' resolutions. Operative paragraph 11 expresses the appreciation of the General Assembly IIlfor the report of the 5ecretary-General prepared in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 42/20 and requests him to continue to carry out the activities outlined therein •••• The current report of the Secretary-General (A/43/718), 20 October 1988, extensively cO'Iers a wide range of developllfants relating to the United Nations CClnvention on the Law of the Sea. It describes in detail the present status of the Convention, State practice and national policy, settlement of conflicts and disputes and other developments regarding such matters as the peaceful uses of the (Mr. Jesus, Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the InternatIonal Sea-bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the taw Of the sea) oceans, mad time law, world shipping, protection and preservation of the marine develupmant. environment, marine science and technology, and fisheries management and The report also covers the deliberations in 1988 in the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Finally, the report COvers the activities of the Office of OCean Affairs and Law of the Sea. There are no substantive changes in operative paragraph 12. Operative paragraph 13 apprOl1es the decision of the Preparatory Commission to hold its seventh regl'llar session at Kingston, Jamaica, from 27 February to 23 March 1989 and to held a summer meeting in 1989. In operative paragraph 14 the Secretary-General is requested to report to the Convention and all related activities and on the implementation of the present draft resolution. In operative paragraph 15 the Secretary-General is further requested to prepare for the forty-fourth session of the General Assembly a special report on recent developments related to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in light of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This request is based upon the concern of the international community at the state of the marine environment. Since the Convention contains extensive provisions related to the marine environment, it is expected that the special report will reflect the important developments related to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in light of these provisions. Finally, in operative paragraph 16 it is decided to include in the provisional agenda of ths forty-fourth session of the General Assembly the item entitled "Law of the sea". Therefore I invite delegations to vot.e affirmatively on this draft resolution. ~. BERN~ (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): An examination of the excellent report introduced by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General delltOllstrates once again the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a corner-stone and general constitution for the seas. The g~neral and continuous practice indicates that an increasing number of States are conducting themselves in conformity with the principles and rules laid down in the Convention. This practice has turned the Convention, although it is not yet formally in force, into a body of international customary hw. In addition (Mr. Sernal, Mexico) to the 159 signatures and 35 ratifications the Convention now enjoys, there are an increasing number of declarations by groups of States in support. of it. It should be recalled that this year there have been the Final Declaration of the Conference of Heads of Governments of the Caribbean COIIIJiIunity and the Declaration of the Conference of States of the Zone of Peace and Co-operation of the SOuth Atlantic. Likewise it is significant to point out the growing adaptation of national legislation to the intp.rnational law embodied in the text of the Convention. It is encouraging that 106 States formally recognize the limit of 12 nautical miles tor the territorial sea, in conformity with part n of the Convention, and the recent promUlgation of national legislation regarding marine scientific research. My delegation, along the lines of the draft resolution the Assembly has before it, wishes on this occasion to appeal to States to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention when they promulgate their internal legislation. Six years after its adoption, the Convention on the Law of the sea has become the indisputable legal basis for peaceful settlement of disputes, since it sets forth a range of approaches to mutual undersltanding that assure States that they can peacefully enjoy the seas and their re50urc~s. The International Court of Justice, in its last four decisions relating to questions of determination of maritime jurisdiction, has referred to the Convention as a body of principles and rules that are indivisible and generally accepted as international law. Moreover, the Convention. establishes a broad framework for the achievement of more specific agreements. The Convention continues to be the fundamental ~cuNent for the deliberations of international conferences held under the auspices of the United Nations or specialized agenoies. With regard to the future convention on illicit trafficking in drugs and psychotropic substances, my delegation cannot accept any alteration of the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the sea, and therefore we hope that the new provisions, in so far as they refer to the high (Mr. Bernal, Mexico) seas, will be formulated in conformity with article 108 and other applicable provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. For the foregoing reasons, we can affirm that the Convention on the Law of the Sea provides the best prospects for a wor Id wi th fewer problems in regard to the ocean spaces and the most rational and peaceful means of resolving such problems. We are aware of the complex regulation encompassed by the Convention, and we understand why there has been delay in the process of ratification. TOday once again we appeal to those States that ha"c not yet done so to ratify or accede to it. The formal entry into force of the Convention will bring with it an enormous number of benefits for the whole international community. Certain difficulties, not always valid, that a minority of States have regarding provisions of the Convention do not justify reopening negotiation of it, especially after 14 years of intensive work. As has been stated by the Secretary-General with regard to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Winternational law is already irrevocably being transformed in so far as it refers to the oceans M• For that reason we hope that that minority of States will show a real political will and a constructive spirit and accede to the Convention, in order to strengthen this memorable achievement of the international community. Since 1971, in Sub-committee III of the Preparatory Commission, Mexico has advocated the enunciation of essential pridciples as regards the basic duty of States not to contaminate the marine elivironment but to arr ive at formulations of international liability for damage c~used to other States or to the common heritage of mankind. we observe with satisfaction the request made in the draft resolution to the Secretary-General to submit a wide-ran9ing report on the increasingly serious deterioration of the marine environment. Paragraphs 75 to 132 of the report of the Secr~tary-Generalattest to the immediate and urgent need to address (Mr. Bernal, Mexico) the task of protecting and preserving the marine environment, on the basis of the agreements reached in the Convention on the Law of the Sea. My delegation would like at this time to make a few comments on the work of the Prepsratory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authori~ and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The decisions of the Preparatory Commission to register France, Japan and the Soviet Union as pioneer investors, in conformity with the Convention, resolution 11 and the agreements of the Commission, represent an important step forward. These decisions, together with the previous one of August 1937 to register India, put into effective practice the international administration of this regime of the common heritage of mankind. The creation of the International Sea-Bed Authority and the Enterprise for the carrying out of activities in the zone has become an inescapable imperative for the international community and the United Nations. I should not like ·to:·continue without expressing my delegation's appreciation to Ambassador Jose tub Jesus~' under whose able chairmanship these historic agreements were achieved. The registry, as the decision establishes it, is based on the principle that enjoyment of the rights and benefits involves an ineluctable commitment to fulfil certain duties and obligations, in order to strengthen a global and equitable legal order and to enhance the legal principle that the resources of the sea-bed are the common heritage of mankind. In this way, my delegation once again urges the pioneer investors to comply completely and fully with their obligations deriving from their registration, in conformity with Article 2 of the UniteJ Nations Charter and article 300 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. In this regarcl, we would have preferred the ninth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution to be more explicit. We do not deny the difficulties involved in applying an international regime, but we cannot agree with groundless reasons as to changes of circumstances with respect to the fulfilment of obligations. We must use imagination and boldness in seeking solutions for the application of the obligations and rights deriving from registration. My delegation will continue to adopt a constructive attitud~ in consultations for this purpose in the Preparatory Commission. However, we should like to emphasize that we consider the decision on the registry as a single whole, and there is no reason to accept attempts to modify its provisions. In conclusion, I should like on behalf of my delegation to pay a tribute to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and to all the personnel of the Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. In addition to carrying out its tasks efficiently, the Office is conducting a valuable editorial project, pUblishing excellent studies on various aspects of the Convention and a periodic bulletin, which we hope will continue to be published. Mr. KIBIDI NGOVUKA (Zaire) (interpretation from French): Once again the item on the law of the sea is being discussed in plenary meeting of the General Assembly. This is symptomatic: i,ndeed, while it is generally admitted that there is progress at the various negotiations which take place alternately in New York and Kingston within the framework of the spring and summer sessions of the preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, there are none the less grey areas relating to a certain number of questions. This means that everything is not the best of all possible worlds regarding items dealing with the law of the sea. Quite clearly, as in all negotiations between developed and developing countries, interests do not always coincide. That is why the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives rise to diverse interpretations, which at times are contradictory to the point where, on occasion, it is said that some people actually want substantially to change the Convention. But, as we know, the mandate of the Corr~ission is not to change the Convention, but quite simply to adapt it, to supplement it where necessary and to make its legal interpretation less complicated. The draft resolution on the law of the sea, which is before the plenary meeting in document A/43/L.IB, is evidence of the interest of the international community in the sea-bed and ocean floor, which has been unanimously considered as the common heritage of mankind, in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2749 (XXV), adopted on 17 December 1970. Indeed, the draft resolution reaffirms the pr~isions contained in the relevant resolutions adopted earlier by the General Assembly on the law of the sea. This seems the appropriate time for me to consider two questions which have been the subject of an exchange of views during the last spring session of the Preparatory Commission, recently held in New York. Essentially we are discussing the question of the training of personnel in marine sciences and the question of applying compensatory measures to protect the developing land-based producers of certain minerals which will be exploited in the sea-bed and ocean floor under the relevant provisions of the Convention. Regarding the question of personnel training, my delegat~on has already expressed its views on this subject. We feel that the poo~ly equipped countries and the underdeveloped countries should benefit from the developed countries in terms of adequate assistance for technical training for activities that will take place within the Enterprise. This is a political and moral imperative, because it will be necessary to give the same chances for employment to future trainees and employees of the Enterpr iSt! once it is able to discharge its functions. What must be avoided at all costs is to take the easy way out, which would lead to a kind of inferior training, thus causing legitimate dissatisfaction on the part of the poor 1y equipped countr ies. fobreover, we are pleased that thus far there has been unanimity on this point. &It is it not essential to reconcile the points of view of the trainers with the requirements of the Governments and states concerned? In th re<Jard to the system of compensation provided for, especially ar tic1e 151, paragraph 10, of the Un! ted Nations Conven tion on the LaW' of the Sea, mv delegation feels that it is indispensable for the signatories to the Convention not to seek to avoid their obligations, but i:ather to face up to them. Indeed, under the United Nations