CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26 - NOAAUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization...

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-dent, I ask that the President be imme-diately notified of the nominations thisday confirmed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the President will be notifiedforthwith.

THE AGREEMENT FOR FACILITAT-ING THE INTERNATIONAL CIRCU-LATION OF VISUAL AND AUDITORYMATERIALS OF AN EDUCATION-AL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURALCHARACTER; A CONVENTION ONTHE TERRITORIAL SEA AND THECONTIGUOUS ZONE; A CONVEN-TION ON THE HIGH SEAS; ANAGREEMENT ENTITLED "CONVEN-TION ON FISHING AND CONSER-VATION OF THE LIVING RE-SOURCES OF THE HIGH SEAS"; ACONVENTION ON THE CONTI-NENTAL SHELF; AND AN OP-TIONAL PROTOCOL OF SIGNA-TURES CONCERNING THE COM-PULSORY SETTLEMENT OF DIS-PUTESMr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-

dent, I ask unanimous consent that thetwo agreements, the three conventions,and the optional protocol on the Ex-ecutive Calendar be considered en bloc;that the understanding relating to Ex-ecutive L be also considered and votedon with the other matters en bloc; thata yea-and-nay vote be taken upon thequestion of advising and consenting toExecutive V, and that the resolutions,with the accompanying understanding,advising and consenting to the ratifica-tion of the conventions, agreements, andoptional protocol be deemed to have beenagreed to by the same vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-CARTHY in the chair). Is there objec-tion to the request of the Senator fromTexas?

There being no objection, the Senate,as in Committee of the Whole, proceededto consider, en bloc, the following agree-ments, conventions, and optional proto-col, which were severally read the secondtime.

EXECUTIVE V

AGREEMENT FOR FACILITATING THE INTERNA-TIONAL CIRCULATION OF VISUAL AND AUDI-TORY MATERIALS OF AN EDUCATIONAL,SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL CHARACTERThe Governments of the States signatory

to the present Agreement,Being convinced that in facilitating the

international circulation of visual and audi-tory materials of an educational, scientificand cultural character, the free flow of Ideasby word and image will be promoted andthe mutual understanding of peoplesthereby encouraged, in conformity with theaims of the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization,

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

The present Agreement shall apply to vis-ual and auditory materials of the typesspecified in article II which are of an edu-cational, scientific or cultural character.

Visual and auditory materials shall bedeemed to be of an educational, scientificand cultural character:

(a) When their primary purpose or effectis to instruct or inform through the devel-

opment of a subject or aspect of a subject,or when their content is such as to main-tain, increase or diffuse knowledge, and aug-ment international understanding andgoodwill; and

(b) When the materials are representative,authentic, and accurate; and

(c) When the technical quality is suchthat it does not interfere with the use madeof the material.

ARTICLE II

The provisions of the preceding articleshall apply to visual and auditory materialsof the following types and forms:

(a) Films, filmstrips and microfilm ineither negative form, exposed and developed,or positive form, printed and developed;

(b) Sound recordings of all types andforms;

(c) Glass slides; models, static and mov-Ing; wall charts, maps and posters.

These materials are hereinafter referredto as "material."

ARTICLE III

1. Each of the contracting States shallaccord, within 6 months from the cominginto force of the present agreement withrespect to that State, exemption from allcustoms duties and quantitative restrictionsand from the necessity of applying for anImport license in respect of the Importation,either permanent or temporary, of materialoriginating in the territory of any of theother contracting States.

2. Nothing in this Agreement shall exemptmaterial from those taxes, fees, charges orexactions which are imposed on the importof all articles without exception and with-out regard to their nature and origin, eventhough such articles are exempt from cus-toms duties; such taxes, fees and exactionsshall include, but are not limited to, nominalstatistical fees and stamp duties.

3. Material entitled to the privileges pro-vided by paragraph 1 of this article shall beexempt, in the territory of the country ofentry, from all internal taxes, fees, chargesor exactions other or higher than those im-posed on like products of that country, andshall be accorded treatment no less favorablethan that accorded like products of thatcountry in respect of all internal laws, regu-lations or requirements affecting its sale,transportation or distribution or affecting itsprocessing, exhibition or other use.

4. Nothing in this Agreement shall requireany contracting State to deny the treatmentprovided for in this article to like materialof an educational, scientific or culturalcharacter originating in any State not aparty to this Agreement in any case in whichthe denial of such treatment would be con-trary to an international obligation or to thecommercial policy of such contracting State.

ARTICLE IV

1. To obtain the exemption, provided un-der the present Agreement for material forwhich admission into the territory of a con-tracting State Is sought, a certificate thatsuch material is of an educational, scientificor cultueftl character within the meaning ofarticle I, shall be filed in connexion withthe entry.

2. The certificate shall be issued by theappropriate governmental agency of theState wherein the material to which thecertificate relates originated, or by theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization as provided for inparagraph 3 of this article, and in the formsannexed hereto. The prescribed forms ofcertificate may be amended or revised uponmutual agreement of the contracting States,provided such amendment or revision is inconformity with the provisions of this Agree-ment.

3. Certificates shall be issued by theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization for material of edu-

cational, scientific or cultural character pro-duced by international organizations rec-ognized by the United Nations or by anyof the specialized agencies.

4. On the filing of any such certificate,there will be a decision by the appropriategovernmental agency of the contractingState into which entry Is sought as towhether the material is entitled to the priv-ilege provided by article III, paragraph 1, ofthe present Agreement. This decision shallbe made after consideration of the materialand through the application of the stand-ards provided in article I. If, as a result ofthat consideration, such agency of the con-tracting State into which entry is sought in-tends not to grant the privileges providedby article III, paragraph 1, to that materialbecause it does not concede its educational,scientific and cultural character, the Gov-ernment of the State which certified thematerial, or UNESCO, as the case may be,shall be notified prior to any final decisionin order that it may make friendly represen-tations in support of the exemption of thatmaterial to the Government of the otherState into which entry is sought.

5. The governmental agency of the con-tracting State into which entry is soughtshall be entitled to Impose regulations uponthe importer of the material to ensure thatIt shall only be exhibited or used for non-profit-making purposes.

6. The decision of the appropriate gov-ernmental agency of the contracting Stateinto which entry Is sought, provided for inparagraph 4 of this article shall be final,but in making its decision the said agencyshall give due consideration to any repre-sentations made to it by the Governmentcertifying the material or by UNESCO asthe case may be.

ARTICLE V

Nothing in the present Agreement shallaffect the right of the contracting Statesto censor material in accordance with theirown laws or to adopt measures to prohibitor limit the importation of material for rea-sons of public security or order.

ARTICLE VI

Each of the contracting States shall sendto the United Nations Educational, Scien-tific and Cultural Organization a copy ofeach certificate which It issues to materialoriginating within its own territory and shallinform the United Nations Educational, Sci-entific and Cultural Organization of thedecisions taken and the reasons for anyrefusals in respect of certified materialsfrom other contracting States for whichentry is sought Into its own territory. TheUnited Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization shall communicatethis information to all contracting Statesand shall maintain and publish in Englishand French catalogues of material showingall the certifications and decisions madein respect of them.

ARTICLE VII

The contracting States undertake jointlyto consider means of reducing to a minimumthe restrictions that are not removed by thepresent Agreement which might Interferewith the international circulation of thematerial referred to in article I.

ARTICLE VIII

Each contracting State shall communicateto the United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization, within theperod of six months following the cominginto force of the present Agreement, themeasures taken in their respective territoriesto ensure the execution of the provisions ofthe present Agreement. The United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organi-zation shall communicate this information asit receives it to all contracting States.

11172 May 26


ARTICLE IX

1. All disputes arising out of the inter-pretation or application of the presentAgreement between States which are bothparties to the Statute of the InternationalCourt of Justice, except as to articles IV andV, shall be referred to the InternationalCourt of Justice unless in any specific caseIt is agreed by the parties to have recourseto another mode of settlement.

2. If the contracting States between whicha dispute has arisen are not parties or anyone of them is not party to the Statute ofthe International Court of Justice, the dis-pute shall, if the States concerned so desire,be submitted, in accordance with the con-stitutional rules of each of them, to an arbi-tral tribunal established in conformity withthe Convention for the Pacific Settlement ofInternational Disputes signed at The Hagueon 18 October 1907, or to any other arbitraltribunal.

ARTICLE X

The present Agreement is open to accept-ance by the signatory States. The instru-ment of acceptance shall be deposited withthe Secretary-General of the United Nationswho shall notify all the Members of theUnited Nations of each deposit and the datethereof.

ARTICLE XI

1. On or after 1 January 1950 any Memberof the United Nations not a signatory to thepresent Agreement, and any non-memberState to which a certified copy of the presentAgreement has been communicated by theSecretary-General of the United Nations,may accede to it.

2. The instrument of accession shall bedeposited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations, who shall notify all theMembers of the United Nations and the non-member States, referred to in the precedingparagraph, of each deposit and the datethereof.

ARTICLE Xii1. The present Agreement shall come into

force ninety days after the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations has received at leastten instruments of acceptance or accessionin accordance with article X or article XI.As soon as possible thereafter the Secretary-General shall draw up a proeds-verbal speci-fying the date on which, in accordance withthis paragraph, the present Agreement shallhave come into force.

2. In respect of each State on behalf ofwhich an instrument of acceptance or acces-sion is subsequently deposited, the presentAgreement shall come into force ninety daysafter the date of the deposit of such instru-ment.

3. The present Agreement shall be regis-tered with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations on the day of its entry intoforce in accordance with Article 102 of theCharter and the regulations made there-under by the General Assembly.

ARTICLE XIII

1. The present Agreement may be de-nounced by any contracting State after theexpiration of a period of three years fromthe date on which it comes into force inrespect of that particular State.

2. The denunciation of the Agreement byany contracting States shall be effected by awritten notification addressed by that Stateto the Secretary-General of the United Na-tions who shall notify all the Members ofthe United Nations and all non-memberStates referred to in article XI of each noti-fication and the date of the receipt thereof.

3. The denunciation shall take effect oneyear after the receipt of the notification bythe Secretary-General of the United Nations.

ARTICLE XIV

1. Any contracting State may declare, atthe time of signature, acceptance, or acces-

sion, that in accepting the present Agree-ment it Is not assuming any obligation inrespect of all or any territories, for whichsuch contracting State has international ob-ligations. The present Agreement shall, inthat case, not be applicable to the territoriesnamed in the declaration.

2. The contracting States in accepting thepresent Agreement do not assume responsi-bility in respect of any or all Non-Self-Governing Territories for which they areresponsible but may notify the acceptanceof the Agreement by any or all of such terri-tories at the time of acceptance by suchcontracting States or at any time thereafter.The present Agreement shall, in such cases,apply to all the territories named in thenotification ninety days after the receiptthereof by the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations.

3. Any contracting State may at any timeafter the expiration of the period of threeyears provided for in article XIII declarethat it desires the present Agreement tocease to apply to all or any territories forwhich such contracting State has interna-tional obligations or to any or all Non-Self-Governing Territories for which it is re-sponsible. The present Agreement shall,in that case, cease to apply to the territoriesnamed in the declaration six months afterthe receipt thereof by the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations.

4. The Secretary-General of the UnitedNations shall communicate to all the Mem-bers of the United Nations and to all non-member States referred to in article XI thedeclarations and notifications received invirtue of the present article, together withthe dates of the receipt thereof.

ARTICLE XV

Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemedto prohibit the contracting States fromentering into agreements or arrangementswith the United Nations or any of its spe-cialized agencies which would provide forfacilities, exemptions, privileges or immuni-ties with respect to material emanating fromor sponsored by the United Nations or byany of its specialized agencies.

ARTICLE XVI

The original of the present Agreementshall be deposited in the archives of theUnited Nations and shall be opened for sig-nature at Lake Success on 15 July 1949where it shall remain open for signatureuntil 31 December 1949. Certified copies ofthe present Agreement shall be furnished bythe Secretary-General of the United Nationsto each of the Members of the United Na-tions and to such other Governments as maybe designated by agreement between theEconomic and Social Council of the UnitedNations and the Executive Board of theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific, andCultural Organization.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedplenipotentiaries, having deposited their fullpowers found to be in due and proper form,sign the present Agreement in the Englishand French languages, each being equallyauthentic, on behalf of their respectiveGovernments, on the dates appearing oppo-site their respective signatures.

For Afghanistan: Abdul Hamid Aziz, 29Ddcembre 1949.

For Argentina:For Australia:For Austria:For the Kingdom of Belgium:For Bolivia:For Brazil: ad referendum, Jolo Carlos

Muniz, 15 de Septembro de 1949.For the Union of Burma:For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public:For Canada: ad referendum, Andrew G. L.

McNaughton, 17 December 1949.

For Chile:For China:For Colombia:For Costa Rica:For Cuba:For Czechoslovakia:For Denmark: subject to ratification, Wil-

liam Borberg, December 29th 1949.For the Dominican Republic: Max Hen-

riquez Urefia, August 5, 1949.For Ecuador: Homero Viteri L., 29 Decem-

ber of 1949.For Egypt:For El Salvador: Hector David Castro,

December 29, 1949.For Ethiopia:For France:For Greece: Alexis Kyrou, December 31,

1949.For Guatemala:For Haiti: S. M. Alexis, 2 D6cembre 1949.For Honduras:For Hungary:For Iceland:For India:For Iran: Nasrollah Entezam, December

31st 1949.For Iraq:For Israel:For Italy:For Lebanon: Charles Malik, December 30,

1949.For Liberia:For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:For Mexico:For Monaco:For the Kingdom of the Netherlands, sub-

ject to the reservation contained in theproc6s-verbal of signature drawn up priorto this signature: H. Riemens, December 30,1949.

For New Zealand:For Nicaragua:For the Kingdom of Norway: Arne Sunde,

December 20, 1949,For Pakistan:For Panama:For Paraguay:For Peru:For the Philippines, subject to ratifica-

tion, Carlos P. Rdmulo, December 31, 1949.For Poland:For Saudi Arabia:For Sweden:For Switzerland:For Syria:For Thailand:For Turkey:For the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re-

public:For the Union of South Africa:For the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

lics:For the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland:For the United States of America: War-

ren R. Austin, September 13, 1949.For Uruguay: E. Rodriguez Fabregat, 31

December 1949.For Venezuela:For Yemen:For Yugoslavia:

PROTOCOL OF SIGNATUREAt the moment of signing the Agreement

to Facilitate the International Circulationof Visual and Auditory Materials of anEducational, Scientific and Cultural Char-acter, the undersigned plenipotentiarieshave agreed as follows:

1. The Secretary-General of the UnitedNations shall attach to the original textof the Agreement the model forms of cer-tificates referred to in article IV which arebeing submitted for approval to the Statesmembers of the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization, assoon as they are transmitted to him for thatpurpose by the Director-General of thisOrganization. The Secretary-General shallthen draw up a procds-verbal to that effect

1960 11173


and shall communicate to the Governmentsof the States concerned a copy of theprocts-verbal and of the model forms ofcertificates transmitted to him.

2. Pending the conclusion of the agree-ment referred to in article XVI, the Sec-retary-General shall transmit certified truecopies of the Agreement to the non-mem-ber States designated by the ExecutiveBoard of the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization.

In faith whereof the plenipotentiarieshave signed the present Protocol in theEnglish and French languages, each beingequally authentic, on the dates appearingopposite their respective signatures.

For Afghanistan: Abdul Hamid Aziz, 29Dtcembre 1949.

For Argentina:For Australia:For Austria:For the Kingdom of Belgium:For Bolivia:For Brazil, ad referendum: Jobo Carlos

Muniz, 15 de Setembro de 1940.For the Union of Burma:For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public:For Canada, ad referendum: Andrew G. L.

McNaughton, 17 December 1949.For Chile:For China:For Colombia:For Costa Rica:For Cuba:For Czechoslovakia:For Denmark, subject to ratification: Wil-

liam Borberg, December 29th, 1949.For the Dominican Republic: Max Hen-

riquez Urena, August 5th, 1949.For Ecuador: Homero Viteri L., 29 De-

cember of 1949.For Egypt:For El Salvador: Hector David Castro, De-

cember 29, 1949.For Ethiopia:For France:For Greece: Alexis Kyrou, December 31,

1949.For Guatemala:For Haiti: S. M. Alexis, 2 Dtcember 1949.For Honduras:For Hungary:For Iceland:For India:For Iran: Nasrollah Entezam, December

31,1949.For Iraq:For Israel:For Italy:For Lebanon: Charles Malik, December 30

1949.For Liberia:For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:For Mexico:For Monaco:For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: H

Riemens, December 30, 1949.For New Zealand:For Nicaragua:For the Kingdom of Norway: Arne Sunde

December 20, 1949.For Pakistan:For Panama:For Paraguay:For Peru:For the Philippines, subject to ratification

Carlos P. R6mulo, December 31, 1949.For Poland:For Saudi Arabia:For Sweden:For Switzerland:For Syria:For Thailand:For Turkey:For the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re

public:For the Union of South Africa:For the Union of Soviet Socialist Re

publics:

For the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland:

For the United States of America: WarrenR. Austin, September 13, 1949.

For Uruguay: E. Rodriguez Fabregat,31 December 1949.

For Venezuela:For Yemen:For Yugoslavia:Certified true copy.For the Secretary-General:

KERNO,

Assistant Secretary-General incharge of the Legal Department.

EXECUTIVE J

ANNEX I-CONVENTION ON THE TERRITORIAL

SEA AND THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE

The States Parties to this Conventionhave agreed as follows:

PART --- TERRITORIAL SEA

Section I. GeneralArticle 1

1. The sovereignty of a State extends, be-yond its land territory and its internalwaters, to a belt of sea adjacent to its coast,described as the territorial sea.

2. This sovereignty is exercised subject tothe provisions of these articles and to otherrules of international law.

Article 2

The sovereignty of a coastal State extendsto the air space over the territorial sea aswell as to its bed and subsoil.

Section II. Limits of the Territorial Sea

Article 3

Except where otherwise provided in thesearticles, the normal baseline for measuringthe breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked onlarge-scale charts officially recognized bythe coastal State.

Article 4

1. In localities where the coast line isdeeply indented and cut into, or if there isa fringe of islands along the coast in itsimmediate vicinity, the method of straightbaselines joining appropriate points may beemployed in drawing the baseline fromwhich the breadth of the territorial sea ismeasured.

2. The drawing of such baselines must notdepart to any appreciable extent from thegeneral direction of the coast, and the seaareas lying within the lines must be suffi-ciently closely linked to the land domain tobe subject to the rtgime of internal waters,

3. Baselines shall not be drawn to andfrom low-tide elevations, unless lighthousesor similar installations which are perma-nently above sea level have been built onthem.

4. Where the method of straight baselinesis applicable under the provisions of para-graph 1, account may be taken, in determin-ing particular baselines, of economic inter-ests peculiar to the region concerned, thereality and the importance of which arcclearly evidenced by a long usage.

5. The system of straight baselines ma3not be applied by a State in such a manneas to cut off from the high seas the territoria.sea of another State.

6. The coastal State must clearly indicat(straight baselines on charts, to which du(publicity must be given.

Article 51. Waters on the landward side of thi

baseline of the territorial sea form part o:the internal waters of the State

- 2. Where the establishment of a straighbaseline in accordance with article 4 has thieffect of enclosing as internal waters area

- which previously had been considered apart of the territorial sea or of the higl

seas, a right of innocent passage, as pro-vided in articles 14 to 23, shall exist in thosewaters,

Article 6

The outer limit of the territorial sea is theline every point of which is at a distancefrom the nearest point of the baseline equalto the breadth of the territorial sea.

Article '71. This article relates only to bays the

coasts of which belong to a single State.2. For the purposes of these articles, a bay

is a well-marked indentation whose pene-tration is in such proportion to the width ofits mouth as to contain landlocked watersand constitute more than a mere curvatureof the coast. An indentation shall not, how-ever, be regarded as a bay unless its area isas large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn acrossthe mouth of that indentation.

3. For the purpose of measurement, thearea of an indentation is that lying betweenthe low-water mark around the shore of theindentation and a line joining the low-watermarks of its natural entrance points. Wherebecause of the presence of islands an in-dentation has more than one mouth, thesemi-circle shall be drawn on a line as longas the sum total of the lengths of the linesacross the different mouths. Islands withinan indentation shall be included as if theywere part of the water areas of the indenta-tion.

4. If the distance between the low-watermarks of the natural entrance points of abay does not exceed twenty-four miles, aclosing line may be drawn between thesetwo low-water marks, and the waters en-closed thereby shall be considered as inter-nal waters.

5. Where the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance pointsof a bay exceeds twenty-four miles, a straightbaseline of twenty-four miles shall be drawnwithin the bay in such a manner as to en-close the maximum area of water that ispossible with a line of that length.

6. The foregoing provisions shall not ap-ply to so-called "historic" bays, or in any casewhere the straight baseline system providedfor in article 4 is applied.

Article 8

For the purpose of delimiting the terri-torial sea, the outermost permanent harbourworks which form an integral part of theharbour system shall be regarded as formingpart of the coast.

Article 9

* Roadsteads which are normally used for* the loading, unloading and anchoring of* ships, and which would otherwise be situ-* ated wholly or partly outside the outer limit

of the territorial sea, are included in theterritorial sea. The coastal State must

- clearly demarcate such roadsteads and indi-cate them on charts together with theirboundaries, to which due publicity must begiven.

Article 101. An island Is a naturally-formed area of

land, surrounded by water, which is abovewater at high-tide.

2. The territorial sea of an island is meas-ured in accordance with the provisions ofthese articles.

Article 111. A low-tide elevation is a naturally

formed area of land which is surrounded byand above water at low-tide but submerged

f at high tide. Where a low-tide elevation issituated wholly or partly at a distance not

t exceeding the breadth of the territorial seafrom the mainland or an island, the low-

s water line on that elevation may be used asthe baseline for measuring the breadth of

h the territorial sea.

11174 May 20


2. Where a low-tide elevation is wholly sit-uated at a distance exceeding the breadth ofthe territorial sea from the mainland or anisland, it has no territorial sea of its own.

Article 12

Where the coasts of two States are oppo-site or adjacent to each other, neither of thetwo States is entitled, failing agreement be-tween them to the contrary, to extend itsterritorial sea beyond the median line everypoint of which is equidistant from the near-est points on the baselines from which thebreadth of the territorial seas of each of thetwo States is measured. The provisions ofthis paragraph shall not apply, however,where it is necessary by reason of historictitle or other special circumstances to de-limit the territorial seas of the two States ina way which is at variance with this provi-sion.

2. The line of delimitation between theterritorial seas of two States lying oppositeto each other or adjacent to each other shallbe marked on large-scale charts officiallyrecognized by the coastal States.

Article 13If a river flows directly into the sea, the

baseline shall be a stragiht line across themouth of the river between points on thelow-tide line of its banks.

Section III. Right o/ Innocent Passage

Subsection A. Rules Applicable to all ShipsArticle 14

1. Subject to the provisions of these arti-cles, ships of all States, whether coastal ornot, shall enjoy the right of innocent passagethrough the territorial sea.

2. Passage means navigation through theterritorial sea for the purpose either of trav-ersing that sea without entering internalwaters, or of proceeding to internal waters,or of making for the high seas from internalwaters.

3. Passage includes stopping and anchor-ing, but only insofar as the same are inci-dental to ordinary navigation or are ren-dered necessary by force majeure or by dis-tress.

4. Passage is innocent so long as it is notprejudicial to the peace, good order or se-curity of the coastal State. Such passageshall take place in conformity with thesearticles and with other rules of internationallaw.

5. Passage of foreign fishing vessels shallnot be considered innocent if they do notobserve such laws and regulations as thecoastal State may make and publish in orderto prevent these vessels from fishing in theterritorial sea.

6. Submarines are required to navigateon the surface and to show their flag.

Article 151. The coastal State must not hamper in-

nocent passage through the territorial sea.2. The coastal State is required to give

appropriate publicity to any dangers to navi-gation, of which it has knowledge, within itsterritorial sea.

Article 161. The coastal State may take the neces-

sary steps in its territorial sea to preventpassage which is not innocent.

