We now believe that a fundamental basis exists for the kind of discussion and adjudication which must be undertaken if a settlement is to be achieved.

. I believe that there are two cardinal elements to any advice which this Council might give to Greece and Turkey.

First, it is essential that this Council urge Greece and Turkey to continue to exercise utmost restraint and avoid falling into a pattern of action and reaction, the result of which would be an increasing rigidity of position, the raising of the stakes each party considers to be involved in the conflict, and a consequent heightening of tensions between the two countries.

Second, both governments should be encouraged to pursue the array of procedures which are available to them for the peaceful settlement of this dispute. . . . [I]t is clear that both countries recognize that it is only through the resumption of direct and meaningful discussions between them that such a settlement can be achieved, or indeed must be achieved. For our part, the United States strongly favors and urges the earliest return by the parties to such discussions. I believe it is also clear that both parties recognize the potentially valuable role of the International Court of Justice to consider matters which remain unresolved after negotiation. The important thing is that the parties find a basis through direct contacts between them for whatever combination of direct talks and supporting adjudication that may be necessary to achieve the peaceful settlement that my government is confident both governments seek.

Press Release USUN-95 (76), Aug. 25, 1976; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1943, Sept. 20, 1976, pp. 373-374. Security Council Res. 395 (1976) reads as follows The Security Council,

Taking note of the letter of the Permanent Representative of Greece dated August 10. 1976 (S/12167).

Having heard and noted the various points made in the statements by the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey,

Expressing its concern over the present tensions between Greece and Turkey in relation to the Aegean Sea,

Bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as the various provisions of Chapter VI of the Charter concerning procedures and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Noting the importance of the resumption and continuance of direct negotiations between Greece and Turkey to resolve their differences,

Conscious of the need for the parties both to respect each other's international rights and obligations and to avoid any incident which might lead to the aggravation of the situation and which, consequently, might compromise their efforts towards a peaceful solution,

1. Appeals to the Governments of Greece and Turkey to exercise the utmost restraint in the present situation;

2. Urges the Governments of Greece and Turkey to do everything in their power to reduce the present tensions in the area so that the negotiating process may be facilitated;

3. Calls on the Governments of Greece and Turkey to resume direct negotiations over their differences and appeals to them to do everything within their power to ensure that these result in mutually acceptable solutions;

4. Invites the Governments of Greece and Turkey in this respect to continue to take into account the contribution that appropriate judicial means, in particular the International Court of Justice, are qualified to make to the settlement of any

remaining legal differences which they may identify in connection with their present dispute.

On Sept. 11, 1976, the International Court of Justice decided not to indicate interim measures of protection in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case. Its Order, adopted by vote of 12 to 1, found that the circumstances did not require the exercise of the Court's power under art. 41 of its Statute to indicate interim measures of protection. The Court set the following time limits in the case: for the Memorial of Greece-Apr. 18, 1977; for the Counter-Memorial of Turkey-Oct. 24, 1977. XV International Legal Materials 985-1009.

Conciliation

Article IX, paragraph 3, of the U.S.-Poland Agreement Concerning Fisheries Off the Coasts of the United States, signed August 2, 1976, provides for the continuation of the U.S.-Polish Fisheries Board created by Annex I of the U.S.-Poland Agreement Regarding Fisheries in the Western Region of the Middle Atlantic, signed May 29, 1975, as amended (TIAS 8099), and as set forth in Annex II of the 1976 agreement.

The text of Annex II follows:

AMERICAN-POLISH FISHERIES BOARD

Section I

Establishment of the Board

1. There is hereby established an American-Polish Fisheries Board (hereinafter called the Board).

2. The Board shall consist of four members, two appointed by the Government of the United States of America and two appointed by the Government of the Polish People's Republic. At least one of the two members appointed by each Government shall have knowledge of the general principles of international law, particularly those relating to fisheries matters. Each Government-appointed member shall serve as an instructed representative of the appointing Government. It is the responsibility of each Government to maintain its full complement of members.

