Legal Picture of the Law of the Sea Would in Any Case Be Confusing

THE BAI TIC STRAITS

oastal StateS. In What Nay be its prinCi al h evement, UNCLOShas developed such a re i See also ibid., at . 121 ~ " ' i convention, however, thee UNCLOS UNC straits destined to serve as a powerfulf mod.el deve Lopment o f a new customarus omary 1law of straits ~t tI

Some may even que stion. whet her a sin le multi- Caraca.s Convention wo uld a equately cover of physical, navigational a, po 1' itical, and ems e ar anelles, G braltax', Malacca, the Danish Straits Bah 1- e Qt er nar rows. These skepticsep ics mayma ask k bi 1 ate.ra l or specia 1 regional agreements .

geweniq, ~eu re, note 1, p. 67.

COMMENTARY

Ib R. Andreasen Ambassador Ministry of Foreign Affairs Denmark

I was indeed very honoredwhen the Lawof the Sea Institute asked me to be one of the commentators on the subject of "TheBaltic Straits." Knowingthe usualvery high academicstandards of the Conferences of the Institute, I heSitated in OfferingNy VieW- pointsin sucha distinguishedgathering. Being here andseeing so manywell knownprofessors of international law, andespecialLy after listeningto the ex- tremelyinteresting and comprehensive speech by Pro- fessorVitzthum, I think I shouldhave hesitated even Nore. Qnthe otherhand, it mightafter all beof interestto the conferenceto have an input on the Straitsissue which originates more from practical experiencethan f romacademic studies. Beforecommenting onthe Straits issue I would, however,like to makesome general remarks in rela- tionto ProfessorVitzthum's introduction. I under- stoodhim to saythat, irrespective ofwhether ornot a newLaw of theSea Convention cameinto force, the legalpicture of thelaw of the sea would inany case beconfusing. gewould have a situationwith a lelega al

t p "disorder," and he felt that the foreseen 9egimegime of straits was an example of this situation.

think that everyone who has worked with th e Draft Convention will willingly admit that ls cog plicated and to someextent even confusing. The Cpn vent.ion is, however, in a very comprehensive @annenner dealing with what can only be regarded as a revolu tion at sea, ~d the negotiations at the Law of the Sea Conference have had t.o take into account the pf ten contradicting interests of coastal, maritime, and landlocked States. This leads to a legal system wit rules and exceptions to the rules as well as exceptions to the exceptions, resulting in sometimes not very clear formulations. The President of t' he Con ference has called the Draft Convention a lawyeris gold mine. The full implication of this remark is of course not fair, but in its provocative way, it underlines the fact that in the future it will be

I shall now turn to the subject of international straits in the Baltic Sea, and I shall limit my remarks to straits situated in the Danish area, In his comprehensive l isting of straits and sailing routes, professor Vitzthum very rightly pointed to the importance of the IMCOshipping route from Skagento the south of Gedser, and he mentioned the Kattegat as the first Baltic Strait From a geo-navigational point of view this might be a correct description. Prom a legal point of view, neither the INCO route as such nor the Kattegat in itself has previously been regarded as a strait. Until recently both Denmark and Sweden have claimed three- and four mile territorial seas re- spectively, and the INCGroute has, for mostparts in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat, been placed on the high seas outside their territorial waters. ~avi'Pa- tion in these waters has therefore not been relat« to legal strait problems. But if both countries «« to extend. their territorial seas to 12 miles, situation would be changed, and parts of the Katte9~t Danish islands Lae sg andan AnhAn olt 1 and the h coast would no longer hee ig high seas. In this strait. issue would arise.

In connect. ion with the Swedish dececision ' to ex- d her territorial sea to 12 miles i.n 19799, thzs tion was discussed between Denmarkr an d S Sweden, d rder to maintain the possibilit i y o ffreedom f d igation in these areas, it wass agreeagre d th that, t, ex- of territorial sea should not excee exce d 1' a limit, f 3 ' 1e s f r om the medi an 1 inc bet.ween the two coun- In this way, a high seas route would remain th Kattegat and, based on the agreement between pas,sage thx'ough these water s on freedom of navigation on the high seas, as befor The Straits issue for Denmark has always been closely related to the narrow pass-waysbetween the Danish mainland Jutland! and her major islands. The straits are Littl,e Belt, Great Belt, andthe Sound. Zn the past muchhas beensaid andwritten aboutthe legal regimefor passagethrough these straits and, as professor Vitzthum very rightly states, it has beengenerally acknowledgedthat the CopenhagenCon- vention of 1857forms the basis for the regimeof passagethrough these straits. Nevertheless,he makesin his statementa verygreat effort to chal- lengethe previousinterpretation, and he reaches-- as I understand--theconclusion that the Copenhagen Conventiondoes not governlex lata the passage throughthe Danishstraits. I think it will comeas nosurprise to anybodythat I donot agree with this conclusion. It is not possiblefor menow to commentonall aspectsof thevery extensive study made byProfessor Vitzthum;the best I cando, I think,is to explain how1857I Convention view the regime.wasto abolishThe main theobjective previous ofgoverning the regimeon the basis of whichthe Danish Government claimedcarryingthecargoes right throughto levythethe straits. "Sound Dues"In addition for shipsto thisessentia.l provision, the text of theConvention states in Article 1: Novessel shall henceforth, under any pretext, subject,in its passageof the Sound or Belts, to anydetention or hindrance.

-99 Tp p I 'Tl, , wJ ~ 7

In my opinion no reasonable doubt can be raised against the fact that this formulation is pression of a regime of passage through the straj Many viewpoints as to the exact meaning of paragraph have been expressed during the more than 100 year s s ince the Convent ion came into f orce . major question has been whether it covers merchant vessels and warships as well. On this point, I do not need to go into any detail, as it has been fully covered by Professor Vitzthum, and I am in agreement with his analysis that it is clear from the preamble and the whole purpose of the Convention that i t does not cover warships. The passage of warships is regs lated by the general international rule of innocent passage through international straits. The right of innocent passage for warships has been questioned from different sides. It is, however, indubitable--at least after the decision hy the International Court of Justice in 1949 in the "Corfu Channel Case"--that such a right of innocent passage through international straits exists. This right also exists in the Danish straits, and it is now ex- pressly mentioned in the Royal Ordinance of February 1976, which regulates foreign warships' access to Danish waters.

