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.

1CCD/PV. 726, pp. 7–13.

Documents on Disarmament, 1975, pp. 385-388.

3 Supra.

The Soviet delegation considers that the conclusion of such a convention would undoubtedly be in the interests of strengthening peace, would make a significant contribution to saving mankind from the danger of the use of new methods of waging war, and would correspond to the task of limiting and halting the arms race and of disarmament. It considers that the draft convention that has been worked out fully satisfies these aims. At the same time, such an international agreement will help solve the problem of protecting the environment for the benefit of mankind. As a result of the discussions, many comments and wishes expressed by various delegations were considered, and corrections were made to, and some new provisions inserted in, the original draft.

I should like to emphasize the constructive approach adopted by many representatives to the accomplishment of the task before the Committee, and their flexibility and spirit of compromise in connexion with the solution of specific and sometimes extremely complex political, legal and technical problems associated with the drafting of the Convention.

The Soviet delegation would now like to make some comments on certain articles of the draft, and in particular on article V (concerning control), since this article provoked considerable discussion at an earlier stage. But a spirit of compromise and consideration for mutual interests prevailed, and mutually acceptable formulations were found.

This article contains important provisions for the settlement of possible situations of conflict connected with questions of the implementation of the convention by States parties to it. According to these provisions, consultation and co-operation through international procedures include the possibility, should problems arise in relation to compliance with the convention, of fact-finding by existing international organizations such as, for example, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. In our view, the nature of the activities of these two organizations are closest to the matters covered by the convention.

The article also provides for the establishment of a consultative committee of experts, open to all States parties to the convention, whose task is to assist States parties in the solution of any problems which may arise in connexion with the objectives or implementation of the convention. This solution is in accordance with the principle of the equality of all States parties to the convention.

The committee of experts has, if necessary, to make findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised by any State party in connexion with the application of the provisions of the convention. In practice, all this will ensure a better understanding of what has happened and will lead, in particular cases, to the elimination of possible misunderstandings or disagreements. The adoption of decisions on controversial matters concerning the implementation of

the convention must be the prerogative of the Security Council. A State which has any doubts on the basis of the findings of fact of the committee of experts will itself decide whether to lodge a complaint with the Security Council, requesting it to carry out an investigation and adopt a political decision, or to drop its claims altogether if it becomes clear that they arose through a misunderstanding. The article clearly lays down the procedure for lodging a complaint with the Security Council.

Thus, the State concerned has, in case of need, a sufficiently wide range of courses of action, including bilateral consultation and co-operation, application to existing international bodies within the framework of the United Nations for consultation, the convening of the consultative committee of experts and, lastly, application to the Security Council. The State itself decides which of these possibilities it wishes to make use of.

A corresponding annex to the convention, relating to article V, on the functions and rules of procedure of the committee of experts, has also been drawn up. It clearly outlines the committee's sphere of competence with regard to fact-finding, without the adoption of any decisions on the substance of the problem which has arisen. This annex also provides for certain machinery to facilitate the committee's work, including the possibility of requesting from States, and from international organizations, information and assistance which would be desirable for the accomplishment of the committee's work.

Some delegations were interested in what was meant by assistance to a State which has been harmed. The Soviet delegation in the Working Group explained its understanding of this matter, and we should now like to confirm it. Assistance to those harmed as a result of violation of the convention, as provided for in article V, paragraph 5, means medical, rescue or other humanitarian measures. Measures designed to ensure the security of a country which has been attacked may be taken, as stipulated in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. The convention does not exclude assistance on the basis of other agreements and circumstances corresponding to the Charter.

Another of the most important articles of the draft is article I, in which the object and scope of the prohibition are defined. It should be said frankly that it was not easy to reach agreement on this article. And here again we should like to stress that many delegations showed a spirit of compromise and mutual understanding.