2. In the case of ships proceeding to in-ternal waters, the coastal State shall alsohave the right to take the necessary stepsto prevent any breach of the conditions towhich admission of those ships to those wa-ters is subject.

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph4, the coastal State may, without discrimina-tion amongst foreign ships, suspend tem-porarily in specified areas of its territorial seathe innocent passage of foreign ships ifsuch suspension is essential for the protec-tion of its security. Such suspension shall

take effect only after having been dulypublished.

4. There shall be no suspension of theinnocent passage of foreign ships throughstraits which are used for international navi-gation between one part of the high seasand another part of the high seas or the ter-ritorial sea of a foreign State.

Article 17Foreign ships exercising the right of inno-

cent passage shall comply with the laws andregulations enacted by the coastal State inconformity with these articles and otherrules of international law and, in particular,with such laws and regulations relating totransport and navigation.

Subsection B. Rules Applicable toMerchant Ships

Article 181. No charge may be levied upon foreign

ships by reason only of their passage throughthe territorial sea.

2. Charges may be levied upon a foreignship passing through the territorial sea aspayment only for specific services renderedto the ship. These charges shall be leviedwithout discrimination.

Article 191. The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal

State should not be exercised on board a for-eign ship passing through the territorial seato arrest any person or to conduct any inves-tigation in connexion with and crime com-mitted on board the ship during its passage,save only in the following cases:

(a) If the consequences of the crime ex-tend to the coastal State; or

(b) If the crime is of a kind to disturbthe peace of the country or the good orderof the territorial sea; or

(c) If the assistance of the local authori-ties has been requested by the captain ofthe ship or by the consul of the countrywhose flag the ship flies; or

(d) If it is necessary for the suppressionof illicit traffic in narcotic drugs.

2. The above provisions do not affect theright of the coastal State to take any stepsauthorized by its laws for the purpose of anarrest or investigation on board a foreignship passing through the territorial sea afterleaving Internal waters.

3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs1 and 2 of this article, the coastal State shall,if the captain so requests, advise the con-sular authority and the ship's crew. In casesof emergency this notification may be com-municated while the measures are beingtaken.

4. In considering whether or how an arrestshould be made, the local authorities shallpay due regard to the interests of navigation.

5. The coastal State may not take anysteps on board a foreign ship passing throughthe territorial sea to arrest any person or toconduct any investigation in connexion withany crime committed before the ship en-tered the territorial sea, if the ship, proceed-ing from a foreign port, is only passingthrough the territorial sea without enteringinternal waters.

Article 20

1. The coastal State should not stop ordivert a foreign ship passing through theterritorial sea for the purpose of exercisingcivil jurisdiction in relation to a person onboard the ship.

2. The coastal State may not levy execu-tion against or arrest the ship for the pur-pose of any civil proceedings, save only inrespect of obligations or liabilities assumedor incurred by the ship itself in the courseor for the purpose of its voyage through thewaters of the coastal State.

3. The provisions of the previous para-graph are without prejudice to the right ofthe coastal State, in accordance with its

laws, to levy execution against or to arrest,for the purpose of any civil proceedings, aforeign ship lying in the territorial sea, orpassing through the territorial sea afterleaving internal waters.Subsection C. Rules Applicable to Govern-

ment Ships Other Than WarshipsArticle 21

The rules contained in subsections A andB shall also apply to government shipsoperated for commercial purpose.

Article 22

1. The rules contained in subsection Aand in article 18 shall apply to governmentships operated for noncommercial purposes.

2. With such exceptions as are containedin the provisions referred to in the preced-ing paragraph, nothing in these articlesaffects the immunities which such shipsenjoy under these articles or other rules ofinternational law.Subsection D. Rule Applicable to Warships

Article 23

If any warship does not comply with theregulations of the coastal State concerningpassage through the territorial sea and dis-regards any request for compliance which ismade to It, the coastal State may require thewarship to leave the territorial sea.

PART II-CONTIGUOUS ZONE

Article 24

1. In a zone of the high seas contiguousto Its territorial sea, the coastal State mayexercise the control necessary to;

(a) Prevent infringement of its customs,fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulationswithin its territory or territorial sea;

(b) Punish infringement of the aboveregulations committed within its territoryor territorial sea.

2. The contiguous zone may not extendbeyond 12 miles from the baseline fromwhich the breadth of the territorial sea ismeasured.

3. Where the coasts of two States are op-posite or adjacent to each other, neither ofthe two States is entitled, failing agreementbetween them to the contrary to extend itscontiguous zone beyond the median lineevery point of which is equidistant from thenearest points on the baselines from whichthe breadth of the territorial seas of thetwo States is measured.

PART I-FINAL ARTICLES

Article 25The provisions of this Convention shall

not affect conventions or other internationalagreements already in force, as betweenStates Parties to them.

Article 26This Convention shall, until 31 October

1958, be open for signature by all StatesMembers of the United Nations or of anyof the specialized agencies, and by any otherState invited by the General Assembly ofthe United Nations to become a Party to theConvention.

Article 27This Convention is subject to ratification.

The instruments of ratification shall be de-posited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations.

Article 28

This Convention shall be open for accessionby any States belonging to any of the cate-gories mentioned in article 26. The instru-ments of accession shall be deposited withthe Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 291. This Convention shall come into force

on the thirtieth day following the date ofdeposit of the twenty-second instrument ofratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

1960 11175

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE2. For each State ratifying or acceding to

the Convention after the deposit of thetwenty-second instrument of ratification oraccession, the Convention shall enter intoforce on the thirtieth day after deposit bysuch State of its instrument of ratificationor accession.

Article 301. After the expiration of a period of five

years from the date on which this Conventionshall enter into force, a request for the revi-sion of this Convention may be made at anytime by any Contracting Party by means ofa notification in writing addressed to theSecretary-General of the United Nations.

2. The General Assembly of the UnitedNations shall decide upon the steps, if any,to be taken in respect of such request.

Article 31The Secretary-General of the United Na-

tions shall inform all States Members of theUnited Nations and the other States referredto in article 26:

(a) Of signatures to this Convention andof the deposit of instruments of ratificationor accession, in accordance with articles 26,27, and 28;

(b) Of the date on which this Conventionwill come into force, in accordance witharticle 29;

(c) Of requests for revision in accordancewith article 30.

Article 32The original of this Convention, of which

the Chinese, English, French, Russian, andSpanish texts are equally authentic, shall bedeposited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations, who shall send certifiedcopies thereof to all States referred to inarticle 26.

In witness whereof the undersignedPlenipotentiaries, being duly authorizedthereto by their respective Governments,have signed this Convention.

Done at Geneva, this twenty-ninth day ofApril one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight.

For Afghanistan: A. R. Pazhwak, October30, 1958.

For Albania:For Argentina: A. Lescure.For Australia: K. Ronald Walker, 30

October 1958.For Austria: Dr. Franz Matsch, October 27,

1958.For the Kingdom of Belgium:For Bolivia: M. Tamayo, 17 October, 1958.For Brazil:For Bulgaria:[Translation by the United Nations Secre-

tariat.]:Reservations: to article 20: "The Govern-

ment of the People's Republic of Bulgariaconsiders that government ships in foreignwaters have immunity and that the meas-ures set forth in this article may thereforeapply to such ships only with the consentof the flag State; to article 23 (Sub-SectionD. Rule applicable to Warships) -The Gov-ernment of the People's Republic of Bulgariaconsiders that the coastal State has the rightto establish procedures for the authorizationof the passage of foreign warships throughits territorial waters."

Dr. Voutov, 31 October, 1958.For the Union of Burma:For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public:[Translation by the United Nations Secre-

tariat]:With reservations to articles 20 and 23;

text of reservations attached.W. Kiselev, 30.X.1958.Text of the reservations:"To article 20: The Government of the

Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic con-siders that government ships in foreign ter-ritorial waters have Immunity and that the

measures mentioned in this article maytherefore be applied to them only with theconsent of the flag State.

"To article 23, subsection D rule applicableto warships: The Government of the Bye-lorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considersthat the coastal State has the right to estab-lish procedures for the authorization of thepassage of foreign warships through its ter-ritorial waters."

For Cambodia:For Canada: George A. Drew.For Ceylon: C. Corea, 30/X/58.For Chile:For China: Liu Chieh, Yu-Chi Hsueh.For Colombia: (translation with the ex-

planation annexed): Juan Uribe Holguin,Jose Joaquin Ciacedo Castilla.

Translation by the United Nations Secre-tariat:

"With respect to the Convention on theTerritorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, thedelegation of Colombia declares that, underarticle 98 of the Colombian Constitution,authorization by the Senate is required forthe passage of foreign troops through Co-lombian territory and that, by analogy, suchauthorization is accordingly also required forthe passage of foreign warships through Co-lombian territorial waters."

For Costa Rica: Raall Trejos Flores.For Cuba: F. V. Garcia Amador.For Czechoslovakia, with the following res-

ervations:"In view of the fact that the Conference

had not adopted a special article concerningthe passage of warships through the terri-torial waters of foreign States, the Govern-ment of the Czechoslovakia Republic deemsit necessary to stress that articles 14 and 23cannot in any sense be interpreted as estab-lishing a right of innocent passage for war-ships through the territorial waters.

"The Government of the Czechoslovak Re-public holds that under international law inforce all government ships without distinc-tion enjoy immunity and therefore does notagree with the application of articles 19 and20 of the Convention to government shipsoperated for commercial purposes."

Karel Kurka, 30 October 1958.For Denmark: Max Sorensen, T. Olden-

burg.For the Dominican Republic: A. Alvarez

Aybar.For Ecuador:For El Salvador:For Ethiopia:For the Federation of Malaya:For Finland: G. A. Gripenberg, 27 Octobre

1958.For France:For the Federal Republic of Germany.For Ghana: Richard Quarshie, K. B.

Asante.For Greece:For Guatemala: L. Aycinena Salazar.For Haiti: Rigal.For the Holy See: P. Demeur, 30.4.1958.For Honduras.For Hungary, subject to reservations at-

tached to articles 14, 23, and 21: Dr. SzitaJAnos, 31.X.1958.

Articles 14 and 23: "The Government ofthe Hungarian People's Republic is of theopinion that the coastal State is entitled tomake the passage of warships through itsterritorial waters subject to previous author-ization; article 21: The Government of theHungarian People's Republic is of the opin-ion that the rules contained in Sub-SectionB of Section III of Part I of the Conventionare generally inapplicable to governmentships operated for commercial purposes sofar as they encroach on the Immunities en-joyed under international law by all govern-ment ships, whether commercial or noncom-mercial, on foreign territorial waters. Con-sequently, the provisions of Sub-Section Brestricting the immunities of government

ships operated for commercial purposes areapplicable only upon consent of the Statewhose flag the ship flies.

For Iceland: H. G. Andersen.For India:For Indonesia:For Iran, subject to reservations: Dr. A.

Matine-Daftary, May 28, 1958.Translation by the United Nations Secre-

tariat:"In signing the Convention on the Ter-

ritorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, I makethe following reservation: Article 14. TheIranian Government maintains the objec-tion, on the ground of excess of competence,expressed by its delegation at the twelfthplenary meeting of the Conference on theLaw of the Sea on 24 April 1958, to the arti-cles recommended by the Fifth Committeeof the Conference and incorporated in partin article 14 of this Convention. The Iran-ian Government accordingly reserves allrights regarding the contents of this articlein so far as it relates to countries havingno sea coast."

For Iraq:For Ireland: Frank Alden, 2-10-1958.For Isarel: Shabtai Rosenne.For Italy:For Japan:For the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:For the Republic of Korea:For Laos:For Lebanon:For Liberia: Rocheforte L. Weeks, 27/5/58.For Libya:For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:For Mexico:For Monaco:For Morocco:For Nepal: Rishikesh Shaha.For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: C.

Schurmann, 31 October 1958.For New Zealand: Foss Shanahan, 29 Octo-

ber 1958.For Nicaragua:For the Kingdom of Norway:For Pakistan: Aly Khan, 31 October 1958.For Panama: Carlos Sucre C., 2.5.1958.For Paraguay:For Peru:For the Philippine Republic:For Poland:For Portugal, translation, subject to rati-

fication: Vasco Vieira Garin, 28 October1988.

For Romania, translation by the UnitedNations Secretariat with the following res-ervations: "(1) to article 20: The Govern-ment of the Romanian People's Republicconsiders that government ships have im-munity in foreign territorial waters and thatthe measures envisaged in this article maynot be applied to such ships except withthe consent of the flag State; (2) to article23: The Government of the Romanian Peo-ple's Republic considers that the coastalState has the right to provide that thepassage of foreign warships through its ter-ritorial waters shall be subject to previousapproval."

M. Magheru, 31 October 1958.For San Marino:For Saudi Arabia:For Spain:For the Sudan:For Sweden:For Switzerland: F. Schnyder, 22 octobre

1958.For Thailand: Luang Chakrapani Srisilvi-

suddhi.For Tunisia (translation by the United

Nations Secretariat): With the followingreservation: "The Government of theTunisian Repubic does not consider itselfbound by the provisions of article 16, para-graph 4, of this Convention."

Mongi Slim, 30 October 1958.For Turkey:

11176 May 26

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEFor the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub-

lic: (translation by the United Nations Sec-retariat), with reservations to articles 20 and23; text of reservations attached: L. Pala-marchuk, 30 October 1958.

Text of the reservations:To article 20: "The Government of the

Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic con-siders that government ships in foreign ter-ritorial waters have immunity and that themeasures mentioned in this article maytherefore be applied to them only with theconsent of the flag State."

To article 23, subsection D: "Rule appli-cable to Warships) -The Government of theUkrainian Soviet Socialist Republic consid-ers that a coastal State has the right toestablish procedures for the authorization ofthe passage of foreign warships through Itsterritorial waters."

For the Union of South Africa:For the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

lics (translation by the United Nations Sec-retariat), with reservations to articles 20 and23; text of reservations attached: V. Zorin,30 October 1958.

Text of the reservations:To article 20: "The Government of the

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics consid-ers that government ships in foreign terri-torial waters have immunity and that themeasures mentioned in this article maytherefore be applied to them only with theconsent of the flag State."

To article 23, subsection D, rule applica-ble to warships: "The Government of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics consid-ers that a coastal State has the right toestablish procedures for the authorizationof the passage of foreign warships throughits territorial waters."

For the United Arab Republic:For the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland: Pierson Dixon, 9Sept. 1958.

For the United States of America: ArthurI. Dean, 15 Sept. 1958.

For Uruguay: Carlos Carbajal, M. MartinezMontero.

For Venezuela (translation by the UnitedNations Secretariat) : "In signing the presentConvention, the Republic of Venezuela de-clares with reference to article 12 that thereare special circumstances to be taken intoconsideration in the following areas: theGulf of Paris and zones adjacent thereto;the area between the coast of Venezuela andthe island of Aruba; and the Gulf ofVenezuela."

Ad referendum, Carlos Sosa Rodriguez,October 30th 1958.

For Vietnam:For Yemen:For Yugoslavia (translation subject to

ratification): Milan Bartos, V. Popovic.

EXECUTIVE KANNEX II-CONVENTION ON THE HIGH SEAS

The States Parties to this Convention,Desiring to codify the rules of interna-

tional law relating to the high seas.Recognizing that the United Nations Con-

ference on the Law of the Sea, held at Ge-neva from 24 February to 27 April 1958,adopted the following provisions as generallydeclaratory of established principles of inter-national law,

Have agreed as follows:ARTICLE 1

The term "high seas" means all parts ofthe sea that are not included in the terri-torial sea or in the internal waters of a State.

ARTICLE 2The high seas being open to all nations, no

State may validly purport to subject any partof them to its sovereignty. Freedom of thehigh seas is exercised under the conditionslaid down by these articles and by the other

rules of international law. It comprises, in-ter alia, both for coastal and non-coastalStates:

(1) Freedom of navigation;(2) Freedom of fishing;(3) Freedom to lay submarine cables and

pipelines;(4) Freedom to fly over the high seas.These freedoms, and others which are be-

ing recognized by the general principles ofinternational law, shall be exercised by allStates with reasonable regard to the inter-ests of other States in their exercise of thefreedom of the high seas.

ARTICLE 3

1. In order to enjoy the freedom of theseas on equal terms with coastal States,States having no sea-coast should have freeaccess to the sea. To this end States situ-ated between the sea and a State having nosea-coast shall by common agreement withthe latter and in conformity with existinginternational convention accord:

(a) To the State having no sea-coast, ona basis of reciprocity, free transit throughtheir territory; and

(b) To ships flying the flag of that Statetreatment equal to that accorded to theirown ships, or to the ships of any otherStates, as regards access to seaports and theuse of such ports.

2. States situated between the sea and aState having no sea-coast shall settle, by mu-tual agreement with the latter, and takinginto account the rights of the coastal Stateor State of transit and the special conditionsof the State having no sea-coast, all mattersrelating to freedom of transit and equaltreatment in ports, in case such States arenot already parties to existing internationalconventions.

ARTICLE 4

Every State, whether coastal or not, hasthe right to sail ships under its flag on thehigh seas.

ARTICLE 51. Each State shall fix the conditions for

the grant of its nationality to ships, for theregistration of ships in its territory, and forthe right to fly its flag. Ships have the na-tionality of the State whose flag they areentitled to fly. There must exist a genuinelink between the State and the ship; inparticular, the State must effectively exer-cise its jurisdiction and control in admin-istrative, technical and social matters overships flying its flag.

2. Each State shall issue to ships to whichit has granted the right to fly its flag docu-ments to that effect.

ARTICLE 6

1. Ships shall sail under the flag of oneState only and, save in exceptional cases ex-pressly provided for in international treatiesor in these articles, shall be subject to itsexclusive jurisdiction on the high seas. Aship may not change its flag during a voyageor while in a port of call, save in the case ofa real transfer of ownership or change ofregistry.

2. A ship which sails under the flags of twoor more States, using them according toconvenience, may not claim any of the na-tionalities in question with respect to anyother State, and may be assimilated to a shipwithout nationality.

ARTICLE 7The provisions of the preceding articles do

not prejudice the question of ships employedon the official service of an inter-govern-mental organization flying the flag of theorganization.

ARTICLE 81. Warships on the high seas have complete

immunity from the Jurisdiction of any Stateother than the flag State.

2. For the purposes of these articles, theterm "warship" means a ship belonging tothe naval forces of a State and bearing theexternal marks distinguishing warships of itsnationality, under the command of an of-ficer duly commissioned by the governmentand whose name appears in the Navy List,and manned by a crew who are under regularnaval discipline.

ARTICLE 9Ships owned or operated by a State and

used only on government non-commercialservice shall, on the high seas, have com-plete immunity from the jurisdiction of anyState other than the flag State.

ARTICLE 10

1. Every State shall take such measuresfor ships under its flag as are necessary toensure safety at sea with regard inter aliato:

(a) The use of signals, the maintenanceof communications and the prevention ofcollisions;

(b) The manning of ships and labourconditions for crews taking into account theapplicable international labour instruments;

(c) The construction, equipment, and sea-worthiness of ships.

2. In taking such measures each State isrequired to conform to generally acceptedinternational standards and to take anysteps which may be necessary to ensure theirobservance.

ARTICLE 111. In the event of a collision or of any

other incident of navigation concerning aship on the high seas, involving the penalor disciplinary responsibility of the master orof any other person in the service of theship, no penal, or disciplinary proceedingsmay be instituted against such persons ex-cept before the judicial or administrativeauthorities either of the flag State or of theState of which such person is a national.

2. In disciplinary matters, the State whichhas issued a master's certificate or a certifi-cate of competence or license shall alone becompetent, after due legal process, to pro-nounce the withdrawal of such certificates,even if the holder is not a national of theState which issued them.

3. No arrest or detention of the ship, evenas a measure of investigation, shall be or-dered by any authorities other than those ofthe flag State.

ARTICLE 12

1. Every State shall require the master ofa ship sailing under its flag, in so far as hecan do so without serious danger to theship, the crew or the passengers,

(a) To render assistance to any personfound at sea in danger of being lost;

(b) To proceed with all possible speed tothe rescue of persons in distress if informedof their need of assistance, in so far as suchaction may reasonably be expected of him;

(c) After a collision, to render assistanceto the other ship, her crew and her pas-sengers and, where possible, to inform theother ship of the name of his own ship, herport of registry and the nearest port at whichshe will call.

2. Every coastal State shall promote theestablishment and maintenance of an ade-quate and effective search and rescue serviceregarding safety on and over the sea and-where circumstances so require-by way ofmutual regional arrangements co-operatewith neighbouring States for this purpose.

ARTICLE 13Every State shall adopt effective measures

to prevent and punish the transport of slavesin ships authorized to fly its flag, and to pre-vent the unlawful use of its flag for thatpurpose. Any slave taking refuge on boardany ship, whatever its flag, shall Ipso factobe free.

1960 11177


ARTICLE 14

All States shall co-operate to the fullestpossible extent in the repression of piracyon the high seas or in any other place out-side the jurisdiction of any State.

ARTICLE 15

Piracy consists of any of the followingacts:

(1) Any illegal acts of violence, deten-tion or any act of depredation, committedfor private ends by the crew or the passen-gers of a private ship or a private aircraft,and directed:

(a) On the high seas, against anothership or aircraft, or against persons or prop-erty on board such ship or aircraft.

(b) Against a ship, aircraft, persons orproperty in a place outside the jurisdictionof any State;

(2) Any act of voluntary participation inthe operation of a ship or of an aircraftwith knowledge of facts making it a pirateship or aircraft;

(3) Any act of inciting or of intentionallyfacilitating an act described in subpara-graph 1 or subparagraph 2 of this article.

ARTICLE 16

The acts of piracy, as defined in article15, committed by a warship, governmentship or government aircraft whose crew hasmutinied and taken control of the ship oraircraft are assimilated to acts committedby a private ship.

ARTICLE 17

A ship or aircraft is considered a pirateship or aircraft if it is intended by thepersons in dominant control to be used forthe purpose of committing one of the actsreferred to in article 15. The same appliesif the ship or aircraft has been used tocommit any such act, so long as it remainsunder the control of the persons guilty ofthat act.

ARTICLE 18A ship or aircraft may retain its nation-

ality although it has become a pirate shipor aircraft. The retention or loss of na-tionality is determined by the law of theState from which such nationality wasderived.

ARTICLE 19On the high seas, or in any other place

outside the jurisdiction of any State, everyState may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, ora ship taken by piracy and under the con-trol of pirates, and arrest the persons andseize the property on board. The courts ofthe State which carried out the seizure maydecide upon the penalties to be imposed, andmay also determine the action to be takenwith regard to the ships, aircraft or prop-erty, subject to the rights of third partiesacting in good faith.

ARTICLE 20

Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft onsuspicion of piracy has been effected withoutadequate grounds, the State making theseizure shall be liable to the State the na-tionality of which is possessed by the shipor aircraft, for any loss or damage caused bythe seizure.

ARTICLE 21

A seizure on account of piracy may onlybe carried out by warships or military air-craft, or other ships or aircraft on govern-ment service authorized to that effect.

ARTICLE 22

1. Except where acts of interference derivefrom powers conferred by treaty, a warshipwhich encounters a foreign merchant shipon the high seas is not justified in boardingher unless there is reasonable ground forsuspecting:

(a) That the ship is engaged in piracy;or

(b) That the ship is engaged in the slavetrade; or

(c) That, though flying a foreign flag orrefusing to show its flag, the ship is, inreality, of the same nationality as the war-ship.

2. In the cases provided for in sub-para-graphs (a), (b) and (c) above, the warshipmay proceed to verify the ship's right tofly its flag. To this end, it may send aboat under the command of an officer to thesuspected ship. If suspicion remains afterthe documents have been checked, it mayproceed to a further examination on boardthe ship, which must be carried out withall possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded,and provided that the ship boarded has notcommitted any act justifying them, it shallbe compensated for any loss or damage thatmay have been sustained.