It is generally accepted that the Copenhagen Convention is applicable only to commercial vessels; and during the many years the Convention has been in force, a special regime serving the interests of the coastal States and the user States as well has developed. Generally, it can be said today that the existing regime follows the general rule of international law on innocent passage through straits as it is codified in the 19'S8 Geneva Convention.

From the fact that the rules of passage are now analogous to customary international law, you cannot. conclude that the regimes are identical. In this relation, I think it suffices to stress the fundamental difference in the legal basis of the regimes. An «- ample will show this difference. Should it in some future be an accepted part. of the concept of "innocent passage" in general international law that strait States could levy taxes or other charges upon»ips ~" passage, such a rule would not automatically affect the regime of passage through the Danish straits- THE BAL,TIC STRAITS

yy conclusion will therefore be that in the Dan- straits, a special regime of passage adapted to ] oza 1 condit ions has been developed over the years, on the Copenhagen Convention of 1857, interna- customary law, and national regulation.

Concerning the negotiations on the straits is- it is a well known fact that public information of the work done at the Law of the Sea Conference is rather limited. On the other hand, it is common knowledge that the st.rait problems have been among key issues at the Conference and that some information is available on them. On several occasions the Danish delegation has raised these problems in public meetings of which summary records are kept; the latest, one was during the Plenary Meeting at the just concluded Ninth Session in Geneva.

The main reason why the strait issue has been of such importance at the Conference is the right of coastal States to extend their territorial seas up to l2 miles. The majority of States at the Conference have supported the view that a reasonable regime of passage should be found with regard to those straits, so that there would still be a high seas route, even if the extension of territorial sea limits up to 12 miles wo~ld place them under national jurisdiction. A compromise on this problem has now been reached by the formulation of the new regime of "transit passage." The sameunderstanding has been expressed as to the problems which such a new transit regime would create in certain o1d narrow straits which, like the Danish straits, have always been covered by territorial sea, and in which a special regime exists, based on. long-standing conventions. As it was agreed that the regime of passage throughthese old straits with specialregimes should not beb lt a ere d the task was to f ind a f ormulation h' h t k all interests into account. Theresu ult is nowto be foundin the Draft Convention,Art. 35 c!, which reads: The legal regimein straits in whichpassage 1 ted in whole or in part by long- standing international conventionsin'n forceo specifically relating to suchstraits. As it. will beunderstood from the descriptionof the present lega.l regime in the e Danish straits compared to the formulation of Art. 35, it will be clearr tat Art. 35 c! legally covers the Danish straits from the negotiations it is equally clear that th is accepted at the Conference.

As I said before, we are not totally without public information on this question, and I to conclude my comment by citing the intervention f the Danish delegation at the latest session of Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva As a seafaz nation and a strait State, Denmark has the greatest interest in Part III concerning straits used for ternational navigation. We are of the opinion that the present text represents a balanced solution it is acceptable to the Danish delegation. We are specifically satisfied with the fact that during the negotiations, it was possible to formulate a text now contained in Article 3~ c!--which maintains the present regime in straits in which passage is regu lated in whole or in part by long-standing interna tional conventions. After negotiations with all terested parties, we are satisfied that Article 35 c! applies to the specific regime in the Danish straits, which has been developed over the years on the basis of the Copenhagen Convention of 1857. This, I think, is generally accepted at the Conference, and I cannoI: agree with Professor Vitzthuxa that there is confusion on this point--1 think it is very clear.

COMMENTARY

Mo j c i ech Gora l c zyk University of Warsaw

First of all, I would like to congratulate Pro- fessor Vitzthum for his clear and instructive paper, which constitutes an excellent basis for our deliber- ations. Before entering into discussion of certain morespecific issues, I must say that I share entire- ly the opinion of Professor Uitzthum concerningthe importanceof the straits issue for manyStates in eluding the two big powers. I agree with him that the guaranteeof the right of free and unimpeded passagethrough straits usedfor internationalnavigation was considered by certain big powersas a con- dition sine ~ua nonfor their acceptanceof the Law of the Sea Convention. THE BALTIC STRAITS

In this connection, may I draw your atten

the head of the U.S. delegationn o to th e Law L of the Sea ference. The title of the articler ic e is "Power, No- b' lity and the Law of the Sea." Its content fully d ~nstrates the great importance of th e straits t ' is- ' s- sue f or the Un it ed States .

may I submit that this problemo em is important ' t f not on ly big power s . At the Caracas Sess ion of the Law of the Sea Conference, the delegate of Poland country "attached particular importance 0 the maintenance of the right of unimpeded passage through straits, because [Poland] bordered on the from which the way to other seas and oceans led through the Baltic Straits " There are three States bordering on t.he Baltic Finland, the GermanDemocratic Republic, and Poland, for which the Baltic Straits are the only natural waterwayto the North Seaand to the Atlantic Ocean. There are also manyother States bordering on enclosedor semi-enclosedseas having similar problems. They do not want to be cut off from the world's oceans. Turning to the morespecific problemof the Bal- tic Straits, I would like to discussbriefly three points. First, the presentlegal status of theBal- tic Straits; second,the possibleimpact of the transit passageprovisions contained in theDraft Conven- tion on the Lawof the Seaon the legalstatus of the Baltic Straits; andthird, the questionof thedesir- ability of theelaboration and adoption of a special regime for the Baltic Straits. In respectto the first point, I wouldlike to concentratemy remarks on one fundamental issue: whetherthe generalstraits regime,as codified in theGeneva Convention onthe Territorial Sea and the ContiguousSpeakingaboutZone theapplies general to thestraits Baltic regime, Straits I slightlyor not. disagreewith the opinion of professorVitzthum that "accordingto current international law, there is no specialregime on territorialized straits in favorr ofo users."In myopinion, such a regimeexists as far as cerned.straitsused It consistsfor internationalof theright navigation of innocent are passagecon-

608 for all vessels and for warships, and that right~g t can not be suspended. The opening wordsh eneva of Article l6 ! of Convention l0 There s all b no suspension of th nocent Passage of foreign shiPs thzough ~tra ~ t are used for international navigation with other provisions of the Convention Qpnstitut my oPinion a clear descriPtion of the leg~1 z such straits. I may, however, agree with Pro fes Vitzthum that from the standpoint of especially of the maritime powers, the inadequacies of this regime are self-evident.

