of the concepts contained in the preexisting provisions on fisheries can be regarded as having already been assimilated into international law.

There will be issues with respect to the 12-mile territorial sea, archipelagic waters, passage through straits and so on.

Mr. BINGHAM. I think in answer to one of the chairman's questions you suggested that a lot might depend on the way the future work is done with regard to the procedures to be followed by the Technical Commission.

Ambassador RICHARDSON. That is true, Mr. Bingham.

I certainly would not recommend ratifying unless the work of the Preparatory Commission on the rules, regulations, and procedures comes out in a satisfactory way. This will have further advantage because it will preclude the worst case interpretations of general language that are often used now in order to criticize the results of the negotiations. It will be possible with the regulations in hand to answer these questions and to assure the questioner that the result cannot change in the future, except with our agreement, since future amendments of the rules, regulations, and procedures will require consensus.

Mr. BINGHAM. May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, what was the impact on this last session of the enactment of the law affecting the deep seabeds?

Ambassador RICHARDSON. Apart from the very forceful denunciations of our unilateral action at the outset of the session, it would be difficult to know just what the impact has been, except in the case of the issue I referred to earlier as that of preparatory investment protection.

This is the issue, as I mentioned, that concerns the means of protecting an investor, who moves ahead in the interval prior to entry into force of the treaty, from possible prejudice to his investment as a result of the later coming into being of the International Seabed Authority.

Here we probably did suffer some damage to the opportunity to negotiate a satisfactory outcome of that issue. But it has at least been recognized as a subject that will require further negotiation next time.

Ibid., pp. 6-10.

The United States Delegation Report on the Resumed Ninth Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, July 28-August 29, 1980, Geneva was included as Appendix 1 in the transcript of the Hearings, ante. The Summary read, in part, as follows:

U.S. DELEGATION REPORT: RESUMED NINTH SESSION OF THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, JULY 28-AUGUST 29, 1980-GENEVA

SUMMARY

The Resumed Ninth Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has completed substantive negotiation of texts on virtually all major outstanding issues. These texts have been incorporated into a new informal Draft Convention that seems likely to command general acceptance in principle. It is

likely that the Convention on the Law of the Sea will be completed and opened for signature in 1981.

The Conference has proposed a schedule for 1981 that provides for the Drafting Committee to meet intersessionally for seven weeks, commencing January 12, in New York, in order to complete its review of all articles in all languages before the start of the Tenth Session. After a one-week interval, the Tenth Session would then meet in New York, if facilities are available, commencing March 9, for six weeks, with a possible one week extension, to complete the final text of the Convention. A final session would then be held in Caracas, presumably later in the year, for formal statements and the opening of the Convention for signature.

As a result of the work of the Ninth Session, the major questions outstanding are the three deferred at this session of the Conference:

1. Preparatory Commission: The Conference needs to complete the resolution establishing a Preparatory Commission for the establishment of the International Seabed Authority and the drafting of rules, regulations and procedures.

2. Preparatory Investment Protection: Prospects for support of the Convention could be significantly improved if means were found to ensure that those who make investments in seabed mining prior to the entry into force of the Convention will, if qualified, be accorded priority in seeking a contract from the Authority. 3. Participation: Various proposals have been made to allow entities other than states to become parties to the Convention. The questions involved range from the justifiable juridical requests of the European Community, the associated states that are emerging in the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands and a small number of other associated states, to the explosive and potentially destructive issue of liberation organizations.

In addition, the question of the precise wording of the articles regarding delimitation of economic zones and continental shelves between neighboring states has yet to be settled, although it seems clear now that any settlement will not entail drastic substantive modifications to the current text.

There are a number of problems in all Committees at the margins of the basic settlement where some modifications that could command a consensus would significantly help one or a few countries to become party to the Convention. The next session of the Conference will have to find a means of making such modifications without running the risks of disturbing the balance of the Convention by reopening matters that are settled.

It is also possible that on the basis of closer examination of some of the present accommodations on such issues as voting in the Council and financing the Enterprise, governments may want to seek improvements in certain respects.

Finally, the Drafting Committee of the Conference must complete its work before the next session if the Conference is to be in a position to debate and adopt a Convention.

