JPRS 81532

13 August 1982

Worldwide Report

LAW OF THE SEA

No. 205

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENTA 1000(1X1(1 1(1?

Approved for Public Release I777UUIU I U L

Distribution Unlimited

FBiS FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION SERVICE

REPRODUCED BY

NATIONAL TECHNICAL

INFORMATION SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
NOTE

JPRS publications contain information primarily from foreign

newspapers, periodicals and books, but also from news agency

transmissions and broadcasts. Materials from foreign-language

sources are translated; those from English-language sources

are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and

other characteristics retained.

Headlines, editorial reports, and material enclosed in brackets

[] are supplied by JPRS. Processing indicators such as [Text]

or [Excerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the

last line of a brief, indicate how the original information was

processed. Where no processing indicator is given, the information was summarized or extracted.

Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are

enclosed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a question mark and enclosed in parentheses were not clear in the

original but have been supplied as appropriate in context.

Other unattributed parenthetical notes within the body of an

item originate with the source. Times within items are as

given by source.

The contents of this publication in no way represent the policies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.

PROCUREMENT OF PUBLICATIONS

JPRS publications may be ordered from the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. In ordering, it is recommended that the JPRS number, title, date and

author, if applicable, of publication be cited.

Current JPRS publications are announced in Government Reports

Announcements issued semi-monthly by the National Technical

Information Service, and are listed in the Monthly Catalog of

U.S. Government Publications issued by the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Correspondence pertaining to matters other than procurement

may be addressed to Joint Publications Research Service,

1000 North Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
JPRS 81532

13 August 1982

WORLDWIDE REPORT

LAW OF THE SEA

No. 205

CONTENTS

ASIA

AUSTRALIA

Shell Oil Exploration Program Begun in Bass Strait

(Anton Whitehead; THE AUSTRALIAN, 3 Jun 82).

Gas Discoveries Reported at North Scott Reef, Barrow

Wells

(THE AUSTRALIAN, 9 Jun 82, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD,

9 Jun 82) ,

Scott Reef Find, by Bruce Jacques

West Barrow Tests

Briefs

Taiwan Clam Boat Seized

INDIA

Newsmen Brief on Deep Sea Fishing Conference

(PATRIOT, 26 Jun 82)

Claim for Mining Rights in Seabed Plots

(BUSINESS TIMES, 19 Jun &2)

Briefs

NEW ZEALAND

Briefs

Kerala Offshore Minerals

Japan Seeks More Bluefin Tuna

- a - [III - WW - 136]
LATIN AMERICA

ARGENTINA

Briefs

Krill Project With USSR 10

WEST EUROPE

ICELAND

Iceland's Future Agenda for Sea Law Issues Discussed

(Eyjolfur Konrad Jonsson; MORGUNBLADID, 29 May 82) 11

- b -
AUSTRALIA

SHELL OIL EXPLORATION PROGRAM BEGUN IN BASS STRAIT

Canberra THE AUSTRALIAN in English 3 Jun 82 p 7

[Article by Anton Whitehead]

[Text] '•' ' SHELL Öü of Ausfralia

has embarked on a risky exploration program which

could provide the biggest rewards since the initial finds

were made in Bass Strait in

the late 1960s.

< The ' drilling program- is

Searching previously- unexplored regions in Bass Strait

where geologists believe structures exist with the potential

to hold up to 200 million barreisof oil.

..'Discoveries of this size would

"easily overshadow the bevy of

Smaller onshore ;finds in recent years and would compare

favorably with Esso-BHP's

smaller producing fields.

Structures similar in size to

Tuna, with 69 million barrels

of recoverable oil. Flounder 63

million, West Kingfish IM million, and Fortescue 280 million

could be found but no hopes

are held for a second Kingfish

which held 1100 million when

discovered in July 1967.

Shell's first well in its exploration program is the Hammerhead No 1 wildcat well in

exploration Permit Vic P19.

, Shell, together with News

Corporation, TNT, Crusader

Oil, and Mincorp, won the permit in last year's round of tenders after Esso-BHP released

the areas.

Esso-BHP - released three,

permits and the others will be

drilled by consortiums headed

\>y Australian Aquitaine and

Phillips.

Hammerhead is the first in

the renewed hunt and the results will go far in determining

Shell's prospects and future

exploration strategy in Bass'

.Strait.

