report of the CCD to the General Assembly. The delegation of Brazil would prefer this second alternative. In any case the delegation reserved the position of the Brazilian Government on this subject. The reservation was of a substantive nature because, as already stated by the delegation in the course of the debates, it considered the abovementioned interpretations definitely not satisfactory. In spite of this formal reservation, the Brazilian delegation would not oppose a consensus to submit the Draft Convention to the consideration of the General Assembly.

10. The Yugoslav delegation said it was not satisfied from the beginning with the scope and some other provisions of the text of the Draft Convention. It had put on record some of its requests for amendments to the text of the Draft Convention and had given support to a number of other amendments and suggestions put forth by other delegations. In the process of negotiation in the Working Group, there had been improvements of the text of the Draft Convention, including acceptance of some amendments by the Yugoslav delegation. The delegation found those modifications useful. However, until now the Yugoslav delegation had received no instruction from its Government in regard to the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Draft Convention as a whole. For that reason it wished to state for the record, without prejudging any decision that the Yugoslav Government might take, that on the delegation level it would not object to the consensus in the Working Group in respect to the transmittal of its report to the CCD. It wished also to reserve the right of the Yugoslav Government and the delegation to state their views in respect of the Draft Convention at a later date.

11. At the delegation level, the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany welcomed the results of the negotiations of the Working Group. Considering the short interval between the termination of these negotiations and the presentation of the report of the Working Group to the CCD, there had not been sufficient time for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to examine the draft in a thorough manner. Thus, on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the delegation reserved the right to further comment on the draft at later stages.

12. The delegation of the Netherlands could, in general, accept the text of the Draft Convention. The Netherlands Government reserved its right to make comments on the Draft Convention during the 1976 session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

13. The delegation of Pakistan said it was still awaiting firm instructions from its Government and, therefore, was not in a position to give definitive views on the Draft Convention. It would like, however, to put on record its views on some of the provisions of the draft. Regarding Article I, it felt that the phrase "having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects" would not only limit the scope of the prohibition but would render its interpretation difficult. The delegation failed to understand why, in a situation in which exception had

already been made in respect of use of environmental modification techniques for "peaceful purposes", "hostile use" of these techniques below a certain threshold should be sanctioned at the same time. In spite of this, the delegation had stated that it would not press for the exclusion of the words "widespread, long-lasting or severe", provided they were defined in a manner that was both precise and realistic, so as to avoid misinterpretation and to take into account the damage that could be suffered by a State. In the present draft such definitions had been relegated into an Understanding of the Committee, the status of which was unclear, so that doubts could be entertained about its effectiveness. In respect of the Understanding of the Committee relating to Article II, the delegation of Pakistan would like to add its own understanding that the phrase "ecological balance" encompassed the region's hydrological balance as well. With regard to Article III about the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes, the delegation of Pakistan wished to reiterate that it would be necessary to verify such peaceful uses, in order to ensure that they were indeed peaceful and could not be diverted to hostile uses. The delegation would have also preferred if the Draft Convention had included a provision on the obligation of States to ensure that their use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes would not result in adverse effects for other States. Regarding Article V, the delegation would be prepared, in principle, to accept the Article as drafted, subject to further technical examination. However, it continued to entertain doubts whether the modalities of a Consultative Committee of Experts would be effective in preventing violations of the Convention. For this purpose, it would have been better to create a machinery which could effectively prevent any threatened violations of the Convention. In conclusion, the delegation of Pakistan would not object, at the delegation level, to a consensus on transmitting the report of the Working Group to the plenary. The delegation, however, reserved the right to offer comments at a later date.

14. The delegation of Romania expressed its satisfaction for the working atmosphere that had generally prevailed during the proceedings in the Working Group. At the same time, it noted that a number of important issues had not been given in the Working Group the thorough consideration they deserved and not enough efforts had been made to accommodate the views of all delegations. The fact that the Draft Convention, as modified, still presented insurmountable difficulties for a number of delegations raised a serious problem, the consequence being that the Convention, conceived to be truly international, failed from its very inception to respond to the interests of all nations. Regarding the Preamble of the Draft Convention, the delegation of Romania reiterated the importance it attached to the commitment by all States Parties to continue negotiations, in order to achieve further effective measures in the field of disarmament. It regarded this provision as a minimal satisfaction to be given to those