ARTICLE 231. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may

be undertaken when the competent authori-ties of the coastal State have good reasonto believe that the ship has violated thelaws and regulations of that State. Suchpursuit must be commenced when the for-eign ship or one of its boats is within theinternal waters or the territorial sea or thecontiguous zone of the pursuing State, andmay only be continued outside the territorialsea or the contiguous zone if the pursuithas not been interrupted. It is not neces-sary that, at the time when the foreignship within the territorial sea or the con-tiguous zone receives the order to stop, theship giving the order should likewise bewithin the territorial sea or the contiguouszone. If the foreign ship is within a con-tiguous zone, as defined in article 24 of theConvention on the Territorial Sea and theContiguous Zone, the pursuit may only beundertaken if there has been a violation ofthe rights for the protection of which thezone was established.

2. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soonas the ship pursued enters the territorialsea of its own country or of a third State.

3. Hot pursuit is not deemed to have begununless the pursuing ship has satisfied itselfby such practicable means as may be avail-able that the ship pursued or one of its boatsor other craft working as a team and usingthe ship pursued as a mother ship are withinthe limits of the territorial sea, or as the casemay be within the contiguous zone. Thepursuit may only be commenced after a vis-ual or auditory signal to stop has been givenat a distance which enables it to be seen orheard by the foreign ship.

4. The right of hot pursuit may be exer-cised only by warships or military aircraft,or other ships or aircraft on Governmentservice specially authorized to that effect.

5. Where hot pursuit is effected by anaircraft:

(a) The provisions of paragraphs 1 to 3of this article shall apply mutatis mutandis;

(b) The aircraft giving the order to stopmust itself actively pursue the ship until aship or aircraft of the coastal State, sum-moned by the aircraft, arrives to take overthe pursuit, unless the aircraft is itself ableto arrest the ship. It does not suffice to jus-tify an arrest on the high seas that the shipwas merely sighted by the aircraft as anoffender or suspected offender, if it was notboth ordered to stop and pursued by the air-craft itself or other aircraft or ships whichcontinue the pursuit without interruption.

6. The release of a ship arrested within thejurisdiction of a State and escorted to a portof that State for the purposes of an enquirybefore the competent authorities may not beclaimed solely on the ground that the ship,in the course of its voyage, was escortedacross a portion of the high seas, if the cir-cumstances rendered this necessary.

7. Where a ship has been stopped or ar-rested on the high seas in circumstanceswhich do not justify the exercise of the right

of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated forany loss or damage that may have been there-by sustained.

ARTICLE 24

Every State shall draw up regulations toprevent pollution of the seas by the dischargeof oil from ships or pipelines or resultingfrom the exploitation and exploration of theseabed and its subsoil, taking account ofexisting treaty provisions on the subject.

ARTICLE 25

1. Every State shall take measures to pre-vent pollution of the seas from the dumpingof radio-active waste, taking into accountany standards and regulations which may beformulated by the competent internationalorganizations.

2. All States shall cooperate with the com-petent international organizations in takingmeasures for the prevention of pollution ofseas or air-space above, resulting from anyactivities with radio-active materials orother harmful agents.

ARTICLE 26

1. All States shall be entitled to lay sub-marine cables and pipelines on the bed ofthe high seas.

2. Subject to its right to take reasonablemeasures for the exploration of the conti-nental shelf and the exploitation of its natu-ral resources, the coastal State may not im-pede the laying or maintenance of such cablesor pipelines.

3. When laying such cables or pipelinesthe State in question shall pay due regardto cables or pipelines already in position onthe seabed. In particular, possibilities ofrepairing existing cables or pipelines shallnot be prejudiced.

ARTICLE 27Every State shall take the necessary legis-

lative measures to provide that the breakingor injury by a ship flying its flag or by a per-son subject to its jurisdiction of a submarinecable beneath the high seas done wilfullyor through culpable negligence, in such amanner as to be liable to interrupt or ob-struct telegraphic or telephonic communica-tions, and similarly the breaking or injuryof a submarine pipeline or high-voltagepower cable shall be a punishable offence.This provision shall not apply to any breakor injury caused by persons who acted merelywith the legitimate object of saving theirlives or their ships, after having taken allnecessary precautions to avoid such breakor injury.

ARTICLE 28

Every State shall take the necessary legis-lative measures to provide that, if personssubject to its jurisdiction who are the ownersof a cable or pipeline beneath the high seas,in laying or repairing that cable or pipeline,cause a break in or injury to another cableor pipeline, they shall bear the cost of therepairs.

ARTICLE 29

Every State shall take the necessary legis-lative measures to ensure that the ownersof ships who can prove that they have sac-riflced an anchor, a net or any other fishinggear, in order to avoid injuring a submarinecable or pipeline, shall be indemnified bythe owner of the cable or pipeline, providedthat the owner of the ship has taken allreasonable precautionary measures before-hand.

ARTICLE 30

The provisions of this Convention shall notaffect conventions or other internationalagreements already in force, as betweenStates Parties to them.

ARTICLE 31

This Convention shall, until 31 October1958, be open for signature by all StatesMembers of the United Nations or of any ofthe specialized agencies, and by any other

11178 May 26

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEState invited by the General Assembly of theUnited Nations to become a Party to the Con-vention.

ARTICLE 32

This Convention is subject to ratification.The instruments of ratification shall be de-posited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations.

ARTICLE 33

This Convention shall be open for acces-sion by any States belonging to any of thecategories mentioned in article 31. The in-struments of accession shall be depositedwith the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations.

ARTICLE 34

1. This Convention shall come into forceon the thirtieth day following the date ofdeposit of the twenty-second instrument ofratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding tothe Convention after the deposit of thetwenty-second instrument of ratification oraccession, the Convention shall enter intoforce on the thirtieth day after deposit bysuch State of its instrument of ratificationor accession.

ARTICLE 35

1. After the expiration of a period of fiveyears from the date on which this Conven-tion shall enter into force, a request for therevision of this Convention may be made atany time by any Contracting Party by meansof a notification in writing addressed to theSecretary-General of the United Nations.

2. The General Assembly of the United Na-tions shall decide upon the steps, if any, tobe taken in respect of such request.

ARTICLE 36

The Secretary-General of the United Na-tions shall inform all States Members of theUnited Nations and the other States referredto in article 31:

(a) Of signatures to this Convention andof the deposit of instruments of ratificationor accession, in accordance with articles 31,32 and 33;

(b) Of the date on which this Conventionwill come into force, in accordance with ar-ticle 34;

(c) Of requests for revision in accordancewith article 35.

ARTICLE 37

The original of this Convention, of whichthe Chinese, English, French, Russian andSpanish texts are equally authentic, shall bedeposited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations, who shall send certifiedcopies thereof to all States referred to inarticle 31.

IN wiVNEss WHEREOF the undersignedPlenipotentiaries, being duly authorizedthereto by their respective Governments,have signed this Convention.

DONE at Geneva, this twenty-ninth day ofApril one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight.


For Albania:For Argentina: A. Lescure.For Australia: E. Ronald Walker, 30 Octo-

ber 1958.For Austria: Dr. Franz Matsch, October 27,

1958.For the Kingdom of Belgium:For Bolivia: M. Tamayo, 17 October 1958.For Brazil:For Bulgaria: (translation by the United

Nations Secretariat) :Reservation to article 9: "The Government

of the People's Republic of Bulgaria con-siders that the principle of international lawaccording to which ships have complete im-munity from the jurisdiction of any Stateother than the flag State relates without anyrestriction to all government ships."

Declaration: "The Government of the Peo-ple's Republic of Bulgaria considers that thedefinition of piracy given in the Conventiondoes not cover certain acts which under con-temporary international law should be con-sidered as acts of piracy and does not serveto ensure freedom of navigation on interna-tional sea routes."

Dr. Voutov, 31 October 1958.For the Union of Burma:For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public (translation by the United NationsSecretariat), with a reservation to article 9and a declaration, texts of both attached:K. Kiselev, 30.X.1958.

Text of the reservation:To article 9: "The Government of the

Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic con-siders that the principle of international lawaccording to which a ship on the high seas isnot subject to any jurisdiction except thatof the flag State applies without restrictionto all government ships."

Text of the declaration:"The Government of the Byelorussian So-

viet Socialist Republic considers that thedefinition of piracy given in the Conventiondoes not cover certain acts which under con-temporary international law should be con-sidered as acts of piracy and does not serveto ensure freedom of navigation on inter-national sea routes."

For Cambodia:For Canada: George A. Drew.For Ceylon: C. Corea, 30/X/58.For Chile:For China: Liu Chieh, Yu-Chi Hsueh.For Colombia: Juan Uribe Holguin, Jose

Joaquin Calcedo Castella.For Costa Rica: Ratil Trejos Flores.For Cuba: F. V. Garcia Amador.For Czechoslovakia, with the following

reservation to article 9: "The Governmentof the Czechoslovak Republic holds that un-der international law in force governmentships operated for commercial purposes alsoenjoy on the high seas complete immunityfrom the jurisdiction of any State other thanthe flag State."

Kabel Kurka; 30 October 1958.Declaration: "The Government of the

Czechoslovak Republic maintains that thenotion of piracy as defined in the Conven-tion is neither in accordance with the pres-ent international law nor with the interestof safeguarding the freedom of navigationon the high seas."

For Denmark: Max Sorensen, T. Olden-burg.

For the Dominican Republic: A. AlvarezAybar.

For Ecuador:For El Salvador:For Ethiopia:For the Federation of Malaya:For Finland: G. A. Gripenberg, 27 octobre

1958.For France: G. Georges-Picot, 30 octobre

1958.For the Federal Republic of Germany:

Werner Dankwort, 30 October 1958.For Ghana: Richard Quarshie, K. B.

Asante.For Greece:For Guatemala: L. Aycinena Salazar.For Haiti: Rigal.For the Holy See: P. Demeur, 30.4.1958.For Honduras:For Hungary subject to reservation at-

tached to article 9: Dr. Szita JAnos, 31.X.1958.Text of the reservation: "The Government

of the Hungarian People's Republic is of theopinion that, according to the general rulesof international law, ships owned or operatedby a State and used on government service,whether commercial or noncommercial, enjoyon the high seas the same immunity aswarships."

Declaration: "The Government of the Hun-garian People's Republic declares that thedefinition of piracy as given in the Conven-

tion is not consistent with present interna-tional law and does not serve the general in-terests of the freedom of navigation on thehigh seas."

For Iceland: H. G. Andersen.For India:For Indonesia: Ahmad Soebardjo, 8 May

1958.For Iran subject to reservations: Dr. A.

Matine-Daftary, May 28, 1958.Translation by the United Nations Secre-

tariat:"In signing the Convention on the High

Seas, I make the following reservations:"Article 2: With respect to the words 'no

State may validly purport to subject anypart of them to its sovereignty', it shall beunderstood that this prohibition does notapply to the continental shelf, which is gov-erned by article 2 of the Convention on theContinental Shelf.

"Articles 2, 3, and 4: The Iranian Govern-ment maintains the objection on the groundof excess of competence, expressed by itsdelegation at the twelfth plenary meeting ofthe Conference on the Law of the Sea on24 April 1958, to the articles recommended bythe Fifth Committee of the Conference andincorporated in the afore-mentioned articlesof the Convention on the High Seas. TheIranian Government accordingly reserves allrights regarding the contents of these articlesin so far as they relate to countries having nosea coast.

"Article 2(3)-article 28, paragraphs 1 and2: Application of the provisions of thesearticles relating to the laying of submarinecables and pipelines shall be subject to theauthorization of the coastal State, in so faras the continental shelf is concerned."

For Iraq:For Ireland: Frank Aiken, 2-10-1958.For Israel: Shabtal Rosenne.For Italy:For Japan:For the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:For the Republic of Korea:For Laos:For Lebanon: N. Sabaka, 29 mai 1958.For Liberia: Rocheforte L. Weeks, 27/5/58.For Libya:For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:For Mexico:For Monaco:For Morocco:For Nepal: Rishikesh Shaha.For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: C.

Schurmann, 31 October 1958.For New Zealand: Foss Shanahan, 29 Oc-

tober 1958.For Nicaragua:For the Kingdom of Norway:For Pakistan: Aly Khan, 31 October 1958.For Panama: Carlos Sucre C., 2. 5. 1958.For Paraguay:For Peru:For the Philippine Republic:For Poland: "The Government of the

Polish People's Republic considers that therule expressed in article 9 applies to all shipsowned or operated by a State."

J. Winiewicz, October 31, 58.Declaration: "The Government of the Po-

lish People's Republic considers that thedefinition of piracy as contained in the Con-vention does not fully correspond with thepresent state of international law in thisrespect."

For Portugal: translation, subject to rati-fication: Vasco Vieira Garin, 28 October 1958.

For Romania: translation by the UnitedNations Secretariat, with the following reser-vation to article 9:

"The Government of the Romanian Peo-ple's Republic considers that the principle ofinternational law according to which a shipon the high seas is not subject to any juris-diction except that of the flag State appliesto all government ships regardless of thepurpose for which they are used."

1960 11179

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEM. Magheru, 31 October 1958.Declaration: "The Government of the Ro-

manian People's Republic considers that thedefinition of piracy as given in article 15 ofthe Convention on the High Seas does notcover certain acts which under contemporaryinternational law should be considered asacts of piracy."

For San Marino:For Saudi Arabia:For Spain:For the Sudan:For Sweden:For Switzerland: Paul Rueger, 24 mai 1958.For Thailand: Luang Chakrapani Srisil-

visuddhi, Maj. Gen. Dr. jur. Ambhorn Srija-yanta, Chapikorn Sreshthaputra.

For Tunisia: Mongi Slim, Le 30 octobre1958.

For Turkey:For the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re-

public (translation by the United NationsSecretariat), with a reservation to article9 and a declaration; texts of both attached:L. Palamarchuk, 30 October 1958.

Text of the reservation:To article 9 "The Government of the

Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic con-siders that the principle of international lawaccording to which a ship on the high seasis not subject to any Jurisdiction except thatof the flag State applies without restrictionto all government ships."

Text of the declaration:"The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet

Socialist Republic considers that the defini-tion of piracy given in the Convention doesnot cover certain acts which under contem-porary international law should be con-sidered as acts of piracy and does not serveto ensure freedom of navigation on inter-national sea routes."

For the Union of South Africa:For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

(translation by the United Nations Secretar-iat), with a reservation to article 9 and adeclaration; texts of both attached: V. Zorin,30 October 1958.

Text of the reservation:To article 9 "The Government of the Un-

ion of Soviet Socialist Republics considersthat the principle of international law ac-cording to which a ship on the high seasis not subject to any jurisdiction except thatof the flag State applies without restric-tion to all government ships."

Text of the declaration: "The Govern-ment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics considers that the definition ofpiracy given in the Convention does notcover certain acts which under contem-porary International law should be con-sidered as acts of piracy and does not serveto ensure freedom of navigation on inter-national sea routes."

For the United Arab Republic:For the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland: Pierson Dixon, 9September 1958.

For the United States of America: ArthurH. Dean, 15 September 1958.

For Uruguay: Victor Pomes.For Venezuela, Ad referendum, Carlos

Sosa Rodriguex, October 30, 1958.For Vietnam:For Yemen:For Yugoslavia (translation), subject to

ratification: Milan Bartos, V. Popovic.

EXECUTIVE LANNEX II-CoNvENnION ON FISHING AND

CONSERVATION OF THE LIVING RESOURCES OFTHE HIGH SEASThe State Parties to this Convention,Considering that the development of mod-

ern techniques for the exploitation of theliving resources of the sea, increasing man'sability to meet the need of the world's ex-panding population for food, has exposedsome of these resources to the danger ofbeing overexploited.

Considering also that the nature of theproblems involved in the conservation ofthe living resources of the high seas is suchthat there is a clear necessity that they besolved, whenever possible, on the basis of in-ternational co-operation through the con-certed action of all the States concerned.


ARTICLE I1. All States have the right for their na-

tionals to engage in fishing on the highseas subject (a) to their treaty obligations,(b) to the interests and rights of coastalStates as provided for in this Convention,and (c) to the provisions contained in thefollowing articles concerning conservation ofthe living resources of the high seas.

2. All States have the duty to adopt, or toco-operate with other States in adopting,such measures for their respective nationalsas may be necessary for the conservation ofthe living resources of the high seas.

ARTICLE 2

As employed in this Convention, the ex-pression "conservation of the living resourcesof the high seas" means the aggregate of themeasures rendering possible the optimumsustainable yield from those resources so asto secure a maximum supply of food andother marine products. Conservation pro-grammes should be formulated with a viewto securing in the first place a supply offood for human consumption.

ARTICLE 3

A State whose nationals are engaged infishing any stock or stocks of fish or otherliving marine resources in any area of thehigh seas where the nationals of other Statesare not thus engaged shall adopt, for its ownnationals, measures in that area when neces-sary for the purpose of the conservation ofthe living resources affected.

ARTICLE 41. If the nationals of two or more States

are engaged in fishing the same stock orstocks of fish or other living marine resourcesin any area or areas of the high seas, theseStates shall, at the request of any of them,enter into negotiations with a view to pre-scribing by agreement for their nationalsthe necessary measures for the conservationof the living resources affected.

2. If the States concerned do not reachagreement within twelve months, any of theparties may initiate the procedure contem-plated by article 9.

ARTICLE 51. If, subsequent to the adoption of the

measures referred to in articles 3 and 4, na-tionals of other States engage in fishing thesame stock or stocks of fish or other livingmarine resources in any area or areas of thehigh seas, the other States shall apply themeasures, which shall not be discriminatoryin form or in fact, to their own nationalsnot later than seven months after the dateon which the measures shall have been noti-fied to the Director-General of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. The Director-General shall notifysuch measures to any State which so re-quests and, in any case, to any State speci-fied by State initiating the measure.

2. If these other States do not accept themeasures so adopted and if no agreementcan be reached within twelve months, anyof the interested parties may initiate theprocedure contemplated by article 9. Sub-ject to paragraph 2 of article 10, the meas-ures adopted shall remain obligatory pend-ing the decision of the special commission.

ARTICLE 61. A coastal State has a special interest in

the maintenance of the productivity of theliving resources in any area of the high seasadjacent to its territorial sea.

2. A coastal State is entitled to take parton an equal footing in any system of re-

search and regulation for purposes of con-servation of the living resources of the highseas in that area, even though its nationalsdo not carry on fishing there.

3. A State whose nationals are engagedin fishing in any area of the high seas adja-cent to the territorial sea of a coastal Stateshall, at the request of that coastal State,enter into negotiations with a view to pre-scribing by agreement the measures neces-sary for the conservation of the living re-sources of the high seas in that area.

4. A State whose nationals are engaged infishing in any area of the high seas adjacentto the territorial sea of a coastal State shallnot enforce conservation measures in thatarea which are opposed to those which havebeen adopted by the coastal State, but mayenter into negotiations with the coastal Statewith a view to prescribing by agreement themeasures necessary for the conservation ofthe living resources of the high seas in thatarea.

5. If the States concerned do not reachagreement with respect to conservationmeasures within twelve months, any of theparties may initiate the procedure contem-plated by article 9.

ARTICLE 7

1. Having regard to the provisions of para-graph 1 of article 6, any coastal State may,with a view to the maintenance of the pro-ductivity of living resources of the sea, adoptunilateral measures of conservation appro-priate to any stock of fish or other marineresources in any area of the high seas adja-cent to its territorial sea, provided that nego-tiations to that effect with the other Statesconcerned have not led to an agreementwithin six months.

2. The measures which the coastal Stateadopts under the previous paragraph shallbe valid as to other States only If the fol-lowing requirements are fulfilled:

(a) That there is a need for urgent ap-plication of conservation measures In thelight of the existing knowledge of the fishery;

(b) That the measures adopted are basedon appropriate scientific findings;

(c) That such measures do not discrim-inate In form or in fact against foreignfishermen.

3. These measures shall remain in forcepending the settlement, in accordance withthe relevant provisions of this Convention,of any disagreement as to their validity.

4. If the measures are not accepted by theother States concerned, any of the partiesmay initiate the procedure contemplated byarticle 9. Subject to paragraph 2 of article10, the measures adopted shall remain oblig-atory pending the decision of the specialcommission.

5. The principles of geographical demarca-tion as defined in article 12 of the Conven-tion on the Territorial Sea and the Contig-uous Zone shall be adopted when coasts ofdifferent States are involved.

ARTICLE 81. Any State which, even if its nationals

are not engaged in fishing in an area of thehigh seas not adjacent to its coast, has aspecial interest in the conservation of theliving resources of the high seas in that area,may request the State or States whose na-tionals are engaged in fishing there to takethe necessary measures of conservation un-der articles 3 and 4 respectively, at the sametime mentioning the scientific reasons whichin its opinion make such measures neces-sary, and indicating its special interest.

2. If no agreement is reached withintwelve months, such State may initiate theprocedure contemplated by article 9.

ARTICLE 9

1. Any dispute which may arise betweenStates under articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall, atthe request of any of the parties, be sub-mitted for settlement to a special commis-sion of five members, unless the parties

11180 May 26

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEagree to seek a solution by another methodof peaceful settlement, as provided for inArticle 33 of the Charter of the UnitedNations.

2. The members of the commission, oneof whom shall be designated as chairman,shall be named by agreement between theStates in dispute within three months of therequest for settlement in accordance withthe provisions of this article. Failing agree-ment they shall upon the request of anyState party, be named by the Secretary-Gen-eral of the United Nations, within a furtherthree-month period, in consultation withthe States in dispute and with the Presi-dent of the International Court of Justiceand the Director-General of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Na-tions, from amongst well-qualified personsbeing nationals of States not involved in thedispute and specializing in legal, adminis-trative or scientific questions relating tofisheries, depending upon the nature of thedispute to be settled. Any vacancy arisingafter the original appointment shall be filledin the same manner as provided for theinitial selection.

3. Any State party to proceedings underthese articles shall have the right to nameone of its nationals to the special commis-sion, with the right to participate fully inthe proceedings on the same footing as amember of the commission but without theright to vote or to take part in the writingof the commission's decision.

4. The commission shall determine its ownprocedure, assuring each party to the pro-ceedings a full opportunity to be heard andto present its case. It shall also determinehow the costs and expenses shall be dividedbetween the parties to the dispute, failingagreement by the parties on this matter.

5. The special commission shall render itsdecision within a period of five months fromthe time it is appointed unless it decides, incase of necessity, to extend the time limitfor a period not exceeding three months.

6. The special commission shall, in reach-ing its decisions, adhere to these articlesand to any special agreements between thedisputing parties regarding settlement of thedispute.

7. Decisions of the commission shall beby majority vote.

ARTICLE 101. The special commission shall, in dis-

putes arising under article 7, apply thecriteria listed in paragraph 2 of that article.In disputes under articles 4, 5, 6 and 8 thecommission shall apply the following criteria,according to the issues involved in the dis-pute:

(a) Common to the determination of dis-putes arising under articles 4, 5 and 6 arethe requirements:

(I) That scientific findings demonstratethe necessity of conservation measures;

(ii) That the specific measures are basedon scientific findings and are practicable;and

(iii) That the measures do not discrim-inate, in form or in fact, against fishermenof other States.

(b) Applicable to the determination ofdisputes arising under article 8 is the re-quirement that scientific findings demon-strate the necessity for conservation meas-ures, or that the conservation programme isadequate, as the case may be.

2. The special commission may decide thatpending its award the measures in disputeshall not be applied, provided that, in thecase of disputes under article 7, the measuresshall only be suspended when it is apparentto the commission on the basis of prima facieevidence that the need for the urgent appli-cation of such measures does not exist.

ARTICLE 11The decisions of the special commission

shall be binding on the States concerned

and the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article94 of the Charter of the United Nationsshall be applicable to those decisions. Ifthe decisions are accompanied by any recom-mendations, they shall receive the greatestpossible consideration.

ARTICLE 12

1. If the factual basis of the award of thespecial commission is altered by substantialchanges in the conditions of the stock orstocks of fish or other living marine re-sources or in methods of fishing, any of theStates concerned may request the otherStates to enter into negotiations with a viewto prescribing by agreement the necessarymodifications in the measures of conserva-tion.

2. If no agreement is reached within areasonable period of time, any of the Statesconcerned may again resort to the procedurecontemplated by article 9 provided that atleast two years have elapsed from the origi-nal award.

