Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

401. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to the Department of State¹

Geneva, March 22, 1960.

1386. Law of Sea. Second meeting Committee of Whole morning March 22.² General debate speeches by Tunkin (USSR) and Garcia Amador (Cuba).

Tunkin made for most part familiar arguments on behalf 12-mile maximum territorial sea, as provided in Soviet proposal submitted previous evening to conference (reported our 1383³). In explanation change in Soviet proposal, Tunkin noted wording of 1958 Soviet proposal referring various historical, geographical and other factors and containing words “as a rule” was considered by many delegations not sufficiently explicit. Revised language intended take account these views. Explanation for inclusion exclusive fishing zone provision for states claiming less than maximum territorial sea avoided. Stressed that only through enjoying complete sovereign rights over coastal waters could states realize their exclusive rights exploit biological resources and prevent navigation and maneuvers of warships. Incursions of warships with intent of exercising pressure on the coastal state stressed as a reason why Soviet proposal ensured the security of such states. Observed opponents of 12-mile limit were prepared admit side range of rights in 12-mile zone so long as warships and aircraft could navigate freely. Said 12-mile limit would reduce sources of international tension. Concluded by saying trend of times was toward extensive coastal state sovereignty and any agreement reached at conference which did not so recognize would be a dead letter; agreement which did would guarantee the success of the conference. Did not comment on new Mexican proposal.

Garcia Amador said Cuban Delegation wished submit certain considerations and conclusions to conference. On territorial sea said 3-mile limit no longer valid, believed there general agreement however new limit should not exceed 6 miles. Believed conference primarily concerned with fishing rights. While agreeing that coastal state had special interest in offshore areas which should be given liberal interpretation also believed res communis and historic rights entitled consideration. Objection to exclusive fishing zones that they did not result in optimum sustainable yield, would be detrimental to interests humanity in production of food. Believed proper solution to think in terms preferential, with historic rights, particularly where existed on small scale, long-pursued, and not a threat to the resource. This should not be achieved through a contiguous zone, however, but through a conservation system limiting the total catch, where necessary, to obtain the optimum yield, and according preferential treatment in circumstances indicated.

Chairman announced next meeting morning March 23.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–2260.
2. For the summary record of the first meeting, March 21, which was summarized in telegram 1375 from Geneva, March 21 (ibid., 399.731/3–2160), see U.N. doc. A/CONF.19/8, pp. 37–38. For the summary of the second meeting, see ibid., pp. 38–41.
3. Telegram 1383 from Geneva, March 22, transmitted texts of the Soviet and Mexican proposals printed ibid., pp. 164–165.