> Hammerhead is situated on

the south side of the Rosedale ;

fault which runs parallel to>

the Victorian T coast and

through the middle of the per-,

mit area.

The Rosedale fault is regarded as the northern boundary.

Of the Gippsland rift {that is,:

the basin proper), and Shell

hopes that oil has migrated to

the basin's edge and accumulated in a fault trap.':.

The south side of the Rosedale'fault is an unexplored re-,

gion and Shell geologists have"

extrapolated knowledge from

the adjacent Tuna and Mäckeral fields in assessing the re-;

giori's prospectivity.' , The permit area to the north

of the Rosedale fault is hot regarded as prospective as previous exploration (by Shell-Esso

in the early 1970s and by Hudbsy last year) proved largely

unsuccessful.

Although the region does

contain hydrocarbons and

quantities of gas have already

been found Shell believes the

probability of a large oil trap

north of the Rosedale fault is

slight.

But the existence of hydrocarbons in the northern region is encouraging as oil

might have migrated from the

north to fault traps now being

explored by Shell..
Ifis clear that Shell is keen

to explore the big high risk

plays where the rewards, if

successful, will be great.

"Hammerhead has the potential to hold 200 million barrels but itis a very risky prospect," a Shell rig geologist

said.

"But it needs to be explored

for our understanding of Gippsland and could throw up

quite a lot ofsurprises."

In a recent visit to the Diamond M Epoch rig which is

drilling the Hammerhead well

Shell geologists said they were

confident about the existence

of a fault trap structure in

which oil could accumulate

but were understandably cautious in relation to possible

reserves due to two significant

uncertainties.

Sand quality and ability of

oil to migrate from the trap

remain unknown.

The intra-Latrobe sands

which flowed oil from Tuna

and Flounder have been pinpointed as the main target

zone at Hammerhead and

have traditionally been, of

good quality.

But the sands could have

been contaminated with a

^conglomerate .of irregular

sand.' shale, mud, and rock

when the Rosedale fault

occurred.

Sand quality is directly related to the percentage of oil

which is recoverable. The recovery rate in Latrobe sand

has been as high as 70 per cent

but would deteriorate quickly

if "dirty".

The second uncertainty rel-

- ates to the shale seal which

should restrict oil migration

but cannot be checked until

the target is tested.

More is known about' the

south-western part of the permit which Shell regards as

more prospective although situated in deeper water.

The south west would have

been the first area drilled but

for the lack of an appropriate

rig.

The first well in the area, Votadore No 1, will be spudde'd in

December when a Frenchowned rig, Nymphea, now

being built in Japan arrives.

Shell geologists have pinpointed both the highly successful upper Latrobe sands

and the intra-Latrobe sands

as target zones.

Shell has not completely

written off formations below,

.the Latrobe sands."».

CSO: 5200/7546
AUSTRALIA

GAS DISCOVERIES REPORTED AT NORTH SCOTT REEF, BARROW WELLS

Scott Reef Find

Canberra THE AUSTRALIAN in English 9 Jim 82 p 24

[Article by Bruce Jacques!

[Text!

" WOODSIDE . Petroleum

has confirmed what appears

to be a major gas discovery

with the North Scott Reef No

1 well, off the northern Western Australian coast.

The company, on behalf of

the North West Shelf partners, told stock exchanges yesterday the first production

test on the well over the interval 4223m to 4283m had flowed

gas at the rate of about 1.63

million cu m a day.

The flow was during the initial clean up period through a

25mm choke at a wellhead

pressure of 2100 psi. •

It is one of the largest recorded in Australia and suggests

a gas field of major proportions.

But with the partners already experiencing difficulty

selling gas from the huge

North West Shelf project, any

development of North Scott

Beef is some years away. .

The well was actually'the

third by the consortium on the

Scott Beef structure, more

than 1000km to the north of

the main North West Shelf

gas field. . .

This distance means that

North Scott Beef would be a

totally separate development

to the North West Shelf, suggesting a virtual repetition of

the Shelf's huge development

costs. . . The North Scott Beef structure was first drilled in the

early 1970s and produced moderate gas flows, but technical

problems had until recently

prevented propertesting.

Woodside has a 50 per cent

Interest in the well with the

other partners being BP,

CalAsiatic, Shell andBHP.

