GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEBATES/ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001138 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL AORC UNGA SUBJECT: GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEBATES/ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS AND LAW OF THE SEA REF: A. A. STATE 122954 ¶B. B. STATE 122687 ¶1. Summary: On December 4, the General Assembly debated agenda items 76a: Oceans and the law of the sea and 76b: Sustainable fisheries, with over 42 Member States addressing the Assembly. Interventions focused mainly on combating piracy; stopping illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing; promoting the U.N. Convention on Oceans and Law of the Sea, and finding a solution to the increased workload of the Commission on the Continental Shelf. At the conclusion of the debate, resolution A/64/L.18 Corr. 1, Oceans and the law of the sea, was adopted by a vote of 120 in favor, 1 against (Turkey),and 3 abstentions (El Salvador, Colombia, and Venezuela). Resolution A/64/L.29, Sustainable Fisheries, was adopted without a vote. End Summary. ¶2. The General Debate began with the United States introducing resolution A/64/L.29, Sustainable Fisheries. (The negotiations of this resolution were once again expertly facilitated by Holly Koehler of OES.) The United States focused on the resolution's package bottom fisheries provisions, stressing that urgent action was still needed in this area. The U.S. statement also addressed the importance of regional fisheries management organizations in regulating international fisheries and ensuring the sustainability of global fish stocks. ¶3. Brazil introduced resolution A/64/L.18 Corr.1, Oceans and the law of the sea focusing on capacity building; the workload of the Continental Shelf Commission; maritime safety; and acidification of oceans. It highlighted the importance of the U.N. Convention on Oceans and Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and commended the efforts of the Division of Oceans and Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs (DOALOS). - - - - - - - - - REGIONAL GROUPS - - - - - - - - - ¶4. Sweden, on behalf of the European Union, addressed a wide range of issues, including freedom of navigation, piracy, the declining quality of the marine environment, the UN informal consultative process, the workload of the Continental Shelf Commission, the fisheries resolution's provisions on bottom fishing and the need for a binding agreement on port state control with respect to the regulation of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. . The EU noted that it would have wished to highlight the state of the Arctic region as a priority area for climate change research and to reference the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Sweden also commented on the size of the Oceans resolution (148 operative paragraphs) stating that it would be in favor of shortening the resolution in the future. ¶5. Benin, representing the African Group, commented that the principles espoused in the two texts would be meaningless if real efforts were not made to involve all States (particularly African coastal States). It observed that small African States are generally powerless when large companies exploit their maritime natural resources, noting that "if nothing is done soon, the law of the sea could become the law of the jungle." The African Group requested technical assistance and capacity building to give coastal States the ability to patrol and maintain their coasts and urged Member States to contribute to the Trust Fund. Benin closed by expressing its concern for the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as many States would not be able to meet its deadlines. ¶6. Jamaica, on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said it was firmly committed to the protection and preservation of the Caribbean Sea. It advocated for the conduct of marine scientific research and welcomed the revision of the guide on marine scientific research. CARICOM supported the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and commended the work of the International Seabed Authority. ¶7. Nauru, representing the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) recognized the negative impacts of IUU and bottom trawling. It acknowledged the PSIDS's lack of technical expertise and minimal capacity to enforce and report illegal activities. Nauru called for expediting new Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) to fill any gaps between the North and South Pacific. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMMON THEMES AND NOTABLE REMARKS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶8. Throughout the debate, many delegations touched upon common themes. Most Member States expressed support for the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS),and the U.N. Convention for the Law of the Sea (the Convention). Numerous delegations (Kuwait, Norway, Singapore, Canada, and Japan) called for more action against piracy, with Ukraine focusing its intervention exclusively on the subject. Similarly, most delegations opposed IUU fishing practices. ¶9. Many delegations expressed great concern about the workload of the Continental Shelf Commission noting the very long timelines for consideration of their submissions, with Sri Lanka noting that some recommendations might not be finalized until 2040. Many delegations welcomed the decision of the 19th meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention to establish an informal working group to continue to consider ways to address this issue at next year's States Parties meeting. ¶10. Malta suggested adding trafficking in persons, safety and security of navigation and transportation of weapons of mass discussion to the Convention. Tanzania recommended expanding the ambit of the International Criminal Court to include piracy and suggested an international conference under the United Nations to examine piracy. ¶11. Singapore commented that the Convention is an indivisible package, stating that "we should not extract paragraphs from the Convention out of context, nor misuse certain provisions in an attempt to justify measures that are inconsistent with the Convention." ¶12. Many delegations thanked Holly Koehler for her able facilitation of the sustainable fisheries resolution negotiation. - - - - - - - - - - OBSERVER MISSIONS - - - - - - - - - - ¶13. Nii Allotey Odunton, Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, commended the progress on finalizing regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides. Odunton commented that the lack of data on the deep sea continued to be a problem and that the Authority was working with States to standardize and share credible data. ¶14. Harlan Cohen from the International Union for Conservation of Nature called for a cumulative approach to address the management of the marine environment, noting that 17,000 species are threatened, including 32 percent of open ocean sharks and rays. The Union was concerned that a quota agreed to on blue fin tuna for 2010 was much higher than recommended by the scientific advisory body. He recommended the creation of networks of marine protected areas. ¶15. Jose Luis Jesus, President of the ITLOS, welcomed Chad, the Dominican Republic, and Switzerland for becoming the newest States party to the Convention. He updated the Assembly on the work of the Special Chamber and capacity building efforts in the Southern Africa region. He encouraged States Parties to make a declaration, under article 287 of the Convention, choosing ITLOS as their preferred forum for the settlement of disputes. Jesus also noted that bilateral agreements related to the law of the sea may include provisions conferring jurisdiction on ITLOS. - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION ACTION - - - - - - - - - - ¶16. Following the debate, the Assembly took action on the oceans resolution. Before the vote, Singapore explained its affirmative vote stating that operative paragraph 46 left silent the fact that the consideration by the Continental Shelf Commission are without prejudice to other entities, such as ITLOS and the International Court of Justice. Venezuela, in explaining its abstention, said that the Convention is not the only source of the law of the sea, and that it is not customary international law except to the extent that it has been incorporated into its domestic legislation. . The Secretariat then explained that the resolution contained no program budget implications. The Assembly then voted on the resolution with 120 in favor, 1 against (Turkey),and 3 abstentions (Venezuela, Colombia, and El Salvador). ¶17. The General Assembly then moved to the draft sustainable fisheries resolution and adopted it without a vote. Argentina, while explaining its position, noted that General Assembly resolutions were not binding and that States not parties to the fish stocks agreement were not bound by its terms. It also noted that international law did not allow regional fisheries management organizations to impose measures on ships whose flags were from States not members of those organizations. Finally, Argentina said that the sustainable fisheries resolutions' provisions on bottom fishing cannot affect the sovereign rights of coastal States over their continental shelf in accordance with international law. Turkey then took the floor to state it was not a co-sponsor of the oceans resolution (the first draft that was circulated erroneously listed Turkey as a co-sponsor) and that Turkey was not party to the Convention as it did not provide sufficient safeguards for special geographical situations or special circumstances. Thus, Turkey could not accept a resolution that calls on States to become a party to the Convention. In reference to the fisheries resolution, Turkey supported the resolution but disassociated itself from any references to international instruments to which it is not party. Finally, Venezuela explained that it held similar reservations to the fisheries resolution regarding the fish stocks agreement as it did for oceans resolution regarding the Convention. RICE