ARTICLE 13

1. The regulation of fisheries conductedby means of equipment embedded in thefloor of the sea in areas of the high seas ad-jacent to the territorial sea of a State maybe undertaken by that State where suchfisheries have long been maintained andconducted by its nationals, provided thatnon-nationals are permitted to participatein such activities on an equal footing withnationals except in areas where such fisher-ies have by long usage been exclusively en-joyed by such nationals. Such regulationswill not, however, affect the general statusof the areas as high seas.

2. In this article, the expression "fisheriesconducted by means of equipment embeddedin the floor of the sea" means those fisheriesusing gear with supporting members em-bedded in the sea floor, constructed on asite and left there to operate permanentlyor, if removed, restored each season on thesame site.

ARTICLE 14

In articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, the term"nationals" means fishing boats or craft ofany size having the nationality of the Stateconcerned, according to the law of thatState, irrespective of the nationality of themembers of their crews.

ARTICLE 15

This Convention shall, until 31 October1958, be open for signature by all StatesMembers of the United Nations or of any ofthe specialized agencies, and by any otherState invited by the General Assembly of theUnited Nations to become aOParty to theConvention.

ARTICLE 16

This Convention is subject to ratification.The Instruments of ratification shall be de-posited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations.

ARTICLE 17


ARTICLE 18

1. This Convention shall come into forceon the thirtieth day following the date ofdeposit of the twenty-second instrument ofratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding tothe Convention after the deposit of thetwenty-second instrument of ratification oraccession, the Convention shall enter intoforce on the thirtieth day after deposit bysuch State of its instrument of ratificationor accession.

ARTICLE 19

1. At the time of signature, ratification oraccession, any State may make reservationsto articles of the Convention other than toarticles 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

2. Any Contracting State making a reser-vation in accordance with the preceding par-agraph may at any time withdraw the reser-vation by a communication to that effect ad-dressed to the Seertary-General of theUnited Nations.

ARTICLE 20

1. After the expiration of a period of fiveyears from the date on which this Conven-tion shall enter into force, a request for therevision of this Convention may be made atany time by any Contracting Party by meansof a notification in writing addressed to theSecretary-General of the United Nations.

2. The General Assembly of the United Na-tions shall decide upon the steps, if any, tobe taken in respect of such request.

ARTICLE 21

The Secretary-General of the United Na-tions shall inform all States Members of theUnited Nations and the other States referredto in article 15:

(a) Of signatures to this Convention andof the deposit of instruments of ratificationor accession, in accordance with articles 15,16 and 17:

(b) Of the date on which this Conventionwill come into force, in accordance with ar-ticle 18:

(c) Of requests for revisions in accordancewith article 20;

(d) Of reservations to this Convention, inaccordance with article 19.

ARTICLE 22

The original of this Convention, of whichthe Chinese, English, French, Russian andSpanish texts are equally authentic, shall bedeposited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations, who shall send certified cop-ies thereof to all States referred to in article15.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plen-ipotentiaries, being duly authorized theretoby their respective Governments, havesigned this Convention.

DONE at Geneva, this twenty-ninth day ofApril one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight.


For Albania:For Argentina: A. Lescure.For Australia: E. Ronald Walker, 30

October 1958.For Austria:For the Kingdom of Belgium:For Bolivia: M. Tamayo, 17 October 1958.For Brazil:For Bulgaria:For the Union of Burma:For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public:For Cambodia:For Canada: George A. Drew.For Ceylon: C. Cores, 30/X/58.For Chile:For China: Liu Chieh, Yu-Chi Rsueh.For Colombia: Juan Uribe Holguin, Jos6

Joaquin Caicedo Castilla.For Costa Rica: Ratl Trejos Flores.For Cuba: F. V. Garcia Amador.For Czechoslovakia:For Denmark: Max Sorensen, T. Oldenburg.For the Dominican Republic: A. Alvarez

Aybar.For Ecuador:For El Salvador:For Ethiopia:For the Federation of Malaya:For Finland: G. A. Gripenberg, 27 octobre


1958.

1960 11181

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEFor the Federal Republic of Germany:For Ghana: Richard Quarshie, K. B. As-

ante.For Greece:For Guatemala:For Haiti: Rigal..For the Holy See:For Honduras:For Hungary:For Iceland: H. G. Andersen.For India:For Indonesia: Ahmad Soebardjo, 8 May

1958.For Iran: Dr. A. Matine-Daftary, May 28,

1958.For Iraq:For Ireland: Frank Aiken, 2-10-1958.For Israel: Shabtal Rosenne.For Italy:For Japan:For the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:For the Republic of Korea:For Laos:For Lebanon: N. Sadaka, 29 mai 1958.For Liberia: Rocheforte L. Weeks, 27/5/58.For Libya:For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:For Mexico:For Monaco:For Morocco:For Nepal: Rishikesh Shaha.For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: C.

Schurmann, 31 October 1958.For New Zealand: Foss Shanahan, 29

October 1958.For Nicaragua:For the Kingdom of Norway:For Pakistan: Aly Khan, 31 October 1958.For Panama: Carlos Sucre C., 2.5.1958.For Paraguay:For Peru:For the Philippine Republic:For Poland:For Portugal (translation), subject to rat-

ification: Vasco Vieira Garin, 28 October 1958.For Romania:For San Marino:For Saudi Arabia:For Spain:For the Sudan:For Sweden:For Switzerland: F. Schnyder, 22 octobre

1958.For Thailand: Luane Chakrapani Srisil-

visuddhi, Boon Indrambarya.For Tunisia: Mongi Slim, Le 30 octobre

1958.For Turkey:For the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub-

lic:For the Union of South Africa:For the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

lics:For the United Arab Republic:For the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland: Pierson Dixon, 9 Sep-tember 1958.


For Uruguay: Alvaro Alyvarez.For Venezuela, ad referendum; Carlos Sosa

Rodriguez, October 30th 1958.For Vietnam:For Yemen:For Yugoslavia (translation), subject to


EXECUTIVE MANNEX IV-CONVENTION ON THE

CONTINENTAL SHELFThe States Parties to this Convention have

agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1For the purpose of these articles, the term

"continental shelf" is used as referring (a)to the seabed and subsoil of the submarineareas adjacent to the coast but outside thearea of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200metres or, beyond that limit, to where the

depth of the superjacent waters admits ofthe exploitation of the natural resources ofthe said areas; (b) to the seabed and sub-soil of similar submarine areas adjacent tothe coasts of Islands.

ARTICLE 2

1. The coastal State exercises over thecontinental shelf sovereign rights for thepurpose of exploring it and exploiting itsnatural resources.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 ofthis article are exclusive in the sense that ifthe coastal State does not explore the con-tinental shelf or exploit its natural re-sources, no one may undertake these activi-ties, or make a claim to the continentalshelf, without the express consent of thecoastal State.

3. The rights of the coastal State overthe continental shelf do not depend on oc-cupation, effective or notional, or on anyexpress proclamation.

4. The natural resources referred to inthese articles consist of the mineral andother non-living resources of the seabed andsubsoil together with living organisms be-longing to sedentary species, that is to say,organisms which, at the harvestable stage,either are immobile on or under the seabedor are unable to move except in constantphysical contact with the seabed or the sub-soil.

ARTICLE 3

The rights of the coastal State over thecontinental shelf do not affect the legalstatus of the superjacent waters as highseas, or that of the airspace above thosewaters.

ARTICLE 4

Subject to its right to take reasonablemeasures for the exploration of the conti-nental shelf and the exploitation of its nat-ural resources, the coastal State may notimpede the laying or maintenance of sub-marine cables or pipe lines on the con-tinental shelf.

ARTICLE 5

1. The exploration of the continental shelfand the exploitation of its natural resourcesmust not result in any unjustifiable interfer-ence with navigation, fishing or the con-servation of the living resources of the sea,nor result in any interference with funda-mental oceanographic or other scientific re-search carried out with the intention of openpublication.

2. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs1 and 6 of this article, the coastal State isentitled to construct and maintain or oper-ate on the cntinental shelf installationsand other devices necessary for its explora-tion and the exploitation of its natural re-sources, and to establish safety zones aroundsuch installations and devices and to take inthose zones measures necessary for theirprotection.

3. The safety zones referred to in para-graph 2 of this article may extend to a dis-tance of 500 metres around the installationsand other devices which have been erected,measured from each point of their outeredge. Ships of all nationalities must respectthese safety zones.

4. Such installations and devices, thoughunder the jurisdiction of the coastal State,do not possess the status of islands. Theyhave no territorial sea of their own, andtheir presence does not affect the delimita-tion of the territorial sea of the coastalState.

5. Due notice must be given of the con-struction of any such installations, and per-manent means for giving warning of theirpresence must be maintained. Any installa-tions which are abandoned or disused mustbe entirely removed.

6. Neither the installations or devices, northe safety zones around them, may be estab-lished where interference may be caused to

the use of recognized sea lanes essential tointernational navigation.

7. The coastal State is obliged to under-take, in the safety zones, all appropriatemeasures for the protection of the livingresources of the sea from harmful agents.

8. The consent of the coastal States shallbe obtained in respect of any research con-cerning the continental shelf and under-taken there. Nevertheless the coastal Stateshall not normally withhold its consent if therequest is submitted by a qualified institu-tion with a view to purely scientific researchinto the physical or biological characteristicsof the continental shelf, subject to the pro-viso that the coastal State shall have theright, if it so desires, to participate or to berepresented in the research, and that in anyevent the results shall be published.

ARTICLE 6

1. Where the same continental shelf isadjacent to the territories of two or moreStates whose coasts are opposite each other,the boundary of the continental shelf ap-pertaining to such States shall be determinedby agreement between them. In the ab-sence of agreement, and unless anotherboundary line is justified by special circum-stances, the boundary is the median line,every point of which is equidistant from thenearest points of the baselines from whichthe breadth of the territorial sea of eachState is measured.

2. Where the same continental shelf isadjacent to the territories of two adjacentStates, the boundary of the continental shelfshall be determined by agreement betweenthem. In the absence of agreement, andunless another boundary line is justified byspecial circumstances, the boundary shall bedetermined by application of the principleof equidistance from the nearest points ofthe baselines from which the breadth of theterritorial sea of each State is measured.

3. In delimiting the boundaries of thecontinental shelf, any lines which are drawnin accordance with the principles set out inparagraphs 1 and 2 of this article should bedefined with reference to charts and geo-graphical features as they exist at a partic-ular date, and reference should be made tofixed permanent identifiable points on theland.

ARTICLE 7The provisions of these articles shall not

prejudice the right of the coastal State toexploit the subsoil by means of tunnellingirrespective of the depth of water above thesubsoil.

ARTICLE 8This Convention shall, until 31 October

1958, be open for signature by all StatesMembers of the United Nations or of any ofthe specialized agencies, and by any otherState invited by the General Assembly ofthe United Nations to become a Party tothe Convention.

ARTICLE 9

This Convention is subject to ratification.The instruments of ratification shall bedeposited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations.

ARTICLE 10


ARTICLE 111. This Convention shall come into force

on the thirtieth day following the date ofdeposit of the twenty-second instrument ofratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding tothe Convention after the deposit of thetwenty-second instrument of ratification or

11182 May 26


accession the Convention shall enter intoforce on the thirtieth day after deposit bysuch State of its Instrument of ratificationor accession.

ARTICLE 12

1. At the time of signature, ratification oraccession, any State may make reservationsto artices of the Convention other than toarticles 1 to 3 inclusive.

2. Any Contracting State making a reser-vation in accordance with the precedingparagraph may at any time withdraw thereservation by a communication to that ef-fect addressed to the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations.

ARTICLE 131. After the expiration of a period of five

years from the date on which this Conven-tion shall enter into force, a request forthe revision of this Convention may be madeat any time by any Contracting Party bymeans of a notification in writing addressedto the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations.

2. The General Assembly of the UnitedNations shall decide upon the steps, if any,to be taken in respect of such request.

ARTICLE 14The Secretary-General of the United Na-

tions shall inform all States Members of theUnited Nations and the other States referredto in article 8:

(a) Of signatures to this Convention andof the deposit of instruments of ratificationor accession, in accordance with articles 8,9 and 10;

(b) Of the date on which this Conventionwill come into force, in accordance with ar-ticle 11;

(c) Of requests for revision in accordancewith article 13;

(d) Of reservations to this Convention inaccordance with article 12.

ARTICLE 15

The original of this Convention, of whichthe Chinese, English, French, Russian andSpanish texts are equally authentic, shall bedeposited with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations, who shall send certifiedcopies thereof to all States referred to inarticle 8.

In witness whereof the undersigned, Pleni-potentiaries, being duly authorized theretoby their respective Governments, have signedthis Convention.

Done at Geneva, this twenty-ninth dayof April one thousand nine hundred andfifty-eight.


For Albania:For Argentina: A. Lescure.For Australia: E. Ronald Walker, 30 Oc-

tober 1958.For Austria:For the Kingdom of Belgium:For Bolivia: M. Tamayo, 17 October, 1958.For Brazil:For Bulgaria:For the Union of Burma:For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public: K. Kiselev, 31.X.1958.For Cambodia:For Canada: George A. Drew.For Ceylon: C. Corea, 30/X/58.For Chile: Jos6 Serrano, October 31, 1958.For China: Liu Chieh, Yu-Chi Hsueh.For Colombia: Juan Uribe Holguin, Jos6

Joaquin Caicedo Castilla.For Costa Rica: Radil Trejos Flores.For Cuba: F. V. Garcia Amador.For Czechoslovakia: Karel Kurka, 31 Octo-

ber 1958.For Denmark: Max Sorensen, T. Oldenburg.For the Dominican Republic: A. Alvarez

Aybar.For Ecuador: Jos6 A. Correa, October 31,

1958.

CVI- 704

For El Salvador:For Ethiopia:For the Federation of Malaya:For Finland: G. A. Grlpenberg, 27 October

1958.For France:For the Federal Republic of Germany:

Werner Dankwort, 30 October 1958.Statement: "In signing the Convention on

the Continental Shelf of 29 April 1958, theFederal Republic of Germany declares withreference to article 5, paragraph 1 of theConvention on the Continental Shelf thatin the opinion of the Federal Governmentarticle 5, paragraph 1 guarantees the exer-cise of fishing rights (Fischerel) in thewaters above the continental shelf in themanner hitherto generally in practice."

For Ghana: Richard Quarshie, K. B.Asante.

For Greece:For Guatemala: L. Aycinena Salazer.For Haiti: Rigal.For the Holy See:For Honduras:For Hungary:For Iceland: H. G. Andersen.For India:For Indonesia: Ahmad Soebardjo, 8 May

1958.For Iran: subject to reservations: Dr. A.

Matine-Daftary, May 28, 1958."In signing this Convention on the Con-

tinental Shelf, I am instructed by theIranian Government to make the followingreservations:

"(a) Article 4: with respect to the phrase"the coastal State may not impede the lay-ing or maintenance of submarine cables orpipe-lines on the continental shelf", theIranian Government reserves its right toallow or not to allow the laying or mainte-nance of submarine cables or pipe-lines onits continental shelf.

"(b) Article 6: with respect to the phrase'and unless another boundary line is justi-fied by special circumstances' included inparagraphs 1 and 2 of this article, the In-dian Government accepts this phrase on theunderstanding that one method of deter-mining the boundary line in special cir-cumstances would be that of measurementfrom the high water mark."

For Iraq:For Ireland: Frank Aiken, 2-10-1958.For Israel: Shabtai Rosenne.For Italy:For Japan:For the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:For the Republic of Korea:For Laos:For Lebanon: N. Sadaka, 29 M~ai 1958.For Liberia: Rocheforte L. Weeks, 27/5/58.For Libya:For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:For Mexico:For Monaco:For Morocco:For Nepal: Rishikesh Shaha.For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: C.

Schurmann, 31 October 1958.For New Zealand: Foss Shanahan, 29

October 1958.For Nicaragua:For the Kingdom of Norway:For Pakistan: Aly Khan, 31 October 1958.For Panama: Carlos Sucre C., 2.5. 1958.For Paraguay:For Peru: Alberto Ulloa, October 31, 1958.For the Philippine Republic:For Poland: J. Winiewicz, October 31, 58.For Portugal (translation), subject to rat-

Ification: Vasco Vieira Garin, 28 October1958.

For Romania:For San Marino:For Saudi Arabia:For Spain:For the Sudan:For Sweden:

For Switzerland: F. Schnyder, 22 octobre1958.

For Thailand: Luang Chakrapanl Srisil-visuddhi, Commodore Jit Sangkhadul.

For Tunisia: Mongi Slim, Le octobre 1958.For Turkey:For the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub-

lic: L. Palamarchuk, 31 October 1958.For the Union of South Africa:For the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

lics: V. Zorin, 31 October 1958.For the United Arab Republic:For the United Kingdom of Great Britain



For Uruguay: Carlos Carbajal.For Venezuela (translation by the United

Nations Secretariat) : "In signing the pres-ent Convention, the Republic of Venezueladeclares with reference to article 6 that thereare special circumstances to be taken intoconsideration in the following areas: theGulf of Paria, in so far as the boundary isnot determined by existing agreements, andin zones adjacent thereto; the area betweenthe coast of Venezuala and the island ofAruba; and the Gulf of Venezuela."

Ad referendum: Carlos Sosa Rodriguez,October 30, 1958.

For Vietnam:For Yemen:For Yugoslavia (translation), subject to


EXECUTIVE N

ANNEX V-OPTIONAL PROTOCOL O SIGNATURECONCERNING THE COMPULSORY SETTLEMENTO' DISPUTESThe States Parties to this Protocol and to

any one or more of the Conventions on theLaw of the Sea adopted by the United Na-tions Conference on the Law of the Sea heldat Geneva from 24 February to 27 April 1958,

Expressing their wish to resort, in allmatters concerning them in respect to anydispute arising out of the interpretation orapplication of any article of any Conventionon the Law of the Sea of 29 April 1958, tothe compulsory jurisdiction of the Interna-tional Court of Justice, unless some otherform of settlement is provided in the Con-vention or has been agreed upon by theParties within a reasonable period.


ARTICLE IDisputes arising out of the interpretation

or application of any Convention on theLaw of the Sea shall lie within the com-pulsory jurisdiction of the InternationalCourt of Justice, and may accordingly bebrought before the Court by an applicationmade by any party to the dispute being aParty to this Protocol.

ARTICLE IIThis undertaking relates to all the pro-

visions of any Convention on the Law of theSea except, In the Convention on Fishing andConservation of the Living Resources of theHigh Seas, articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, to whicharticles 9, 10, 11 and 12 of that Conventionremain applicable.

ARTICLE If

The Parties may agree, within a period oftwo months after one party has notified itsopinion to the other that a dispute exists, toresort not to the International Court ofJustice but to an arbitral tribunal. Afterthe expiry of the said period, either Party tothis Protocol may bring the dispute beforethe Court by an application.

ARTICLE IV

1. Within the same period of two months,the Parties to this Protocol may agree toadopt a conciliation procedure before resort-ing to the International Court of Justice.

1960 11183

11184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

2. The conciliation commission shall makeIts recommendations within five monthsafter its appointment. If its recommenda-tions are not accepted by the parties to thedispute within two months after they havebeen delivered, either party may bring thedispute before the Court by an application.

ARTICLE V

This Protocol shall remain open for signa-ture by all States who become Parties to any

Convention on the Law of the Sea adoptedby the United Nations Conference on the Lawof the Sea and is subject to ratification,where necessary, according to the constitu-tional requirements of the signatory States.

ARTICLE VI

The Secretary-General of the United Na-tions shall inform all States who becomeParties to any Convention on the Law of theSea of signatures to this Protocol and of thedeposit of instruments of ratification in ac-cordance with article V.

ARTICLE VII

The original of this Protocol, of which theChinese, English, French, Russian andSpanish texts are equally authentic, shallbe deposited with the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations, who shall send certifiedcopies thereof to all States referred to inarticle V.

In witness whereof the undersignedPlenipotentiaries, being duly authorizedthereto by their respective Governments,have signed this Protocol.

Done at Geneva, this twenty-ninth day ofApril one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight.

For Afghanistan:For Albania:For Argentina:For Australia.For Austria (subject to ratification) : Dr.

Franz Matsch, October 27, 1958.For the Kingdom of Belgium:For Bolivia: M. Tamayo, 17 October 1958.For Brazil:For Bulgaria:For the Union of Burma:For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public:For Cambodia:For Canada (subject to ratification):

George A. Drew.For Ceylon: C. Corea, 20/S/58.For Chile:For China: Liu Chieh, Yu-Chi Hsueh.For Colombia (translation), with the ex-

planation annexed: Juan Urive Holguin,Jos6 Joaquin Calcedo Castilla.

Translation by the United Nations Secre-tariat:

"In signing the Optional Protocol, thedelegation of Colombia reserves the obliga-tions of Colombia arising out of conventionsconcerning the peaceful settlement of dis-putes which Colombia has ratified and outof any previous conventions concerning thesame subject which Colombia may ratify."

For Costa Rica: Raul Trejos Flores.For Cuba: F. V. Garcia Amador.For Czechoslovakia:For Denmark (subject to ratification):

Max Sorensen, T. Oldenburg.For the Dominican Republic: A. Alvarez

Aybar.For Ecuador:For El Salvador:For Ethiopia:For the Federation of Malaya:For Finland: G. A. Gripenberg, 27 octobre


1958.For the Federal Republic of Germany:

Werner Dankwort, 30 October 1958.For Ghana: Richard Quarshie, K. B.

Asante.For Greece:For Guatemala:

For Haiti: Rigal.For the Holy See: P. Demeur, 304. 1958.For Honduras:For Hungary:For Iceland:For India:For Indonesia: Ahmad Soebardjo, 8 May

1958.For Iran:For Iraq:For Ireland:For Israel, ad referendum: Shabtal

Rosenne.For Italy:For Japan:For the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:For the Republic of Korea:For Laos:For Lebanon:For Liberia: Rocheforte L. Weeks, 27/5/58.For Libya:For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:For Mexico:For Monaco:For Morocco:For Nepal: Rishikesh Shaha.For the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

(translation), subject to ratification: C.Schurmann, 31 October 1958.

For New Zealand: Foss Shanahan, 29 Oc-tober 1958.

For Nicaragua:For the Kingdom of Norway:For Pakistan: Aly Khan, 6 November 1958.For Panama: Carlos Sucre C., 2.5. 1958.For Paraguay:For Peru:For the Philippine Republic:For Poland:For Portugal (translation), subject to

ratification: Vasco Vieira Garin, 28 October1958.

For Romania:For San Marino:For Saudi Arabia:For Spain:For the Sudan:For Sweden:For Switzerland (translation), subject to

ratification: Paul Ruegger, 24 May 1958.For Thailand:For Tunisia:For Turkey:For the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub-

lic:For the Union of South Africa:For the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

lics:For the United Arab Republic:For the United Kingdom of Great Britain



For Uruguay: Carlos Carbajal.For Venezuela:For Vietnam:For Yemen:For Yugoslavia (translation), subject to

ratification: Milan Bartos, V. Popovic.I hereby certify that the foregoing texts

are true copies of the following Conventionsand Protocol adopted by the United NationsConference on the Law of the Sea, held at theEuropean Office of the United Nations atGeneva from 24 February to 27 April 1958,the originals of which are deposited withthe Secretary-General of the United Nations:

Convention of the Territorial Sea and theContiguous Zone;

Convention on the High Seas;Convention on Fishing and Conservation

of the Living Resources of the High Seas;Convention on the Continental Shelf;Optional Protocol of Signature concerning

Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.For the Secretary-General:

C A STAvRopouLos,The Legal Counsel.

United Nations, New York, 7 November1958.

May 26

FINAL ACT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFER-ENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

1. The General Assembly of the UnitedNations, by resolution 1105 (XI) of 21 Feb-ruary 1957, decided to convene an interna-tional conference of plenipotentiaries to ex-amine the law of the sea, taking account notonly of the legal but also of the technical,biological, economic and political aspects ofthe problem, and to embody the results ofits work in one or more international con-ventions or such other instruments as itmight deem appropriate. The General As-sembly also recommended that the confer-ence should study the question of the freeaccess to the sea of land-locked countries,as established by international practice ortreaties.