3. Each Government may appoint one non-voting technical adviser to the Board for each matter heard.

4. All decisions of the Board shall be undertaken unanimously by those members present and voting, so long as at least one member appointed by each Government is present.

5. The Board shall normally sit in New York, New York. Insofar as is necessary considering the location of the parties and the availability of evidence, the Board may sit elsewhere.

6. English and Polish shall be the official working languages of the Board. The Governments shall assist the Board in arranging for necessary translations and interpretations.

7. As used in this Annex, the term "national" refers to any vessel or person, natural or juridical, including but not limited to a governmental entity.

Section II

Conciliation Functions

1. The Board shall consider claims advanced by a national of either State against a national of the other State regarding financial loss resulting from damage to or loss of the national's fishing vessel or fishing gear.

2. No claim may be brought more than six months after the occurrence of the relevant incident, unless the Board decides unanimously to make an exception for a specific incident occurring during the six weeks prior to the entry into force of the Agreement.

Section III

Conciliation Procedures

1. The Board shall establish its procedures in accordance with this Annex. 2. A claim, as referred to in Section II above, shall be brought before the Board by a written request. The request shall be in the form of a sworn statement which shall include, inter alia, a detailed account of the incident from which the claim arises, the identity of all persons and vessels involved, the remedy sought (damages claimedi and a list of potential witnesses knowledgeable about the incident. All appropriate documentary evidence supporting the claim shall be forwarded with the claim to the Board.

3. Upon receipt of a claim, the Board shall, as soon as practicable, commence an inquiry into the incident, and inform both Governments. Each Government shall immediately notify any of its nationals against whom a claim is made. Its nationals may in turn file with the Board a sworn statement responding to the claim. The response may contain a counterclaim insofar as the counterclaim arises from the same incident upon which the claim is based. A counterclaim shall be in the same form and contain the same information as a claim. The Board may join claims that arise from the same incident, without prejudice to the right of each party to present evidence with or without counsel.

4. The Board may request further information and documents from the parties to the dispute or from appropriate governmental agencies. All statements, reports.or other documents presented to the Board shall be duly sworn and attested as to their authenticity, insofar as reasonably possible. Offical Government reports and documents need not be so authenticated..

5. If either the claimant or the respondent requests a hearing, or if the Board deems it desirable to hold a hearing, the Board shall convene a hearing regarding the incident. The claimant and respondent may appear at the hearing personally or through a representative, with or without counsel, and may present witnesses. The Board may invite as a witness any person, organization, corporation or other entity which has a direct interest in or knowledge of the matter. The claimant and respondent shall be permitted to question all persons testifying at the hearing. provided that no person shall be required to respond to any question. 6. The Governments will facilitate the work of the Board.

Section IV
Conciliation Report

1. The Board shall prepare a report containing its findings as to: (a) the facts giving rise to the claim;

(b) the extent of damage or loss;

(c) the degree of respondent's or claimant's responsibility, if any; and

(d) the amount, if any, which should be paid by respondent or claimant as compensation for losses arising from the incident.

2. If the Board does not unanimously adopt the findings, this shall be stated in the report, and the report shall contain separate statements of each Board member's opinion.

3. The Board shall transmit its report to the claimant, to the respondent, and to each of the two Governments no later than sixty days after the completion of the procedures under Section III.

4. Within thirty days after receipt of the Board's report, either the claimant or the respondent may request in writing that the Board reconsider its report. The request shall set forth the reasons for the request and material substantiating the request. The Board may decide to reconsider its report and, if it deems appropriate, receive new evidence or convene a rehearing, or both. Section III procedures will be applicable to the reconsideration.

5. The two Governments undertake to encourage settlement of claims in accordance with the findings of the Board.

6. Within sixty days of receipt of the Board's report each Government shall report to the Board in writing the actions taken by its nationals pursuant to the Board's findings.

7. If one of the parties to a conciliation proceeding refuses to settle in accordance with the findings of the Board, the Board shall encourage the parties to submit their dispute to binding arbitration.

8. The Board's report and the report of each Government shall be published in the form agreed by the Board.

Section V

Use of the Board

The two Governments shall encourage their nationals to use in the first instance the Board to settle claims resulting from damage to or loss of fishing gear and vessels. The Governments shall give information about the Board to interested persons.