Now the point arises whether the genera]. regi~ of straits applies to the Baltic Straits oz, in other words, whether the Copenhagen Treaty of l857 regard ing the abolition of Danish Sound Dues constitutes a special conventional regime derogating the general straits regime as reflected in the Geneva Convention Xn his paper, Professor Vitzthum analyzed in a brilliant manner the real meaning of the Copenhagen Treaty. ! fully subscribe to the line of his reason- ing. The treaties of 1857 the Copenhagen Treaty and the treaty concluded by the United States and Denmark! only removed long-standing barrier s f or tr ade and navigation, but they did not lay down a special conventional regime for the passage through the Danish Straits. They did not regulate the passage of warships and, in the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the Copenhagen Treaty, the question of passage of warships was never mentioned, since wazships had never been asked to pay dues or taxes. Therefore, my conclusion is: the treaties of 1857 regarding the abolition of Danish Sound Dues do not constitute a special regime for Danish Straits. Additional justification for my opinion that. the treaties did not regul.ate the passage through the Baltic Straits I find in Danish legislations which did what the treaties did not do--they regulated the passage through straits. In this connection, may I say that certain polish authors criticized the Danish' Decree of 1951 and the Royal Ordinance of 1976 gov- erning the Admission of Foreign Warship@and Nilita?'!' Aircraft to Danish Territory in Time of peace, as being in conflict with contemporary international Law.4 THE BALTIC STRAITS

Turning to the second point, I may be very brief, since my conclusion concerning the real meaning of the Copenhagen Treaty is also relevant to po- tential application of the transit passageassage provisions ' ion in the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea to the Danish Straits. Zn my opinion, Article 35 c! of the Draft Convention does not exclude application of transit passage regime to the Danish Straits, because the Copenhagen treaty has not regulated the passage through straits either "in whole" or "in part." Now my third point: whether a special regime for the Baltic Straits is desirable. This is, of course, a political problem and not a juridical one. Before entering into the substance, I would like to apologize that I shall refer to the written andnot to the read text of the paper presented by Professor Vitxthum. But very important parts af the paper de- serving certain commentswere not read due to the lack of time. MayI begin by saying that the questionof a special regimefor the Baltic Straits is connected with the question of introducing a special legal status for the Baltic Sea as a whole. Certain pro- posalsattending to this effect wereput forth by the Soviet Unionand other socialist countries bordering on the Baltic Sea. MayI mention,for instance,the initiative of Polandand the GermanDemocratic Republic to declare the Baltic "A Seaof Peace."One may also mention proposalsput forwardby President Kekkonen of Fin- landto declareScandinavia, even more broadly North Europe,a nuclear-freezone. Such a zonecould also encompassthe Baltic Sea. However,no proposal on specialstatus or ondenuclearization or neutraliza- tion of the Baltic Seahas been adapted. Therefore, speakingde~le e latathe Baltic Sea does not have any specia.l status. ProfessorVitxthum quoted in his paperopinions oflegal certainstatus socialist of theBaltic authors Sea. on the In questionthis connection, of the mayI say that there is nouniformity in the legal doctrinein thesocialist countries; but in Polanda majorityexpressedofby authorsProfessor hold Symonides:the view similar"As to tothe thatpresent legalstatus of theBaltic Sea, it mustbe stressed thatdespite its specificgeographical features, and

605 THE BALTIC STRAl'TS despite manyinitiatives in the past attendingtp o its naturalization. the Baltic Sea has the status qf the high seas." Certain preposals de lecee ferenda posea limitation on the accessof warshipsof coastal States to the Baltic Sea. ge may argumentsin favor of and against such a solutio Speakingde ~lee lata, l might be the opinion of ProfessorVitzthum: "asserting th t ships andnaval vessels from outside the regjpn less passagerights than those of the Baltic Sema a countries confuses fact and law." But nection I have a~other problem. I am afraid sometimeswarships of the Baltic riparian countries have less passageright than those comingfrom side the region Denmark,as a guardian of the Baltic Straits, neither neutral nor unpartial. As a memberof NATp she probablylooks morefavorably on the passagepf U.S. warships than the passage of Soviet ones. ticle 1j of the Danish Royal Ordinanceof 1976pn the admissionof foreign warships states that "The Minister of Defensemay make exceptions to the provisions of this Ordinance." It is my submissionthat in respectto the requirementof "advancepermission" or "advancenotification of passage," such exceptions will be maderather in respect to warships of NATO membersthan those pf warsawPact members. Professor Vitzthum does not like the idea of makingthe Baltic Seaa Seaof Peace Neerdes Friedens!. He shares the opinion that it is a "political slogan." I would not call it. a slogan. At the openingsession of this conference,the President of the Christian Albert University of Riel, Professor GerdGriesser, said that the mottoof the university is "PaxC~tima Rerum." He called it a mottoand npt a slogan. I pre f er his terminology. Nowturning backto the question of whethera specialstatus for the Baltic Straits is desirable,I mustsay that I have no clear answerfor this question. It seemsto me, however,that any special re- gimeshould serve the peacefulcooperatio~ of riparian StateSOf the BaltiC Seaand, eVenmOre brpadlYl shouldserve the peacefulcooperation in Europe.It shouldalso fully safeguard,the legitimate securitY interests of Denmark and Sweden. Concluding my remarks, I would 1 i ke to stress once more that I agree with the major part t f of the ecellent and innovative paper presente dy b P Professor V tzthum. As you could notice, my dissent has a mar- »1 character only.

NOTES

Spring l980, p. 902. Third United Nations Conferenceon the Lawof the g O ff ic ia l Records, Vo1 . I I, p . 1 13 3 Speaking aboutstraits usedf or international navigation,I have in mindstraits whichare used for internationalnavigation between one part of the highseas and another part of thehigh seas or the territorial seaof a foreignState Article16 I, theGeneva Convention onthe Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone!. 4. See,for instance,J. Sy nides:"Legal status of the Baltic Straits,"Polish Yearbook of Inter- nationalCzechowska:Law, "LegalIV, 1971, Status p. of 143; theB. Baltic Rwiatkowska-Straits" ThesaurusAcroasium, Vol. VII, theLaw of theSea, Thessalonikz 977, p. 526.