2. The United Nations Conference on theLaw of the Sea met at the European Office ofthe United Nations at Geneva from 24 Feb-ruary to 27 April 1958.

3. The Governments of the followingeighty-six States were represented at theConference:

Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Australia,Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Repub-lic, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China,Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslavakia,Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, ElSalvador, Federation of Malaya, Finland,France, Federal Republic of Germany.

Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See,Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indo-nesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,Jordan, Republic of Korea, Laos, Lebanon,Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco,Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,Nicaragua, Norway.

Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philip-pines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Ma-rino, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzer-land, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, UkrainianSoviet Socialist Republic, Union of SouthAfrica, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,United Arab Republic, United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland, UnitedStates of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Re-public of Viet-Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

4. At the invitation of the General As-sembly, the following Specialized Agencieshad observers at the Conference: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Na-tions; International Civil Aviation Organ-ization; International Labour Organisation;International Telecommunication Union;United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization; World Health Or-ganization; World Meteorological Organiza-tion.

5. At the Invitation of the General Assem-bly, the following intergovernmental organ-izations also had observers at the Confer-ence: Conseil g6ndral des p~ches pour laMdditerran6e; Indo-Pacific Fisheries Coun-cil; Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commis-sion; Intergovernmental Committee forEuropean Migration; International Councilfor the Exploration of the Sea; InternationalInstitute for the Unification of Private Law;League of Arab States; Organization ofAmerican States; Permanent Conference forthe Exploitation and Conservation of theMaritime Resources of the South Pacific.

6. The Conference elected His Royal High-ness Prince Wan Waithayakon KrommunNaradhip Bongsprabandh (Thailand) asPresident.

7. The Conference elected as Vice-presi-dents Argentina, China, France, Guatemala,India, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland,the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, theUnited Arab Republic, the United Kingdomof Great Britain and Northern Ireland, andthe United States of America.

8. The following committees were set up:General Committee: Chairman, The Pres-

ident of the Conference.


First Committee (Territorial Sea and Con-tiguous Zone): Chairman: Mr. K. H. Bailey(Australia); Vice-Chairman: Mr. S. Guti6r-rez Olivos (Chile); Rapporteur: Mr. Vladi-mir M. Koretsky (Ukrainian Soviet SocialistRepublic).

Second Committee (High Seas: GeneralRegime): Chairman, Mr. 0. C. Gundersen(Norway); Vice-Chairman, Mr. Edwin Glaser(Romania), Rapporteur, Mr. Jos6 MadeiraRodigues (Portugal).

Third Committee (High Seas: Fishing; theConservation of Living Resources): Chair-man, Mr. Carlos Sucre (Panama); Vice-Chairman, Mr. E. Krispis (Greece); Rappor-teur, Mr. N. K. Pannikar (India).

Fourth Committee (Continental Shelf):Chairman, M. A. B. Perera (Ceylon); Vice-Chairman, Mr. R. A. Quarshie (Ghana);Rapporteur, Mr. L. Diaz GonzAlez (Vene-zuela).

Fifth Committee (Question of Free Accessto the Sea of Land-locked Countries) :Chairman, Mr. J. Zourek (Czechoslovakia);Vice-Chairman, Mr. W. Guevara Arze (Bo-livia); Rapporteur, Mr. A. H. Tabibi (Afghan-istan).

Drafting Committee: Chairman, Mr. J. A.Correa (Ecuador).

Credentials Committee: Chairman, Mr. M.Wershof (Canada).

9. The Secretary-General of the UnitedNations was represented by Mr. C. A. Stav-ropoulos, the Legal Counsel. Mr. Yuen-lILiang, Director of the Codification Divisionof the Office of Legal Affairs of the UnitedNations, was appointed Executive Secretary.

10. The General Assembly, by its resolu-tion convening the Conference, referred tothe Conference the report of the Inter-national Law Commission covering the workof its eighth session as a basis for considera-tion of the various problems involved in thedevelopment and codification of the law ofthe sea; the General Assembly also referredto the Conference the verbatim records ofthe relevant debates in the General As-sembly, for consideration by the Conferencein conjunction with the Commission's report.

11. The Conference also had before it thecomments by Governments on the articlesconcerning the law of the sea prepared bythe International Law Commission, thememorandum submitted by the preliminaryConference of Land-locked States held inGeneva from 10 to 14 February 1958, andpreparatory documentation prepared by theSecretariat of the United Nations, by certainspecialized agencies and by independent ex-perts invited by the Secretariat to assist inthe preparation of this documentation.

12. On the basis of the deliberations, asrecorded in the summary records and reportsof the committees and In the records of theplenary meetings, the Conference preparedand opened for signature the following Con-ventions (annexes I to IV) :

Convention on the Territorial Sea andthe Contiguous Zone (adopted on 27 April1958, on the report of the First Committee);

Convention on the High Seas (adopted on27 April 1958, on the report of the SecondCommittee);

Convention on Fishing and Conservationof the Living Resources of the High Seas(adopted on 26 April 1958, on the report ofthe Third Committee);

Convention on the Continental Shelf(adopted on 26 April 1958, on the report ofthe Fourth Committee).

The Conference also adopted the followingProtocol (annex V):

Optional Protocol of Signature concerningthe compulsory settlement of disputes(adopted by the Conference on 26 April1958).

In addition, the Conference adopted thefollowing resolutions (annex VI):

Nuclear tests on the high seas (resolutionadopted on 27 April 1958, on the report of

the Second Committee, In connexion witharticle 2 of the Convention on the HighSeas);

Pollution of the high seas by radio-activematerials (resolution adopted on 27 April1958, on the report of the Second Committee,relating to article 25 of the Convention onthe High Seas);

International fishery conservation conven-tions (resolution adopted on 25 April 1958,on the report of the Third Committee);

Co-operation in conservation measures(resolution adopted on 25 April 1958, on thereport of the Third Committee);

Humane killing of marine life (resolutionadopted on 25 April 1958, on the report ofthe Third Committee);

Special situations relating to coastal fish-eries (resolution adopted on 26 April 1958,on the report of the Third Committee);

R6gime of historic waters (resolutionadopted on 27 April 1958, on the report ofthe First Committee);

Convening of a second United NationsConference on the Law of the Sea (resolu-tion adopted by the Conference on 27 April1958);

Tribute to the International Law Commis-sion (resolution adopted by the Conferenceon 27 April 1958).

In witness whereof the representativeshave signed this Final Act.

DONE at Geneva this twenty-ninth day ofApril, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, In a single copy in the Chinese,English, French, Russian and Spanish lan-guages, each text being equally authentic.The original texts shall be deposited in thearchives of the United Nations Secretariat.

WAN WAITHAYAKON,President.

YUEN-LI LIANO,Executive Secretary.

For Afghanistan: Dr. Abdul H. Tabibi.For Albania: D. Lamani.For Argontina: A. Lescure.For Australia: K. H. Bailey.For Austria: Johannes Willfort.For Bolivia: C. Salamanca.For Brazil: Gilberto Amado.For Bulgaria: P. Grlgorov.For the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public: I. E. Geronin.For Cambodia: M. Phlek-Chhat.For Canada: George A. Drew.For Ceylon: N. T. D. Kanakaratne.For Chile: Luis Melo Lecaros.For China: Liu Chieh, Yu-Chi Hsueh.For Colombia: Juan Uribe Holguin, Josa

Joaquin Calcedo Castilla.For Costa Rica: Ratl Trejos Flores.For Cuba: F. V. Garcia Amador.For Czechoslovakia: Jan Obhlidal, Dr.

Jaroslav Zourek.For Denmark: Max Sorensen, T. Olden-

burg.For the Dominican Republic: A. Alvarez

Aybar.For Ecuador: Jos6 V. Trujillo, Josd A. Cor-

rea, Enrique Ponce y Corba.For El Salvador: Francisco R. Lima, G.

Fuentes Castellanos.For Finland: T. Tikanvaara.For France: De Curton.For the Federal Republic of Germany:

Peter H. Pfeiffer.For Ghana: Richard Quarshie, K. B. Asante.For Greece: Elias Krispis, G. Bensis.For Guatemala: L. Aycinena Salazar.For Haiti: Rigal.For the Holy See: P. Demeur, 30.4.1958.For Honduras: F. Jos DurTn.For Hungary: Dr. Jnos Szita.For Iceland: H. G. Andersen.For India: E. E. Jhirad.For Indonesia: Ahmad Soebardjo, 8 May

1958.For Iran: Prof. Dr. A. Matine-Daftary.For Iraq: Hasan Zakariya, 30 April 1958.For Israel: Shabtai Rosenne.For Italy: Roberto Ago.

For Japan: I. Kawasaki, 16 May 1958.For Lebanon: N. Sadaka, 23 Mai 1958.For Liberia: Nathan Barnes, Rocheforte L.

Weeks.For Libya: Fuad Caabazi.For Mexico: Pablo Campos Oritz, A. Garcia

Robles.For Monaco: C. Solamito, J. Raimbert.For Morocco: Nasser Bel Larbi.For Nepal: Rishikesh Shaha.For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: J. H.

W. Veerzljl.For New Zealand: G. L. O'Halloran.For Nicaragua: I. Portocarrero.For the Kingdom of Norway: Bredo Sta-

bell, Finn Seyersted.For Pakistan: Edward Snelson.For Panama: Carlos Sucre C.For Peru: Alberto Ulloa.For Poland: T. O'Closzynski.For Portugal: Tovar.For Rumania: A. Lazareanu.For San Marmno: H. Reynaud, 30.4.1958.For Spain: Marqufs de Mirafiores.For Switzerland: Paul Ruegger, A. Schal-

ler.For Thailand: Luang Chakrapanl Srsil-

visuddhli.For Tunisia: M. Abdesselem.For Turkey: Necmettin Tuncel.For the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub-

lic: V. Koretsky.For the Union of South Africa: L. H. Wes-

sels.For the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

lics: G. Tunkin.For the United Arab Republic: Omar

Loutfi.For the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland: G. G. Fitzmaurice,Joyce A. C. Gutteridge.

For the United States of America: Ray-mond T. Yingling, Marjorie M. Whiteman.

For Uruguay: Carlos Carbajal.For Venezuela: Ramdn Carmona.For Yugoslavia: Milan Bartos, V. Popovic.

ANNEX VI-RESOLUTIONs ADOPTED BY THEUNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAWOF THE SEA

NUCLEAR TESTS ON THE HIGH SEAS(Resolution adopted on 27 April 1958, on the

report of the Second Committee, in con-nexion with article 2 of the Conventionon the High Seas)The United Nations Conference on the Law

of the Sea,Recalling that the Conference has been

convened by the General Assembly of theUnited Nations in accordance with resolu-tion 1105 (XI) of 21 February 1957,

Recognizing that there is a serious andgenuine apprehension on the part of manyStates that nuclear explosions constitute aninfringement of the freedom of the seas,

Recognizing that the question of nucleartests and production is still under review bythe General Assembly under various resolu-tions on the subject and by the Disarma-ment Commission, and is at present underconstant review and discussion by the Gov-ernments concerned,

Decides to refer this matter to the Gen-eral Assembly of the United Nations forappropriate action.

POLLUTION OF THE HIGH SEAS BY RADIO-ACTIVEMATERIALS

(Resolution adopted on 27 April 1958, on thereport of the Second Committee, relatingto article 25 of the Convention on theHigh Seas)

The United Nations Conference on theLaw of the Sea,

Recognizing the need for internationalaction in the field of disposal of radio-activewastes in the sea.

Taking into account action which hasbeen proposed by various national and in-ternational bodies and studies which havebeen published on the subject,

1960 11185

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE

Noting that the International Commissionon Radiological Protection has made recom-mendations regarding the maximum per-missible concentration of radio-isotopes inthe human body and the maximum permis-sible concentration in air and water,

Recommends that the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, in consultation withexisting groups and established organs hav-ing acknowledged competence in the fieldof radiological protection, should pursuewhatever studies and take whatever actionis necessary to assist States in controllingthe discharge or release of radio-active ma-terials to the sea, in promulgating standards,and in drawing up internationally acceptableregulations to prevent pollution of the seaby radio-active materials in amounts whichwould adversely affect man and his marineresources.

INTERNATIONAL FISHERY CONSERVATIONCONVENTIONS

(Resolution Adopted on 25 April 1958, on theReport of the Third Committee)


Taking note of the opinion of the Inter-national Technical Conference on the Con-servation of the Living Resources of the Sea,held in Rome in April/May 1955, as expressedin paragraph 43 of its report, as to the effi-cacy of international conservation organiza-tions in furthering the conservation of theliving resources of the sea,

Believing that such organizations are valu-able instruments for the co-ordination ofscientific effort upon the problem of fisheriesand for the making of agreements upon con-servation measures,

Recommends:1. That States concerned should co-

operate in establishing the necessary conser-vation regime through the medium of suchorganizations covering particular areas ofthe high seas or species of living marine re-sources and conforming in other respectswith the recommendations contained in thereport of the International Technical Con-ference on the Conservation of the LivingResources of the Sea;

2. That these organizations should be usedso far as practicable for the conduct of thenegotiations between States envisaged underarticles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention onFishing and Conservation of the Living Re-sources of the High Seas, for the resolutionof any disagreements and for the implemen-tation of agreed measures of conservation.

CO-OPERATION IN CONSERVATION MEASURES

(Resolution Adopted on 25 April 1958, onthe Report of the Third Committee)


Taking note of the opinion of the Inter-national Technical Conference on the Con-servation of the Living Resources of the Sea,held in Rome in April/May 1955, as reportedin paragraphs 43(a), 54 and others of its re-port, that any effective conservation manage-ment system must have the participation ofall States engaged in substantial exploitationof the stock or stocks of living marine or-ganisms which are the object of the con-servation management system or having aspecial interest in the conservation of thatstock or stocks,

Recommends to the coastal States that, inthe cases where a stock or stocks of fish orother living marine resources inhabit boththe fishing areas under their jurisdiction andareas of the adjacent high seas, they shouldcooperate, with such international conserva-tion agencies as may be responsible for thedevelopment and application of conservationmeasures in the adjacent high seas, in theadoption and enforcement, as far as prac-ticable, of the necessary conservation meas-ures on fishing areas under their jurisdic-tion.

HUMANE KILLING OF MARINE LIFE

(Resolution Adopted on 25 April 1958, on theReport of the Third Committee)


Requests States to prescribe, by all meansavailable to them, those methods for thecapture and killing of marine life, especiallyof whales and seals, which will spare themsuffering to the greatest extent possible.

SPECIAL SITUATIONS RELATING TO COASTAL

FISHERIES(Resolution Adopted on 26 April 1958, on

the Report of the Third Committee)The United Nations Conference on the

Law of the Sea,Having considered the situation of coun-

tries or territories whose people are over-whelmingly dependent upon coastal fisheriesfor their livelihood or economic development,

Having considered also the situation ofcountries whose coastal population dependsprimarily on coastal fisheries for the animalprotein of its diet and whose fishing methodsare mainly limited to local fishing from smallboats,

Recognizing that such situations call forexceptional measures befitting particularneeds,

Considering that, because of the limitedscope and exceptional nature of those situa-tions, any measures adopted to meet themwould be complementary to provisions in-corporated in a universal system of interna-tional law,

Believing that States should collaborate tosecure just treatment of such situations byregional agreements or by other means ofinternational co-operation,

Recommends:1. That where, for the purpose of conserva-

tion, it becomes necessary to limit the totalcatch of a stock or stocks of fish in an areaof the high seas adjacent to the territorialsea of a coastal State, any other States fish-ing in that area should collaborate with thecoastal State to secure just treatment of suchsituations, by establishing agreed measureswhich shall recognize any preferential re-quirements of the coastal State resultingfrom its dependence upon the fishery con-cerned while having regard to the interestsof the other States;

2. That appropriate conciliation and arbi-tral procedures shall be established for thesettlement of any disagreement.

RtGIME OF HISTORIC WATERS

(Resolution Adopted on 27 April 1958, on theReport of the First Committee)


Considering that the International LawCommission has not provided for the r6gimeof historic waters, including historic bays,

Recognizing the importance of the juridi-cal status of such areas.

Decides to request the General Assemblyof the United Nations to arrange for thestudy of the juridical r6gime of historic wa-ters, including historic bays, and for thecommunication of the results of such studyto all States Members of the United Nations.

CONVENING OF A SECOND UNITED NATIONS

CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Resolution Adopted by the Conference on27 April 1958


Considering that, on the basis of the re-port prepared by the International Law Com-mission, it has approved agreements andother instruments on the r6gime applicableto fishing and the conservation of the livingresources of the high seas, the explorationof the continental shelf and the exploitationof its natural resources and other matters

pertaining to the general r6gime of the highseas and to the free access of land-lockedStates to the sea,

Considering that it has not been possibleto reach agreement on the breadth of theterritorial sea and some other matters whichwere discussed in connexion with this prob-lem,

Recognizing that, although agreementshave been reached on the regime applicableto fishing and the conservation of the livingresources of the high seas, it has not beenpossible, in those agreements, to settle cer-tain aspects of a number of inherentlycomplex questions,

Recognizing the desirability of makingfurther efforts at an appropriate time toreach agreement on questions of the inter-national law of the sea, which have beenleft unsettled,

Resolves to request the General Assemblyof the United Nations to study, at itsthirteenth session, the advisability of con-vening a second international conference ofplenipotentiaries for further considerationof the questions left unsettled by the presentConference.

TRIBUTE TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMISSION

Resolution Adopted by the Conference on27 April 1958

The United Nations Conference on theLaw of the Sea, on the conclusion of its pro-ceedings,

Resolves to pay a tribute of gratitude, re-spect and admiration to the InternationalLaw Commission for its excellent work inthe matter of the codification and develop-ment of international law, in the form ofvarious drafts and commentaries of greatjuridical value.

I hereby certify that the foregoing text isa true copy of the Final Act and Resolutionsadopted by the United Nations Conferenceon the Law of the Sea, held at the EuropeanOffice of the United Nations at Geneva from24 February to 27 April 1958, the original ofwhich is deposited with the Secretary-Gen-eral of the United Nations.

For the Secretary-General:C. A. STAVROPOULOS,

Legal Counsel.UNITED NATIONS, New York,

7 November 1958.

BEIRUT AGREEMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Irise to explain Executive V, 81st Con-gress, 2d session, the agreement for fa-cilitating the international circulation ofvisual and auditory materials of an edu-cational, scientific, and cultural char-acter, and a related protocol of signa-ture. This agreement, because of itsformulation and adoption by theUNESCO Conference in Beirut, Lebanon,in 1948, is commonly referred to as theBeirut agreement.

The purpose of the agreement is toencourage the free movement of edu-cational materials by eliminating cus-toms duties and quantitative limitationson the importation of such audiovisualmaterials as films, film strips, soundrecordings, glass slides, models, and wallcharts. Free entry would be provided,however, only for such materials as arecertified by a government agency aseducational in character.

The agreement does not apply toprinted materials or to entertainmentfilms or recordings.

As Senators will have noted in sec-tion 2 of the committee report, theUnited States to date has employed aninformal system of certification which

11186 May 26


permits some educational Americanfilms and other audiovisual materials toenter foreign countries duty free. Butthe utility of this arrangement has de-pended entirely upon the good will andsufferance of those countries, many ofwhich have now become increasinglyreluctant to honor this Government'scertificates on a nonreciprocal basis.They consider their attitude fully war-ranted in view of the fact that theUnited States took the lead in proposingand signing an international agreementwhich it has not yet ratified despite theagreement's entry into force 6 years ago;21 countries have signed the Beirutagreement; 12 of them have ratified andnow participate in its operation.

A number of these nations are in thesmall, less-developed category whichthe U.S. Government believes shouldhave greater access to our culture and ex-panded means of understanding our poli-cies and free institutions. Participationis open to all United Nations members.However, no Communist bloc countryhas signed the agreement in its decadeof existence. Presumably only a nationwith a society open to the free exchangeof international influences would wishto participate in the Beirut agreement.Should a closed society adhere to theagreement, its own and other nations'reciprocal use of the restrictive articlesIV and V would render such adherencemeaningless.

In considering this agreement, em-phasis rightly should be given to itsimportance in terms of promoting inter-national understanding and, accord-ingly, of assisting this Government's in-formation program. At the same time,U.S. participation should prove veryhelpful to our audiovisual business con-cerns.

This country is by far the largest pro-ducer of the audiovisual materials cov-ered by the agreement; the dollar valueof our exports is relatively great and isincreasing. Since our imports are verysmall, participation in the agreementwould involve an insignificant loss ofcustoms revenue much outweighed bythe commercial opportunities thatshould open up for American exporters.U.S. participation in the agreement isfully supported by the administration,educators, and representatives of theaudiovisual industry, while the commit-tee knows of no opposition from anyquarter.

As the Senate has recently ratified theso-called Florence agreement, which isquite similar in many respects, my col-leagues will wish to be assured that thisagreement is neither contradictory orunnecessary. The fact is that no morethan 10 percent of American-producededucational films would qualify for cov-erage under the terms of the Florenceagreement.

A further explanatory point concernsthe related protocol of signature. Thisprotocol provides that the U.N. SecretaryGeneral will attach to the agreement themodel forms of certificates drawn upby UNESCO to cover material producedby international bodies recognized bythe United Nations.

Finally, I would draw attention to thefact that our participation in the Beirutagreement would not automatically fol-low ratification, but would require im-plementing legislation amending theTariff Act of 1930. Any member coun-try may end its acceptance of the Beirutagreement 3 years after ratification.

Mr. President, the Committee on For-eign Relations believes that this agree-ment has both cultural and commercialsignificance for the foreign policy inter-ests of the United States. The commit-tee urges the Senate to give its adviceand consent to ratification of the Beirutagreement and the related protocol ofsignature.

LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTIONS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, theconventions now before the Senate,Executives J to N, inclusive, 86th Con-gress, 1st session, codify existing inter-national law and establish some newinternational law with respect to activi-ties on the seas. An optional protocolprovides for settlement of disputes con-cerning these matters. They wereagreed upon at a United Nations confer-ence in Geneva, February to April 1958,and were signed by the United Statesand 52 other nations.

The first convention is on the terri-torial sea and the contiguous zone. Theconvention codifies and settles questionsof international law on measuring thebelt of sea adjacent to a coast known asthe territorial sea and the 12-mile zonebeyond it called the contiguous zone.The rights of coastal states and visitingvessels in these areas, such as the right ofinnocent passage through the territorialsea, are defined.

The questions of the breadth of theterritorial sea and the fishing rights ofcoastal states are not included in thisagreement, but were discussed in a sec-ond conference in Geneva which endedthis past month. As you are no doubtaware, the conference failed by only onevote to reach agreement on these vitalmatters.

The second convention defines the ex-tent of high seas and some of the free-doms of the high seas. It gives the rulesfor placing a state's flag on a vessel andfor taking jurisdiction over a vessel. Itcontains rules on such subjects as safetyat sea, piracy, hot pursuit, and pollutionof the high seas.

The third convention concerns fishingand conservation of living resources ofthe high seas. It confirms the right tofish but imposes a new duty upon statesto cooperate in conserving the living re-sources of the high seas. It providesfor compulsory and speedy settlement,by a special five-man commission, ofdisputes about conservation measures.The convention does not contain theprinciple of abstention from fishing un-der certain circumstances which wasfavored by the United States.

This principle of abstention deals withspecial fishery conservation problems.The object of the procedure is to en-courage conservation in situationswhere, but for some protection againstfishing by third parties, incentive forconservation measures would be lacking.

The executive branch considers the gen-eral acceptance of abstention as a for-ward step toward the achievement ofthe objective of conservation of marineresources and the maximum utilizationof such resources in behalf of the gen-eral interest.

Therefore, the President's message tothe Senate recommended that if theSenate consents to ratification of thisconvention, it include in its resolutionan understanding that ratification shallnot be construed to impair the applica-bility of the principle of abstention.The Committee on Foreign Relationsagrees with this procedure and the reso-lution before the Senate has this under-standing in it. A statement of the prin-ciple of abstention appears on page 8 ofthe committee's report.

The fourth convention concerns theContinental Shelf. It gives coastal statesthe exclusive right to exploit the naturalresources of the shelf out to where thewater above is 200 meters deep, or far-ther if techniques or exploitation permit.