It is not unrealistic to expect that all of this can be achieved by the end of the Tenth Session. There is, however, a significant danger as the Conference approaches its final stages, i.e., the misguided belief that substantive changes affecting the balance of the Convention can be effected through voting or the threat of voting. The United States and other delegations have made it clear that this would destroy the Convention.

Second and Third Committees

The Second and Third Committees, the texts of which deal with the substance of the Law of the Sea Convention aside from deep seabed matters, met only to consider drafting questions. There were no significant attempts to alter the substance. Nevertheless, some delegations are continuing to threaten votes on such matters as authorization for innocent passage of warships in the territorial sea or changes in the economic zone regime. The United States and other delegations have made it clear that there is no possibility of a Convention on the Law of the Sea with such provisions added, and that pressing these points will result either in the destruction of the Convention or in a "negative record" that makes it obvious that the proper interpretation of the Convention is the opposite of what the proponents seek.

The atmosphere created by these extreme proposals made it difficult to consider largely technical questions that do not alter the balance of the text and that could command a consensus. This can probably be done at the next session.

Dispute Settlement

With a final reorganization of some of the provisions, the negotiations on settlement of disputes are completed. It is possible that minor changes may emerge as a result of the completion of negotiation on delimitation of the economic zone and the continental shelf between opposite and adjacent states, and with respect to certain technicalities regarding the seabed dispute settlement system.

Final Clauses and General Provisions

The Informal Plenary has essentially completed the task of arriving at a set of final clauses that can command general agreement. The texts that emerged provide for entry into force of the Convention after the deposit of 60 instruments of ratification or accession. They protect the integrity of the overall "package deal," involving different priorities of different states, by making clear that reservations and exceptions are only permitted when expressly provided in a particular article of the Convention. At the same time, the new texts facilitate ratification by giving broad latitude to states to make declarations that do not purport to modify the Convention, and by removing restrictions on the right to denounce the Convention.

An element of flexibility is introduced by allowing amendments. The procedures both for adoption and for entry into force of amendments are quite stringent, and are designed to protect the underlying premise that all relevant interests must be balanced and accommodated. Given the complexity of the Convention, a helpful provision has been inserted allowing rapid adopting of amendments if no party to the Convention objects within 12 months, after which they would be circulated for ratification or accession. The stability of the seabed system has in particular been preserved by making clear that amendments pending the Review Conference can only be adopted if approved in identical form by the Council and the Assembly of the Authority. Under the new First Committee text, a consensus would be required in the Council for approval.

There are several new general provisions. They prohibit abuse of rights or the use or threat of force in violation of the United Nations Charter, protect classified information, and provide for the protection of archeological objects and objects of historical origin.

Drafting Committee

This session demonstrated once again that it is difficult for delegations to give undivided attention to Drafting Committee matters during a regular session of the Conference. The Drafting Committee, having completed much of its initial harmonization efforts at its intersessional meeting in June, will proceed during the next intersessional period to the completion of the formidable task of textual review and concordance of the six language versions of some 400 articles.

Ibid., pp. 23-28.

On Apr. 17, 1980, Ambassador Richardson had reported to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the first half of the Ninth Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Feb. 27-Apr. 4, 1980, New York. The U.S. Delegation Report may be found at The Status of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Spring 1980: Hearing before the House Comm. on For. Aff., 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980), pp. 10-58.

The summary portion of the Report stated, inter alia:

The Informal Plenary also conducted substantial work on a resolution to establish a Preparatory Commission whose major functions would relate to preparations necessary for the establishment of the [International] Seabed Authority when the Convention enters into force. This would include the drafting of provisional rules, regulations and procedures, without which the Seabed Authority could not perform its functions under the treaty. In this connection, at the end of the session the United States circulated an informal working paper dealing with the protection, under the Convention, of investments made in deep seabed mining in contemplation of its entry into force. Inclusion of provisions on this matter is essential if there is to be continuing development of technology during the period prior to entry into force enabling both private miners and the Enterprise to be assured of the capacity to go forward as soon as the treaty enters into force.

Ibid., p. 16.