delegations which considered that, in view of the hypothetical nature of the environmental modification techniques, the immediate value of the Convention consisted primarily in the future action that it might be able to stimulate in other fields of disarmament. In this connexion the Romanian delegation held that paragraph 2 of the Preamble considerably limited the scope of the impact that the Convention might have for further disarmament measures, by failing to mention the priority to be given to nuclear disarmament. On Article I, the delegation of Romania reiterated the strong preference it had expressed during the deliberations of the Working Group for a Convention which was comprehensive in its scope, prohibiting the military use of all environmental modification techniques. It was its understanding, therefore, that, should the Convention remain unchanged, Article VIII of the present draft included a definite commitment by all States Parties to keep the question of the scope of the Convention under constant observation and also to take advantage of the First Review Conference, in order to engage in concrete negotiations with a view to banning those environmental modification techniques which remained below the level of magnitude established by the Draft Convention in its present form. On Article V, the delegation held that, although in its present form Article V had been much improved as compared with its initial version, it still maintained the central role of the Security Council in deciding in the future on any complaint, in case of possible violations of the Convention. In this connexion, the delegation of Romania considered that the system of verification and control to be provided for any international convention should be based on the equal protection of all Parties and on their equal participation in any complaint procedures. It was its understanding. therefore, that should such cases of possible violations of the Convention arise in the future, the above principle must be fully observed. Finally, as regards the question of the transmission of the Draft Convention to the General Assembly, the delegation of Romania stated its position to the effect that the transmission of the Draft Convention should be fully consistent with the rules of procedure under which the CCD presently worked.

15. The Italian delegation approved the transmission of the modified text of the Draft Convention by the Working Group to the CCD, but reserved its right to comment on it at a later stage, pending the final position of the Italian Government on the same text. The Italian delegation stated that in Article II of the Draft Convention the words "or affecting" should be added after the word "changing", to make it clear that the provision of paragraph 1 of Article I also applied to the deliberate use of any technique which would have an adverse influence, other than a change in the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, etc. The Italian delegation also held the view that Article III should contain a provision establishing the responsibility of States Parties for damages or injuries deriving from the

use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. It stated that such a provision would, inter alia, greatly help to prevent that prohibited activities under the Draft Convention might actually be disguised as peaceful ones.

16. The Ethiopian delegation reserved the position of the Ethiopian Government on the modified text of the Draft Convention. However, this should not be taken to imply that the Ethiopian delegation opposed the forwarding of the draft text to the CCD and eventually to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

17. The delegations of the United States and the Soviet Union were of the view that the complete draft text of a convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, resulting from the proceedings of the Working Group, represented a considerable accomplishment. They noted that a large majority of delegations shared this view. They also observed that the draft was significantly modified from the identical drafts which were tabled in the CCD in August 1975; this reflected accommodation of the co-sponsors' positions to views stated by others in the Working Group and the CCD itself. Both delegations were gratified that a broadly agreed text was worked out in a genuinely multilateral process. The Soviet and American delegations were further of the view that the modified draft text would accomplish the main objective of effectively eliminating the real dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. Accordingly, they recommended that the CCD accept the text as forwarded to the Committee in this report.

18. The Egyptian delegation recalled that it had already expressed its views on the subject of the Draft Convention at the 701st meeting of the CCD and in the meetings of the Working Group. The delegation would like to reserve its position on the following Articles and also reserve its right to make further comments on the Draft Convention at later stages. With regard to Article I, the delegation of Egypt (a) believed in the addition of the words "or threat of use” after the word "use" in paragraph 1; (b) preferred a reference to "hostile" uses of environmental modification techniques without mentioning the word "military” in the same paragraph; (c) supported the deletion of the word "Party" at the end of the same paragraph. Concerning the scope of the prohibition of the use of environmental modification techniques, the delegation would prefer the deletion of the words "having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." Concerning Article II, the delegation of Egypt had supported the Italian proposal concerning the addition of the words "or affecting" after the word "changing". Concerning Article III, the delegation had noted that no mention was made in the Article about the liability of States Parties concerning the peaceful use of environmental mod

'CCD/PV.701, Apr. 8, 1976, pp. 12–17.

ification techniques which might cause damage or injury to any other State, a principle already applicable in the field of international law. In spite of these comments, the delegation of Egypt remained convinced of the usefulness and value of the Draft Convention. It had made its comments in a constructive spirit, with a view not to be an obstacle of any kind to whatever agreement could be reached with the Working Group.

19. The Swedish delegation said that its Government was in general agreement with the text of the amended Draft Convention. The Swedish Government reserved its right to make comments on the amended Draft Convention in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Statement by the Soviet Representative (Likhatchev) to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament: Environmental Modification, September 2, 19761

The Soviet delegation would like to make some remarks in connexion with the achievement of agreement on the draft convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

The Soviet Union, in submitting its proposal for the conclusion of a convention on this question to the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly, was guided above all by the anxiety of many States in the world over the possible use of environmental modification techniques as a weapon of war. The Soviet proposal was supported by the overwhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations. The draft convention submitted by the USSR for final approval in accordance with the decision of the General Assembly was transmitted to the Committee on Disarmament.

During 1974 and 1975, Soviet and United States specialists worked out identical texts of a draft convention, which were then submitted to the Committee on Disarmament for consideration in August 1975.2 This considerably facilitated the Committee's task.

The Soviet delegation notes with satisfaction that we have been able, at this session, as a result of intensive discussions in the Working Group as well as in informal consultations, to arrive at the text of a draft convention in the Committee. This is a major success in the work of the Committee on Disarmament. Members of the Committee have accomplished a great task, leading to the preparation of a new important international measure for limiting the arms race and for disarmament.