The optional protocol of signatureconcerns the compulsory settlement ofdisputes. It provides that disputes aris-ing out of the interpretation or applica-tion of any convention on the law of thesea shall be within the compulsory juris-diction of the International Court ofJustice.

Subsequent to the transmittal of theconventions to the Senate, the Depart-ment of State was informed by the legalcounsel of the United Nations that thecertified true copies of the Convention onthe Territorial Sea and the ContiguousZone contain certain nonsubstantivetypographical errors. These misprintsare found in the English text of para-graph 3 of article 19 and the Frenchtext of paragraph 1 or article 6. I askunanimous consent, Mr. President, thatthe correct versions of these two articlesbe printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the correctversions were ordered to be printed inthe RECORD, as follows:

On page 6 of the certified true copies ofthe Convention on the Territorial Sea andthe Contiguous Zone, the text of paragraph3 of article 19 should read as follows:

"3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs1 and 2 of this article, the coastal State shall,if the captain so requests, advise the con-sular authority of the flag State before takingany steps, and shall facilitate contact be-tween such authority and the ship's crew. Incases of emergency this notification may becommunicated while the measures are beingtaken."

On page 232 of the certified true copies ofthe Convention on the Continental Shelf,the first sentence of paragraph 1 of article6 of the convention should read as follows:

"1. Dans le cas oii un m~me plateau con-tinental est adjacent aux territoires de deuxou plusieurs Etats dont les cbtes se fontface, la d6limitation du plateau continentalentre ces Etats est ddtermin6e par accordentre ces Etats."

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Ihave been informed by Assistant Secre-tary of State, William Macomber, Jr.,that if favorable action is taken by theSenate with respect to these conventionsand the certified copies returned to theDepartment, the Department will make

1960 11187

11188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

the necessary corrections in the texts.When the conventions enter into force,the correct texts will be printed in thetreaties and other international actsseries and in the statutory publicationUnited States Treaties and Other Inter-national Agreements.

A public hearing on these conventionswas held January 20, 1960. No opposi-tion was registered during this hearingor subsequently. The executive branchwitnesses stated that no State or Federallaw would be overridden by the conven-tions. The fishing industry has urgedtheir adoption.

In the opinion of the Committee onForeign Relations, adherence to theprinciples set forth in these conventionswill reduce disputes and friction amongnations and thereby serve the cause ofpeaceful and friendly relations. There-fore, Mr. President, I hope the Senatewill give its advice and consent to theratification of the pending conventionson the law of the sea and the optionalprotocol concerning the settlement ofdisputes arising on this subject.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will theSenator from Montana yield, to permitme to ask some questions about thetreaty which is now under consideration?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.Mr. JAVITS. Some years ago, in 1956,

I believe, there was a controversy whichinvolved a legal opinion and a statementof policy by our State Department asto the fact that the Gulf of Aqaba, whichwas then the heart of a very keen con-troversy involving British, French, andIsraeli forces, and involving what is nowthe United Arab Republic, was an inter-national waterway. I should like to askthe Senator whether this convention,which we are about to ratify, changesthat situation?

Mr. MANSFIELD. The treaties pro-vide for the measuring of this waterway,and that question is under active con-sideration.

Mr. JAVITS. If we approve thetreaty, will that change the situationupon which the legal opinion and thestatement of policy by the State De-partment were based?

Mr. MANSFIELD. It will not.Mr. JAVITS. In other words, what-

ever is that basis, it will remain thesame, unaffected by the treaty?

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator iscorrect.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senatorfrom Montana.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent that the reportsof the Foreign Relations Committee onthe respective treaties being consideredthis afternoon by the Senate be printedat this point in the RECORD, prior to thetaking of the vote.

There being no objection, the reports(Ex. Rept. No. 4 and Ex. Rept. No. 5)were ordered to be printed in the REc-ORD, as follows:EXECUTIvz REPORT No. 4--AN AGREEMENT RE-

LATING TO INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION OFVISUAL AND AUDITORY MATERIALSThe Committee on Foreign Relations, hav-

ing had under consideration an Agreementfor Facilitating the International Circula-tion of Visual and Auditory Materials of anEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Char-

acter, and a related protocol of signature(Ex. V, 81st Cong., 2d seas.), which wereopened for signature at Lake Success. N.Y.,on July 15, 1949, and were signed in behalfof the United States on September 13, 1949,recommends that the Senate advise and con-sent to ratification of the agreement andthe protocol of signature.

1. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT

The main purpose of the Agreement forFacilitating the International Circulation ofVisual and Auditory Materials of Educa-tional, Scientific, and Cultural Character(commonly known, and hereinafter re-ferred to, as the Beirut agreement) is toeliminate national barriers to the free move-ment of such materials by removing customsduties and quantitative restrictions on theirimportation if they are certified as beingof the appropriate character. It is believedthat implementation of the agreement bythis country would promote internationaleducation and good will, assist the U.S.Government information program, and provebeneficial to our audiovisual businessconcerns.

2. BACKGROUTD

Prior to the Second World War, there weretwo international conventions in existencedesigned to facilitate the circulation of edu-cational films. The United States for vari-ous reasons did not become a party to eitherconvention, and its films were consequentlyat a disadvantage compared with those ofcertain other countries in the matter ofpreferential customs treatment. To alleviatethis problem, the Department of State in1941 began to certify the educational char-acter of American films so that they mightenter, duty free, countries willing to recog-nize those certificates on an informal basis;this program was extended in 1945 to in-clude filmstrips, slides, and recordings.Many thousands of certificates have sincebeen issued and have been honored volun-tarily by a number of American Republicsand British Commonwealth countries.

In order to regularize and extend this pro-cedure, the United States at the end ofWorld War II took the lead in proposing thecreation of an international agreement underthe auspices of the United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). The agreement was formu-lated and adopted at the third session ofthe UNESCO General Conference held atBeirut, Lebanon, toward the end of 1948.The United States was the second of 21free-world countries to sign the agreementin 1949. The Secretary General of theUnited Nations having received 10 instru-ments of acceptance or accession, the Beirutagreement came into force in August 1954.To date, 12 of the 21 signatories have be-come parties to the agreement. No Com-munist bloc country has joined or Is ex-pected to join under existing circumstances.

3. PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT

The audiovisual materials of an educa-tional, scientific, or cultural character cov-ered by the Beirut agreement consist offilms, filmstrips, and microfilm; sound re-cordings; glass slides; models; wall charts,maps, and posters. These materials wouldbe exempted from customs duties andquantitative restrictions, and from the ne-cessity of applying for an import license tocover them. It should be noted here that,while it accepted the duty-free provision, theNetherlands Government at the time of sig-nature entered a reservation regarding thequantitative and licensing clauses. Shouldthe Netherlands maintain that positionwhenever it ratified the agreement, theother member countries could, of course,reciprocally invoke the reservation againstthat Government.

Article IV of the agreement sets forth theprocedure to be employed to obtain duty-free entry of these audiovisual materials.

May 26Following certification as to the educationalcharacter of its shipment by the exportingcountry, the appropriate governmentalagency (the U.S. Information Agency in ourcase) will decide whether the material isentitled to exemption from duties and otherrestrictions. While it must report the rea-sons for a negative finding to the exportingcountry and to UNESCO, the country ofentry has the right of final decision. More-over, it is provided in article V that mem-ber nations may censor material in accord-ance with their own laws or prohibit impor-tation for reasons of public security or pub-lic order. In view of the exception of thesearticles from the provisions regarding settle-ment of disputes, the latter would appearlimited and pro forma in nature. Finally,the country of entry may, if it wishes, insurethat imported material shall only be ex-hibited or used for nonprofitmakingpurposes,

The Beirut agreement may be denouncedby any country 3 years after its acceptanceof membership through a written notifica-tion to the Secretary General of the UnitedNations; the denunciation would take effect1 year after its receipt.

The related protocol of signature providesthat the Secretary General will attach to theagreement the model forms of certificatesdrawn up by UNESCO to cover material pro-duced by international organizations andspecialized agencies recognized by the UnitedNations. These certificates require the ap-proval of countries which are members ofUNESCO.

4. COM MITTEE ACTION

The President of the United States onAugust 22, 1950, transmitted the Beirutagreement and the protocol of signature tothe Senate with a view to receiving itsadvice and consent to ratification.

The Committee on Foreign Relations helda brief executive hearing on the agreementin July 1957, but determined on no subse-quent course of action. The certificationsystem then existing, while restricted anduncertain, was working sufficiently well toforestall the need for an immediate decision.Since that time, however, certain countrieshave become increasingly reluctant to honorthis Government's certificates without theprospect of reciprocal courtesy being ex-tended.

Accordingly, the committee held an execu-tive hearing on February 2, 1960, at whichtime the administration's case in favor ofratification was presented by Mr. George V.Allen, Director of the US. InformationAgency. A statement of support for ratifica-tion was received from Secretary of StateChristian A. Herter, and the committee notedsupporting communications from businessand academic organizations. No oppositionto the agreement was made known to thecommittee from any quarter.

Several points of interest were developedduring committee review of the agreement.In the first place, the United States is byfar the major world producer of educationalaudiovisual materials, and it is estimatedthat the value of our exports of such mate-rials will continue to exceed that of im-ported materials by a tremendous margin;the likely loss of revenue on duty-free im-ports would only amount to a few thousanddollars. Secondly, it was stressed that theBeirut agreement is not self-executing. Thepassage of implementing legislation, amend-ing section 201 of the Tariff Act of 1930,would be required following ratification.

A third point concerned the distinctionsto be drawn between this agreement andthe so-called Florence agreement recentlyratified by the Senate. Not only is theBeirut agreement confined to audiovisualmaterials, but the fact is that over 90 per-cent of U.S. educational film exports arecleared through oversea offices of U.S. ex-


porters for delivery to importing organiza-tions which would not be covered by therestricted terms of the Florence agreement.However, since the remaining percentage ofsuch films are directly imported by foreigneducational institutions qualifying underthe Florence agreement, the two agreementsare not redundant or contradictory, but in-stead are complementary. Entertainmentmaterials are not covered in either agree-ment.

The committee in executive session on Feb-ruary 10 unanimously reported the Beirutagreement favorably to the Senate.

a. CONCLUSIONThe Committee on Foreign Relations ac-

cepts the administration's view that theagreement has both cultural and commercialsignificance for the foreign policy interestsof the United States. On the one hand,through increased exports of audiovisualmaterials the United States would be demon-strating abroad its ways of thought and liv-ing as well as its technical proficiency. Onthe other, as the principal producer and ex-porter of such materials, the United Stateswould benefit commercially from obtainingduty-free entry for these products into otherfree-world countries.

The committee urges the Senate to give itsadvice and consent to ratification of theBeirut agreement and the related protocolof signature.

ExEcUTIvE REPORT No. 5--LAw OF THE SEACONVENTIONS

The Committee on Foreign Relations, hav-ing had under consideration Executives J toN, inclusive, four conventions on the law ofthe sea, and an optional protocol concerningthe settlement of disputes, reports the con-ventions and the protocol without objectionand recommends that the Senate give itsadvice and consent to their ratification.

PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTIONS

The purpose of the four conventions andthe optional protocol on the law of the seais to codify existing international law and toestablish additional international law in thisfield. The conventions are concerned withthe rights and duties of states and vessels inthe territorial sea, contiguous zone, and onthe high seas, rights and responsibilities withregard to fishing and conservation on thehigh seas, and the formulation of "interna-tional law" with respect to the exploitationof the natural resources of the ContinentalShelf. Not covered in these conventions arethe questions of the breadth of the terri-torial sea and the extent of exclusive fishingrights of coastal states.

BACKGROUND

The International Law Commission of theUnited Nations at its first session in 1949decided to study the law of the high seas andthe law of the territorial sea with a view tocodification. This was done at subsequentsessions, draft rules were prepared, and com-ments of governments were considered. TheCommission completed Its work at its eighthsession (1956) and pursuant to General As-sembly Resolution 899(IX) of December 14,1954, the Commission grouped together in itsreport all the rules it had adopted concern-ing the high seas, the territorial sea, theContinental Shelf, the contiguous zone, andthe conservation of the living resources ofthe sea.

The final report of the Commission statedthat its draft rules on the law of the seawere a mixture of codification of existinginternational law and recommendations forthe progressive development of internationallaw and that it had been unable to separatethe two. It therefore recommended that theUnited Nations General Assembly call aninternational conference to examine the lawof the sea, and to try to reach agreementon appropriate international conventions.

The General Assembly, by Resolution1105(XI) of February 21, 1957, provided termsof reference for an International Conferenceof Plenipotentiaries to examine the law ofthe sea, taking into account the legal, bio-logical, economic, and political aspects ofthe problem. The General Assembly also rec-ommended that the Conference study thequestion of free access to the sea of land-locked countries.

The United Nations Conference on the Lawof the Sea was held at Geneva from February24 to April 27, 1958, and resulted in the fol-lowing four conventions and an optionalprotocol, dated April 29, 1958:

1. Convention on the Territorial Sea andthe Contiguous Zone;

2. Convention on the High Seas;3. Convention on Fishing and Conserva-

tion of the Living Resources of the HighSeas;

4. Convention on the Continental Shelf;and

5. Optional Protocol of Signature Concern-ing the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

The conventions were signed on behalf ofthe United States of America on September15, 1958, and have been signed by 52 states;some states not signing every convention.

While in some instances the proposed rulestend to clarify issues that have been in con-troversy in recent years, the greater part ofthe rules are declaratory of the present prac-tice of states and may be considered acceptedinternational law even without the conven-tions being ratified.

MAIN PROVISIONS1. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the

Contiguous ZoneThe Convention on the Territorial Sea and

the Contiguous Zone embodies those prin-ciples of international law that have specificreference to the status of these areas of thesea, their demarcation, and the rights andresponsibilities of both the coastal state andthe community of nations with respect tothem. The first articles of the 32 containedin this convention reiterate the universallyrecognized principle of the sovereignty of thecoastal state over its internal waters and theterritorial seas, and that this right of sov-ereignty extends to the airspace over the ter-ritorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.

The convention recognizes two methods fordetermining the base line, that is, the linefrom which the territorial sea is measured.The first method, long recognized as the gen-eral rule, establishes as the base line the lowwater line following the sinuosities of thecoast. The second method, which is an ex-ception to the general rule, allows the useof straight base lines joining appropriatepoints where the coast line is deeply indentedor where there is a fringe of islands alongthe coast in its immediate vicinity.

Where the straight base line is allowed ithas the effect of bringing into the territorialsea areas of water heretofore considered highseas. Hence, where the straight base line isapplied the coastal state must indicate thelines on published charts.

Article 5 of the convention preserves aright of innocent passage through watersconverted from high seas or territorial sea tointernal waters by application of the straightbase-line system permitted by article 4. Ap-plication of the rules of the Convention onthe Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zoneconcerning straight base lines would nothave the effect of changing the status ofwaters which are now internal.

The general principles relating to bayswhich are Included in the convention pro-vide that a bay, the coasts of which areowned by a single state and having certaingeographical characteristics, is considered in-ternal waters. The closing line of the baymust not be longer than 24 miles, and if thenatural entrance of the bay is of a greaterwidth, a straight base line of 24 miles may

be drawn within the bay in such a manneras to enclose the maximum area of water thatis possible with a line of that length. Fixingthe allowable length of the closing line at 24miles is a significant departure from the rulewhich had been recognized by many govern-ments and which had fixed the maximumlength of the closing line at 10 miles. Theliberalization of this requirement will qualifymany bay areas of the world for conversion tointernal waters, thereby bringing under na-tional control areas heretofore classed ashigh seas-for example, Cape Cod Bay.

The convention defines the respectiverights, duties, and responsibilities of thecoastal state and foreign vessels in the terri-torial sea. These provisions are largely de-claratory of existing international law.

Articles 14 through 17 deal with the rightof innocent passage through the territorialsea. Passage is defined as "innocent" so longas it is not prejudicial to the peace, goodorder, or security of the coastal state. Thissimple, yet precise, definition of innocentpassage, something which has not heretoforeexisted in international law, affords to mari-time navigation the greatest freedom ofmovement consistent with the necessity ofthe coastal state to protect itself.

The right of passage of foreign fishing ves-sels is more restricted. Their passage is notconsidered innocent if they do not also ob-serve the laws and regulations made by thecoastal state to prevent such vessels fromfishing in the territorial sea.

Article 14 contains the words "whethercoastal or not" to indicate clearly that theright of innocent passage through the terri-torial sea applies to ships of landlocked coun-tries as well as to ships of coastal states.This was done in compliance with a requestby the United Nations General Assemblywhich asked the Conference on the Law ofthe Sea to study the question of free accessto the sea of landlocked countries as estab-lished by international practice or treaties.

Article 16 provides for the temporary sus-pension in specified areas of the territorialsea of the right of innocent passage for se-curity reasons. On the other hand, no suchsuspension in straits which are used for in-ternational navigation between one part ofthe high seas and another part of the highseas or the territorial sea of a state is permis-sible.

Article 21 provides that government shipsoperated for commercial purposes are sub-ject to the same rules as other merchantships. This provision was opposed by theSoviet Union and other state-trading coun-tries which desired immunity for such ves-sels.

Article 24, which provides that in a zone ofthe high seas contiguous to its territorialsea-limited to 12 miles from the base line ofthe territorial sea-the coastal state may pre-vent Infringement of its customs, fiscal, im-migration, or sanitary regulations and pun-ish infringement of such regulations. Al-though it has become fairly common practicefor the coastal state to exercise a special ju-risdiction in a limited area of the high seascontiguous to the territorial sea, particularlyin customs matters, no definite rule had beenagreed upon. Article 24 confirms the prac-tice followed by the United States of exercis-ing customs jurisdiction over a zone outsideof its territorial sea.

This convention does not fix the breadth ofthe territorial sea. This subject and theclosely related one of the extent to which thecoastal state should have exclusive fishingrights in the sea off its coast were hotly de-bated without any conclusion being reached.A U.S. proposal for a 6-mile territorial seaplus exclusive fishing rights for the coastalstate in a contiguous 6-mile zone (subject tofishing rights of other states establishedthrough fishing over a 5-year period) received45 votes in favor and 33 against, but failed toget the two-thirds required for adoption.

1960 11189


When the U.S. compromise failed, thechairman of the American delegation to theConference, Arthur H. Dean, stated:

"Our offer to agree on a 6-mile breadth ofthe territorial sea, provided agreement couldbe reached on such a breadth under certainconditions, was simply an offer and nothingmore. Its nonacceptance leaves the preex-isting situation intact.

"We have made it clear from the beginningthat in our view the 3-mile rule is and willcontinue to be established international law,to which we adhere. It is the only breadthof the territorial sea on which there has everbeen anything like common agreement.Unilateral acts of states claiming greater ter-ritorial seas are not only not sanctioned byany principle of international law, but are in-deed in conflict with the universally acceptedprinciple of freedom of the seas."

He noted further that-"We have made it clear that in our view

there is no obligation on the part of thestates adhering to the 3-mile rule to recog-nize claims on the part of other states to agreater breadth of the territorial sea. Onthat we stand."

The General Assembly of the United Na-tions has convened a second internationalconference for the further consideration ofthe questions of the breadth of the territorialsea and fishing rights in coastal waters. Itopened at Geneva on March 17, 1960.

2. Convention on the High SeasThe convention defines the term "high

seas" as comprising all parts of the sea ex-cept the territorial seas and internal waters.Freedom of the high seas is confirmed as thebasic principle of the law of the sea. En-joyed by the world community since the 17thcentury, not a dissenting vote was castagainst this principle at Geneva. Freedomof the seas includes for both coastal and thenoncoastal states: freedom of navigation,freedom of fishing, freedom to lay submarinecables and pipelines, and freedom to fly overthe high seas.

A proposal was made during the Con-ference to insert provisions banning nucleartesting on the high seas and military exer-cises near foreign coasts or on internationalsea routes. The Conference defeated theproposal, but a resolution was passed re-ferring the matter of nuclear testing to theGeneral Assembly of the United Nationsfor appropriate action.

'"GENUINE LINK"

Articles 4 and 5 provide that every state,coastal or landlocked, has the right to sailships under its flag on the high seas andfix the conditions under which it will grantnationality to ships and the right to flyits flag.

Article 5, section 1, reads as follows:"Each State shall fix the conditions for

the grant of Its nationality to ships, forthe registration of ships in its territory,and for the right to fly its flag. Ships havethe nationality of the State whose flag theyare entitled to fly. There must exist agenuine link between the state and theship; In particular the state must effectivelyexercise its jurisdiction and control in ad-ministrative, technical and social mattersover ships flying its flag."

The International Law Commission didnot decide upon a definition of the term"genuine link." This article as originallydrafted by the Commission would haveauthorized other states to determine wheth-er there was a "genuine link" between aship and the flag state for purposes ofrecognition of the nationality of the ship.

It was felt by some states attending theConference on the Law of the Sea that theterm "genuine link" could, depending uponhow it were defined, limit the discretionof a state to decide which ships it wouldpermit to fly its flag. Some states, which

felt their flag vessels were at a competitivedisadvantage with vessels sailing under theflags of other states, such as Panama andLiberia, were anxious to adopt a definitionwhich states like Panama and Liberia couldnot meet.

By a vote of 30 states, including theUnited States, against 15 states for, and17 states abstaining, the provision was elim-inated which would have enabled statesother than the flag state to withhold recog-nition of the national character of a shipif they considered that there was no "gen-uine link" between the state and the ship.

Thus, under the Convention on the HighSeas, it is for each state to determine howit shall exercise jurisdiction and control inadministrative, technical and social mat-ters over ships flying Its flag. The "genuinelink" requirement need not have any effectupon the practice of registering Americanbuilt or owned vessels in such countries asPanama or Liberia. The existence of a"genuine link" between the state and theship Is not a condition of recognition of thenationality of a ship; that is, no state canclaim the right to determine unilaterallythat no genuine link exists between a shipand the flag state. Nevertheless here is apossibility that a state, with r;hpect to aparticular ship, may assert before an agreedtribunal, such as the International Courtof Justice, that no genuine link exists. Insuch event, it would be for the Court todecide whether or not a "genuine link"existed.

IMMUNITY OF STATE-OWNED VESSELS

Article 8 of the convention defines "war-ships" and states that they have completeimmunity on the high seas. Another articlestates that state ships used only on govern-ment noncommercial service shall have thesame immunity as warships. The Sovietbloc sought unsuccessfully to assimilate allgovernment ships, whether commercial ornoncommercial, to warships.

Article 11 has the effect of reversing thedecision of the Permanent Court of Inter-national Justice in the Lotus case because itprovides that only the flag state, or the stateof which the accused is a national, mayexercise penal jurisdiction with respect toincidents of navigation on the high seas.This article also provides that only the is-suing state may withdraw licenses and cer-tificates of competence and that only theauthorities of the flag state may order thedetention of a ship.

Regarding pollution of the high seas, theconvention treats separately the dischargeof oil, the dumping of atomic waste, andpollution of the high seas or airspace aboveresulting from any "activities with radio-active materials or other harmful objects."In regard to oil pollution, article 24 of theconvention provides that-

"Every state shall draw up regulations toprevent pollution of the seas * * * "

At present the U.S. Government does nothave any statutes or regulations pertainingto the matter of oil pollution beyond theterritorial sea by vessels. The shippingindustry has followed a voluntary programaimed at preventing pollution of the seaby oil. On February 15, 1960, however, the'International Convention for Prevention ofPollution of the Sea by Oil was sent to theSenate. Upon adherence to this convention,there would be regulations on this subjectwhich U.S.-flag vessels would be obligated toobserve.

Regulations aimed at minimizing the pos-sibility of pollution from exploitation of theoil resources of the Continental Shelf havebeen issued pursuant to the Outer Con-tinental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331)and are incorporated In the Department ofInterior regulations regarding submergedlands.

As to the dumping of atomic waste, theconvention provides that each state shalltake measures to prevent pollution of theseas, taking into account standards andregulations which may be formulated bycompetent international organizations intaking measures to prevent pollution of theseas from this source. The Atomic EnergyCommission exercises, under the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C.2011), control over dumping of radioactivewaste at sea on a case-by-case basis throughIts licensing procedures.3. Convention on Fishing and Conservation

of the Living Resources of the High SeasThis convention, which contains 22 ar-

ticles, establishes a new legal system forthe conservation of the marine resourcesof the high seas. Its aim is to obtainthrough international cooperation the "op-timum sustainable yield" from the livingresources of the high seas in order to securea "maximum supply of food" to meet theneeds of the world's expanding population.