Meanwhile, Pancontinental

Petroleum has recovered only

gas cut water from a second

drill stem test on the West

Walker No 1 well

A second drill stem test over

the interval 1415m to 1463m in

the well, only about 16km eastsouth-east of the Mereenie oil

field, had recovered 896m or

gas cut water.

In other drilling developments, partners in the West

Barrow 1A well, off WA, are

preparing to test an indicated

hydrocarbon-bearing section.
West Barrow Tests

Sydney THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD in English 9 Jun 82 p 27

[Excerpt!

Two offshore West Australian

wells yesterday indicated significant additions to natural gas .-

resources in the area.

The West Barrow la well being r

drilled by the Glomar Grand Isle

in the Barrow sub-basin about 40.,

kilometres west of Barrow Island is

to undergo flow tests during the

next week after electric logs run

over the interval . 3,350-3,500

metres indicated net sands of 107

"metres to be hydrocarbon bearing.

A spokesman for the operator, \

Offshore Oil NL, said yesterday:-

"We know there is a, hydrocarbon

column. -The composition and size;

'can ' . only be determined by

testing." - --

• West Barrow la, which has been ,

a difficult well to drill and test,-is ;

the site of West Barrow 1, which

target. It is 38 metres away from

the site of West Barsow 1 which;

was spudded on February 18 and

plugged and abandoned four days :i

later due to technical problems. j

CSO: 5200/7546
AUSTRALIA

BRIEFS

TAIWAN CLAM BOAT SEIZED—An Australian navy patrol boat, the (Wallamboo),

has Intercepted a Taiwanese clam boat off the northeastern coast near Mackay.

It's the fourth Taiwanese vessel apprehended by Australian authorities over

the past 12 months. The patrol boat intercepted the latest vessel—the

(Rua Chishiang) No 3—28 nautical miles southwest of Frederick Reef.

Radio Australia's Brisbane office says the Taiwanese vessel is expected to

arrive in the Port of Cairns later this week. [Text] [BK131451 Melbourne

Overseas Service in English 1130 GMT 12 Jul 82]

CSO: 5200/5671
NEWSMEN BRIEF ON DEEP SEA FISHING CONFERENCE

New Delhi PATRIOT in English 26 Jun 82 p 8

INDIA

[Text] A THREE-DAY international conference on deep sea

fishing ended in the Capital on Friday urging the

Government to recognise exploitation of the ocean as a

national priority and P^y a pioneering role in develop«

ing the industry.

Tbc conference, organised by

the Association of Indian Fishery

Industries, recommended the

setting up of a separate department at the Centre to look,after

the development of märine resources.

Briefing newsmen, association

president N P Singh said the

conference was of the view that

India must immediately take up

tuna fishing operation,utilising

the experience of Fhillippines or

France. He said Indian waters

provided a tuna resource of

over one " lakh tonnes which

would fetch $ 1 million. There

was no need to waste time on

surveys and-feasibility studies.

Mr Singh said tuna fishing was

of pressing importance in- view

of the declining , resources of

shrimp fishery and the need for

diversifying Indian fishing. The

conference recommended that

the 'Government adopt a liberal

approach in allowing joint ventures with any country and in the

use of any type of vessel, equipment and techniques or personnel.

Mr Singh said "the Government's approach to the deep

sea fishing industry was not favourable.

CSO: 5200/7048

He said the Government had

been delaying permission to private parties for chartering foreign vessels to study how the

other countries were doing well

in deep sea fishing. Deep sea fishing in India at present was confined to shrimps and most of the

business houses were pulling out

as it was a losing proposition.

Mr Singh said 13 parties had

:been allowed to charter foreign

vessels and all of them except

two State Governments were-new

to fishing.

Business houses who had been

la deep sea fishing for several

years have not been given per*

mission. 'File is pending at the

highest level', is the usual answer, Mr Singh said.

Earlier, addressing the concluding session, Minister of State for

Agriculture B V Swaminathan

said the Government would be

willing to «raster certain, addirj

tional incentives, subsidies' and

concessions if concrete proposals

fully supported by facts, for exploitation and utilisation of tunas,

6quids and cuttle fishes were

Be said the Government had

an open mind in following up the

useful recommendations that the

conference might bring forth.

He hoped the deliberations

and discussions that the members

of the Government and industry

had would spur activity to deve-'

top deep sea fishing i° ^ o*g&

nised, methodical, scientific and

pragmatic way.