COMMENTARY Ingo von quench University of Hamburg Sincetime is runningon, I shallrefrain from complimentingpaperand my col.leagues'Professor Vitzthumintexesting on hiscomments. excellent I wouldeachyearlike aboutto draw 50,000your shipsattention pass tothroughthe factthe thatBaltic StraitsQuestionsandof thewhether Kiel Channelsubmerged without.orunsubmerged being hindered.sub- marinesor morethan three warships of anany one State mayproblems.pass throughAside thefrom Baltic these problems,Straits arethere not majorare, in Practice,none regarding passage throthroug h the Baltic Straits.

607 perhaps this is the reason why the subject ind<< of HcDougal-Burke's Public Order of the Oceans1' lsts t Black Sea, the Bering Straits, and the Bristo] Channel, but not the Baltic Straits. I f I am not the Baltic Sea is not even included This shows that the old harbors of the Baltic are very far away from New Haven, Connecticut. I have been asked to mention the Kiel Canal. all know this is not an international strait but an artificial one. I would like to make a few comments on this. As you know, the Kiel Canal was put under a system of internationalization in Art ic les 38!-386 of the Treaty of Versailles, and the German government unilaterally changed this syst.em by a declaration in November 1936. It is quite clear that this unilater- al declaration was a violation of the Versailles Treaty and therefore not valid according to international law at that time. But, of the 26 signator- ies of the Versailles Treaty, only two protested, any those two were not States bordering on the Baltic, but France and Czechoslovakia. Three other States, Great Britain, Yugoslavia, and Poland merely expressed their misgivings. These protests were not repeat.ed in the follpw ing years. Even af ter 1945, the Occupation Powers did not restore internationalization. We know that in his speech in August 1945, President Trumanmen- tioned the idea of putting the Kiel Canal under the auspices of the United Nations as a special canal zone, but this idea has never been realized. In my opinion--and I think it is shared by most authors in international. law--the internationalization systemof the Versailles Treaty for the Kiel Canal has been abandoned. I f one wishes to maintai~ an opposingview, m should discuss whether any other systemof internationalization of rivers established by the Treaty of Versailles still exists. The second point I want ta mention concerns Article 35 c! of the Draft Convention. Wehave heafd about this in connection with the Treaty of Copen- hagen,as a long-standingarrangement, and I think this raises interesting questions from both a practical anda dogmaticpoint of view. Mehave learned from our Danish colleague that the framers of the Draft Convention were of the opinion that the Treaty of Copenhagenis one of the long-standingarrangeme~ts

898 THE BALTIC' STRAITS

t'oned in Article 35 c! - Prro f essor Vitzt'tzthum has ~ ngly argued that th'is is an error b ecause Copenhagen doess not. t. have the same framers had intenden e dit to have. I answer to this questes ion under d int --what are e e the results of such an error' py th ir Q point dea1 swith the semi-enclosedsea. baltic Straits are the "neck f bo "neck 's" status is cont.ingcon ingent t on the «~ttle ~ sIl status. Wealso know that a , according d' to theterms pf the DraftConvention thee a Balt' tic S Sea is o e open sea byemia narrowenclosed outlet sea, and a.sthatit connectscooper ation.to thebetween the orderingStates in someareas is necessary,aspro- fessorJaenicke told us this morning. upsuch I,eta me systemremind ofyoucooperation that theBaltic longbeforeStates thehad Draft set Conventionwasformed. In my view, the question is whetherthe ideaof a semi-enclosedseanot only es- tablishesa system of cooperation, but--and this is muchrightsmoreof otherimportant--also States. labridges do not. believethe existing thatwe legalfind twoanyanswersarticles in theI think Draft the Convention;framers regardedit contains the semi-only enclosedfaras to sea say as that an unlovedit is achild--I monster. wouldWhy iseven it goa somon- ster? Thetrend is--and this is a realdanger--to de- tachgimetheof the semi-enclosed high seas. seaIt regimestarts withfrom thecooperation. legal re- Notionedone aboveis against will cooperation. gofurther andBut further. the trend I seemen- a realdanger for the freedom of navigation. "narrowThereoutlet"are othermean~ uncertainties,To a missiletoo.flyingWhat over doesit, aa straitsamestraitmay beis narrow. very wide.For Wethe know swimmer, it ishowever, impossible this to»dset these a firmattempts line havesuch beenas 24 postponed.miles, forinstance,In this rev- olutionaryborcalled timeit, we forare the notlaw sure of theat thissea, momentas my neigh-which ~herestraitsmaymayeven be calledbe straits "narrowwhich outlets" wehave innotthe thought future. hapsIat believesome laterthis date,is a the dangerousNorth development.Sea.will be a Per-

6C9 semi-enclosed sea, and then even the Pacific and sp on. Ultimately, all seas would thus be "semi-er clo ed." The real danger is that the concept of a semi- enclosed sea will be welcomed for political reasons, and we will end up with socialist and capitalist seas. It is not a good trend. Turning from the semi-enclosed seas, we should mention the problem of regionalism. The idea of semi-enclosed sea is a part of the idea pf ism. In the fight between regionalism and univqr~ ism, universalism has not been knocked out yet, it is pretty groggy. Now, do we regret this development! Qe may that regionalism has both advantages and disadvan tages. The advantages lie in the area of environ mental protection. It is much easier to handle this problem on a regional level, as we have seen in the Baltic and the Nediterranean. On the other hand, there are real disadvantages. If we look at navjga tion and at worldwide communications, the trend toward regionalism is not a positive one. I think we are in a nostalgic mood at the international level: "small i.e. regionalism! is beautiful." I do not know if this is a good trend, and I would like to throw it out to the audience for further thought.