Cawention on the Law of the Sea, signed in Montego Bay in 1982, it is explicitly stated that the Authority should establish a system of compensation or take other measures of assistance to facilitate economic adjustment, so as to come to the assistance of the developing States whose economies and export earnings are seriously affected by the unfavourable results of a drop in mineral prices, to the extent that that drop or reduction is linked to activities carried out in the area. My country, which signed with faith and enthusiasm the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, in Montego Bay, is participating, as are other Member States since the beginning, in discussions and debates organized within the special commissions established to make the various institutions provided foi:' in the resolutions adopted operational. Like many other countries, zaire would like to elimina~e the various contradictions which have appeared over the years among the countries concerned, especially contradictions between the first group of pioneer investors and the Group of 77, in keeping with the provisions of the Convention. zaire is, like certain other States, a land-based producer of minerals, such as copper, cobalt, manganese, wolfram, tin and bauxite. Consequently, my country is especially interested in compensatory measures which should be taken to protect our mineral industry from competition that will arise once exploitation of the polymetallic nodules on the sea-bed takes place. Thus, we hope that, given the scepticism and discriminatory measures envisaged by the developed countries, all countries concerned will rally to the point of view of the members of the Group of 77, which rightly advocate the implementation of compensatory measures. This is merely a question of justice and equity. In conclusion, I should like to express m¥ delegation's satisfaction at the secretary-General's report in document A/43/718, which presents in an objective and well-documented manner the various questions dealing with the law of the sea. The effort made to produce that dOcument is indeed meritorious. Since the essential point is to support draft resolution A/43/L.18, I also wish to say that this draft resolution clearly expresses the concerns of the international community. My delegation, therefore, will support it and hopes that it will be adopted by consensus. Russian): The discussion of the question of the law of the sea at the present session of the Gene~al Assembly is taking place at a signifcant time. There is a broadening aspiration to ensure that there will be primacy of international law in ~litics. The efforts to establish a global legal system for the seas, in ~eeping \11 th the principles and s'i:andards of the United Nations Convention on the Law of ~e Sea of 1982, also move along the same lines. The implementation of the (~OlWention, which encompasses through its ,:ules two thirds of the surface of our planet, affects the vital interests of all States and of the entire world conununity. It's quite clear that standing behind the question of the law of the sea is ~he global problem of the world ocean with all its multifaceted nature and complexities. The sea is a natural road linking all States and peoples. The ocean \Jas and remains the cradle of life. Here we find the sphere of application of colossal efforts by man to egtract from the depths of the ocean huge resources of onergy and protein. Here, we see the formation of overall planetary climatic and (:'Oologioal processes which ensure the existence of the biosphere on the planet. It is exceptionally important that the expanses of the seas becom-. forever clenuinely peaceful and secure for all. Joint efforts are necessary by the entire ~~ternational community in order to free the world ocean and the planet as a whole Crom any types of threat or use of force, and from any military and naval shows of florce. Everyone is alarmed by the growing symptoms of a worsening ecological condition of the world ocean. This understanding, the concern about the future, ~hr~ all of us to think about our common responsibility for such a state of 012fa irs and to use our joint efforts to pronote the develo~ment of fruitful octivities by th~ United Nations in this important area. Tht: foundations for co-operation at sea in the interest of all peoples hava been laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It ~egulates the use of all the expanses of the seas and of its resources. The legal system established by the Convention reflects lofty common human principles of morality and a respectful attitude towards the interests and rights of each State and of each people. Instead of a policy and a practice of seizing and then splitting up the expanses of the seas and its resources, instead of force and &ttempts at solutions using force to solve complex problems, th~ Convention defines ways for gen6rally acceptable agreements by taking into account the interests of each State. The Convention paves the way for a complete Battlement and for collective interactions by all groups of States. Essentially, it reflects a trend towards new political thinking based on the L~derstanding of the integrity and the interdependence of a complex and contradictory world of today. The Convention makes up a significant part of contemporary international law. It lays do~ international standards of conduct for States in the use of the spaces and the resources of the seas and oceans from the coastal :l:ODeS to ta'le very depths of the ocean itself. It provides machinery for global interaction in solving compley. problems of protecting the marine environment &nd of combating pollution of that environment. A smoothly operating system for settling disputes according to the Convention strengthens and develops the system mich is contained in the Charter of the united Nations itself. It op:!ns up new hor hens for enhancing tho role of the Un i ted Nations International Court of Justice. A new approach is laid down in the Convention and various aspects of activities at sea serve as a stimulus for further efforts by States to achieve the full potential of the United Nations as an instrument for comprehensive intern&tional security. The fundamental idea of the Convention is to strengthen co-operation by all States in the world ocean. The efforts of the entire international community should be geared towards these ends. The awareness of a deep responsibility and realism should help us overcome those obstacles which hinder the universalization of the Convention and should also help us establish condi tions for the effective co-operation of all States in building a global legal system for of the seas. The Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Law of the Sea Tribunal is ~lled upon to play a significant role in doing this. The solution to the problem of registering the applications of the four pioneer investors, including a Soviet firm, gave a new positive stimulus to the work of the Prepsratory Commission. The activi ties of the Commission are more and more turning towards the solution to questions of application of the Convention. Naturally this process cannot be an easy one; nor is it an unamiguous one. To solve many proble..i19 which ar ise we do have ready solutions. As member s know, during the drafting the Convention on the Law of the Sea even greater difficulties were encountered. None the less, thanks to a spirit of mutual understanding, thanks to taking into account the balance of interests and the efforts of all interested parties~ these difficulties ~ere successfully overcome. The constructiveness of the approach by all participants, together wi th the experience acquired up until now, allow us to count on the fact that the preparatory Commission will be able to promote the development of international co-operation a great deal in the development of the resources of the international sea-bed area, and do so on a just basis. We hope that the activi ties of the Commission in developing this kind of universal co-operation will, under the guidance of its Chairman, Ambal_sador Jesus, be able to prollDte participation in the Convention by all States and promote the pratical est:&blishmant of a Cawention-based legal system in the wor ld ocean. That is a responsible task. In its unswerving support ior the Convention of the Law of the Sea, the Soviet Union advocates a realistic approach in the work of practical implementation of its provisions. (Mr. Bykov, USSR) We feel that it is necessary to find compromise solutions to those problems of the deep-sea-bed regime which are creating substantial difficulties preventing the accession to the Convention by a number of States. The report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, document A/43/71S, shows not only the multifaceted work of the preparatory Commission but also the activi ties of various international organizations and of the United Natiokls Secretariat intended to implement the International Convention on the Law of the Sea. We support these activities and we attach great significance to them. Great efforts to strengthen support for the Convention and observance of its provisions in practice by all States are being undertaken by the Secretary-General. In the report he has presented we find reflected "the inoreasing concern of the international community with the protection uf the global environment". (A/43/718, para. 3) The report quite justifiably points out: "The kleed to protect and ensure the future of the seas and oceans calls perhaps more than ever before for enhanced international co-operation, combining the requirements for international security, econ~mic development and environmental balance. The emergency of the new concept of environmentally sound and sustainable development, together with new concerns over global climate and ecologic1 balance, are already having a considerable impact on the focus and scope of international oo-operation, including that involving ocean issues." (~.) It can be seen quite clearly from the report that in our day there is no area in the use of sea and ocean spaces which is not encompassed by the Convention. At the same time, as we can see from the report, insufficient attention to specific areas of the CQwention is starting to have a negative impact on the practice of implementing its prwisions. we already drew attenticn to the fact that national legislation by some States either departs from provisions of the Convention or assumes an inadmissibly bread interpretation of those prwisions. The legal aspects involved in implementing co-operation in carrying out scientific ~esearch at sea require very careful attention. An alarming situation is building up in the area of the protection and preservation of the marine environment. These and many other questions demand careful attention and detailed study. The time clearly has come to think about where and when we can begin duly to consider all of these problems tdhich have matured. The !lctivies of the Office for OCean Affa irs and the Law of the Sea, headed by Under-Secretary~eneralMr. Handan, deserve our full support. Recently this Office, in addition to its work in supporting the Preparatory Commission, was able to ~~tend its activities into other areas as well, areas linked with the Co:tVention and with the implementation in practice of a Convention-based legal system. With regard to the draft resolution submitted for consideration by the General Assembly, document A/43/L.l8, in our view it correctly reflects the united Nations activities in strengthening the Convention and is geared towards a further 9O~1 in constructive efforts in the Preparatory Commission and also in such other important areas as the establishment of erA Convention-b!lsed legal syste!!!. The Soviet delegation supports this draft. Mrs. \'ALOES 1=EREZ (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): The United Nations Comention on the Law of the Sea has entered a decisive phase after completion of the reqistration of the four pioneer investors, one of the two fundamental objectives of the preparatory Commission of the International Se5-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the sea• (Mr S. Valdes Perez, Cuba) The Preparatory Commission is now facing a complex phase, which is the fulfilment by France, the Soviet Union, Japan and India of the obligations to be Jlet by the pioneer investors set forth in the documents that served as the basis for their registration and which they undertook from the outset to respect, but to which some of them ere now objecting, alleging changes in economic conditions as between the per iad when ,.