This would help in the fishing

fleet not only serving its basic

function of exploiting optimally

the annually renewable fish

stock, earn foreign exchange and

effectively deter poaching but also

serve as the second line of defence,. Mr Swaminathan said.
CLAIM FOR MINING RIGHTS IN SEABED PLOTS

Kuala Lumpur BUSINESS TIMES in English 19 Jun 82 p 5

INDIA

[Text]

NEW DELHI, June 18

INDIA has decided to

seek exclusive seabed

mining rights to two

Indian Ocean plots of

150,000 sq km (60,000 sq

miles) each.-

A Department of Ocean

' Development spokesman briefing reporters

in Panjim, capital of

Goa Federal Territory,

said on Wednesday

that India's claim will

be placed before the

UN preparatory committee on the Law of

the Sea before the committee's Dec. 31 deadline.

The spokesman said India will ask for exclusive mining rights

in the two seabed plots

located 10 degrees

south of the Equator in

the central Indian

Ocean, but only one of

the two plots will be

leased to India.

India is. the only developing country with a

seabed mining programme and the only

nation known to be exploring the Indian

Ocean.

The Indian Ocean seabed1

is believed to hold ISO

million tons of

polymetalllc nodules

which can provide

manganese, nickel,

copper and other

metals, the Indian official said.

India embarked on an Indian Ocean seabed survey last year, when its

research ship

"Gäveshini" scooped

up nodules later found

.to contain manganese,

nickel, copper and other metals.

The Indian spokesman

said the government is

planning to obtain a

bathyscaph that can

fake surveyors to the

ocean bottom. A Swiss

bathyscaph expert is

how in New Delhi for

talks with Indian officials. — UPI

CS0: 5200/8212
INDIA

BRIEFS

KERALA OFFSHORE MINERALS—Calicut, June 25 (UN): The Geological Survey of India

(GSI) will undertake detailed explorations for offshore gold in northern Kerala

soon after the current monsoon. This will be the first attempt to tap offshore gold

in the country. GSI has ordered a sophisticated drill ship from Holland for the job,

a GSI spokesman told UNI. Existence of gold in Kerala's coastal waters, particularly in the river mouth sediments of the Malabar region, is a recent discovery.

Fairly large deposits of gold are known to exist in the Wayanad and Nilambur forest

areas in the western ghat in north Kerala. Recent GSI surveys revealed small traces

of gold all along the course of rivers originating from the two areas. This led

to the theory that the Malabar rivers might have been carrying onshore gold to the

sea over the years. Subsequent river sediment samples have confirmed it. To begin with, GSI will drill off the river mouth of Beypore, 8 km. south of Calicut.

The survey will give a definite idea of the extent of offshore gold and the economic

viability of the project. GSI also has plans to drill the Godavari river mouth in

Andhra Pradesh and the Subarna Rekha river in Orisa, a GSI spokesman said. He

said that in the olden times certain rivers were known sources of gold to gold hunters. He added that GSI has plans to carry out systematic surveys of north Kerala's

offshore areas for rare minerals, nickel and platinum. GSI has recently set up a

marine survey unit in Mangalore for this purpose. [Text] [Bombay THE TIMES OF

INDIA in English 26 Jun 82 p 11]

CSO: 5200/7047
NEW ZEALAND

BRIEFS

JAPAN SEEKS MORE BLUEFIN TUNA--A Japanese fishing delegation has discussed

southern bluefin tuna and squid quotas for 1983 with representatives of the

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The eight-man delegation was led by

Mr T. Noda and included industry representatives. "The Japanese were hoping

the tuna boat licence fee of $27,000 would be reduced and wanted more tuna

long liners in New Zealand waters," said the assistant director of fisheries

research division, Dr Robin Allen. "But the Government is concerned that

the southern bluefin tuna stock is over-exploited and wants to keep the

fishing effort the same. "We are also keen to develop an international

agreement regarding the management of the fishery," Dr Allen said. The

Japanese also asked that the 13,000-tonne quota for trawl-caught squid not

be reduced. Representatives from the ministry's fisheries divisions will

inform the Government of the Japanese requests. A decision regarding

quotas will be made after that. [Text] [Wellington THE EVENING POST in

English 30 Jun 82 p 2]

CSO: 5200/9100
ARGENTINA

BRIEFS

KR3LL PROJECT WITH USSR—Buenos Aires, 24 Jul (AFP)—Argentina will begin

to exploit krill, a vitamin-rich crustacean, in agreement with the Soviet Union,

an official source revealed today. Rear Adm Ciro Garcia, the secretary of state

for maritime interests, has said that the initiative has already been taken.