I have come to the end of my remarks. The last point I would like to make is this. We have always spoken about the Baltic Straits in terms of the States imposing upon the freedom of the users. I would like to ask, as a problem not necessarily intended hy the organizers of this conference: What would happen if a ship passed through the Baltic Straits, under the innocent or transit passage regime, if trade unions in, say, Denmark or Sweden, refused to unload it! If international lawyers look upon the freedom of navigation only in terms of whether States or other sub- jects of international law hinder this freedom, we may forget that other forces, such as trade unions, may be causing the problems. I must add that I have nothing against trade unions, but. we have seen that they may hinder the freedom of navigation by not un- loading ships. That could be French fishermen, too. Traffic between France and Great Britain has not bee> restricted by either State, but by fishermen. I think we should keep this problem in mind for future conferences, namelyrestrictions imposed on the freedomof navigation by organizations other than the States ~ TBZ BALTIC STRAITS

COMMENTARY

Phiphat Tangsubk u 1 R amkhamhaengUniversity Bangkok

Z would like to compare thee Baltic 8 1 Str of Malacca u irst let me give m re t ation of the straits issuissue under the e new new graft Convention. Article 37 d which are used for internat'in ernational 1 navi navi a between one area of thee igh hi h seas or an exclusive economic zone and another area o f th e igh h ' h seas or an exclusive economic zone." Thisis is somewhats different in substance f rom the def inition in the 1'958 Conven-C tion on the Territorial Sea and Contiguon iguous Zone,Z Ar- ticle 16 ! which is broader to include straits between one part of the high seas and anotherno er part t f of the high seas or the territorial sea of a oreignfor ~ r The language has been changed to permit extension of the territorial sea without. jeopardizing the right of passage by maritime powers as formulated in customary law. But the mayor mar~time powers did not stop at this; they sought a double guarantee. Written into the newDraft Conventionis the requirementfor the designation of sea-lanes. Thestrait Stateswould designatesea-lanes, but suchsea-lanes would then be referred to "the competentinternational organiza- tion" Art 41!. Since the maritimepowers dominate suchorganizat,ions, they will havean indirect role in the designatio~of sea-lanes.This procedure also placesstrait Statesin oppositionnot only to the flag Statebut alsoto therest of theinternational community.What have the coastal States gained? Al- thoughthe Conventionwould allow for "thepreven- tion, reduction,and control of pollutionby giving effectto applicableinternational regulations" Art. 42.l.b! this is meaninglesscompared to the tradi- tionalcontrol of a sovereignState within its territorial sea whichthe strait hasnow become. Let menow examine the case of theMalacca heavilyStraits.used Like by the commercial Baltic Straits, vessels, they fishing are boats,very andwarships They are also strategically located andbordered bymore than one coastal State. Unlike theBaltic Straits, most vessels which flow throug u h

811 2' HZ BA L T" S TFA I'IS the Malacca Straits carry oil. The danger of Qi] pollution is substantially greater . In addition, there are alternative routes to the Malacca Straits through the Lombok and Sunda Straits and in Zndo nesia's archipelagic waters. Such is not the case with the Baltic Straits.

Since we are in Kiel, I also want to take opportunity to call your attent.ion ta a similar ation found in both the Federal Republic of Ger ny and Thailand. Both are considered outer strait States, that is, they border on the entrance pf strait used for international navigation. Germany by building the Kiel Canal, has provided an alter native route to the Baltic Straits. Thailand, on the other hand, has no such alternative passage and is totally dependent on the Malacca Straits for sea com- munication between its coasts. All such outer strait States have an interest in keeping straits open; yet they suffer the risk of polluticn from such use. The interests of outer strait States should be horne in mind in solving all straits issues.

Another problem which may occur in straits used for international navigation is the conflict between the right of transit. passage and the right of the coastal State's resources exploitat.ion. For example, in the Straits of Malacca, oil platforms may well ob- struct sea-lanes in the future. How will this and similar questions be resolved, if such platforms come to hamper the transit passage insured in Article 44 of the Draft Convention?

As a matter of fact, both maritime powers and developing countries need to keep straits open--but for different reasons. The interests of maritime powers center on military uses, while those of the latter involve a question of economic survival. Suppose the Malacca Straits were closed. The South- east Asian States would suffer most. because they would pay higher prices for Japanese and Nestern corn- modities on the one hand, and would pay higher freight charges for their exports on the other It is naive to say that many States at UNCIOS sincerely believe in the commonheritage of mankind." I f this were the case, one would not see the tr ade- offs in the straits issue and all the other issues the Conference. As an observer of the Law of the movement, I mn afraid to say that I begin to believe THE' BALTIC STRAITS

Pro fessor Pardo told me in ' 19 1978 th heritage of mankindn in has becomeempty words. In summary, I believe that the le i f tra it States mus t. b e wei hed a f th fla g a St. t. es. But my ers p onal view f the stra its 1ssue is ' th at the best solution n ies 1' striking a balance between th ese two interest ts hrough regional agreements taka ing ' account of extra- interests especially thoseose of f th the access States in adjacent areas.

DISCUSSIONS AND QUESTIONS

HOI.GER ROTKIRCH: Ne have concentrated in this discussion on the Danish straits. But as Professor gitzthum has ment.ioned, there are also other international straits in the Baltic Sea. I would like to a few observations. The exception in Article 35 c! of the Draft Con- vention concerns not only the Danish straits but also the strait betweenthe AalandIslands and Sweden, whichyou can seeon the mapthat hasbeen distribut- ed. There the long standingconvention in f orceis the Conventionof the Neutralizationand Demilitari- zation of the AalandIslands. This meansthat innocent,passage will remainas the regimethrough that strait. ThenI would like to makea commentonthe state- mentmade by ProfessorVitzthum that theentrance to the Gulf of Finlandis to beconsidered a strait. I cannotunderstand this fromthe meaning of Article 37 in the Draft Lawof the SeaConvention. The entrance to theGulf of Finlanddoes not combine twoareas of thehigh seas. It is todaya highseas area, and if it werecovered by f ishingzones or economiczones of theriparian States, the high seas regime would still applyto navigationunder Articles 58 and 87 of the Braft Conventionon the X,awof the Sea. Mylast remark would beon the question ofwhat is thestatus of internationallawin relation tothe Danishstraits. In myopinion, the answer is very clear.1857CopenhagenThe drafters Conventionof Article tobe 35applicable c!consider tothethis article; the Danishdelegation to theLaw aw oof the Sea

6l8 Conferences has pub l -'c I y stated tha t this understanding; and none o.F the l ~0 particioat' eir States has objected to thxs interpretation or commentedon it; therefore I fa>l to uderstand OV this question can b 1n dispute under internatioio?la] law.