The convention contains orderly proce-dures for resolving disputes among nationsover fishing rights and interests on the highseas.

The convention imposes on all states theduty to adopt conservation measures to con-serve high seas fisheries, and recognizes inthe coastal state a special right to partici-pate in the establishment of the conserva-tion measures applicable to stocks of fish inareas of the high seas adjacent to its terri-torial sea. The framework for a new sys-tem of international cooperation for fisherypurposes is provided for by articles 3 to 8,which spell out new rights and duties forboth the fishing and coastal states whichbecome parties to the convention.

Article 9 requires compulsory arbitrationof any dispute relating to the negotiationand operation of conservation agreements ifrequested by any of the parties to a disputeand provided settlement by other peacefulmeans Is not agreed upon. The arbitralbody shall be a five-man commission to benamed by agreement between the parties tothe dispute. Failing such agreement, theCommission shall be named by the Secre-tary General of the United Nations fromamong well-qualified persons, not nationalsof the states involved in the dispute, and"specializing in legal, administrative, or sci-entific questions relating to fisheries."

THE PRINCIPLE OF ABSTENTION

The United States would have preferredthat the convention include a provision onabstention. A resolution proposed on thesubject failed by a narrow margin to securethe necessary two-third, vote. At the con-clusion of the Conference consultations wereheld with representatives of the fishing in-dustry in the United States, resulting inapproval by the industry of an understand-ing regarding abstention to be recommendedto the Senate. The President's message tothe Senate contained the text of the under-standing as follows:

"In the event that the Senate advises andconsents to ratification of the Conventionon Fishing and Conservation of the LivingResources of the High Seas, it is requestedthat it enter an understanding in its resolu-tion of advice and consent as follows:

"'Resolved (two-thirds of the Senatorspresent concurring therein), That the Sen-ate advise and consent to the ratificationof Executive -, Eighty-Sixth Congress, firstsession, an agreement entitled "Conventionon Fishing and Conservation of the LivingResources of the High Seas," adopted by theUnited Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea at Geneva on April 29, 1958.

"'It is the understanding of the Senate,which understanding inheres in its adviceand consent to the ratification of this agree-ment, that such ratification shall not beconstrued to impair the applicability of the

11190 May 26

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEprinciple of "abstention," as defined in par-agraph A.1 of the documents of record inthe proceedings of the conference abovereferred to, identified as A/CONF.13/C.3/L69,8 April 1958.'"

A-CONF.13-C.3-L69, April 8, 1958, readsas follows:

"1. Where the nationals of a coastal state,alone or with the nationals of one or moreother states, are (a) fishing a stock of fishin an area of the high seas adjacent to theterritorial sea of the coastal state with suchintensity that an increase In fishing effortwill not result in a substantial increase inthe yield which can be maintained year afteryear, and (b) where the maintenance of thecurrent yield, or when possible, the furtherdevelopment of it is dependent upon a con-servation program carried out by thosestates, involving research and limitationsupon the size or quantity of the fish whichmay be caught, then (c) states whose na-tionals are not fishing the stock regularlyor which have not theretofore done so with-in a reasonable period of time, shall abstainfrom fishing such stock, provided howeverthat this shall not apply to any coastalstate with respect to fishing any stock inwaters adjacent to its territorial sea."

The principle of abstention is a procedurefor dealing with special fishery conserva-tion problems. It is incorporated in theNorth Pacific Fisheries Convention betweenthe United States, Canada, and Japan. Theobject of the procedure is to encourage con-servation in situations where, but for someprotection against fishing by third parties,incentive for conservation measures wouldbe lacking.

It is necessary to have an "understanding"about the lack of the principle in the con-vention because article 1 of the conventionstates:

"All states have the right for their na-tionals to engage in fishing on the highseas. * * *"

It might therefore be thought that appli-cation of the abstention principle is notentirely compatible with freedom of fishing.The executive branch intends to continueto pursue the general acceptance of "ab-stention" as a forward step toward theachievement of the objective of conservationof marine resources and the maximum utili-zation of such resources in behalf of thegeneral Interest.

4. Convention on the Continental ShelfThe Continental Shelf as a legal concept

gained impetus with the Truman proclama-tion of September 1945, which announcedthat the United States regards the naturalresources of the subsoil and the seabed ofthe Continental Shelf beneath the high seasbut contiguous to the coasts of the UnitedStates as subject to its jurisdiction and con-trol. By 1956 some 20 states had madeclaims with respect to the shelf. The Con-vention on the Continental Shelf convertsthis state practice into codified internationallaw.

Article 1 defines the term "ContinentalShelf" as meaning the seabed and subsoilof the submarine areas adjacent to the coastbut outside the area of the territorial sea,to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond thatlimit, to where the depth of the superjacentwaters admits of the exploitation of thenatural resources of the said areas. It alsoincludes the seabed and subsoil of similarareas adjacent to the coasts of islands.

Article 2 provides that the coastal stateexercises over the Continental Shelf "sover-eign rights" for the purpose of exploring andexploiting its natural resources. Theserights are exclusive. The term "sovereignrights" was contained in the InternationalLaw Commission draft and was a compromisebetween the views of those states which de-sired to use the term "sovereignty" and thosewhich preferred "jurisdiction and control."

Article 3 of the convention provides that therights of the coastal state over the Conti-nental Shelf do not affect the legal status ofthe superjacent waters as high seas or thatof the airspace above those waters.

The only controversy at the Conference onthe Law of the Sea on this convention con-cerned the definition of "natural resources"of the shelf. The Conference adopted a jointproposal of Australia, Ceylon, Malaya, India,Norway, and the United Kingdom definingnatural resources as the mineral and othernonliving resources of the sea bed and sub-soil, together with living organisms which atthe harvestable stage either are immobileon or under the sea bed or are unable tomove except in constant physical contactwith the sea bed or subsoil.

Under this definition, for example, clams,oysters, and abalone are included as "nat-ural resources" whereas shrimp, lobsters, andfinny fish are not.

5. Optional Protocol of Signature Concern-ing the Compulsory Settlement of Dis-putesArticle I provides that disputes arising out

of the interpretation or application of anyconvention on the law of the sea shall liewithin the compulsory jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice, and may ac-cordingly be brought before the Court byan application made by any party to thedispute which is also a party to the proto-col. This means that with respect to thesubjects covered by these conventions theUnited States would not attempt to reserveto itself the right to determine whether ornot a matter lay within the domestic juris-diction of the United States. Such an un-dertaking has become common in recentyears in treaties to which the United Statesis a party.

Article II provides that this procedure cov-ers all the conventions on the law of the seaexcept, in the Convention on Fishing andConservation of the Living Resources of theHigh Seas, articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, to whicharticles 9, 10, 11, and 12 of that convention(calling for special arbitration commissionsof experts) remain applicable.

The parties may agree to resort to an ar-bitral tribunal, pursuant to article III, ormay agree to adopt a conciliation procedure,pursuant to article IV, before resorting to theInternational Court of Justice.

COMMITTEE ACTIONThe four conventions and the optional

protocol were transmitted to the Senate onSeptember 9, 1959. The Committee on For-eign Relations held a public hearing onJanuary 20, 1960, and the record was heldopen for 30 days thereafter. The principalexecutive branch witness was Mr. Arthur H.Dean, special consultant to the Departmentof State, who was chief of the U.S. delega-tion at the negotiations in Geneva which re-sulted in these conventions.

During the questioning of Mr. Dean, Sena-tor MANSFIELD raised the question of the useof the high seas for the testing of nuclear orother dangerous weapons. Mr. Dean testi-fied that when this general problem wasraised during the Geneva Conference it wasthe consensus of the Conference that thematter should be referred to the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations to be takenup at the Conference on Disarmament inGeneva.

During the questioning by Senator LONG,Mr. Dean made clear that the conventionsdo not affect the relative rights as betweenthe several States of the United States andthe Federal Government. The conventionsonly affect the rights of the United Statesas a sovereign state with respect to the rightsof other sovereign states.

Mr. W. M. Chapman, representing theAmerican Tunaboat Association, the Cali-fornia Fish Canners Association, and the

Westgate California Corp. of San Diego, sup-ported the ratification of these conventions.Mr. William R. Neblett, executive director ofthe National Shrimp Congress, Inc., testifiedthat the groups he represented supported theconventions. Mr. Fred Myers, executive di-rector of the Humane Society of the UnitedStates, gave the support of his organizationfor ratification of the conventions and urgedthe employment of humane methods of kill-ing animals of the sea, especially whales,seals, and polar bears. Letters and telegramsreceived from numerous organizations repre-senting the U.S. fishing industry were unani-mous in urging approval of the conventions.No opposition was registered. On April 5,1960, the committee voted without objectionto report the conventions favorably to theSenate.

CONCLUSION

The Committee on Foreign Relations wasimpressed with the following list of bene-fits accruing to the United States pursuantto the law of the sea conventions, which wasfurnished by the Department of State:

"As a country which believes in the ruleof law, any agreement on the rules of Inter-national law to which the United States cansubscribe is of benefit to it. It is also ofbenefit to the United States as a principalmaritime and naval power to have interna-tional agreement on the law of the sea.Aside from these benefits of a general nature,the following are some of the more specificbenefits to the United States.

"In the Convention on the Territorial Seaand the Contiguous Zone, the articles onstraight base lines, innocent passage and thecontiguous zone are a marked advance in thecontent and formulation of international law.By restricting the use of the straight base-line method to certain exceptional geographicsituations, its Indiscriminate use to reduceto internal waters large areas heretofore re-garded as high seas or territorial sea is pre-vented. This is in the interest of the UnitedStates which believes in the greatest possi-ble freedom of the seas. The article definingpassage as innocent so long as it is not preju-dicial to the peace, good order, or security ofthe coastal state furnishes a clear, simple,and precise definition of innocent passage,something which has not heretofore existedin international law. It thus affords tomaritime navigation the greatest freedomof movement consistent with the necessityof the coastal state to protect itself. Article24 on the contiguous zone is of benefit tothe United States since it confirms the prac-tice followed by the United States of exer-cising customs jurisdiction over a zone out-side of its territorial sea and also sanctionsthe exercise of similar jurisdiction for fiscal,immigration, and sanitary purposes in a con-tiguous zone, the outer limit of which is12 miles from the coast.

"While the Convention on the High Seasis generally declaratory of existing principlesof international law, by codifying these prin-ciples in agreed terms, the convention shouldhelp to provide stability and avoid disputesin this field of international law.

"The Convention on Fishing and Conser-vation of the Living Resources of the HighSeas could prove to be particularly beneficialto the United States which is one of the greatfishing nations of the world. As such, it hasfar flung and highly diversified high seasfisheries interests. Since the resources of thesea are not inexhaustible, with the advent ofmodern-day fishing vessels, equipment, andtechniques, stocks of fish are more than evervulnerable to overexploitation by the fisher-men of many states. If this is to be avoided,it behooves the nations in concern to agreeupon appropriate conservation regimes alongrational lines.

"The Convention on Fishing and Conserva-tion of the Living Resources of the High Seasis the first international legislation dealing

1960 11191

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEcomprehensively with conservation problems.As a code regulating the conservation ofmaritime resources, it provides a sound basisfor international cooperation in determiningthe need for and in the adoption of suchconservation measures as are necessary tomaximize the productivity of high seas fish-ery resources. At the same time, the conven-tion represents a long step toward the de-velopment of orderly procedures for resolvingproblems that provide the basis for disputesamong nations over fishing rights and inter-ests on the high seas. The United States hashad its share of these.

"The Convention on the Continental Shelfis particularly significant and beneficial tothe United States which is one of the prin-cipal countries making use of the naturalresources of the shelf because the conven-tion reflects for the first time internationalagreement on the rules governing the explo-ration and exploitation of this vast sub-marine area of the world. The conventionshould prove specially beneficial to theUnited States since it endorses numerousprinciples which the United States has beenfollowing since they were enunciated in the1945 proclamation of President Truman con-cerning the Continental Shelf.

"Finally, the optional protocol would bebeneficial in that it is in accordance with theU.S. policy of striving for solution of inter-national disputes by peaceful means."

The committee believes that adherence tothe principles set forth in the law of the seaconventions will reduce disputes and frictionamong nations and thereby serve the causeof peaceful and friendly relations among thenations of the world. The committee, there-fore, recommends that the Senate give itsadvice and consent to the ratification of thepending conventions and the optional proto-col on the law of the sea and include in itsresolution of ratification an understandingon the principle of abstention.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Iask that the Senate vote en bloc on thevarious instruments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If therebe no objection, the agreements, con-ventions, and optional protocol of signa-ture will be considered as having passedthrough their various parliamentarystages up to and including the presenta-tion of the respective resolutions ofratification.

The resolutions of ratification, withthe understanding and accompanyingstatements, were read as follows:

EXECUTIVE VResolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres-

ent concurring therein), That the Senate ad-vise and consent to the ratification of theAgreement for Facilitating the InternationalCirculation of Visual and Auditory Materialsof an Educational, Scientific, and CulturalCharacter, and a related protocol of signa-ture (Executive V, Eighty-first Congress,Second Session), which were opened forsignature at Lake Success, New York, onJuly 15, 1949, and were signed in behalf ofthe United States on September 13, 1949.

EXECUTIVE JResolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres-

ent concurring therein), That the Senateadvise and consent to the ratification ofExecutive J, Eighty-sixth Congress, FirstSession, a convention on the Territorial Seaand the Contiguous Zone, dated at Geneva,April 29, 1958, and signed on behalf of theUnited States of America on September 15,1958.

EXECUTIVE KResolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres-

ent concurring therein), That the Senate ad-vise and consent to the ratification of

Executive K, Eighty-sixth Congress, first ses-sion, a Convention on the High Seas, datedat Geneva, April 29, 1958, and signed on be-half of the United States of America on Sep-tember 15, 1958.

EXECUTIVE LResolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres-

ent concurring therein), That the Senate ad-vise and consent to the ratification ofExecutive L, Eighty-sixth Congress, first ses-sion, an agreement entitled "Convention onFishing and Conservation of the Living Re-sources of the High Seas," adopted by theUnited Nations Conference on the Law of theSea at Geneva on April 29, 1958.

It is the understanding of the Senate,which understanding inheres in its adviceand consent to the ratification of this agree-ment, that such ratification shall not beconstrued to impair the applicability of theprinciple of "abstention", as defined in para-graph A.1 of the documents of record in theproceedings of the conference above referredto, identified as A/CONF.13/C.3/L69, April 8,1958.

EXECUTIVE MResolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres-

ent concurring therein), That the Senateadvise and consent to the ratification ofExecutive M, Eighty-sixth Congress, first ses-sion, a Convention on the Continental Shelf,dated at Geneva, April 29, 1958, and signed onbehalf of the United States of America onSeptember 15, 1958.

EXECUTIVE N

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres-ent concurring therein), That the Senate ad-vise and consent to the ratification ofExecutive N, Eighty-sixth Congress, first ses-sion, An Optional Protocol of Signature Con-cerning the Compulsory Settlement of Dis-putes, dated at Geneva, April 29, 1958, andsigned on behalf of the United States ofAmerica on September 15, 1958.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe unanimous consent agreement, thequestion will now be taken on advisingand consenting to the resolution ofratification of Executive V. The reso-lutions of ratification of Executive J,Executive K, Executive L, Executive M,and Executive N will be deemed to havebeen respectively agreed to by the samevote.

The yeas and nays have been ordered,and the clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll.Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that

the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON],the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.CHAVEZ], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.CHURCH], the Senator from Louisiana[Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator fromMichigan [Mr. HART], the Senator fromMinnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], the Sena-tor from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], theSenator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLEL-LAN], the Senator from Alabama [Mr.SPARKMAN], and the Senator from Geor-gia [Mr. TALMADGE] are absent on officialbusiness.

The Senator from Missouri [Mr.HENNINGS] and the Senator from Michi-gan [Mr. MCNAMARA] are absent becauseof illness.

The Senator from North CarolinaI Mr. JORDAN] and the Senator fromWyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] are neces-sarily absent.

I further announce that if presentand voting, the Senator from Nevada[Mr. CANNON], the Senator from New

Mexico [Mr. CHAVEZ], the Senator fromIdaho [Mr. CHURCH], the Senator fromMichigan [Mr. HART], the Senator fromMissouri [Mr. HENNINGS], the Senatorfrom Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], theSenator from North Carolina [Mr.JORDAN], the Senator from Tennessee[Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator from Ar-kansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN], the Senatorfrom Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], theSenator from Wyoming [Mr.O'MAHONEY], the Senator from Alabama[Mr. SPARKMAN] would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that theSenator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] isnecessarily absent.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr.CAPEHART] is absent because of death inhis immediate family.

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.CASE] and the Senator from Kansas[Mr. SCHOEPPEL] are absent on officialbusiness.

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG]is absent on official business as a mem-ber of the official delegation to attendthe 150th celebration in Buenos Aires.If present and voting, the Senator fromNebraska [Mr. CURTIS] would vote"yea."

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 77,nays 4, as follows:

[No. 2021YEAS-77

Alken GoreAllott GreenAnderson GrueningBartlett HartkeBeall HaydenBennett HickenlooperBible HillBridges HollandBrunsdale HruskaBush JacksonButler JavitsByrd, Va. Johnson, Tex.Carlson Johnston, S.C.Carroll KeatingCase, N.J. KennedyClark KerrCooper KuchelCotton LauscheDirksen Long, HawaiiDodd Long, La.Douglas LuskDworshak McCarthyEastland McGeeEngle MagnusonErvin MansfieldFulbright Martin

NAYS-4Byrd, W. Va. GoldwaterFrear

CannonCapehartCase, S. Dak.ChavezChurchCurtisEllender

MonroneyMorseMortonMossMundtMurrayMuskiePastoreProutyProxmlreRandolphRobertsonSaltonstallScottSmathersSmithStennisSymingtonThurmondWileyWilliams, Del.Williams, N.J.YarboroughYoung, N. Dak.Young, Ohio

Russell

NOT VOTING-19Fong McNamaraHart O'MahoneyHennings SchoeppelHumphrey SparkmanJordan . TalmadgeKefauverMcClellan

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On thisvote, the yeas are 77, the nays are 4;and the respective resolutions of ratifi-cation are agreed to.

Without objection, the President willbe immediately notified of the agreementto the respective resolutions of ratifica-tion.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas subsequentlysaid: Mr. President, I ask unanimousconsent that the votes by which the reso-lutions of ratification of Calendar Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 on the ExecutiveCalendar, be reconsidered and that it bein order, without further debate, if theyare reconsidered, that we take a separatevote on Calendar No. 9, Executive N.

11192 May 26


The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none, andit is so ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-dent, I ask for the yeas and nays onagreeing to the resolution of ratifica-tion of Executive N, Executive CalendarNo. 9.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the

roll.Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,

may I propound a parliamentary in-quiry? There seems to be some confu-sion. I ask unanimous consent to pro-pound a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. GOLDWATER. There is confu-sion as to what question we are votingon.

Mr. GORE. A point of order, Mr.President. The call of the roll cannotbe interrupted.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,we do not know whether it is a vote toreconsider or a vote upon ratification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the resolutionof ratification of Executive N, CalendarNo. 9.

The clerk will proceed with the call ofthe roll.

The rollcall was concluded.Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that

the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON],the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.CHAVEZ], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.CHURCH], the Senator from Louisiana[Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Ar-kansas [Mr. FULERIGHT], the Senatorfrom Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], theSenator from Arkansas [Mr. MCxLEL-LAN], the Senator from Montana [Mr.MURRAY], the Senator from Alabama[Mr. SPARKMAN], the Senator from Mis-souri [Mr. SYMINGTON], the Senatorfrom Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] were ab-sent on official business.

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. HEN-NINGS] and the Senator from Michigan[Mr. McNAMARA] are absent on illness.

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr.JORDAN] and the Senator from Wyoming[Mr. O'MAHONEY] are necessarily absent.

On the vote the Senator from Wyo-ming [Mr. O'MAHONEYI and the Senatorfrom Montana [Mr. MURRAY] are pairedwith the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.ELLENDER]. If present and voting, theSenator from Wyoming and the Senatorfrom Montana would vote "yea," andthe Senator from Louisiana would vote"nay."

The Senator from Missouri [Mr.SYMINGTON] and the Senator from Ala-bama [Mr. SPARKMAN] are paired withthe Senator from Georgia [Mr. TAL-MADGE]. If present and voting, the Sen-ator from Missouri and the Senator fromAlabama would vote "yea," and the Sen-ator from Georgia would vote "nay."

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. HEN-NINGS] and the Senator from Michigan[Mr. McNAMARA] are paired with theSenator from North Carolina [Mr.JORDAN]. If present and voting, the Sen-ator from Missouri and the Senator fromMichigan would each vote "yea," and

the Senator from North Carolina wouldvote "nay."

The Senator from Idaho [Mr.CHURCH] and the Senator from Nevada[Mr. CANNON] are paired with the Sen-ator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN].If present and voting, the Senator fromIdaho and the Senator from Nevadawould vote "yea," and the Senator fromArkansas would vote "nay."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that theSenator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS)is necessarily absent.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr.CAPEHART] is absent because of death inhis immediate family.

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.CASE] and the Senator from Kansas[Mr. SCHOEPPEL] are absent on officialbusiness.

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG]is absent on official business as a mem-ber of the official delegation to attendthe 150th celebration in Buenos Aires.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr.MORTON] is detained on official business.If present and voting, the Senator fromNebraska [Mr. CURTIS] would vote"nay."

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 49,nays 30, as follows:

AlkenBartlettBeallBushCarlsonCarrollCase, N.J.ClarkDirksenDouglasEngleGoreGreenGrueningHartHartkeHayden

AllottAndersonBennettBibleBridgesBrunsdaleButlerByrd, Va.Byrd, W. Va.Cooper

CannonCapehartCase, S. Dak.ChavezChurchCurtisEliender

[No. 2031YEAS-49

HickenlooperHumphreyJacksonJavitsJohnson, Tex.KeatingKennedyKuchelLauscheLong, HawaiiLuskMcCarthyMcGeeMagnusonMansfieldMartinMonroney

NAYS-30CottonDoddDworshakEastlandErvinFrearGoldwaterHillHollandHruska

MorseMossMuskiePastoreProutyProxmireRandolphSaltonstallScottSmithWileyWilliams, Del.Williams, N.J.YarboroughYoung, Ohio

Johnston, S.C.KerrLong, La.MundtRobertsonRussellSmathersStennisThurmondYoung, N. Dak.

NOT VOTING-21Fong MortonFuIbright MurrayHennings O'MahoneyJordan SchoeppelKefauver SparkmanMcClellan SymingtonMcNamara Talmadge

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Less thantwo-thirds of the Senators present andvoting concurring therein, the resolutionof ratification is not agreed to.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-dent, I believe the Senate should ratifythis protocol, so long as the Connallyreservation to the World Court remainseffective. I believe there is similar lan-guage to achieve that result in the previ-ous treaties which have been ratified.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield.Mr. MANSFIELD. It is my under-

standing that this is the only protocolto which the Connally reservation hasany application.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Does not oneof these protocols have something to dowith polluting the sea with oil?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, but there isno application of the Connally reserva-tion to that treaty. I refer to page 9 ofthe report of the committee on the lawof the sea conventions relating to Cal-endar No. 9. So far as I am aware, theConnally reservation is not exactly ap-plicable to that particular protocol.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. My recol-lection with respect to treaties havingto do with polluting the sea with oil isthat jurisdiction of the World Court isto be accepted. The testimony of theState Department witnesses before thecommittee was that they regarded them-selves as bound by the Connally reserva-tion with regard to that treaty. But itwas my feeling at that time that it wouldbe well to make the treaty clear by put-ting a reservation in the treaty that,from a legislative point of view, WorldCourt jurisdiction would not apply inthe event the United States felt theproblem was entirely a domestic matter.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Ithink it should be brought out that thetreaty to which the Senator from Louisi-ana refers is not in the particular groupof treaties which have been ratified, butis still before the committee, and I amquite certain the Senator is watching itwith an eagle eye.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I must con-fess to the Senator from Montana thatI have not watched this treaty with aneagle eye; if I had, I would have pointedout this problem before it came to a vote.