\e Convention was adopted and the present time. Among these obligations there are three of particular sign! ficance~ the annual payment of an assessment of SI million beginning from the allocation of the mining site and which will becor.te effective men the Authority approves the plan of workJ exploration, at the request of the Preparatory Commission, of the area reserved for activities by the Authority through the Enterprise or in association with developing StatesJ and provision of training at all levels to ~rsonnel designated by the Commission. Of these three obligations of the pioneer investors, the first - the assessment of S1 million per year - is clearly established in paragraph 7 of resolution XI. The second - exploration of the mining site according to the Authority. It is being alleged that this is established by paragraph 12 (a) (i) of resolution 11, claiming that they be paid the cost of exploration plus 10 per cent interest, forgetting that in paragraph 14 of the annex of the declaration of the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission of 11 september 1986 (document L.4l/Rev.l) on the application of resolution U, much latet' t!u'ln its adoption, it is clearly established that, without prejudice to the, provisions contained in paragraph 12 (a) (i) of the said reaoluticn, the first group of applicants will assist the Preparatory Commission and the Authority in the exploration of Cl mining site for the first operation by the Enterprise and the preparation of a plan of work relating to the said mining site. As is spelled out further, after (Mrs. Valdes Perez, Cuba) registration the conditions and scope of this assistance will be considered. As regards the third point, training for personnel designated by the Preparatory Commission, in par&graph 12 (a) (i) of resolution 11 no payment is called for this task; none the less they are claiming payment for it. Given this complex situation faced by the Preparatory Commission, it is clear that a substantive negotiation is called for, particularly between the first four pioneer investon and the Group of 77.. For the developing cotmtries, free exploration by the pioneer investor s of the site reserved for the Author ity is p&rticularly important, as is training free of charge for the Preparatory Commission for technical personnel selected to work in the Enterpr ise of the Authority, and for the pioneer investors it seems clear that their primary concern is the annual payment of the Sl million assessment to the Authority when initiation of the exploitation seems to have been postponed for a number of year s - it is not yet spelled out but is certainly not imminent. Looking at this objective situation, my delegation considers that negotiation around these points - which would lead to satisfaction of the legitimate interests of our developing cOl\lntries and take into account the concern which we consider the principal objection of the pioneer investors - would lead decisively to overooming the principal obstacle that arises in the path of ensuring the effective application of the United Nations CClnvention on the Law of the sea, which is the second fundamental objective of the Preparatory Commission. ----- - In concluding this part of the statement, we feel it is important to renew our appeal to the 159 countries which have signed the Convention, showing their acceptance of it in principle, and particularly to the developing countries to ratify it, thus guarante~ing the effective observance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and wi th it the achievement of the principle that the overwhelming majority adopted near ly two decadas ago, the pr inciple of the common heritage of mankind~ Mr. ABDULLAH FADZIL (Malaysia): My delegation wishes to take the floor today to make a brief statement on this important item relating to the law of the sea. As representatives will recall, it was the General Assembly that on 17 December 1970, in its resolution 2749 (XXV), proclaimed that the sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction as well as the resources of the area are the common heritage of mankind. Since that momentous proclamation, international efforts under the aegis of the United Nations have been directed towards drafting and codifying a new law of the sea which, in late 1982, culminated in the United Nations Ccxwention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention was signed by 159 States, and to date it has received 35 ratificati9ns of the 60 required before it comes into force. Malaysia, for its part, has signed the Convention, and we are at present work ing towards ratificatiQn. We urge others to do likewise so that the Convention can enter into .'force at t!le earliest possible date and, with that, bring into existence a new legal regime for the uses of the ,;;,ea and its resour'ces. My delega tion would like to express its deep apprecia tion to the Secretary-General 1;01:' the very comprehensive report on the law of the sea, the fifth such report he has submitted to the General Assembly, in document A/43/7l8. The report is invaluable in t.l1et it is the only report presented to any internatialal f~um which provides a totality of the various current ~evelopments (Mr. Abdullah Fadzil, Malays?:!) that have taken place on the law of the sea. We therefore look forward to the submission of a similar report at the next session of the General Assembly. The cootents of the secretary-General's report will certainly receive our closest attention. However, at this point we wish to draw attention to the reference made to Antarctica. My delegation, with others, has already expressed its strong objection to the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctica Mineral Resource Activities drawn up on 2 June 1988 in Wellington at the Antarctic Treaty Coosultative Meeting. We do not accept that a small group of countries has the right to arroga te to themselves the power to de termine the fu ture of wha t has often been referred to as the last frootier of mankind. The parallels that exist in the new law of the sea and Antarctica are self-evident, and it is not my intention to underscore the point today. Malaysia is among the sponsors of the draft resolution on the law of the sea contained in document A/43/t.IB. This is a reflection of our deep and continued interest in the subject. I must further add that, at the sixth session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-bed Authori.ty and for the International Tribunal fat the Law of the sea, held in Kingston in March this year, Malaysia was elected to the chairmanship of the Group of 77, a post we still hold. In the light of our deep involvement in the work of the Preparatory Commission this year, my delegation would like to make some remarks on the work of the Preparatory Commission in the course of 1988. The Preparatory Commission took historic decisions when it oonferred pioneer investor status on certain countries in 1987. This important development has given a tremendous boost to the work of that Preparatory Commission, and it is anticipated that more countries will now move towards becoming parties to the Convention. (Mr. Abdullah Fadzil, Malaysia) The implication of pioneer investor status confers certain privileged rights but it also carries certain obligations. These include, inter alia, the payment of an annual fixed fee of $1 million, incurring periodic expenditures with respect to the pioneer areas allocated to them, such as exploration of a mine site for the enterprise, and providing training for personnel designated by the Preparatory Commission, and so on. At the resumed sixth session held in New York thib summer, the Group of 77 in the Preparatory Commission noted with regret that some of those obligations have yet to be fulfilled, with the exception of some general reference to assisting the Preparatory Commission in respect of training of personnel. The position of the Preparatory Commission is to stand firm on those obligations as this issue has dragged on through the sixth session in Kingston and the resumed sixth session in New York this year. We seriously hope that when the seventh session of the Preparatory Commission reconvenes, in Kingston in late February 1989, a more constructive dialogue will result. Jamaica has special significance to participants in the work of the Preparatory Commission. At Kingston delegations to the Preparatory Commission meet for a month each year enjoying, amidst their intensive work, the sunshine and the warmth of the Government and the people of Jamaica. True to its mission, the conference centre in Kingston, the site of the future International Sea-bed Authority, lies almost next to the sea, and in its immediate view is the Norman Manley international airport. Therefore, participants in the Preparatory Commission feel a deep sense of personal remorse at the recent devastation inflicted by hurricane Gilbert on lives and property in Jamaica. On behalf of the Group of 77 in: the Preparatory Commissil.1, permit me to extend through YOG, Mr. President, to the delegation of Jamaica our deepest feelings of sadness on the recent national disaster faced by the people of Jamaica. Finally, I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea, Mr. Satya Nandan, and his very able and helpful staff for the dedioated and efficient manner in which they have performed the responsibilities entrusted to them. (Mr. Abdullah Fadzil, Malazsia) Mr. MA~IEIRA (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): There ue few items that more clearly reflect the role that should be played by the United Nationo than the item new before us. The law of the sea, by its variety of issues and countries directly involved in them, has been and remains a fertile ground for see~in9 lasting international agreements to form part of a generally accepted international system and to complement other independent international legal instruments already in force. The annual debate in the Assembly has much merit and great importance because it not only serves to keep Governments informed on the fulfilment of the mandates they have entrusted to the Secretariat but also gives them an opportunity to assess the conceptual and legal framework within which those mandates were granted and are being fulfilled. The Organization has no parallel in serving this purpose, for it is the only forum that brings together the technical expertise of the Secretrariat and the equivalent political expertise of Governments. In the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, in particular during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Organization, without neglecting the technical aspect, focused all its efforts on seeking a common conceptual framework that would legally reflect the purposes and principles of the Charter in the maritime sphere. That process reSUlted in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, which is now going through a slow process of ratification, having received only 35 ratification instruments to date. At the same time, the adoption of the Convention and the legal framework it contains gave an unexpected impetus to the refinement of its technical aspects, considerably broadening the concerns of the international community as regards uses of the seas. Those concerns have been eKpressed in the excellent reports submitted annually by the Secretariat on this item• This year's report is quite indicative of what we have maintained, especially as regards protection of the maritime environment, which is one dimension of a problem that from year to year is increasingly attracting the attention of the international community. Like the broad topic of the law of the sea, the protection of the environment is fertile ground that challenges the imagination of Governments in arriving at international solutions. This year three new items have been submitted to the General Assembly in this area, adding to others from previous years and constituting a reflection of long-term trends in the concerns of the international community. This year the General Assembly is going through the process of providing an appropriate political framework for the various proposals put forward as regards the environment. The result of that political framework will give rise to a renewed process of commitments and functions in which the Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the . Sea must be involved, and this will have to be borne in mind in the specific resolutions to be adopted at this session and in future years with regard to the law of the sea. The Government of Chile is deeply interested in the evolving process of the information system on the acquisition of ~cean data~ which is referred to briefly in the Secretariat's report of this year. Since 1972 we have been advancing a process of gradual development of the provisions that should govern the use of these instruments with regard to the seas. This year, the International OCeanographic Commission adopted a resolution designed to prepare a draft international convention on the legal use of systems of ocean data gathering. For that purpose it urges that the appropriate organizations in the United Nations consider the training of groups of experts that can ~ntribute to the prepa~atory process of such a convention. ,:'oould participate actively in that preparatory process and indeed organize an c~pert group that can discuss, in particular, problems of jurisdiction affecting ~,lis matter. This area is fully ",ithin the functions of that Office, and we look C rward to seeing what initiatives it may t~ke in this connection. Similarly, we observe with intarsst that, in the chapter on "Advice and Q sistance to States", a number of initiatives have been incorporated ~ith regard t' acS;h·ities in tatin America whose desirability and need my Government has been sU9gesting f01: some time. We believe it timely to encourage the secretariat to c;,lI1tinue its efforts in preparing analytical studies on the legislative history of t,k~ provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, whose usefu1r.;~~,.; is lRGildeniable for a consistent and uniform application of the provisions of the C';lfJWention. The same applies to the specific publications that form part of these n~~lytical studies. The qu~stion of the greatest political importance as regards the evolution of tUil0 law of the sea is perhaps that r~ferrin9 to the work of the prepax:atory CC:llIission for the International Sea-Bed AlJthority and for the Intsrnational T~ibunal for the La~ of the Sea, which to date has held six important and 811(~nifieant sessions, in particular with regard to the implementation of K'('?'