He said: We have an agreement and we are truly determined to undertake that

project with that country. He added that immediate results will be achieved

because Soviet ships, whose crew will be partially made up of Argentina men,

will participate in the project. He said the ships will operate from

Ushuaia and that construction of (infrastructure) facilities in the southern

part of the country will start in 1 or 2 years. He noted, however, that the

catch of krill can really begin immediately [pero la pesca es realmente

immediata]. [Text] PY262114 Paris AFP in Spanish 2201 GMT 24 Jul 82]

CSO: 5200/2104

10
ICELAND

ICELAND'S FUTURE AGENDA FOR SEA LAW ISSUES DISCUSSED

Reykjavik MORGUNBLADID in Icelandic 29 May 82 pp 18-19

[Speech by Eyjolfur Konrad Jonsson: "The Next Steps in Iceland's Law of the

Sea"]

[Text] Eyjolfur Konrad Jonsson [Independence Party MP] gave

the following speech at a meeting of the Rotary Club of

Reykjavik on 26 May.

Both I and others have criticized a whole handball team or even a whole soccer

team being sent from here to attend the meetings of the Third UN Conference

on the Law of the Sea. Somehow, this criticism has neither affected us, the

representatives, nor has it become general, although deep down people have

realized that much was at stake and the future interests of the nation were

being decided at this conference. Although we sometimes did not have much

work to do, there were times when it was nice to be able to confer and take a

united position which everybody knew was the view of the nation as a whole.

In general, internal disputes, disputes which might have turned out to be

fateful, were successfully avoided. Even though people realized deep down the

importance of the international law established at the meetings of the Law of

the Sea Conference, I doubt whether all yet realize fully the enormous result

and how quickly victories have been won.

A few reminders might perhaps help us reflect back to the past. Let's think

about the Second UN Law of the Sea Conference which was held in 1960. It

was only a matter of one vote that prevented the 12-mile fishing zone becoming

international law with the stipulation, however, that states which, over the 7

previous 5 years, had carried on fishing in an area from 6 to 12 miles [from

another country's shoreline] would maintain their fishing rights for the next

10 years. This proposal was made by Canada and the United States. The Icelanders introduced an amendment in the General Assembly to the effect that

exceptions would not apply to those states whose livelihood was chiefly based

on coastal fishing. This turned out to be the exemplary proposal—always referred to as the "icelandic provision"—which since then has been referred to

in all international cooperation regarding law of the sea and now serves as

Article 71 in the Law of the Sea Treaty which was ratified 30 April. Our

amendment proposal did not pass, which I think turned out in our favor as it

11
resulted in Iceland voting against the main proposal which was defeated by

one vote as mentioned before. Now, obviously nobody knows how international

law would have developed if the 12-mile limit had been ratified as international law more than 20 years ago, but most likely there would have been

different and slower progress.

Let us next look at the fall of 1973 when Icelanders for the first time saw

the 200-mile zone pictured on the television screen. That was on the first

anniversary of the 50-mile fisheries extension. Much fun was made of the

"isolation of the editor of the MORGUNBLADID." It was said that the 200-mile

limit would "end up in the Greenland glacier." People said that the 50-mile

limit was "today's task" and the 200-mile limit was for some time in the future, after a law of the sea conference. At least 10 to 12 years would pass

before we could achieve such results; that was how that "process" worked, and

so on and on. Only 2 years later the 200-mile zone had become reality.

Almost 3 years ago, 18 July 1978, I delivered a speech to this worthy organization in which I pointed out the arguments Icelanders should use in order to

insure their rights in the Jan Mayen area. I must admit that 1 felt that some

people, anyway, thought that was going too far and 1 heard the word "imperialism" spoken in the audience. One year later we had secured extremely important

rights in this area, both with regard to fishery conservation and seabed

rights. At the same time, a new international regulation was established, a

regulation that is likely to have positive effect in many places in the world

when it comes to joint exploitation and joint permanent sovereignty of nations

over the resources of the seabed. This was the first time that such an agreement was made on the basis of the UN Treaty on the Law of the Sea, although

such a solution is in fact nowhere mentioned directly in the treaty that has

now been ratified. The whole nuance of the treaty, however, implies that the

nations should endeavor to reach an agreement, and as a result there was

nothing there that prevented a sensible solution of our disputes with the

Norwegians.

