No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1995
References
1 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, vol. XVII (A/CONF.62/122 & Corre.) 151. It has been reprinted many times and is easily available.
2 In Israel the continental shelf is at present regulated by the Submarine Areas Law, 1953, 7 L.S.I. 41, following the Submarine Areas Proclamation of 3 August 1952, Yalkut haPirsumim 989. Reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1956, vol. II (A/CN.4/99/Add.1) at p. 53.
3 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Official Records, vol. XVI, 155Google Scholar
5 United Nations General Assembly, 49th Session, Official Records, A/49/PV.78 at p. 4. And see Perla, D., ed., “The Practice and Case Law of Israel in Matters Related to International Law”, (1994) 28 Is. L.R. 723.Google Scholar
6 On article 308, see University of Virginia, Center for Oceans Law and Policy, The United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, (1989, Sh. Rosenne and L.B. Sohn, volume editors) vol. V at 203.
7 Circular letter C.N. 418.1993.TREATIES-7 (Depositary Notification), dated 14 January 1994. The deposit of the 60th instrument—that of Guyana—had been notified through the normal publication services of the United Nations in November 1993. The following States made up the quorum of sixty: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
8 Although the Assembly of the ISBA held its first meeting, according to the Convention, in 1994, by the time of writing (November 1995) it had not succeeded in electing the first Council. See United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 29, (1995) 83.
9 On the establishment of ITLOS, see Treves, T., “The Law of the Sea Tribunal: Its Status and Scope of Jurisdiction after November 16, 1994”, (1995) 55 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 421Google Scholar; and my “Establishing the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”, (1995) 89 Am. J. Int'l L. 810.
10 This latter aspect has since been examined in the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, in session between 1993 and 1995, and leading to the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1992, relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, opened for signature in New York on 4 December 1995. Israel has signed that Agreement. I take this opportunity to place on record the pleasant exchange of correspondence I had with the Hebrew Language Academy regarding an acceptable Hebrew rendering of the expression “straddling fish stocks” (sometime irreverently denominated in internal Foreign Ministry exchanges as the United Nations Conference on Genite Fish). The terminology finally adopted is: 
11 Report of the Secretary-General on the Law of the Sea, doc. A/45/721 (1990 mimeo.), para. 14. Reproduced in Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS), International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, Documentary Yearbook 1990, at 74.
12 Report of the Secretary-General on the Law of the Sea, doc. A/46/724 (1991, mimeo.), paras. 15–20. Reproduced in NILOS, Documentary Yearbook 1991, at 137.
13 Report of the Secretary-General on the Law of the Sea, doc A/48/527 (1993 mimeo.), paras. 8–15. Reproduced in NILOS, Documentary Yearbook 1993, at 31; Report of the Secretary-General on the Law of the Sea, doc. A/49/631 (1994, mimeo.) paras. 9–15. To be reproduced in NILOS, Documentary Yearbook 1994.
14 The debate lasted over three meetings of the General Assembly, the 99th to 101st on 27 and 28 July 1994. The Delegation of Israel did not take part in that vote, as was explained in the statement of 6 December 1994 (see supra n. 5).
15 Part IV, articles 39–41.1155 United Nations Treaty Series 331. See also Rosenne, Sh. and Zohory, M., The Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties (The “Treaty on Treaties”) (1978, in Hebrew)Google Scholar.
16 This is not the first occasion on which it was found necessary to effect changes in a treaty because of the unwillingness of important States to become a party to it as originally drafted. Indeed, in the law of the sea itself this has occurred with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973, which was amended by a Protocol of 1978, and now goes under the acronym of MARPOL 73/78: (1973) 12 I.L.M. 1319; (1978) 17 ibid. 541.
17 By article 305, paragraph 1(f), read together with Annex IX, paragraph 1, of the Convention, international intergovernmental organizations constituted by States to which its member States have transferred competence over matters governed by the Convention, including the competence to enter into treaties in respect of those matters, may become parties to the Convention. In the Agreement, the word entities refers to those intergovernmental organizations. At the Conference, the only organization that came into consideration was the European Community, but the language of the Annex IX, article 1, does not close the door to other similar organizations which might come into existence in the future.
18 On the “adoption” of a treaty, see article 9 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
19 This includes Israel, where the internal processes regarding accession are advancing. For the submission of the President of the United States (Clinton) regarding accession to the Convention, see Senate Treaty Document No. 39, 103 Congress, 2nd Session (1994).
20 For documentation on this, see the report of the Preparatory Commission submitted to the Meeting of the States Parties, doc. LOS/PCN/152, vol. IV at 221 (1995 mimeo.); and the reports of the Meeting of States Parties, docs. SPLOS/3 and SPLOS/4 (1995 mimeo.).
21 By a coincidence, I had been asked to assist the legal service of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 1966 on a similar problem relating to a change in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: 189 United Nations Treaty Series 137. Together with the late Dr. Paul Weis the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967 was conceived and adopted: 606 ibid. 267. The problem there was different, as the Convention was in force at the time, but for political reasons it was desired to effect the change without going through a formal amendment process. See on this the memorandum of 16 November 1966 of the Office of Legal Affairs to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, on the question of the adoption by the General Assembly of an instrument amending or extending an international instrument concluded previously at a conference of States: United Nations Juridical Yearbook 1966, p. 242.1 had been a member of the International Law Commission during the period 1962 to 1966 when it prepared the draft on the law of treaties, and Chairman of the Delegation of Israel to the Conference on the Law of Treaties of 1968–1969.
a [In the Convention, Area (with an upper case A) means the sea-bed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Activities in the Area means “all activities of exploration for, and exploitation of, the resources of the Area”. Article 1, paragraphs 1(1) and 1(3). Resources means all solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources in situ in the Area at or beneath the sea-bed, including polymetallic nodules. Article 133(a) — Sh. R.]
b [In fact no such arrangements were made in 1994 — Sh. R.]