~olutions emanating from the Conference on the Law of the Sea. After a long and cocplex process of negotiations, partial fulfilment of that mandate was reached as reG8tds the registration of pioneer investors o That process was characterize~, in H:', fi"al stages, by flexibiHty on the part of the developing countries to aC0ommodate certain problems for the pioneers whose resolution involved substarntip\ c}wnges in the text of ~3s01ution II an~, in particular, in thE" Conventioi1! on the objective p~oblems originating out of unforeseen circumstances at the time that resolution 11 was adopted. It has not bean possible to date, daspite some progress, to reach a similar consensus on fulfilment of the obligations deriving from that same resolution. The formulas suggested by the pioneer investors themselves do not seem satisfactory, nor are they likely to lead to a similar consensus as regards problems relating to the solution of conflicts of superposition of undersea areas outside national jurisdiction. We hope that these problems will be resolved at the next session ef the Preparatory Commission, so that the Commission can focus its efforts on other areas of its mandate that also require considerable imaginative work to arrive .at solutions that are gen&rally acceptable and also urgently needed. We have studied the report of the Secretariat; it seems useful to us and we feel that it refle~ts the important process of pro9~essive development of the law of the sea. As regards the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the report clearly demonstrates that the areas of consensus in that Convention give rise to a range of initiatives and proposals seeking to broaden and strengthen that agreement. At the same time, in areas where consensus is fragile or non-.existent, difficulties persist that are hindering progress. One example of that is what is happening in the Preparatory Commission, especially in areas other than those affecting resolution 11. A ~iepaesionate assessment of that Commission's work suggests that, despite the large quantity of documentation produced, there is still absent any central consensus that can serve to guide and promote the particular negotiations needed to give concrete expression to that consensus. It may be desirable to recall that that aspect of the Commission's work is linked with the lack of consensus upon which the Conference on the Law of the Sea concluded, particularly with respect to the provisions of part XI of the Conventionu As will be recalled, the negotiation of that section was governed by a different conceptual framework from the other parts of the Convention - the new international economic order as it relates to mineral resources beyond national jurisdiction. Six years have elapsed since the adoption of the Convention, more than 10 since the General Assembly, in special sessions, worked out the basic instruments that brought together the aspects of the North-South dialogue that characterized part XI of the Convent.ion. At the same time in recent years we have seen an evolution in the basic concepts of the new international economic order, showing that its effectiveness has been less than had been expected initially, and formulas are being sought to reflect the new concerns of the developing countries with regard to the most vital aspects of the North-SOuth dialogue. It is not idle to say that we are going through a transitional phase that will lead us to new patterns of thinking, perhaps less ambitious but more realistic. If there is one area that has not moved forward at the same speed in this progressive development it has been that of the Preparatory Commission, where the search for formulas le~ding to a central consensus is today no nearer achieving success than it was at the end of the Conference on ~~e Law of the Sea. For that reason perhaps we should give some thought to the conceptual framework governing that exercise and see if it is applicable to the present realities and in keeping with the thinking of Governments in similar areas. we must determine whether the formulas that have been suggested are the most appropriate to protect the interests of all participants or whether there may not be other, more appropriate and effective ones to give concrete expression to the general principles that govern the negotiations• . Otherwise we shall see little substantive progress. The process of ratification, as we have seen, has not moved forward. Perhaps an approach such as that I have suggested may serve to accelerate that process. Mr. PUISSOCHET (France) (interpretation from French)~ My country has always had a great interest in maritime matters and so it is a very real pleasure for me to be speaking today, briefly, on agenda item 35 on the law of the sea, the importance of which is clear. First of all I should like to point out that we can never welcome sufficiently the excellent results achieved recently by the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Its beginnings, going back to the years from 1983 to 1986, were nevertheless difficult beginnings. Despite that, a little less than a year ago - on 17 December 1987 - the three requests of the pioneer iovestots, Japan, the SOviet Union and France, were registered, the Indian request having been approved earlier, on 17 August 1987. Those registrations represent an important stage in the work of the Preparatory Commission and an essential contribution to the establishment of a system satisfactory to all. From this point of view my delegation notes with satisfaction that the draft resolution before the Assembly gives a special place to those important resul ts. My delegation would like at this time to express its thanks to the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, Ambassador Jose Luis Jesus. Undoubtedly, not all of the problems have been solved. It is no secret that the implementation of the obligations of the registered pioneer investors and of the certifying States, as laid down in resolution 11, and also with regard to the elements subsequently adopted by the Preparatory Commission, is still the subject into 1989 and we hope they will lead to a result acceptable to all. In this regard we support the appeal in paragraph 9 of the draft resolution, because we, like others, want these consultations to lead rapidly to satisfactory conclusions which will subsequently allow the Preparatory Commission to devote its energies to new tasks. The future of the work of the Preparatory Commission, which we have always supported, consequently seems to us to be very promising. None the less the law of the sea is not limited to the activity of this Commission. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea deals with many other equally important subjects. From this point of view we note with great satisfaction that the Office for Ocean Affairs and the ~w of the Sea managed to seize the global essence of this new law of the sea and to extend its acti~ities to new areas of maritime affairs. Here we would like aspecially to congratulate the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Satya Nandan, on the enlightened guidance he has given his Office and also to thank all his colleagues for their partiCUlarly effective action. The substantial report before the Assembly is striking proof of this effectiveness. Indeed, ~he three overall packages of activities of the Office for OCean Affairs and the Law of the Sea seem to us to be equally importa~t, and we very strongly encourage the Special Representative of the secretary-General to continue his work along these lines. First of all by making national legislation and regulations better known, the Office for OCean Affairs is encouraging the~r harmonizati~n. My delegation recalls here the interest it has in the d~ta bank and the periodic Bulletin. we hope that the Bulletill will continue to be published regularly mod without discrimination as regards the working languages of the Secretariat. secondly, the Office for OCean Affairs 1s actively pursuing research in ~reas which we ~~ink are particularly useful. I would men~ion here the meeting held in 1987 of a group' of cxperte on the question of base lines. There will be a meeting next year of a new group of experts which will deal with fundamental problems of scientific research on the sea. This kind of work is especially useful for Member States. Thirdly, the Offir.e for Ocean Affairs is providing assistanCe to develcping countries, which we support and hope to see further developed. It might be a question of airect assistance to some Governments within the framework of the development: of an integrated mari time policy. I should like to mentioi'\ here the programme of assistance to Mauritania, Senegal and Tanzania, as referred to in the report. Such assistance could also be the result of regional initiatives. Among many other actions we ~ould mention the preparation for a ~~eting to be held in 1989 of a group of expert.s on development planning for marine resources, which is to be undertaken in co-o~ration with the EConomic Commission for Latin America and the co-operation with the Standing Committee for the south Pacific. Again, thoae are given special mention in the report. We hope that in the preparation of such programmes Europe ~ill not necessarily be forgotten. An ever increasingly better knowledge of sea matters seems important to us. The Office of OCean Affairs is contributing remarkably to that goal. In these conditions my delegation will with pleasure vote in favour of the draft resolution before the Assembly. be in two p~rts. In the first we shall comment on developments in the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the. International Tribmal for the Law of the Sea. In the second, we shall consider the most interesting developments concerning other aspects of the law of the aea, on the basis of the secretary-Generales valuable report. As will emerge from the observations that follow, the two parts are closely linked. As regards the Preparatory Commission, the main event since the consideration of the law of the sea item at the forty-second session of the General Assembly has been the registration as pioneer investors of entities sponsored by the Governments of France, Japan and the USSR. Since India was registered prior to the forty-second session of the General Assembly, all the four applications so far received by the Prepar~tory Commission have been processed and accepted. This event brings the Preparatory Commission into a new phase of its activities. The negotiations, held under the able guidance of the Commission's Chairman w Ambassador Jose Luis Jesus, on the implementation of the obligations of the registered pioneer investors are the first step of this new phase. SOme delegations have expressed the view that these negotiations are proceeding too slowlyw It seems to us that, although no results have so far emerged, the slow pace of the discussions is not the consequence of the will of any of the participants but of the difficulty of the sUbject-matter. This difficulty arises from the fact that, through this negotiation, the Preparatory Commission has to deal for the first time with the new circumstances with which activities concerning the exploration for and exploitation of polymetallic nodules in the sea-bed beyond national jurisdiction are confronted at the present time. These circumstances are quite different from those envisaged during the negotiations in the Third United Natl~ns Law of the Sea Conference from 1973 to 1982. While at both technically and econolliC5lly for the late 1980s - indeed 1987 was seen, even in some do...tic legislmtions, as a key year for that purposo - it now appears clear that the exploitation for collUlercial purposes of the resources of the deep sea-bed will not start in the current century. Moreover, as the representative of Chile said a few minutes ago, the conceptual framework within which the rules of the Convention on deep sec-bed mining were negotiated is undergoing a thorough reVision. The negotiation on the implementation of the obligations of registered pioneer investors thus becolles an exercise in the adapta'tion of resolution II to changed circulIIstances. This ls not totally new, as so far the Preparatory Commission has succeeded in performing such adaptations several times. There is a difference, however. Previous adaptations were of a procedural nature, as they concerned basically the modalities for reaching the stage of registration. The adaptations now needed are of substance. They concern the performance of pioneer activities in a situation in which the duration of these activities, in other words~ the duration of the transitional period before the entry into force of the definitive regime provided for by the Convention, is uncertain.