Some people might say that we can be pleased with what we have got already.

But our struggle is far from over.

I feel that based on Article 76 in the Law of the Sea Treaty, Iceland has

extremely important and hitherto unclaimed rights to the seabed, rights that

should immediately be secured on the basis of parliamentary resolutions. On

the one hand, there is the right to the seabed extending 350 -miles to

Reykjanes Ridge, and, on the other hand, our right to the Rockall Plateau and

the Hatton Bank. In my article in MORGUNBLADID on 12 March of this year 1 put

down the main arguments presented by the Icelanders in their demand for a

share and interests in the Rockall area as follows:

"We Icelanders present many arguments for our rights to the Rockall Plateau«

Some of these arguments are listed below:

"1. The sense of the Law of the Sea Conference and the Law of the Sea Treaty

is that justice should prevail and it must be considered just that we have

some share in these rights if Ireland gets rights. Our approach to the issue

must also be considered just.

12
"2. For 100 million years the same geological activities have characterized

the geological history of the Rockall Plateau, Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

"3. Iceland is connected to the Hatton Bank directly after the Iceland-Faroe

Ridge, but this ridge is a natural prolongation of Iceland.

"4. The Iceland-Faroe Ridge is a special type of ocean crust which is called

'Icelandic type crust.'

"5. The sea depth in the span from Iceland to the Hatton Bank is nowhere more

than 2,500 meters which is the base of reference referred to in Article 76.

Considerable deposits formed from discharge from Icelandic rivers are to be

found along the Hatton Bank all the way south to the Bay of Biscay.

"6. If an equidistant line were the deciding factor, almost all of the Hatton

Bank would be within Icelandic territory.

"7. Land-formed deposits have been found in a nodule at 1,300 meters depth in

the Iceland-Faroe Ridge area.

"8. The geological history of the Icelandic area from Greenland, Jan Mayen

and the Faroe and Rockall areas is unique.

"9. The term 'natural prolongation' has not been defined in any definite way

so that each decision must be based on the specific case. There are countless

variations in the oceans of the world,

"10. But the rule that was established with the Jan Mayen agreement should be

the guiding light for solution of disputes that arise between these four neighboring countries.

"11. if an agreement is not reached by the nations which claim the area, the

result might be that nobody would get anything and the area declared 'international. '"

We representatives of the political parties to the last Law of the Sea Conference have agreed to send the foreign minister the following memo regarding our

next steps in this matter:

Memo to the Foreign Minister

On the last day of the UN Law of the Sea Conference in New York, 30 April 1982,

we, the undersigned representatives of the political parties, spoke with the

representatives of the Danish Delegation about the Rockall area and the rights

we claim to the seabed south of Iceland's 200-mile economic zone. The meeting

was held at the United Nations and lasted an hour and a half. Daniel Nolso,

from the Faroe Islands, was the main spokesman for the Danish representatives.

He spoke with great knowledge and brought along documents to support his case.

His views and ours concerning the rights of Ireland and Britain in this area

seem to be mainly the same, that is to say that Ireland's cause is the weakest

of the four nations which claim rights to the seabed west of Rockall. Nolso

feels that Britain's claim is the next weakest and that Denmark, on behalf of

the Faroe Islands, is in the strongest position.

13
Iceland's arguments were studied thoroughly—the parliamentary resolutions,

among other things, as well as an article in MORGUNBLADID written by Eyjolfur

Konrad Jonsson. Daniel Nolso asked some questions and got some answers. An

English translation of Jonsson's article was submitted to the Danish delegation.

Earlier, Hans G. Andersen [Iceland's ambassador to the United States and

chairman of the Icelandic delegation] had submitted the translation of this

article to the Irish and the British delegations and requested their counterarguments if there were any.