A description of the work of the Ninth Session of the Conference (including that of the Resumed Session at Geneva) may also be found at Oxman, The Third, United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Ninth Session (1980), Am. J. Int'l L., Vol. 75 (1981), p. 211. The article "is a sequel" to Stevenson & Oxman, The Preparations for the Law of the Sea Conference, ibid., Vol. 68 (1974), p. 1; The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The 1974 Caracas Session, ibid., Vol. 69 (1975), p. 1; -The 1975 Geneva Session, ibid., p. 763; and Oxman, The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The 1976 New York Session, ibid., Vol. 71 (1977), p. 247;-The 1977 New York Sessions, ibid., Vol. 72 (1978), p. 57; -The Seventh Session (1978), ibid., Vol. 73 (1979), p. 1; -The Eighth Session (1979), ibid., Vol. 74 (1980), p. 1. On July 9, 1982, President Ronald Reagan announced that the United States would not sign the Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted by the Conference on April 30, 1982 (and subsequently opened for signature at Montego Bay, Jamaica, Dec. 10, 1982), because its provisions on deep seabed mining did not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States. The President stated that U.S. participation in the remaining conference process would be "at the technical level ard would involve only those provisions that serve United States interests."

Public Papers of the Presidents: Ronald Reagan, 1982, Bk. II (1983), p. 911.

Limits of the Territorial Sea

Coast Guard Special Navigational Rules

On August 8, 1980, President Carter signed into law as Public Law 96-324, 94 Stat. 1020, legislation to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating (since April 1, 1967, the Department of Transportation) to establish lines of demarcation dividing the high seas and inland waters. As subsequently amended to strike out references to the Panama Canal Zone in the definition of the United States (by section 13 of the Coast Guard authorization act, Public Law 96-376, approved Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1509, 1511, and by section 9 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980, Public Law 96-591, approved December 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3415, 3436), section 1 of Public Law 96-324, 33 U.S.C. 151, reads:

(a) Establishment and purpose

The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall establish appropriate identifiable demarcation lines dividing the high seas from harbors, rivers, and other inland waters of the United States, for the purpose of determining the applicability of special navigational rules in lieu of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

(b) Applicability of other statutes; limitation; position

The Secretary shall also establish appropriate identifiable lines dividing inland waters of the United States from the high seas for the purpose of determining the applicability of each statute that

refers to this section or this section, as amended. These lines may not be located more than twelve nautical miles seaward of the base line from which the territorial sea is measured. These lines may differ in position for the purposes of different statutes.

(c) Definition

For the purposes of this section, the term "United States" includes the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any other Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

33 U.S.C. 151 (1976, Supp. IV, 1980).

When signing H.R. 1198 into law as P.L. 96-324, President Carter stated in part:

The establishment of any line dividing the seas raises the possibility that arguments will be made using the lines to justify positions for which they are not intended and, consequently, may have both domestic and international implications for the location and measurement of territorial seas. The legislative report on H.R. 1198 clearly states that the lines called for by this bill relate solely to safety and are not intended to be used for any other purpose. To emphasize this legislative intent, I am directing the Secretary of Transportation to consult with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General prior to each establishment of a line under H.R. 1198. This procedure will ensure that the firmly established Federal positions regarding the location and measurement of the territorial seas are not prejudiced. In addition, it is my understanding that the lines established under H.R. 1198 are not to be deemed determinative of territorial jurisdiction under international law.

Public Papers of the Presidents: Jimmy Carter, 1980-81, Bk. II (1982), pp. 1521-1522. Weekly Comp. of Pres. Docs., Vol. 16, No. 32, Aug. 11, 1980, pp. 1521, 1522.

See, further, H.R. Rept. 96-427, 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980), and S. Rept. 96-853, 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980).

Asked for comments on H.R. 1198, the Department of State, in a letter from Douglas J. Bennet, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, to Congressman John M. Murphy, Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, dated June 12, 1979, had replied in part:

The Department of State is aware of the necessity for determining the dividing line between areas where the inland rules of the road are applicable and areas where the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are applicable. Furthermore, the Department has no objection to clarifying the manner in which this determination is carried out.

However, in light of the fact that any line which is established in the sea is often used to justify positions for which the line was not intended, and the fact that lines