* There is no doubt in our mind that obligations freely entered into should not be reneged upon, but it seellS to us equally true that the overwhelming concern should oe thAt of ensuring a viable start to the pioneer regime in the circumstance. of today. Hence the need for flexibility and imagination in finding solutions to the outstanding prOblemse * The Pr••ident took the Chair. May I add that the reflection all delegations are engaged in while considering , the pioneer investors' obligations tends to concentrate on identifying the real meaning and purpose of some provisions of resolution II and of the Law of the Sea Convention in order to determine, in each of the relevant provisions, what is essential and what is less important. This exercise is extremely difficult but it is also extremely important. It can be seen as a first experiment in a more complex and wide-ranging exercise upon which States eager to ensure the universality of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention will have to embark sooner or later. My delegation is convinced that the Law of the Sea Convention is an achievement of outstanding importance for the United Nations and fo~ the international community as a whole. Its function in providing guidance to States in their maritime activities, claims and legislation, and thus in reducing conflicts and tensions, has to be preserved. In order to obtain this result, the ~ Convention must come into force for the great majority of States of all continents, political orientation and degrees of development. It seems to us that divergencies of opinion on the question of the recovery of polymetallic nodules are trivial in, comparison with the magnitude of this objective. Consequently, all efforts should be made from all sides concerned to overcome them. The perception - which current discussion in the Preparatory Commission is making clearer every day - that circumstances now prevailing are radically different from those existing at the time when the Convention was negotiated should provide" the incentive to move away from ideologial pre-conditions and start working at such realistic adaptations which should permit us to reach the real objective we all pursue, namely, that of making the Convention a truly universal treaty. Thus, the work under way in the Preparatory Commission, including the ~i4ftin9 in the Special Commissions and in the informal plenary meetings on the rules and sufficient perception of its consequences for the future of the law of the sea, may be crucial in paving the way for the true universalization of the Convention. As we said before, in the long run such universalization cannot be achieved unless the Convention becomes a treaty in force for the vast majority of States of all geographical areas and levels of development. Should this result not be reached, centrifugal tendencies might prevail. States might feel free to assert claims in excess of what is permitted by the Convention. Conflicts might emerge for which not only accepted peaceful means of settlement would be lacking, but even the applicability of the Convention's finely-tuned langu3ge on accommodation of competing interests could be questioned. We must stress however that, so far, the parts of the Convention different from that on deep sea-bed mining seem by and large to find confirmation in the judgements of international tribunals and in the practice of States and international organizations. The practice of and within international organizations is especially significant when we consider that it could not be developed without the consent of the States members of the organizations, and that most of those States have not yet decided on ratifYing the 1982 Convention. An example among many is the elaboration by the International Maritime Organization (!MO) of standards for removal of offshore installations, in which article" 60, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Law of the Sea finds its implementation• The report of the Secretary-General contains a wealth of information from which it appears clear that the world community is active in developing co-operation - within the general framework of the 1982 Convention - in all fields of maritime activity. Apart from the question concerning offshore installations, we should like to underscore the importance of two developments examined tn the report. The first is the adoption of a Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Maritime Navigation and of a Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. These two international instruments were opened to signature in ROme on la March 1988, at the conclusion of a highly successful diplomatic conference held within the framework of the International Maritime Organization (EMO) at the invitation of the Government of Italyg The two international instruments were adopted only about two years after the Governments of Italy, Austria and Egypt tock the pertinent initiative in IMO. They fill a gap in the array of instruments the international community has elaborated for fighting against international terrorism. Although they follC* the pattern of other SUCh instruments, such as those on the hijacking of aircraft, they contain provisions specific to the particular situation they are intended to cover, which make the Convention and the Protocol especially interesting from the point of view of the law of the sea. We may recall in particular article 4 of the Convention, which defines the scope of the Convention. The second noteworthy development considered in the report concerns the preservation and protection of the marine environment. It is comforting to note, on the one hand, that, within the framework of part XII of the Convention, States and international organizations are intensifying their co-operation both on the global and on the regional level: the information on the developments within the - --- London Dumping Convention and concerning the Annexes to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is particularly intetesting in this regard. On the other hand, new concerns for the marine environment are emerging which call for scientific co-operation and for intensified efforts on a political level; these concerns derive in particular from the implications of global climatic changes. It is true that the implications of such changes are not limited to the marine environment, and that the United Nations is considering them under another item of the agenda. It is none the less also true that, as stated in the report of the secretary-General, ·Since the sea and oceans cover more than 70 per cent of the globe, the study of global change will necessarily have a strong focus on oceanic processes". (A/43/718, para. 114) For this reason we consider that it is particularly appropriate that we look at these new concerns also from the viewpoint of the law of the sea. We welcome the inclusion in the draft resolution that we are going to adopt today - which Italy supports - of a request to the secretary-General to prepare for the forty-fourth session of the General Assembly a special report focused on recent developments on the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the light of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Before concluding, we wish to congratulate the Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea and its dedicated and able staff, headed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Satya Nandan, on their numerous and, as always, extremely helpful activities. My delegation particularly appreciates the efficient way in which the Office services the Preparatory Commission, and the high level of its publications: we wish to commend in particular the report presented to the General Assel!'hly and the Law of the Sea Bulletin. We regret that financial restrictions sometimes make it difficult for other projects to produce publications. We are convinced that the Office will continue to assist states and international organizations in their activities ooncstning tha law of the sea with the dedica tion and the high professional capacity it has shown so fa£'e Mr. PERRI (Brazil): Let me begin this statement with a word on the report of the secretary-General contained in document A/43/7l8, which covers in a comprehensive fash ion var ious aspects related to the law of the sea. It usefully summarizes the major developments relating to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as the important activities which are being carried out by the Office of the Special Representative of the secretary-General. My delegation would, nevertheless, like to draw attention to paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the report, in which some considerations are set forth with regard to paragraph 3 of article 12 of the draft convention against illicit drug traffic by sea. In view of the approach to the question that is taken in the report, my delegation considers it neoessary to restate here OUt position on this matter. Th~ Brazilian Government cannot accept the proposition contained in paragraph 3 of draft article 12 that vessels beyond the limits of the territoriClll sea and within those of the exclusive economic zone could be boarded, searched and seized if suspected of engaging in the illicit traffic, without the authoriz~tion of the coastal State. It is our conviction that paragraph 3, if adopted as at present worded, would upset the very delicate balance struck at the Law of the Sea Conference of rights and duties of coastal and third States in an area under national jurisdiction~ namely the exclusive economic zone, by granting third States a right within that zone that would go beyond those bestowed upon them by the Law of the Sea Conference. The question of rights not specifically dealt with in the Con\Oention on the Law of the Sea - the so-called question of residual rights - is the object of article 59 of the Convention, which provides the proper f~amework for the resolution of conflicts of interest between a G~astal State and any other State or states. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has been signed by 159 states and ratified by 35, is undoubtedly a landmark achievement. Its legal impact in the international sphere has been profound~ its universal validity clearly established. The Brazilian Government, consistent with its decision to sign the Convention in December 1982, has completed the internal legislative process needed for its ratification. Furthermore, on 5 October 1~89 the Brazilian Constituent Con9~ess promulgated the text of the new Brazilian Constitution, whose provisions on the legal regime that applies to the territorial sea and to the exclusive economic zon~ fUlly conform to the concepts embodied in the Convention. ~ince the adoption of resolution 42/20, important developments within the framework of the Convention have taken place. The work done in the Special Commissions of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has continued to show some progress, although a more positive approach from all countries concerned is to be desired. In fulfilment of one of the functions assigned to it under resolution 11 of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the preparatory Commission also carried out the registration of applications submitted by the Governments of France, India, Japan and the Union of Soviet Soci~li~t Republics for pioneer investor status. Registration is no doubt a Zundamental step towards the full impleMentation of f1:k'UC' ocellns regime envisaged in the Convention, for it represents international t0c~ltion of certain rights which are thus c~nferred upon those who now hold pi).C',~\!er investor statua~ The relevant provisions of resoluti.on II and other ro~~vant documents make it very clear that the recognition of such rights also oort\f'ers certa in obligations upon the pioneers, the l~tter being legally ino,~trt.cable from the former. I~ is useful to recall that this bala.nce between rights an~ duties i$. not <:0",:7ioed to resolution I I, but in fact represents a brcdc ~~onceptual t'~~:let of the C(tJU\Jention itself. Ambassador Tommy Koh~ President of the Third United Nations Co~f~r~nee on the Law of the Se~, made precisely this point in his remarks on the &~[;:lon of the Convention : -Although the Convention consists of a series of compromises, they form an integral whole. This is why the Convention does not provide for reservations. It is therefore not possible for states to pick what they like . and d18re9~rd what they do not like. In international law, as in domestic l~, rights and duties go hand in hand. It is, therefore, legally i_permissible to claim rights under the Convention without being willing to ~s&ume the correlative duties.- i.bassador Koh's words un~ersoore the relationship between rights and duties led in the Convention. Brazil, together with the other States of the G~oup 77, h~ acted 1n conformity with ~~e intef~ational sea~bed regime, by creating condl Uons for the unanillOu9 approval of the statemt'rtt of Understanding of S Septeaber 1986. As a copsequence, the Preparatory Commission, through the General Coa.ittee, w~th the decisive support given by the Group of 77, registered in 1987 the four pioneer investors. In applying for registration, those countries have fltate~ th~lr acceptance of the ensuing rights and obligations. Let us once more underline the fact that obligations are an integral part of the process of registration. Therefore, the duty of complying with their obligations now clearly bears upon the registered pioneer investors. Brazil is a sponsor and will vote in favour of the draft resolution now before us in document A/43/t.1S, whose provisions enable the preparatory Commission to pursue its productive w'ork in the coming year. Operative paragraph 9 looks forward to the early and satisfactory conclusion of the consultations on the implementation of the obligations of the registered pioneer investors. Let us make sure that these obliljations ere implemented strictly within the purview of resolution II and other relevant documents, thus further contributing to the full establishment of the balanced and comprehens ive internatianl sea-bed regime envisaged in the United Nations CCXlvention on the Law of the Sea. Mr. ~ODBOVITS de SZEGED (Netherlands): At the outset I would wish to congratulate the Special Pepresentative of the secretary-General for the Law of the sea, Under-Secretary-General Hr. Satya Nandan, and his staff on the excellent report before us. The Nether lands considers the report a valuable document for refere:lce, and expresses the hope that th~ tradition of issuing such high quality reports will continue. The report deals with a wide range of topics related to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, giving a detailed summary of developments in this field. More than before, the report is about the environmental protection of our oceans and seas. States are under an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. We are happy to note that part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea serves as IS nodel for the d.:afting of national marine environmental legislation. Quite a few international insfruments already exist co.'lcern1ng the mar inl! envircnment 1 I would only refer to the In terna tional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARFOL), and the London Dumping Convention of 1972. Regional co-operation in this field is increasing. An exampla I wish to commend is the Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, November 1987, which, as the report of the Secretary-General points out, resulted in a ministerial declaration, in which the Governments concerned agreed to take further