301. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Secretary of State1
Committee I met at 11:00 a.m. and resumed discussion of Article V. France repeated its preference that observers be appointed by the Administrative Committee and limited to a reasonable number. A U.S. interpretation to the effect that, in view of the practical difficulties involved, no country would be expected to send more observers anywhere than necessary and that there was no obligation to bear the costs of inspection carried out by other countries, met with no disagreement in the Committee.
The Soviet Union suggested that a revised UK proposal providing for the giving of advance information regarding expeditions, include the giving of information on military personnel as well as equipment. Chile, Argentina, and France reserved their position on this point. Subject to the foregoing comments, Article V was referred to the Drafting Committee.
[Page 595]Regarding Article VI (zone of application), the UK said it favored the working paper draft, but was willing to introduce the following proposal if the Committee desired:
“The provisions of the present Treaty shall apply to the area south of 60° South Latitude, including all islands and ice shelves, but shall not apply to the high seas.”
Discussion indicated a desire to study the UK proposal, which the UK agreed to introduce in writing.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the following Australian-Argentine proposal for a new article:
“No nuclear or thermo-nuclear experiments or explosions of a non-military nature, and no disposal of fissionable waste material, shall take place in Antarctica except after notice to and consultation among the High Contracting Parties.”
It was agreed to change the initial clause to: “No detonations of nuclear or thermo-nuclear devices of a non-military nature.” The Soviet delegation stated it could not define its position on this proposal at this time. Decision was deferred to a later date.
Committee II met at 3:00 p.m. Chile proposed that the treaty and instruments of ratification should be deposited with the U.S. Government rather than with the UN. This proposal was adopted by the Committee, with the provision that the U.S. furnish certified copies of these documents to each of the parties and present the treaty for registration at the UN.
The proposal made by Chile on October 26 for a 10-year duration clause in the treaty was debated.2 Chile admitted that the period might be changed to more than 10 years, but argued strenuously in favor of a provision for review of the treaty after a specified period. Only Argentina supported the Chilean position.
The following provision regarding jurisdiction, prepared this morning by the Drafting Committee, was discussed:
“1. Observers designated under paragraph 1 of Article V and scientific personnel exchanged under subparagraph 2(b) of Article III of the present Treaty shall be immune from the jurisdiction of all High Contracting Parties other than that of which they are nationals in respect of all acts or omissions occurring while they are in Antarctica for the purpose of exercising their functions.
“2. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, and pending the adoption of measures in pursuance of subparagraph 1(e) of Article VIII, the High Contracting Parties agree that in order to avoid the occurrence of disputes with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica they will in any case in which such a dispute might arise immediately consult together with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution.”
[Page 596]Australia and New Zealand favored extending immunity to personnel accompanying scientists; South Africa and the Soviet Union favored an even broader immunity on a basis of nationality, as provided in paragraph 1 of the UK proposal. France, Argentina and Chile supported the text submitted by the Drafting Committee. The U.S. made it clear that any proposal to cover certain categories of personnel, such as observers and scientists, should not be construed as impairing the position of non-recognizing countries, such as the U.S., which would wish to reserve the right to decide on matters of jurisdiction affecting its nationals anywhere in Antarctica.
For the U.S. Representative:
Secretary
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/10–2859. Confidential. Drafted by Fisher.↩
- See Document 299.↩