Section VI
Applicable Law

In all proceedings under this Annex the Board shall apply:

1. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the two Governments, including bilateral and multilateral agreements between the two Governments dealing with fisheries and maritime matters generally;

2. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; 3. the general principles of law recognized by nations;

4. judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

Section VII
Other Remedies

1. Nothing in this Annex shall preempt, prejudice, or in any other way affect judicial proceedings, or in any way prejudice or affect the substantive or procedural rights of any person, whether or not such person appears before or participates in the proceedings of the Board.

2. No claim shall be brought the substance of which has been or is being adjudicated or arbitrated between the parties. The Board may refuse to consider a claim on the grounds that it should be joined to an existing judicial proceeding involving substantially the same issues and in which the law applicable to such judicial proceeding appears to permit such joinder.

3. The Board shall immediately suspend conciliation proceedings regarding a claim in respect to which judicial proceedings are instituted, unless the court before which the proceedings are pending determines, in the exercise of its lawful authority, that the parties may continue to proceed before the Board.

4. The Board shall immediately terminate conciliation proceedings regarding a claim in respect to which there is a binding agreement to arbitrate.

Section VIII
Funding

Each Government shall pay all expenses, including compensation, of the members it appoints to the Board and of any technical advisers it appoints. The two Governments will share equally all the administrative and operational costs of the Board. Such costs do not include expenses related to the presentation or production of evidence or the appearance of witnesses.

Section IX
Review

At the request of either Government, representatives of the two Governments shall meet to review the operation of this Annex and to consider proposals for its revision. This Annex may be amended through an exchange of notes between the two Governments.

Section X
Termination

At any time either Government may give written notice to the other Government of its intention to denounce this Annex, in which case the Annex shall terminate sixty days from the date of the notification, provided that the effect of the Annex shall in any event continue until the conclusion of conciliation proceedings and arbitrations instituted prior to its termination, unless otherwise agreed by the two Governments.

The 1976 agreement and annexes were transmitted to Congress on Sept. 16, 1976, pursuant to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265; 16 U.S.C. 1801). See H. Doc. 94-613.

Southern Africa

Mediation

Secretary of State Kissinger, at the request of African leaders, undertook a series of negotiations in September 1976 in a diplomatic effort to mediate the conflicts taking place in southern Africa. In a news conference in Washington on September 11, he described the objectives of his mission as follows:

First, the American diplomatic effort is being undertaken with the support and with the encouragement of all of the parties involved.

Second, there is no "American plan." The solutions have to be found in Africa and have to be found by negotiations among the parties.

Third, the United States has agreed to offer its good offices because no other country was available to perform this role and because the risks to world peace of an escalating violence in southern Africa were very severe.

Fourth, war had already started in southern Africa. The danger of its expansion, the danger of foreign intervention, the impact on the national security of the United States and on world peace dictated that we make an effort to find a peaceful solution. The worst that can happen if this effort fails is what was certain to happen if the effort is not made.

We are dealing with three problems: Namibia, Rhodesia, and South Africa-each having different aspects and each having different timetables.

On this trip we will deal primarily with the issues of Namibia and Rhodesia. It is not a negotiation that will lend itself to dramatic final conclusions, because there are, in the case of Rhodesia, four states, four liberation movements, the Rhodesian settlers, and South Africa involved; in the case of Namibia, several African states, again South Africa, the national movement recognized by the Organization of African Unity, namely, SWAPO [South West Africa People's Organization], and several internal groups assembled in a constitutional conference.

We are pursuing this policy, which will not support violence and which stands opposed to foreign intervention, in the interest of world peace, in the national interest of the United States, and above all for the interests of the peoples of Africa.

The purpose is to enable a transition to independence in Namibia and to majority rule and protection of minority rights in Rhodesia under conditions that will enable all the communities to live together and in which the bloodshed is put to an end.

The conditions in South Africa are more complicated and require a much longer timespan for their evolution.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1945, Oct. 4, 1976, p. 409.