BUDISLAVVUKAS: I t~. ~ nk Part IX of the Zq~ been mentioned also 'n connect>.on with as because of our pecul'ar situation in the the Yugoslav delegation .".as proposed to insert Part IX special provxsxonsan the f r'eedomof naviga tion. Unfortunately, c%her States have never b en eager to support us. I mould solve many of the prob'ems we are dealing >ith here today in relation to t! e Baltic Straits and the Baltic Sea.

Ar'tlcle 35 o the Dra f t Convent ion has been tioned as veil as the proble~ whether Article 3! cj xs applicable to the Ba tzc Straits Just zn relation to Professor Kew'enig's remark that we are miss- ing the preparatory work, I must mention here that one of the persons w'ho w'as very important in nego- tiating this position on straits, namely Professor John Norton Cere, wnt zoned that this provision @as included in the Dra t Con'ention because of the Bal- tic Straits and the Dani s".. Strai ts.

Now regarding the interpretation of Article 35, I mould not agree with some of the comments that, if there is no special old co~ve~tion for a certain strait, the regime of transit passage is autornatical- ly applied. There are tee possibilities in accord- ance with the Draft Convention: not only the transit passage regime but also the innocent passage regime can be applied in some cases.

Finally, I cou' d no» agree ~ith the conclusion that a government's denunciation of its treaty obli- gations only because of a srmll number of protests can abolish an international treaty regime. A«ar as I know, the vast rm ority of authors consider ths Versailles regime of the Keel Channel still a part of the body of positive international La+. GUENTHERJAENICKE: I feelee oobl iged d to support the opinion of AmbassadorAndreasen sen th att d during the negotiations on the legal statuss o of straits in the Conf erence~ it wasthe generalunder ersst an d ing ' that h Danish Straits should be coveredere b y AArticle t 1 35 c! f the @raf t Convention . Whether thisis provision is y clearly wordedmay certainly be questioned. if you read it carefully youshould and, in my ~ust come to the conclusion that the clause in the 1857 Treaty which says that ships shouldpa any h' indrance through the Danish Straits is f f ici ent ba'si s to put these straits under the language 0 f Article 35- If you read Article 35 c!, you haveto carefully distinguish two elements in its interpretation. the ~ nation of which is not quite clear at first Thi s art.icle covers the legal regime in in which passage is regulated in whole or in t by long-standing international conventions. It ot necessary that the whole legal regs of the trait concerned be regulated by a long-standing con- it is sufficient that zn the straits con- d, passage is regulated in whole or in part by 1o -st~ding convention, and "in Par" y be understood either geographically or substantively. The existing legal regime which is prescribed by Article 35{c! need not necessarily be based in its entirety on an international convention; it is sufficient that this is a st.rait where some regulation of passage exists by long-standing convention. It is perhaps not very clear Language, but it should be borne in mind that the wording of Article 35 was the outcome of a compromise and was meant to bring the Danish Straits under Article 35. This could, of course, be expressed more clearly, but this at least has been the in- tention of the negotiations in the Conference. May I say a word about the Kiel Canalquestion which is indeed controversial. I would like to add another argument in support of the thesis that the Kiel Canal provisions of the Treaty of Versailles are no longer in force. TheKiel Canalnavigation regimewas linked to the legal regimeof freenaviga- tion on international rivers of central Europecon- tained in the Versailles Treaty. Thehe whole s 7stem of free navigation on the rivers off central cen Europe did not survive the SecondWorld War. TheXiel Canal provisions which werepart off this this g eneral scheme

81$ under these changed circumstances, force in isolation,

ÃILHELN KENZNIG: want to make it quite cl for f urther discussion that there are two questi vhich have been raised and which are discussed «ight now concerning Article 35 {c!: l. Is the Treaty af 184"; a regulation of p sage in whole or in part in the Straitsp heard what most of the delegations at think about this question.

2. If it is not a regulation of passage, Professor Vitzthum thinks, then can the fact the delegations thought it was change the legal reg mme7

I think these are two questions which we have distinguish carefully.

DETLEV DICKK: Professor Vitzthum was critici~ most heavily by Ambassador Andreasen of Denmark. Though he offered views which would be in favor Denmark, I liked that very much. I also liked his academic approach very much. Switzerland is a neutral country and is not a major power. It has no big commercial fleet.

If ve look at the questions raised here, all the arguments by Professor Vitzthum turn around the question of the tolls in the Copenhagen Treaty. I think that was a bit erroneous, because there never were tolls for warships. It might not be true to say that they were not, mentioned because of that; perhaps they vere not mentioned because in the unlikelihood of a sea war between insiders and outsiders of the Baltic Sea, there was no need to do so.

Where the commercial vessels are concerned, I have little doubt whether, in this phase of public international lav, one can distinguish international commercial law from the lav of the sea. If we have wording such as "no vessel" and not any detention of hindrance," I think that. is a very strong vay of expressing the point; and I would rather think that one should not begin to diminish it. On the other hand, if Professor Vitzthum is right already Professor von quench has raised the

C THE BALTIC STRAITS error problem!, l would suggest o ffhfhand that the error in the Convention would prov~ sivenecessitatis and, «>g~g~ e er with ~ the 3"~~~ practice past hundred years would l dea tot the same d as the application of the treatrea y.

Ambassador Andreasen said thereere was no problem on the extension of territorial sea b ecauseh there w» a treaty between Denmark and Swedenwe en. ThatTh might be true for the moment. On the otherer h and, , however, h bilateral treaty, and this means that the two parties can, if they think it right, withdraw their treaty. Wrther, Professor Vitzthum raised the t'o of who ha to prove the rights in question, th coastal State or the user. That is all straits where older rights and privile claimed. Z think there is a little changein th Draft Convention, an important changeperhaps. Nowthere is a t.reaty on the one handand sovereignty on the other. Theuser has to prove his rights. But if he provesthe existenceof the treaty, that shouldbe enough.The coastal State hasto provet,hat the treaty is not applicable. As the Draft Conventionis formulated,a tri- bunalmay ask the userto proveeverything, because it is up to himto provethe existence of his long- standing privilege. NOLFGANGMUENCH: X would like to returnto the contributionsupporthis andof ProfessorAmbassador Jaenicke,And.reasen's andopinion I wanttocon- BalticcerningStraits. the application I thinkofthat ICNT if Articleyou exclude 35 cjtheto Bal-the ticasfar Straits asthe from phrase the application"in part" is of concerned, this provision, towhich otherstraits in theworld will thisprovision then apply?sionscannot I do benot interpreted see any other in case.such aLegal way thatprovi- there is nopractical case to applythem to.