preventive measures against marine pollution from all sources and to co~perate on airborne surveillance. Finally, I wish tn commend the work of the International Maritime Organization in the field of the marine environment. R2turning to the topics in the report before us, relating to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, my delegation took note of the extensive reporti~9 on the meetings of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 1988. Before making some specific remarks on the work of the Preparatory Commission, may I express my delegation's gratitude towards the Office of the Special Representative for the excellent servicing it provides for the Preparatory Commission. It is of high quality, both in assistance rendered to the officers and special commissions of the Preparatory Commission as in the documentation provided to the delegations at the Preparatory Commission. The single most important topic before the Preparatory Commission during 1988 was the question of the implementation of the obligations of pioneer investors and certifying States which flow from registration. The registration of four entities from, respectively, India, France, Japan and the Soviet Union as pioneer investors, took place in 1987. The Netherlands considers the registration of the four pioneer investors as the most significant development in the law of the sea since the adoption of the Convention. We consider it an important step forward towards acceptance of the regime for deep sea-bed mining, and hence towards a universally acceptable United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The obligations of pioneer investors and certifying States are clearly set out in resolution It adopted by the Third United Nations Conference on the I..awof the Sea and in the statement contained in the Preparatory Commissicm document LOS/PCN/L.4l/Rev.l annex. An informal consultative group was established in the Preparatory Commission to deal with the implementation of these obligations, which are a necessary corollary of the enjoyment of benefits. we hope that the spirit of co-operation which so clearly existed during the registration process of the four pioneer investors will also be present during the consultations on the implementation of the obligations of the pioneer investors and certifying States. Only a businesslike .and constructive approach towards these consultations will make it possible to find solutions for the difficult prOblems which have emerged from these consultations. As a potential applicant, the Netherlands takes part in these consultations, and we are prepared to continue to play an active and constructive role in them. The consultations, in our view, should result in a delicate balance between changed economic circumstances, which might justify temporary adjustments, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the original objectives of the obligations. Some flexibility should be displayed in exploring modes of implementation which could relate to matters such as timing and scale. (Mr. Jacobovits de Szeged, Ne thar lands) My delegation hopes that these consultations will successfully be concluded during the naxt session of the Preparatory Commission early next year. This would ej'lable the Prepara tory Commission, in accordance wi th the plan of work proposed by its Chairman, Mr. Jose Luis Jesus, to begin informal consultations on important "hard-core" issues as identified in document LOS/PCN/WP.44. Among these issues are questions 1:elated to financial and budgetary matters of the International Sea-Bed Authority, decision-making processes in the organs of the Authority, the questions of elections and the status of subsidiary organs and observers. As a member of the so-called Group of Six, the Netherlands is equally eager to participate in a constructive manner in these consultations. In dealing with the work of the Preparatory Commission in this statement, t have only addressed myself to certain issues which are, or will be, dealt with in informal consultative groups. However, this in no way implies that less importance should be attached to the work of the Special Commissions and the informal plenary meetings. Their important work should continue. We are happy to note that each year progress is aChieved. I draw the Assembly's attention to document L03/PCN/SCN. 3~P.6/Rev.l, which contains draft regulations on the application for approval of plans of ",ork as revised by the Chairman of Special Commission 3. While discussing the work of these Commissions the Netherlands reiterat'l!s its position that the time has come to focus the work of the Preparatory Commission more on outstanding .problems. This implies that in future the time allocated to the various Commissions should be differentiated. It is quite clear that in certain Commissions greater progress has been achieved than in others. In differentiating the meeting time allocated to the Commissiona, broad and equal pr~gre8s could be achieved in all the Commissions of the Preparatory Commission. (Mr. Jacobovits de Szeged, Nether lands) Before concluding, allow me Cl to make few remarks on draft resolution A/43/L.18 now before us. The Nether lands is particular ly pleased with the inclusion of two paragraphs on the marine environment. In our view, there was no need to include paragraph 9 concerning the consultations on the. implementation of the pioneer investors obligations in the draft resolution. The consultations are taking place outside the framework of the united Nations, and there seems to be no compelling reason for the General Assembly to express itself on the matter. The Nether lands is of the opinion that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea constitutes a major effort in the codification and progressive development of international law. While part of the Convention contains provisions which are to be considered binding because they are codified customary law, this is clearly not the case with the part of the Convention relating to deep sea-bed mining. In this area much work remains to be done in order to make this part of the Convention, and thus the Convention as a whole, truly universally acceptable. In the light of what I have just said, it should be clear that the draft resolution, in a number of operative paragraphs does not, in our view, correctly reflect the current status of international law in the field of the law of the sea. It also seems somewhat premature to urge States to ratify the Convention, when it is in no way clear Whether the Preparatory Commission will come up with universally acceptable conditions for the implementation of the sea-bed mining For the reasons! have just stated, the Nether lands is not in a position to sponsor the draft resolution on the law of the sea. My delegation, however, will vote in favour of the araft resolution, in order to indicate our support for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our commitment to the success of the work of the Preparatory Commission. (Mr. Jacobovits de SzegeC!, Nether lands) I should like to end vi th a word of caution. The longer it talces to finish the work of the Preparatory COIIlI'llission, the longer it will take to realize universal ratification of the Convention. In the meant~_, there is a real risk of erosion of the provisions of the Convention, including the provisions which are perceived as containing cU9tomar~' law. SOme scholar8 have referred to this as the prcblem of -creeping jurisdiction-. W<i~ therefore consider it in the' interest of all participants in the work of the preparatory Commis8icn to ccntinue to work constructively towards making the Convention universally accePtable. We hope delegations will bear this in mind~ Mr. TARUI (Japan), First, I Shou~d like to express my delegation's appreciation to the secretary-General and his Special, Representative for the Law of the Sea, Mr. Satya Nandan, for the very useful report circulated under the present agenda item. This year's report., issued as docuJlent A/43/7l8, again contains summaries of all major developments during the pest year relating to ocean and maritime affairs and to the law of the sea. It is, indeed, a unique compilation of all relevant information, data and facts in a relatively compact document. wa hope that the secretariat will continue to prepare, under this agenda ftem, similar high quality reports covering the entire range of ocean affairs and the law of the sea. The annual reports of the secretary-~".eral and the periodical publication of the Office for OCean Affairs and the Law of the sea., The Law of the sea Bulletin, are valuable sources of informmtion and provide tools for following the latest developnents in these fields throughout the wor Id. We are pleased to note thltt these documents, particularly The Bulletin, have a wide eirculstion and ate used by Governments, non-governmental organizations, academh: institutions and students everywhere. Lastye6f in this &bate', we all celebrated the registratic)n of the first (Mr. Tarui, Japan) pioneer investor, the GoYernment of India, by the Preparatory Commission for the . International Sea-Bed Authority and for the Tribunal for the Lav of the Sea. Soon after the debate was over, three ~ore pioneer investors were registered by the General Committee of the Preparatory Commission, on the basis of applications submitted by France, Ja.pan and the USSR. The successful registration of all the first-group pioneer investors was indeed,·~s the Secretary-GeneralIs report states, -a major achievement of the Preparatory ~ommigaion and an historic milestone in the law of the sea. - fA/43/718, para. 149) In continuing its work on the implementation of resolution It of the Third United Nations ConfeL'ence on the Law of the Sea, the Preparatory Commission this year held a series of oonsultations regaraing the obligations of the registered pioneer investors. These informal oonsultations wer~ conducted, as' ~e secretary-General observed in his report, -in a positive and constructive atmosphere" (A/43/718, para. 151). And we are pleased to note that some progress was made. My delegation hopes that, with the realistic and constructive outlook of the participants, the consultations will soon be concluded in a manner satisfactory to all. As Part Two of the Secretary-General's report shows, the Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea has been conducting a variety of important activities, apart from its most visible task of servicing the Preparatory Commission. Indeed, my delegation considers thsse other activities to be highly valuable in enabling Governments and international organizations to keep abreast ~f important information and developments in this area. They are also of great assistance to Governments in the implementation of various aspects of the law of the sea and the formulation of their national ocean policies. Further, they contribute to the uniform development of State prac~ice and thus to the prevention of disputes and the reduction of tensions between States. 1I1e note "i th great interest from part two, section IV, of the Secretary--Ganeral's report that various types of computerized databases ha\l'e been developed by the secretariat. They contain an enorllOus a\1lOURt of infor_ticn and are of great potential use for raany purposes. It appears, however, that the lleans of access by Governments to these detabases and their potential value have not been made fUlly clear. we therefore hope that the secretariat will explain in IIOre detail the kind of information that .is available, the potential uses of the data by Governments, and the procedures @nd methods for their retr ieval. It could perhaps do so most conveniently, for example, in a widely circulated pamphlet. My delegation is pleased to note the emph~sis which the secreta!iat has been placing recently on the need for strengthening co~peration among various agencies and bodies within the United Nations system~ as well as with other regional bodies. This co-operation is essential if the international community is to cope effectively and efficiently with increasingly numerous and complex ocean-related problems. We hope that the activities being undertaken by 'lTarious organizations and bodies will be co-ordinated more effectively by the UniteGl Nations through the Office for OCean Affairs and the Law of the sea. Mr. BATDOUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian): Each General Assembly session p despite any surface similarities, has its own specific atmosphere. It is established in all the CClIIII'Ilittees and in the plenary meetings, and it is independent of the specifics of any given agenaa item. The nature. and spirit 01 discussions this year show that the United Nations is now following' a course of favourable processes in international relations and that these ar~ being accelerated. There is a growing awareness of the interdependence of today's world and a more wid~spread understanding that ccmprcluins!ve security can be established only by strengthening the legal bases of international life and ensuring the primacy of international law, both in policies and in other areas of inter-state relations. This new common approach is emphasizing the need for praotical implementation of important provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea even before it enters into force. In speaking about the primacy of international law in policies, we should not forget that contemporary international law would be unthinkable without the Convention, which has codified and progressively developed contemporary sea law and is new an integral part of international law. There is need for uniform application of the provisions of the Convention by all States, and that need is becoming increasingly urgent. For example, the worsening of the ecological situation in the world makes it necessary to take another look at the Convention, because one of its key parts contains detailed legal standards for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. These provisions, drafted over many years and adopted by consensus, should become specific guidelines for the drafting of any new international documents in the area of environmental protection. In this connection the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR welcomes the inclusion in the draft resolution of a provision in which the secretary~General is requested to prepare for the next session of the General Assembly a special report on recent developments related to the protection and preservation of the marine environment .. in the light of the relevant pl:ovisions of the United Nations Coo'lention on the Law of the Sea. This report could be a useful contribution in drafting an overall strategy for ecological security. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is rightly called the charter of the seas. Indeed, it regulates all aspects of man's activities in the oceans of the world. The Convention oontains a series of standards which are of a truly dynamic nat~re, in particular those which cs11 for the development of comprehensive international co-operation in the development and use of the resources of the area of the oceans and seas. The words "co-operation" or "to co-operate" are mentioned 65 times in the Convention. We are talking about all kinds of co-operation: bilater~l, multilateral, regional and global. Therefore, the Convention is not just IS charter but a programme for international conoOperation in the area of the sea. Such co-operation has already been established in some areas, and is being carried out through the specialized agencies of the United Nations, such as the International Maritime Organization (~O), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNES<D) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the regional Ccmmis!:ions. New internation~l agreements have been signed, or a~e being prepared, which supplement, or give greater detail on, the prcwisions of the Convention. I should like to make special mention in this connection of the Convention for the SUppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Maritime Navigation, adopted in Rome this year. We are also seeing a development in bilateral co-operation. All ~lese matters have been explained in detail in the 5ecretary-Genetal's report prepared by the Office for OCean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. We wish to draw attention to the energetic efforts of that Office in promoting t~e development of international co-operation in this sphere. Urquestionably, maximum use of the potential of the" Convention will be possible only after it enters into force. When that will be it is as yet hard to predict. The process of ratification is linked to the establishment of the national infrastructures necessary to apply the provisions of the Convention~ In a nulfber of States national legislation is being brought into line with the Convention. This process is a long one and should not be attempted with boo much haste, bu~ that does not mean that we should simply wait until the Conv( .tion (Hr. Batiouk ,. Ukrainian SSR) enters into force and only then begin an eXchange of views on its praotical implementation. The situation today it that there is an established, functioning Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, so that we have the machinery necessary to prepare for the practical application of the Convention regime for developing mineral resources in the ocean. But this preparation for implementation refers to but me of the parts of the Convention: what about its other parts? They will not work unless we establish the appropriate conditions and the prar ~ical bases for their implementation. We feel that the time has come to begin an exchange of views on how to organize specific international co-operation, as provided for in the Convention. SUch a dialogue could be started as part of the consideration of the agenda item on the law of the sea. The Ukrainian SSR is actively participating in the work of the Preparatory Commission and doing everything it can to promote progress in its working bodies. The activities of the Preparatory Commission should be commended because it has now registered the applications of France, India i Japan and the Union of Soviet SOcialist Republics for mining sites. The registration of the first group of pioneer investors undoubtedly represents a significant step towards the establishment of a Convention regime for the development of sea-bed minerals, and this will further strengthen the Convention. In this connection we must point out that the present state of the world metals ma~ket cannot be considered at all favourable for the development of the deep-sea resources of polymetallic nodules. The registration that has taken place in these conditions emphasizes the determination of the four pioneer investors to mee-t the obligations which they have assumed under the Convention. At the same time it also shows a positive mood on the part of other members of the Preparatory Commission, among which there is now a broader understanding of the need to bear in mind existing economic realities in developing sea-bed resources. We believe that the exper ience ga ined when the Conventicn was being drafted in seeking realistic approaches to the solution of extremely important questions will make it possible for members of the CommisGion to find the key to compromise on this problem as well. The secretary-General's report on the law of the sea describes those areas in which results have been achieved and in which new, positive results may be expected from the activities of our Organization. The report is exceptionally informative• It is not only of value for the delegations participating in the work of the General Assembly but also important for national services dealing with questions of ocean development and the law of the sea. High mar ks should go to the Office for Ocean Affa ir s and the Law of the Sea foe its activities. That Office is headed by Under-secretary-General Nandan~ The concentration of questions related to the world ocean in one unit of the United Nations secretariat by giving the Office new functions has already had a positive effect in terms not only of eliminating duplication but also of achieving greater effectiveness in the uniform application of the Convention as a whole. Draft resolution A/43/L.18, on the Jaw of the sea, reflects the result of constructive multilateral consultations in which a broad number of States participated. Among the sponsors of that draft resolution are States from all parts of the world, including the Ukraine. It is intended to spur efforts by the United Nations to establish on the basis of the Convention a legal system, peace and co-oper::..tion with t~gard to the seas. My delegation believes that this will enable us to adopt the draft resolution by consensus, if ~~ere is the necessary will on the part of delegations. Hr. PERERA (Sr i Lan~a) : For many year s Sr i Lanka ha~ been a consistent co-sponsOl' of the annual General Assembly resolution on the law of the sea, because we have a deep-rooted conviction that a universally accepted regime governing the oceans is a pre-condi tion of the effective integra tion of ocean spaces and the ir resources in national development strategies, and that national development can be advanced only in the cootext of an international climate characterized by goodwill and co-operation, free of international rivalries and tension. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ushered in a new era of ocean ~velopment. The new international legal order of the oceans introduced by the Uni ted Nations Conventicn provides a more equitl!ible: framewor k wi thin whi ch nations, especially the developing nations, can participate in the harnessing of ocean resources. Since the cl<i6ing of the Third United Nations Conference en the Law of the Sea, the Preparatorv Commission for t.1te International Sea-bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have been the principal forums where ocean related matters have come up for discussion. Sri tanka continues to participate in the work of the ~reparatory Commission. At present, we are giving attention to the subject >:>f obligations of certain pioneer investors who have received registration for mine sites from the Preparatory Commission. These mine sites are in the central Pacific and Indian OCean areas. It was the expectation of the Group of 77 that certain obligations would flaw from registration. It is a matter of regret that some of the pioneers who took registration from the Commission in good faith have recently sought to avoid some of those obligations, which were well known and long debated both at the Conference and in the Conrnission. It is our expectation that the recent negotiations in the COII'IIIission during the New York meetings will pave the way for a more realistic approach to the matter of obllgations, especially on the part of the pioneers, which must honour their commitments or face the prospect of having to retrace their progress and possibly even endanger the very foundations of the new regime. A major pa::t of the draft: resolution we are sponsoring today deals, as is traditional, with the deliberations within the Preparatory COlllllission. That is undentandable. The Office for OCean Affairs and thfl Law of the Sea, as its new title indicates, is no longer limited to servicing the preparatory Commission as a successor to the Conference secretariat, which continued to complete the task that the 'rhird Conference Could not undertake, especially with ngard to part XI of the Convention and the establishment of the Tribunal. The United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea today represents a new approach to the oceans. This is an approach founded on the concept of integrated ocean management way beyond the law of the sea. Sri Lanka has consistently advocated and supported the widening of the mandate of the Office, in the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and other forums. We have done so in the expectation that ultimately benefits from the law of the sea to developing countries will stem primarily from developments in the so-called traditional araas of the law of the sea dealing with national jurisdictions and rights in respect of marine resources. Despite our active interest in the development of the deep ocean regime we believe that this, snd its promised benefits for the developing world, remain a distant goal for the foreseeable future. CcnsequentlYi our priority will remain in the trBditional areas and in the expansion of ocean management in areas related thereto. (Mr. Perera, Sri Lanka) Regionally, Sri Lanka took the inltia tive as far back as 1981 during the closing stages of the Third Conference in working towards an international co-operative regime for integrated ocean management in the Indian OCean basin. 10day we have a rapidly developing intergovernmental organization in the form of the Indian OCean Marine Affairs Co-operation (IOMAC), which has brought together not only littoral and hinterland States of the Indian OCean but also major maritime users of the ocean, all concerned specialized agencies, organs and entities of the United NlItions system, and non-governmental organizations concerned with marine affairs. What we are seeking to do in the Indian OCean through IOMAC is to bring about broad-based development of marine affairs capabilities and early realization of the benefits of a new ocean regime ushered in by the 1982 United Nations Convention. Our exercise is unparalleled as a comprehensive undertaking in integrated management of an ocean basin as a whole. We believe that the process set in motion by IOMAC will further strengthen the new links and bonds of goodwill that have begun to bring together not only Indian OCean States but also other States active in the area within the framework of the law of th:::'l sea. We are at present working towards the implementation of a programme of international assistance, especially for countries oi: the region having less advanced capabilities in the marine sector. The United Nations Development Programme and the Office for OCean Affairs and the Law of the Sea have strongly supported these activities. It is our expectation thQt the increasing emphasis, reflected in the draft resolution on the law of the sea, on marine affairs activities not related to the deep sea-bed will continue to grow. It is only through such a process that the immediate needs of developing countries in terms of organization for ~ntegratl~g the marine sphere in development and training of personnel can ~e effectively addressed•. (Mr. Perera, Sri Lanka) In this context we welcome in particular the important initiative taken by the Secretary-General in convening an inter-agency meeting on international and regional developments in ocean affairs and the law of the sea. We believe that the process of harmonization and co-ordination so initiated will ensure effective delivery of this system support to developing countries and eliminate duplication and inter-agency rivalry. My delegation is happy to support the draft resolution.