I suggest that this particular treatyshould be ratified subject to the reserva-tion usually referred to as the Connallyreservation, and that where the WorldCourt provision is applicable, the UnitedStates reserves to itself the right to de-termine whether the problem before thecourt is a domestic matter. If the treatywere offered with that reservation, Iwould vote in favor of it.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield.Mr. COOPER. I voted against rati-

fication of the treaty. I believe stronglythat a system of international law, andits institutions, should be extended.And of course, treatymaking is one ofthe means by which a system of interna-tional law and order can be developedand its acceptance obtained.

I voted against the ratification of thistreaty because it was not brought beforethe Senate for debate.

No hearings are before us, and no ex-planation of the treaty is given us. Theonly information that it was possibleto secure about this particular treaty byone who is not a member of the SenateCommittee on Foreign Relations is foundin three short paragraphs on page 9 ofthe report.

The treaty may involve large ques-tions, questions about which we haveno information. Despite my belief thatwe should move in every way possibletoward the acceptance of internationallaw, I reluctantly voted against the rati-fication of this treaty, because the Sen-ate does not know its terms and to whatit refers.

1960 11193


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Ipoint out that the Senate has alreadyagreed to many treaties which have inthem an exception to the principle ofthe Connally reservation. These aremostly commercial treaties and treatieson other technical subjects.

I ask unanimous consent to insert inthe RECORD at this point in my remarksa list of such treaties.

There being no objection, the list wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREE-

MENTS CONTAINING PROVISIONS FOR SUB-MISSION OF DISPUTES TO THE INTERNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE

I. BILATERAL

A. Commercial treaties with:China, November 4, 1946, 62 Stat. (3)

2945; TIAS 1871.Colombia,1 April 26, 1951, Senate Executive

M (82d Cong., 1st sess.).Denmark,' October 1, 1951, Senate Execu-

tive I (82d Cong., 2d sess.)Ethiopia, September 7, 1951, 4 U.S.T. 2134;

TIAS 2864.France,' November 25, 1959 (to be submit-

ted to the Senate).Germany, F.R., October 29, 1954, 7 U.S.T.

1389; TIAS 3593.Greece, August 8, 1951, 5 U.S.T. (2) 1829;

TIAS 3057.Haiti, March 3, 1955, Senate Executive H

(84th Cong., 1st sess.).Iran, August 15, 1955, 8 U.S.T. 899; TIAS

3853.Ireland, January 21, 1950, 1 U.S.T. 785;

TIAS 2155.Israel, August 23, 1951, 5 U.S.T. 550; TIAS

2948.Italy, February 2, 1948, 63 Stat. (2) 2258;

TIAS 1965.Japan, April 2, 1953, 4 U.S.T. 2063; TIAS

2863.Korea, November 28, 1958, 8 U.S.T. 2217;

TIAS 3947.Netherlands, March 27, 1956, 8 U.S.T. 2043;

TIAS 3942.Nicaragua, January 21, 1956, 9 U.S.T. 449;

TIAS 4024.Pakistan,' November 12, 1959 (to be sub-

mitted to the Senate).Uruguay,' November 23, 1949, Senate Exec-

utive D (81st Cong., 2d seas.).B. Economic cooperation and aid agree-

ments ' with:Austria, July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2137; TIAS

1780.Belgium, July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2173; TIAS

1781.China, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2945; TIAS

1837.Denmark, June 29, 1948, 62 Stat. 2199;

TIAS 1782.France, June 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 2223; TIAS

1783.Ghana (Gold Coast). (See United King-

dom.)Greece, July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2293; TIAS

1786.Iceland, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2363; TIAS

1787.Indonesia. (See Netherlands.)Ireland, June 28, 1948, 62 Stat. (2) 2407;

TIAS 1788.Israel, May 9, 1952, 3 U.S.T. 4171; TIAS

2561.

1 Not in force.2 The economic cooperation and aid agree-

ments listed in I, B, contain provisions forreferral of disputes to the ICJ, but theseprovisions are limited by the terms andconditions of such effective recognition ashitherto given by the United States to thecompulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ underart. 36 of the statute of the ICJ.

Italy, June 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 2421; TIAS1789.

Luxembourg, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2451;TIAS 1790.

Malaya, Federation of. (See United King-dom.)

Netherlands,' July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2477;TIAS 1791.

Norway, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2514; TIAS1792.

Portugal, September 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 2856;TIAS 1819.

Spain, September 26, 1953, 4 U.S.T. 1903;TIAS 2851.

Sweden, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2541; TIAS1793.

Turkey, July 4, 1948, 62 Stat. 2566; TIAS1794.

United Kingdom,4

July 6, 1948, 62 Stat.2596; TIAS 1795.

C. Other bilateral agreements:Agreement with the Dominican Republic

for extending the Long Range ProvingGround, November 26, 1951, 3 U.S.T. 2569;TIAS 2425.

Agreement with the Dominican Republicfor establishment of loran transmitting sta-tions, March 19, 1957, 8 U.S.T. 329; TIAS3780.

II. MULTILATERAL

Protocol ' on military obligations in certaincases of double nationality, concluded at TheHague, April 12, 1930, 50 Stat. 1317; TS 913.

Convention ' for limiting the manufactureand regulation of narcotic drugs, concludedat Geneva, July 13, 1931, 48 Stat. 1543; TS863.

Convention' on international civil avia-tion (ICAO), opened for signature at Chi-cago, December 7, 1944, 61 Stat. 1180; TIAS1591.

Constitution of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO),signed at Quebec October 16, 1945 (60 Stat.1886; TIAS 1554), as amended (1951). FAOReport of the Special Session of the Confer-ence (1950), Appendix A (p. 32).

Constitution of the United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), concluded at London, November16, 1945, 61 Stat. 2495; TIAS 1580.

Constitution of the World Health Organ-ization (WHO), opened for signature at NewYork July 22, 1946, 62 Stat. (3) 2679; TIAS1808.

Instrument for the amendment of theconstitution of the International Labor Or-ganization (ILO), dated at Montreal, Octo-ber 9, 1946, 62 Stat. 3845; TIAS, 1868.

Convention on the IntergovernmentalMaritime Consultative Organization (IMCO),signed at Geneva, March 6, 1948, 9 U.S.T.621; TIAS 4044.

Convention on the Prevention and Pun-ishment of the Crime of Genocide,' adoptedby the UNGA in Paris on December 9, 1948,Senate Executive 0. (81st Cong., 1st sess).

Agreement for Facilitating the Interna-tional Circulation of Visual and AuditoryMaterials of an Educational, Scientific, andCultural Character,' open for signature atLake Success from July 15 to December 31,1949, Senate Executive V. (81st Cong., 2dsess).

3By an agreement signed Feb. 11, 1952 bythe United States, Indonesia, and the Neth-erlands (3 U.S.T. 2989; TIAS 2484), Indo-nesia assumed the responsibilities and obli-gations incurred in its behalf under theUnited States-Netherlands agreement of July2, 1948.

Made applicable to: Ghana (Gold Coast),July 6, 1948; Federation of Malaya, July 20,1948.

'By reference to the PCIJ. (Reference tothe ICJ in place of the PCIJ in these casesis provided for by art. 37 of the statute ofthe ICJ.)

"Not in force for the United States.

Convention on Road Traffic, dated at Gen-eva September 19, 1949, 3 U.S.T. 3008, TIAS2487.

International Sanitary Regulations (WHORegulations No. 2), adopted by the FourthWorld Assembly at Geneva May 25, 1951,7 U.S.T. 2255; TIAS 3625.

Treaty of Peace with Japan, signed atSan Francisco September 8, 1951, 3 U.S.T.3169; TIAS 2490.

Universal copyright convention, dated atGeneva September 6, 1952, 6 U.S.T. 2731;TIAS 3324.

Constitution of the IntergovernmentalCommittee for European Migration (ICEM),6 U.S.T. 603; TIAS 3197.

Protocol amending the slavery conventionof September 25, 1926 (46 Stat. 2183; TS778), opened for signature at New York, De-cember 7, 1953, 7 U.S.T. 479; TIAS 3532.

Protocol limiting and regulating the cul-tivation of the poppy plant and the produc-tion of, and international and wholesaletrade in, and use of opium 7

open for signa-ture at New York from June 23 to December31, 1953, Senate Executive C (83d Cong., 2dsess.).

International Convention for the Preven-tion of Pollution of the Sea by Oil,6 1 signedat London May 12, 1954, Senate Executive C(86th Cong., 2d sess.).

Statute of the International Atomic En-ergy Agency, done at New York, October 26,1956, 8 U.S.T. 1093; TIAS 3873.

Optional protocol of signature to the fourConventions on the Law of the Sea,' openedfor signature at Geneva April 29, 1958, Sen-ate Executive N (86th Cong., 1st sess.).

The Antarctic treaty,7

signed at Washing-ton, December 1, 1959, Senate Executive B(86th Cong., 2d sess.).

APPENDIXA. The agreement of Paris, on reparation

from Germany, on the establishment of aninterallied reparation agency and on restitu-tion of monetary gold, opened for signatureat Paris January 14, 1946 (61 Stat. (3) 3157;TIAS 1655), was signed on behalf of theUnited States on that date. It is followed bya Resolution 8 on recourse to the Interna-tional Court of Justice:

"The Delegates of Albania, Australia,Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, theNetherlands, Norway, Czechoslovakia, andYugoslavia recommend that:

'Subject to the provisions of article 3 ofpart I of the foregoing agreement, the signa-tory governments agree to have recourse tothe International Court of Justice for thesolution of every conflict of law or com-petence arising out of the provisions of theforegoing agreement which has not beensubmitted to the parties concerned toamicable solution or arbitration" (Depart-ment of State Bulletin, Jan. 27, 1946, p. 124).

All the other signatories to the Paris agree-ment had advised of their accession to thisresolution, as of July 22, 1948.

B. With respect to the four Geneva con-ventions of August 12, 1949, for the protec-tion of war victims, relating to condition ofwounded and sick of the armed forces inthe field (6 U.S.T. 3114; TIAS 3382); condi-tion of wounded, sick, or shipwrecked mem-bers of the armed forces at sea (6 U.S.T.3217; TIAS 3363); treatment of prisoners ofwar (6 U.S.T. 3316; TIAS 3364); protectionof civilian persons in time of war (6 U.S.T.3516; TIAS 3365); the following resolutionwas also adopted on August 12, 1949, bythe Conference of Geneva:

"RESOLUTION I"The conference recommends that, in the

case of a dispute relating to the interpreta-

-Not in force.Not signed for the United States but has

been submitted to the Senate for advice andoonsent to U.S. acceptance.

11194 May 26

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEtion or application of the present conven-tions which cannot be settled by othermeans, the high contracting parties con-cerned endeavor to agree between themselvesto refer such dispute to the InternationalCourt of Justice."

REFERENCES

Stat.: U.S. Statutes at LargeU.S.T.: U.S. treaties and other interna-

tional agreements (volumes published on ayearly basis begining Jan. 1, 1950.)

TIAS: Treaties and other internationalacts series, issued singly In pamphlets by theDepartment of State.

SEx.: Senate executive prints (pamphletsprinted for the use of the Senate).

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I votedagainst the treaty, and I should like tostate my reason in the RECORD. I did notknow much about this treaty. I expectedthat it would be thoroughly debated onthe floor and that I could make myjudgment on the basis of the debate.But there has been no debate, no expla-nation. I wonder if we should not askthe Committee on Rules and Adminis-tration to consider a change in the rules.I believe it is risky business to be voting,en bloc in the Senate, without thoroughconsideration on treaties which involvethe United States. I talked with manyother Senators, and I do not think theyunderstood what they were voting on. Ithink we should take particular carewhen we undertake to commit our coun-try on treaty questions, and I suggestthat the Rules Committee consider thismatter and perhaps come up with a newrule which will provide a safeguardagainst voting on several complextreaties at once, without debate, in aperiod of a few minutes.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I am in-terested in the comment of the Senatorfrom Connecticut [Mr. DODD]. If weneed any new rule guaranteeing thatMembers of the Senate will be fully ap-prised of the contents of a treaty beforethey vote on it, I am for the rule. Butunless I am mistaken, these treatiescould have been required by the Senateto be voted upon separately. It requiredunanimous consent to vote on them enbloc. The rule exists, and it is no one'sfault but our own if we permitted thetreaties to go to a vote en bloc, because Ibelieve any Senator could have stoppedthe procedure by simply objecting to avote on the treaties en bloc and requir-ing a vote as to each one separately.

If the Senator from Connecticut canpoint out to me the need for a new rule,he will find me in his corner. I thinkwhat happened is that we permittedthese treaties to be considered under therule, and the majority leader was per-fectly within the rule when he asked forpermission to have them considered enbloc.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-dent, I am perfectly agreeable to haveany of the treaties reconsidered if anySenator wishes it.

What happened is that after theagreement had been made by the Senateto vote on the treaties en bloc, after therollcall had been had, and they had beenvoted on en bloc and after the Presidenthad been notified, after each step hadbeen taken under the rules, request was

made by the Senator from Virginia andthe Senator from South Carolina forreconsideration. The majority leadersaid he would be glad to ask unanimousconsent that they all be reconsidered,and so they all were reconsidered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe that whatthe Senator from Connecticut had inmind was that in the future we shouldbe a little more careful and, if possible,establish a precedent or a rule by meansof which we would consider conventionsand protocols and treaties individually,instead of en bloc.

Mr. DODD. Yes; that is correct and asa practical matter, with all the work thatis on the shoulders of Senators, it israther difficult to keep abreast of every-thing that is going on. Theoreticallythat is possible, and it may be true intheory that we should always be fullyinformed on everything that is going on,but physically it is an impossible task.

The reason I suggested a proceduralrule was to help make our task manage-able by assuring us sufficient time fordebate and study of pending measures,especially complicated questions such astreaties. That is all that I had in mind.It is a dangerous thing to proceed inthis hasty fashion. I do not know whatkind of rule should be adopted. I madethe suggestion as I stood here, and Ihave not had an opportunity to studyit or consider it in detail. I do not sug-gest that the majority leader was tryingto put the treaty through wihout giv-ing us an opportunity to fully considerit. I know what he is up against. Allof us are sympathetic toward him andappreciate the kind of task he has toperform in the Senate. The purpose ofmy suggestion is to help him as muchas us. We should set up some kind ofprecautionary machinery so that a verybad mistake cannot occur, a mistakethat could be avoided if the Senate gaveeach treaty individual deliberation.There is enough in the situation we ex-perienced today to alert us to ask theCommittee on Rules and Administrationto take a careful look at the subject.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I wish tomake the observation that I cannotpossibly make Senators read reports ormake Senators make speeches. Theyhave had ample opportunity to do both.The report has been available sinceApril 27.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, theSenate may have done a pretty tragicthing for the American merchant marine.An attempt was made-according to thecommittee report-to permit the nationsof the world to participate by judicialmeans to settle disputes in which thelaw of the seas is involved exactly as wehave participated, over the years, inagreements to determine the law of theseas. The report covers the subject indetail.

I wonder if I might address a parlia-mentary inquiry to the Chair in this con-nection. Rather than send the treatydown the drain, with no debate, pro orcon, on the matter, is it possible to havethe treaty remain at the desk until wemight have an opportunity to read itcarefully and then have an opportunityto debate it and to take another vote onit?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is theSenator from California speaking withrespect to Executive Calendar No. 9?

Mr. KUCHEL. That is correct.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Further

consideration may be postponed until aday certain, if a motion to reconsideris entered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Ihope the Senator from California, whoI know has all the good intentions inthe world, will not press his point at thistime, but will let the Foreign RelationsCommittee use its discretion in thismatter.

Mr. KUCHEL. I will abide by thegood judgment of my friend from Mon-tana and the Committee on Foreign Re-lations. I merely wish to say it seemsto me that a reading of the Foreign Rela-tions Committee report indicates thathere is a problem which would have beenpartially solved had the Senate adoptedthe treaty. It deals with one subjectalone. It is too bad that we failed to dojustice to American shipping and the op-portunity for our American Governmentto assist it in civil disputes arising onthe seas.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. KUCHEL. I yield.Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I merely

wish to make this observation and toexpress agreement with what the Sen-ator from California has stated. Indoing so, I speak as a member of theCommittee on Foreign Relations. Afterall, what is really involved here areproblems concerning various shippingcountries throughout the world who sailships under flags of various nations.Some of these problems are causing in-ternational misunderstanding. What itreally involves, when we boil it all down,is that we are talking about practices ofshipping companies. The treaty pro-vided that when certain contests or dis-putes arose with respect to whether ornot these practices can be justified, wewould submit the matter to the WorldCourt for final determination.

In the Senate we talk a great dealabout how much we are in favor ofbuilding up a system of internationaljustice through law. However, when theapplication of a statute of internationaljustice through law means that certainselfish interests of our country and ofother countries are affected, we turndown a treaty which provides for a fair,judicial process for getting those com-panies before a tribunal for determina-tion.

What we have done today illustratesagain the great difference between talkand action on the part of a great manypeople of this country who claim theyare in favor of a system of internationaljustice through law.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-dent, I believe that the treaty which hasbeen turned down should be ratified. Ingeneral, it is a good treaty. I wouldvery much favor ratification. I votedagainst ratification only because I be-lieve Congress was wise in insisting uponthe Connally reservation to the worldtreaty in the beginning. That reserva-tion provides that the Government ofthe United States reserves to itself the

1960 11195


right to decide whether a certain mat-ter is a domestic problem of the UnitedStates and not a matter upon which theWorld Court has the power to act.

To depart from that reservation wouldleave to the World Court the power towrongfully usurp jurisdiction. It wasnever intended for the Court to exercisesuch jurisdiction over domestic matters.Southerners are particularly concernedabout this type of problem, because theyhave seen cases where the Court hasundertaken to assume jurisdiction or tohold a law to be contrary to what theyhave regarded as historic and establishedlaw. In a case of this sort, based onthis treaty as it stood without the res-ervation, it would have been possible forthe World Court to have determinederroneously that the World Court hadjurisdiction, and there would have beenno court to which a country could appealif it thought the World Court had madea mistake.

I am one Senator who feels that, whilethe treaty should be ratified, the rati-fication should have included a reserva-tion to protect the domestic jurisdictionof the United States. A great numberof people feel that if we permit thistreaty and others like it to go through,stripping our country of some of its sov-ereignty, over a period of time the pow-ers given will be abused, and that theway to stop the usurpation is not tovote to make it possible in the beginning.That being the case, many Senatorsvoted against the treaty. This mattershould come before the Senate again andan opportunity should be afforded tovote for a reservation to protect the do-mestic jurisdiction of this country. Un-der these conditions I would be veryhappy and pleased to vote for the treaty,and I believe most of the Senators whovoted against the treaty will feel thesame way.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-dent, after the vote by which the Senateagreed to the resolutions of ratificationrelating to Executive V, Executive J, Ex-ecutive K, Executive L, Executive M, andExecutive N, I asked unanimous consentthat the vote be reconsidered, and thata separate vote be taken on Executive N,which request was agreed to.

The vote on Executive N has now beencompleted, and I now ask unanimousconsent that the resolutions of ratifica-tion relating to the first five items on theexecutive calendar be considered as hav-ing been agreed to en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none, andit is so ordered.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-dent, I move that the Senate resume theconsideration of legislative business.

The motion was agreed to; and theSenate resumed the consideration of leg-islative business.

SERVING OF OLEOMARGARINE ORMARGARINE IN NAVY RATION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair lays before the Senate the un-finished business.

The Senate resumed the considerationof the bill (S. 2168) to amend the Navyration statute so as to provide for theserving of oleomargarine or margarine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billis open to amendment.

Mr. THURMOND, Mr. President, Imove that the bill be recommitted to theCommittee on Armed Services.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the motion ofthe Senator from South Carolina.

The motion was agreed to.

COMMISSION ON PROBLEMS OFSMALL TOWNS AND RURAL COM-MUNITIES

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-dent, I ask unanimous consent that theSenate proceed to the consideration ofCalendar No. 1455, Senate bill 3140.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BYRD of West Virginia in the chair).The bill will be stated by title, for theinformation of the Senate.

The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 3140) toprovide for the establishment of a Com-mission on Problems of Small Townsand Rural Counties.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the request of the Senatorfrom Texas?

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I sub-mit the following amendment:

On page 3, in line 2, after the word"Senate", strike out "three", and insert"four"; and in the same line, before theword "from", strike out the word"three"-the second time that word ap-pears in that line-and insert the word"two"; and on the same page, in line 5,strike out "three" and insert "four"; andin line 6, before the word "from", strikeout "three" and insert "two".

This amendment is submitted on thebasis of agreement with the majorityleader, and merely in order to follow theusual rule that the majority partyshould have one or two more membersthan the minority party, in order thatthe majority party may be in control ofa commission of this kind.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the amend-ment of the Senator from South Dakota.

The amendment was agreed to.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill

is open to further amendment.Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I should

like to point out that the amendment Ioffered to the bill has been adopted andthat this bill, is in the interest of smalltowns and rural communities.

Mr. President, a high level researchand study commission such as this billproposes can provide suggestions andrecommendations based on the success-ful experiences of communities whichhave found the proper formula forgrowth and progress. It will focus theattention and talents of some of ourmost experienced and knowledgableAmericans on finding answers for theproblems which are unique to our ruralcommunities in these changing times.Census returns show many small townslosing population. This bill can helpreverse this trend.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If thereare no further amendments to be pro-posed, the question is on the engross-ment and third reading of the bill.

The bill (S. 3140) was ordered to beengrossed for a third reading, was readthe third time, and passed, as follows:

Whereas the small towns of America, andthe rural counties in which they are located,throughout our history have made signifi-cant and lasting contributions to the devel-opment of our American way of life; and

Whereas small town and rural county lifeas we know it in the United States is vir-tually a unique form of community livingentirely nonexistent in many areas of theworld; and

Whereas the continuance of our great com-plex of small towns and the rural countiesin which they are located is both desirableand essential to the economic, social, andpolitical balance which enables the UnitedStates to avoid the extremes which haveplagued many other governments andcountries; and

Whereas wholesome family life, and ade-quate economic, educational, and spiritualopportunity are nurtured and encouraged bythousands of small towns and hundreds ofrural counties throughout the country; and

Whereas the march of technical and in-dustrial development has produced changesin transportation facilities, patterns of eco-nomic activity, shifts in population, andother modern phenomena which havecreated new challenges and posed new prob-lems to the progressive people living inAmerica's small towns and rural counties;and

Whereas small towns and rural countieslack the research facilities and economicmeans to instigate constructive and compre-hensive studies into the exact causes of theirproblems and the most productive remediesfor them: Now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,

ESTABLISHI MNT OF THE COMMISSION

SECTION 1. There is hereby established aConunission to be known as the Commissionon the Problems of Small Towns and RuralCounties (a small town being designated ashaving a population of less than ten thou-sand a rural county being designated ashaving a population of less than fifty thou-sand) hereinafter referred to as the "Com-mission."

MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION

SEC. 2. (a) The Commission shall be com-posed of twenty members as follows:

(1) Six appointed from the Senate by thePresident of the Senate, four from the ma-jority party and two from the minorityparty;

(2) Six appointed from the House of Rep-resentatives by the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives, four from the majorityparty and two from the minority party; and

(3) Eight appointed by the President ofthe United States as follows:

(A) Two from among the heads of Federaldepartments and agencies;

(B) Two from among the Governors ofStates having problbms affecting smalltowns, not more than one from the samepolitical party;

(C) Two from among the mayors of smalltowns in the United States, not more thanone from the same political party; and

(D) Two from among the elected officialsof rural counties in the United States, notmore than one from the same political party.

(b) The members of the Commission shallselect a Chairman from among such mem-bers from the Congress, and a Vice Chair-man from among such members from theHouse of Congress other than that of theChairman.

11196 May 26

Date post:	17-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26 - NOAAUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization...

Documents