The Negotiating Strategy of UNCLOS III: Developing and Developed Countries as Partners: A Pattern for Future Multilateral International Conferences?

Abstract

general agreement that anyone who has made a contribution to the Law of the Sea Conference would be regarded as having made a positive contribution to peace, security, and the rule of law. In that event, you will be hearing a minority point of view from me because my government considers-and I agree-that the Conference was a smashing success. We regret that the U.S. Government does not see things in the same way. It needs to be explained in brief what Conference I am talking about because we all seem to be talking about different conferences; indeed we seem to be talking about different Conventions according to our respective perceptions of this Convention. I therefore take the liberty of citing some high-level Canadian sources, and then I will plunge into the subject matter of my discussion, namely the negotiating process and its possible applicability to other conferences. I want to begin by recalling that when the conference began, the law of the sea was in a state of disorder bordering on chaos. I am thinking more of 1967 than 1973, but there had not been much improvement in the meantime. There were conflicting claims on the breadth of territorial sea, the nature and extent of coastal jurisdiction over fisheries, the regime for marine scientific research, coastal state rights and obligations concerning the preservation of the environment, disputes as to the outer edge of the continental shelf, disagreements concerning the rule for boundary delimitation, and even whether or not there existed an international seabed beyond national jurisdiction. It was not so long ago that two NATO allies of the United States and Canada (the United Kingdom and Iceland) were in a confrontation over fishing rights, while later, two others (Greece and Turkey) engaged in a dispute in the Aegean over seabed limits and delimitation issues.