Ambassador Andersen, who had been tied up in a conciliatory meeting with the

so-called Committee of Eleven, joined the meeting a little later. The main

issues were then covered again and when it had become clear that the views and

interests of the Faroe Islands agree quite well with the Althing resolutions,

Ludvik Josefsson made a motion that a joint committee of Danes (Faroese) and

Icelanders be established to examine the joint interests of the nations and

view the matter thoroughly. This idea was well received, and it is our unanimous opinion that the Foreign Ministry should immediately initiate a followup

of this motion based on repeated resolutions of the Althing. Even though we

feel that the claim of Iceland and the Faroe Islands to the rights to the seabed

west of Rockall is more valid than those of Ireland and Britain, we feel, however, that all work must be continued according to the resolutions of the Althing and discussions should be held with the Irishand British whenever requested, so that these four nations can come to an agreement, as severe

disputes might result in none of them getting their demands satisfied and the

area might be declared international. We would then have little or no say in

any exploitation of the area, and, for example, in the future, we would be unable to prevent "geological disturbance" which might endanger life; furthermore, there is considerable possibility that oil and natural gas could be

found in this area. It should also be taken into consideration that according to the Law of the Sea Treaty all living beings on the seabed which can

move only by touching the seabed—that is to say all shellfish and Crustacea—

belong to the seabed, and there is little doubt that these resources will be

found there for there are many spots in which the water is not very deep,

Reykjavik, 1 May 1982

This opinion is also shared by Benedikt Grondal, Ludvik Josefsson and Thorarinn

Thorarinsson.

It should be mentioned here that the Rockall Trough, which separates the Rockall Plateau from Scotland and Ireland, is the original rift from the time the

Atlantic Ocean was beginning to be formed, 100 to 170 million years ago or

earlier. It is almost 3,500 meters deep, which is 1,000 meters above the

baseline referred to in Article 76 and, in our opinion, prevents any natural

prolongation of Scotland or Ireland into the continental shelf west of Rockall.

But it is stated at the beginning of Article 76 in the Law of the Sea Treaty

that the prolongation must be continuous or unbroken from the territorial limit

that is 12 miles, using the word "throughout" on which we, of course, placed

special emphasis in our arguments with the Irish and the British.

Some people might say that there is no reason for us to claim an interest so

far south in the ocean, but, nonetheless, I feel that the arguments 1 now have

14
stated to support our rights ought to suffice to convince people that it is

unforgivable not to be on guard to maintain the nation's interests.

But the Third Law of the Sea Conference will not be remembered only for coastal

states insuring that their rights and views on fishery conservation prevail in

international law, whatever the implementation might turn out to be. The conference is perhaps most interesting because, without any significant conflict,

it achieved success in adopting an all-encompassing.legislation for about twothirds to three-quarters of the earth's surface, and this was done without any

voting taking place until the final vote. All the work was aimed toward total

agreement between different views and interest groups, and I do not believe

that such a great result has been obtained ever before in the history of the

world. This conference is therefore a milestone and brings hope that in the

future there will be greater success in international relations than there has

been so far.

It was, of course, regretted that in the last days of the conference there was

no success in reaching total unity, though it came very close. But many words

had been said which it proved difficult to take backhand I am of the opinion

that some or all of the states which voted against the treaty or abstained

will review their positions, as this is an international treaty and an international development which is beyond all human power to stop.

I mentioned earlier the seabed rights to which Iceland is entitled and the resources which might be found both in and under the sea, as well as direct and

indirect interests in the ocean surface, which, of course, will result from the

exploitation of the seabed resources in times to come. But there are other

rights closer to home which the Law of the Sea Treaty grants us beyond what

we already have received. Article 66 of the Law of the Sea Treaty states that

the states of origin of fish which spawn in fresh water, rivers and lakes

have much more extensive rights and obligations to protect these fish stocks

than any other fish stocks. States of origin can, for example, decide the

total allowable catch and have extensive.authority to prevent exploitation by

others. I therefore think it is quite clear that it is a violation of the Law

of the Sea Treaty for the Faroese to kill the Atlantic salmon as they have been

doing—such behavior is unethical and violates Article 66 of the Law of the Sea

Treaty. Actually, this article has for years remained unchanged in all drafts

of the Law of the Sea Treaty and had thus become "de facto" law before the

Faroese began their exploitation. Therefore, their behavior is even more

serious.