The term "military or any other hostile use" contained in this article and in the title of the draft convention is justified and logical, and should not be considered in isolation but in the context of the whole article, which also contains the expression "as the means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party". This combination makes it possible, on the one hand, to prohibit the use of environmental modification techniques for purely military purposes as a

weapon and, on the other, to prohibit their use for any other hostile purposes, even if they are not used by armed forces and in the absence of any armed conflicts. At the same time, this formulation excludes from the prohibition the use of such techniques in cases where they do not have a hostile character and are not designed to cause destruction, damage or injury, including situations where such techniques are used even by armed forces, for example, during manoeuvres, or for providing assistance to the national economy, for scientific purposes,

etc.

Certain differences of opinion on paragraph 1 related mainly to the scope of the prohibition, and specifically to the formulation "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects". These terms indicate the main characteristics of the scope of the prohibition. The formulation provides for the prohibition of those modification techniques which have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. The choice of this definition. is due above all to the fact that it is precisely effects of this kind which present the main danger and precisely such effects which are the subject of the problem under discussion. It should be noted here that the formulations of article I, together with the agreed understanding relating to this article by the Committee on Disarmament, practically exclude the possibilities of hostile modification of the environment.

As a result of the discussion of this problem, it was deemed desirable for the Committee on Disarmament to give an agreed interpretation of the terms "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects". A draft of such an interpretation was prepared by the Working Group. We consider that this approach is reasonable and meets the interests of the majority of the members of the Committee.

Article II of the draft is a logical complement to article I, explaining the meaning of the term "environmental modification techniques". In this text, attention is drawn to the principle of modification, based on the deliberate manipulation of natural processes.

The Committee's agreed understanding gives an illustrative list of specific and very carefully chosen phenomena. This list is the result of prolonged and very careful examination and study by scientific specialists of the whole body of important natural phenomena which human actions could cause or actively influence. In conjunction with the objective natural processes enumerated in this same article, it provides a comprehensive basis for the expression "environmental modification techniques". The purpose of the enumeration is to give a specific idea of what is really referred to in the convention. This is useful for the correct understanding, not only by experts, but by a wide circle of other people, of the significance of taking effective measures with regard to the problem under discussion.

During the consideration of the question of examples, as it is known, some delegations made proposals to include this list of examples in an annex to the convention. We did not object to this, but certain new difficulties arose in connexion with the status of such an

annex. In this case also delegations, showing a spirit of co-operation and a constructive approach, reached the conclusion that it would be desirable to remove the list from article II and to give an agreed understanding of the enumeration of examples separately.

As it is known, some additional provisions were also included in the preamble, which take into account the points of view of all the members of the Committee and have been helpful in reaching mutually acceptable decisions on articles I, II and III of the draft.

With regard to article III of the draft, we should like to point out that we accepted the proposal of delegations which spoke in favour of the inclusion in this article, as a separate paragraph, of a provision, similar to paragraph 1 of article X of the Bacteriological Weapons Convention, on co-operation between States in the field of the peaceful use of environmental modification techniques.

During the discussion of this article, certain delegations spoke in favour of including in it definite provisions governing international cooperation in this sphere and laying down what would amount to specific obligations on States in connexion with such co-operation. However, it was found that the inclusion of such provisions in this convention was unjustified, since the subject of the convention and its entire conception consist in the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, and not in the regulation of problems of the peaceful use of such techniques. These problems constitute quite a different subject.

With regard to article IV, it should be noted that it is now so formulated as to leave no doubt that each State is free to determine, in accordance with its own legislation, the procedure for carrying out the provisions of the convention. In this connexion, it was taken into account. that different States have different constitutional régimes governing such cases. This article in no way places States parties to the convention under the obligation to adapt their internal constitutional procedures or to change them in any other way.

The other articles and provisions of the convention, including those on conferences to review its operation (article VIII) were also elaborated as a result of constructive efforts to reach mutually acceptable decisions in which participants in the negotiations took into account the interests and views of various States.

The Soviet delegation declares that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics gives its agreement to the approval of the convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, prepared by the Committee on Disarmament, together with the annex thereto, and also of the text of the agreed understanding of the Committee on Disarmament relating to articles I, II, III and VIII of that convention.

In the light of the foregoing, the Soviet delegation recommends to the Committee on Disarmament, as is reflected in the joint statement by the co-sponsors of the draft convention at the meeting of