I have to inform representatives that the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/43/L.l8: Bahamas, Cote d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Sudan. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/43/L.l8. A r:ecorded vote has been requested • A recorded vote was taken. In favour: 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, Byelorussian soviet SOcialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verae, Central African Republic, Chad, Ch!le, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Ca~e d'Ivoire, Cuba, ~prus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic KaJII)Uchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Biosau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, ,Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahir iya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, ,"lawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, MeHioo, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nether lands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger ~ Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint Illcia, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, ~go, Trinidad and TObago, Tunisia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, YUgoslavia, zaire, Zambia Against: Turkey, United States of America Abstaining: Ecuador, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Peru, United Kingdom of Great Br ita in and Northern I reland, Venezuela Draft resolution A/43fL.l8 was adoJeted by 135 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions (resolution 43/18». *

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote on the resolution just adopted. *Subsequently, the delegations of Canada and Zimbabwe advised the secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour; the delegation of Israel had intended to abstain. Hr. DELPEC:I (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): The Republic of Argentina interprets the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 4 of the resolution just adopted by the General Asselllbly in conformity with the statement it Iftl!lde on 5 OCtober 1984 in signing the United Nations Cor,vention on the Law of the Sea. Accordingly we wish to reaffirm that the Convention clear ly establishes in article 318 that only its annexes are a part thereof. Accordingly, no other instrument or document, albeit adopted by the Conference on the Law of the Sea, forms an integral part of the United Nationa Convention on the Law of the Sea. Mr. HAAS (Federal Republic of Germany); As in previous years, my delegation abstained from voting on the draft: resol\!tion on the law of the sea, having regard to the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We would like, however, to take this opportunity to express our satisfaction at the results achieved in the past year in connection wi th the implementaticn of resolution 11 of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The Federal Republic of Germany takes a great interest in the work of the preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Author ity and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. We hope that: a pragmatic approach and the co-operation of all concerned wUl ensure such progress as has beer~ seen in the recent work of the Preparatory Commission vi th respect to the important problems still ahead Qf us. In co-operating in the solution of these problems our aim is a com~Lehensive, universally acceptable law-of-the-sea Convention. As last year, we welcome the efforts of the 5ecretary-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 seeks co-operation with all interested States in this field. (Mr. Haas, Pedera1 Reeublic.2! GerlU!:!l) With regard to the general international la~ of the sea, we would like to exprus our support for the Secretary-General'. activities ailled at the strengthening of consistent, uniform wocld-wide practice. In this context, I am pleased to be able to inforll the Aasellbly today that IIY Govftrnllent has declared its readiness to mak~ available $42,500 for a Reeting of a saall group of experts to examine the provisions relatin~ to llarine scientific research contained in part Xln of the Convention. Moreover, my Government will consider, in the light of the results of the first meeting ~nd the then prevailing budgetary conditions, making a further contribution towards financing a second expert meeting, should such a meeting prove necessary. Mr•• GROSS (United States of AMerica): My delegation has reluctantly had to cast a negative vote on a resolution concerning the law of the sea. The United States, 48 '-"e have stated in the past, views the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a _jor accomplishllent in the development of international law relating to the oceans. Unfortunately, the Convention contains one part, part XI, that if!l contrary to Ooi ted States policy and to that of others that share our v1evs concerning the future develoPlent 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 weloo~ the resolution of the conflicts over deep-sea-bed mining which affected the commercial interests of United States COMPanies, and commend the efforts by the respective parties to effect practical soluticms to cOlllmercial problems. We recognize that it is in the interests 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. The United States is opposed to the resolution because it provides for continued funding from the general budget of the united Nations of the Preparatory C0MI1esion for the International Sea-bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. As we have noted 1n the past, the costs of the Preparatory C0Rm1ssion should be borne by nations that are parties tD the 1982 United t~tions COklVenUon on the Law of the Sea. The Preparatory COllllllission was created by a treaty separate from the United Nations Char~er, therefore its costs cannot be assessed against all united Nations Members ~s part of the united Nations budget, as they do not represe~t the legitimabe -expensas of the Organizationwithin the lIeaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the united N!ltions Charter. Thus, the united States will continue to withhold its pro rat! share of the United Nations annual assessllent from the regular budget that pertains to the funding of (Mrs. Gross, United States) 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 Uni ted Sta tes POSi tion on the 1ega11ty of exp10ra tion and exploitaticn of deep-sea-bed resources under int6rnational law is well known. As we have stated many times, the United states and its nationals, Uke 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, wi th 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 Umi ta tion of e1 ther the right or the duty of all Sta tes 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 Un! ted Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has many positive aspects. The United States will continue to co-operate with the international collll1unity to ensure that the important pr inciphs enshr ined in the parts of the ConvenUn other than part XI are widely respected.~ Mr. MAQ,EOD (United Kingdom): My delegation abstained in the voting which has just taken place on the draft resolution and I should like to set out the reasons. The United Kingdom :-ec:ognizes the great importance for the States of the wor ld of mad time affa irs and the law of the sea. The importance of achieving agreement (Mc. Macleod. United Kingdolll) CIl generally accepted regi.e. mder the law of the sea is oblrious. we therefore w.loo~ the work of the sec~etariat in endeavouring to carry forward the i.pl••entation of generally accepted regimes where these were successfully developed during the course of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The Seeretar iat is work inca in the best tradi tions of the Uni ted Na tions in carrying forward this work. We alao veloo_ the progress lIade in the work of' the Preparatory COJII1lission, including the registration of pioneer applicants under resolution 11, despite our well-known vi"., as to the defects in the deep-sea-bed mining regime envisaged in the 1982 Convention. The Preparatory COIIlIIlission Is only b:"jinning to tackle difficult 8ubj~cts, such as the transfer of technology, which are crucial to the development of a satisfactory regi_ for deep-sea-bed mining. It is to be hoped that in further discussions within the Preparatory Commission and outside it account will be taken of certain chang~s in the reali ti'es of deep-sea··bed mining, where the expectations of the 1970s do not correspond to the requirements of a satisfactory deep-sea-bed mining regime today. The 1982 Comontion reflect~ a position whereby it was thought that actual production might well begin after 1988 - this very year - whereas we all know now that it is unlikely to begin before the end of the century, if then. My delegation could re~aonably have hoped that the resolution migbt have taken ac~ount of the need to rew4dy the defects which many delegations have seen in the deep--sea-bed mining regil'll8 as envisaged in the Convention and that it would have looked fexward to further lllork to deal wi th these &!fects. However, since the draft resolution this year substantially follow9 thBt which was put before the Assellbly last year, my delegation abstained in the voting. Mr. KORtmJRK (Turkey): My delflgation would like to put on record the following pointl1 with regard to the it•• ..tIich has just been considered by the Asssebly. As '1111 be recalled, Turkey has in the past participated .ctively in all work undertaken on the law of the sea. As an active participant in the two Conferences held in Geneva in 1958 and 1960, we took part in tho codifieation of the law of the sea. we also worked in the COIUIittee en the Peaceful Uses of tha Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor and co-operated closely with other delegations for many years at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Thus the negative votes cast by lIlY delegation in the past on the final results of the Third Conference and the resolutions presented to the General Assellbly on the subject should not be construed as a sign of indifference to the law of the sea. we should like to str6ss once again, however, that Turk~y maintains its reservations on some of the ~ovisiona of the Convention, which run counter to its vital and l~giti_te interests. Ni th this Wlderstanding, my delegation once again voted against the draft resolution on this ite... The PRl!SmEN! (interpretatitOn from Spanish): The AssenDly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 35. PROGRNIotE OF WORK The PRESIDEN'l' (interpretation froll Spanish): The outline of the tentative progfamllle (If plenary IIHtings for t.be reMinder of the session, including changes that have been _de since it was announced on Thursday, 13 October, is as follows. On wednesday, 2 Novelllber, in tha 1101'ning, the Assflllbly will begin i ty consideration of item 23, "The situation in K_puchea". A draft resolution (A/43/L.12) on this item has been circulated. On Thurscisy, 3 Nevellber, in the afternoon, the ,~ufllllbly "ill consider .a...,. 30, RThe situation i Afgh~n1stan and its implications for international peace and securityR. The draft resolution en this item "'ill be available as docwaent A/43/L.20 at the doCt!.nts counters this afteretOOll. At the sue lleeting, the Assenlbly, in accordance "'i th the decision taken at its 37th aeeting, on 26 October 1988, ",Ul also take up item 77, -Report of the Specf.al C~ittee to Investigate Israeli practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of to"e OCcupied Territories~. On wednesday, 9 November, in the !DOrning, the Assellbly will be9in i tu consideration of item 22, RThe situation in Central AIIerica: threats to international peace ~nd security and peace initiativesR• Two days later, on Friday, 11 Novemer, in the morning, the Assembly "'ill take up item 42, "Question of peace, stability and co-operation in South-East AsiaR, item 21, -Right of PeOples to peace R, and item 49, "Revie., of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United NationsR• On Monday, 14 November, in the morn iog, the Asseabl,y '"ill consider item 31, RZone of peace and co-operation of the South AtlanticR• The same day, in the afternoon, the Assembly "'ill begin its consideration of item 29, "Question of NamibiaR• On Thursday, 17 November, in the morning, the Assembly "'ill begin its consideration of item 34, RQuestion of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". On Friday, 18 November, in the morning, the Assembly "'ill begin its consideration of item 39, "Critical economic situation in Africa: United Nations Prograllllle of Action for African Economic Recovery and ilevelopment 1986-1990". Beginning on Monday, 21 ~ovember, in the morning, the Assembly "'ill consider item 18, "Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countt'ies an~ Peoples". On Friday, 25 November, in the morn ing, the Assembly will take up item 7, "Notification by the Secretary-General under Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations", and item 11, "Report of the Security Council". On Monday, 28 November, in the mor ning, the Assembly will begin its del ibera tions under item 36, "Policies of apar theid of the GO\1ernment of Sou th Afr ica". Beginning on Thursday, 1 December, in the morning, the Assembly will consider item 37, "Question of Palestine". On Monday,S December, in the morning, the Assembly will begin its deliberations on item 40, "The situation in the Middle East". On Tuesday, 6 December, in the afternoon, the Assembly will resume its l consideration of item 37, "Question of Palestine ll • On Thursday morning, 8 December, the Assembly, under item 38, will hold a b commemorative meeting for the fortieth anniversary of the Uni\1ersal Declaration of Human Rights. Reports of the Main Committees will be considered as they become available. Members will recall that I have stressed that every attempt is being made to cur tail the duration of the session so that, as we all hope and as will probabaly be achieved, the Assembly may conclude its work by Friday, 9 December. Members will also recall that the announcement of voluntary contributions to the 1989 programmes of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will take place on the morning of Monday, 21 Novembeq and the announcement of voluntary contr ibu tions to the 1989 programmes of the Uni ted Nations Relief and WOrks Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East will take r place in the afternoon of that day. If there are any changes in this programme, the Assembly will be informed.