We Icelanders would much rather help and support the Faroese than any other

nation, and we want our relations to remain the best, but for us to be apathetic in this case, or to accept false arguments, such as that the Faroese have

some right to use the so-called "trawlnet," is neither to their interest nor

ours. What then about other species of fish which feed in Icelandic waters and

are caught by other nations?

The Atlantic coastal states must take a firmer grip on these matters than has

been done up to now, and in this respect the Law of the Sea Treaty is so clear

that there is no doubt that when the states where the salmon stock originates

stand united—that, is primarily, the Nordic countries, Ireland and Britain—

15
to guard their rights it will be possible to convince the Feroese that they

are transgressing.

It is, of course, doubtful whether this matter should be mentioned along with

our discussions and unity with the Faroese to guard joint seabed rights, but

these matters will definitely be mentioned next time the fishing rights for

the Faroese off Iceland are discussed. I am certainly expecting that during

such friendly discussions an acceptable solution will be found. But the main

task now is that Icelanders and the Faroese must delve into the issue concerning the seabed south of these countries and make necessary arrangements to

insure their joint rights.

Of course it would be sensible to avoid conflict with the British and the Irish.

I certainly feel that Althing has established a correct policy in this matter

and that it should be pursued—that is, to try to reach an agreement among

all four countries, preferably on the basis of joint sovereignty over and joint

exploration and preservation of the Rockall area.

If the British and the Irish do not want to discuss these matters with us in

all seriousness and negotiate, the only solution is for the Icelanders and the

Faroese, or the Danes on their behalf, to make joint arrangements to insure

their rights, and I believe the Danes and the Faroese have begun to realize

that the Althing has given the Faroese full consideration in its resolutions.

I therefore want to read a parliamentary resolution, "On Iceland's Rights to

the Seabed and Cooperation with the Faroese," which was approved in the Althing

19 May 1980 as follows:

Based on the proposal passed in the Althing on 22 December

1978, the Althing resolves to authorize the government to

follow up on claims about rights to the seabed south of Ice^-

land's 200-mile economic zone, to the extent international

law permits and as soon as possible, in order to initiate

talks with other nations which.have made claims in this

area.

At the same time, any attempts made by the British and the

Irish to claim rights west of the so-called Rockall Trough,

outside their 200 miles, included in the Hatton Bank will be

protested, since both geological facts and other arguments

categorically contradict such claims and this is an area

which Iceland and the Faroe Islands claim as theirs,

The Althing declares that in its opinion it is possible to

solve matters concerning the sovereignty of Iceland and the

Faroe Islands over this seabed area, either by joint

sovereignty or division of the area.

The government is authorized to negotiate for a court of

arbitration to decide the division of the area between

Iceland and the Faroe Islands, if the Faroese so wish.

16
As the concluding words of the resolution show, it is up to the Faroese whether

they want an arbitration court to decide on the division of the area between

Iceland and the Faroe Islands, after we have jointly claimed our rights, and I

feel that we are showing all possible fairness.

The truth is that the regulations in Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Treaty

on the so-called "natural prolongation" of land throughout the seabed are

extremely complex and difficult to understand, as the definition of the concept itself—"natural prolongation"—is missing, and therefore there is room

for compromise similar to the one that set an example with the Jan Mayen

agreement. We Icelanders must seek such compromise as it is not likely that

the British or the Irish will do it. They plan to let an arbitration court

decide on the division of the area between them—an area to which we feel that

we and the Faroese have much more right. They are, of course, hoping that we

will sit idly by in apathy and that time will work for them, as they guard

their rights and strengthen them from year to year and the Icelanders and

the Faroese sit idly by.

The law of the sea issues are so extensive that I have only been able to touch

on a few of them in this short speech—and for example, I completely avoided

mentioning the disputes that took place at the end of the Law of the Sea Conference—actually during the last two or three meetings—about the exploitation

of the riches of the seabed in the open seas, and the so-called common human

heritage. The fact is that I was so bored with those discussions and at times

I felt they were too farfetched, that I cannot brag about being well versed

about that phase of the law of the sea issues. Moreover, we, the Icelandic

delegates, decided to only bring up subjects that could be conciliatory.

As is well known, Hans G. Andersen sat on a conciliation committee of 11

people which was called "friends of the conference," and the work of this

committee brought positive results, although the final goal of complete settlement was not obtained.

My time is up and I am willing to take questions from the audience.

Thank you.

9583 END

CSO: 5200/2082

17