817 2'HE BA L2'I C STRA j2'S

IB ANDREASEN: The remarks we have heard will give rise to another couple of hours' discussion, but shall try to limit my remarks. Professor Kewen>g stated that in his mind there were two ma jor ques tions in relation to the Danish straits. The f irst of these is whether Article 35 c! regulates the pas sage through these special straits. The way I derstand the f irst question is that the answer be no," because Article 35 c! does not regulate the regime of passage. It states that some special straits should not be governed by other provisions in the Convention. If a specific strait falls under Article 35 c!, nothing is specif ically said about the regime of passage through that strait. What is said is that, in this specif ic strait, transit passage is not applicable.

NILHELN KFNZNIG: Me agree completely as far as this is concerned.

IB ANDREASEN. The other question concerned the interpretation of Article 35 c! in relation to its applicability to the Danish straits. Professor Vitzthum raised the question whether Art. 35 c!-- even if it was meant to do so--in fact covers the Danish straits Is it not an error? Should it not have been formulated. in another way? In my previous comments I made it clear that I did not think that. reasonable doubt cauld be raised against the applicability of Article 35 c! in relation to the Danish straits.

The reason why the doubt has been put forth today, I think, is the fact that to a great extent the actual rule of passage in straits is analogous with the general rule of international law codified in the 1958 Convention; and you in a way confuse the general international law of passage of straits with the specific regime of the Danish straits. However, this is an error. In my first intervention I pointed to the fact that there was a fundamental difference between innocent passage in general internatio~ al law and innocent, passage in the Danish straits-- namely the legal basis of the regime. Specific dif- ferences can also be pointed out, and it is therefor legally correct to state that the 1857 Convention still in part regulates the passage through the Dan- ish straits'

878 connection with the remarks by Prof essor alczyk, I understood him to say that he could ~rt the viewpoint of Professor Vitzthum. The rgument f or h i s suPPort was based on a re f erence to the Danish Royal Ordinance from 1951, as revised in 1976 githoQt going into specif ics, I just want ta ~e cl«r that the Royal Ordinance of 1976 regulates the access of foreign warships to Danish waters and, in agreement that the 1857 Convention dMs not cover warships, I fail to see how this Q dinance could have any bearing on the application p f the Convent ion

WOJCIZCH GORALCZYK: With respect to the legal stat tus us of the Kiel Canal, I am incl.ined to share the viewpoinwpoint of ProfessorVukas of Zagreb. In approach- this problem I do not think that reference to the regime of international rivers is relevant. Jn response to Professor Nuenchwho posed the question wwhether e e there is a clear case of application o f Article 35 c!, myanswer is that there is sucsuch a f urse and the most evident case is con- case,t't ted o co by the Black Sea Straw.ts, namel they Bos- s x 9 ntion porus an d th e a D rdanelles in the NontreuxConventi of 1936. INGOVON HUNCH. There was just oneremark to my smallcontribution on the Kiel Canal.I wantto t that I said the uni'1 a t eraal denuncia" t ion o f the Versailles TreatyT t in 1936 ille al at I agree with Professor V as o t iolatio n of international law is not r merely because t ere changed in character At the same time, p ss- ht q fthite clear. g we should look at the be g' inning o e Warand examine what eff ects this ha on sailles treaty. the mostdecisive po int is that In my opinion, 1 Canal since 1945 usin the Kieh lding the Versaille have ever raised thehe idea of up t ok n not even the am not mis a escholars in those SocialistStates. Thereate thisare opinisome on andthat is ries who advoc tice. g t this is a quesio Baltic Sea States r but all othershave accepte d h e i io

619 think the illegality of the act in l936 has no f ur ther e f f ects in l 980 .

PHIPHAT TANGSUBKUL: I hope that in the future the international community will make ~re e ffor ts with regard to the regime of straits because, work. on the subject, I myself f ind that there are still many criteria which are not clearly discussed for instance, the delimitation of the entrance o f straits used for international navigation and even, as of our panelists point, out, the size. Of cou se, now have the Draft Convention to determine which territorialized straits as Professor von quench used the term! vill come under the application of the ICgT.

MOLFGANGGRAF VITZTHUN: Three remarks. First, Professor Goralczyk said I was not in favor of peace in the seas. I just, want to say that having worked for many years with the Pacem in Maribus conferences whose primary aim is to keep maritime peace, I think that if we stick to the records, we would be safe in saying that this qual if ication is a precar ious one indeed. On a more serious note, I cannot support most. of the "zone of peace" concepts for the Baltic area, simply because I do not know what they mean. We are all ultimately for peace in the seas, but it seems that we disagree as to what constitutes pax in maribus and what steps are necessary and appropriate to achieve it. But this is in fact the general problem of current law of the sea negotiations: We reached consensus concerning ultimate ends at an early stage, but ve still must. reach final accord on the substaree of manyof these ends and on the procedural meansfor obtaining them. Second, the central thesis of my paper concerning lex lata and le@ ferenda of the Danish Straits was carters to get. cauugut rn the crossfire. In reference to the comments of Professor Vukas of Yugo- slavia, I was referring strictly to the straits in the western part of the Baltic and not to those in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, in regard to my remarks on the Finnish Gulf, I considered this part of the Baltic only in geo-functional, and not in legal terms. In general, however, I think it emergedf rom the discussion of my centr al thesis that there are aalu, o~r iZV arhAiZD' indeed points of disagreement, or at least of uncer- tainty, as to the exact. meaningof the straits provisions in the Draft Convention, on the Law of the Sea.

should also stress here that my remarks and pbser'vations are only the preliminary ones of a new- comer to the very special legal field of straits passage . However, in dea1ing with these highly crit- ical matters, we must be careful to avoid the danger o f legal over-specialization by vigilantly holding in »nd the prescriptions of general international law their implications for specific legal issues such as the ones before us.

Let me mention here Articles 31 and 32 of the gienna Convention on Treaties. In stating my case, I would like to say that regarding the straits issue, ~4' ' b h key e].ementsof the general international legal frame- work- will perhaps be more important in the 1990s eaa 35 o! of ttteLaw of the SeaDraft Convention. With- out trying to go into detail, let mecite just one le of how difficult it is to decide exactly whichexamp erules o of interpretation applyto anyspeci 'f'c ic pro bl ems o f international law. AmbassadorAndreasen d ith my analysis that the 1857Dues Treaty a did agree wi1 to mywarships. Xn justifying his interpreta- t' n he relied heavily uponthe Preambe an p rpo of>on this venerableTreaty. However,iin ' disa g reeing hat the 1857Treaty also did not create witha passage my pointregime t at for emerchantships, e ase

able style of interpretationt.' mamay h ave v been e only the p o ct of an extremelyabrid ' q ed debate. Bu s ex erienced, this prac ice d or even discrimina ory tio oflead the to rules a confused of interpretation'on o of gene eneral international law. a it ' on,Professor sor Vukas of Yugoslavia ' e-re- hxe f U.S. negotiator or e B 1 re several old conventions or which are said by straits expertsh Sea o Draft Convention. Lawof te 'a Article 35 c! of and the Ambassador Andreasen, re inter ali Professor Noore a d ff rent convention surprisingly enoughu h refer to i e

822 this respect. Apparently even straits insiders close to the creation of Artie le 35 c!, have not reached complete--and documented--agreement on the full meaning of Article 35 c!. Furthermore, Professor Noore stated that through lengthy negotiations with the States concerned, care was given to the wording of Article 35 c! recollection was affirmed by Professor Bernard p~ an expert of no lesser repute, who stated, "profg~ sor Noore's analysis is consistent with the author's recollections and previous articles." But all of these personal observations and private r recollections certainly do not constitute travaux re aratoires and are hardly convincing starting points or t e interpretation of the Draft Convention.

Thus, it is of utmost importance to pay attention to the general rules of interpretation in inter national law; any new positio~ must be backed by ap Pl bl ~A. y d g A ' ] 35 c!, I am still waiting to see real travaux pr$- uv vw Ny third and final remark: We have just learned from professor von quench that new villains to navigational freedom have recently appeared on the hori- zon: trade unions, for instance, and perhaps even shipowners. Of course, to most of you, I am the vil- lain because I did not have my paper ready to dis- tribute to you. This is due to technical reasons only, I assure you. I am afraid I have to refer you to the conference records. But perhaps we have learned that there are additional. villains to the freedom of navigation, namely young law professors like myself who are not straits experts.

NILHEU4 KEWKNIG: This brings us to the end of not only the Baltic session but also the working part of the conference as a whole. Zf we have learned something from today's session, it is that things are even more complicated than most of us had thought> and that the problems really come out best when you are taking up a very specific area or a very specific problem. This is the reason whywe chose the Baltic Sea, not because it is just around the corner. I think this very interesting discussion has donewhat we expected it to do. CLOSING RENRKS VOTE OF THANKS

Richard Young Presiding Officer, Executive Board Law of the Sea Institute

This is not a summing up and I shall not pain you long. But as we draw to the close of our working sessions, it seems an appropriate time to acknowledge all the work that has gone into making this conference successful, as I hope it is, and all the effort that so many people have devoted to this purpose.

would like, first on behalf of all of us, pay a special tribute to our cosponsor of the conference, the Institute for International Law of the Uni- versity of Kiel, and in particular to Dr. Kewenig who has borne up so nobly under the overall responsibil- ity for hosting this conference, and also to our friend, Dr. Rainer Lagoni, who we now know is not only a hotel manager of competence but also a scholar of distinction. In addition, there are the ladies in the conference office who have been so helpful to us, particu- larly Mrs. Schultz, Hiss Buchholtz, Mrs. Arlt, and Miss Tobinski. And in addition to these, there is that group which I understand is called the Hiwis; I am told that this means "the helpful ones," and they certainly have been that.. We sincerely thank them, too .

As for the Law of the Sea Institute, since my own part in organizing the conference has been very sraall, I have no embarrassment in paying tribut.e first to Dr. John Craven, our director, whose innovative ideas you have heard this week; to Dr. Scott Allen, the associate director; and to Mrs. Lydia Mesrobian, the administrative assistant, all of whom have contributed. so much on our side.

We are honored to have had the patronage of Dr- Gerhard Stoltenberg, the prime Hinister of the State of Schleswig-Holstein, and to have had the pleasure of the company of the Deputy Prime Ninister, Dr. Henning Schwarz. We are grateful too to the entire University of Kiel and to its president, Dr . Gerd Griesser. It was a great, reassurance to me person- ally to learn that Dr. Griesser is a doctor of

824 <. au>ca l' AJ.MARES

~dicine in case the conference got out of hand; but Z am glad that no occasion arose to call on him in that capacity.

The hospitality pf the City of Xiel you have lready enjoyed, and tonight we will have the pleasure of the hospitality of the City of Luebeck. Me are grateful for both of these.

The conference would not have been possible without the generous support of our sponsors the government agencies, the corporations, the individ- uals whose names you will find at the beginning of the proceedings. Certainly their support has meant a great deal to us.

There are many others who have also contributed. We thank all of them most warmly and most sincerely. ~on@ them in particular, I would certainly want to single out our good friend and colleague, Dr. Renate platzoeder, wko contributed so much to the planning of this conference.

For all the people and all the groups that I have mentioned, we are very grateful for many kind- nesses, for courtesies, for support, for help, and for stimulating discussion. We thank them ail'

625 CLOSING

John P. Craven Director Law of the Sea Institute

First let me take the opportunity to remember also the excellent work of Dr. Choon-ho Park as the co-chairman af this conference, as well as everyone else.

As we started this conference with a poem by Goethe, it was called to my attention that it might be appropriate to f inish similarly. Professor Jaenicke used the pcs in the epilog of his disser- tation which he wrote under the guidance of the late professor Richard Baxter of Harvard, who would have been here were it. not for his untimely passing away.

This epilogue is a section from Goethe's Faust. It is a statement by Mephistopheles, a description of the behavior of man on a free ocea~, an ocean that is so free that there is no law. It is a fit- ting close to this conference, it seems to me, ta listen to this fundamental behavior of man at sea and recognize that, by bringing to the world a rule of law, we may slightly modify it.

Das freie Meer befreit den Geist, wer weiss da, was Besinnen heisstt Da fordert nur ein rascher Griff. man fangt den Fiech, man Fangt ein Schiff, und ist man erst der Herr zu drei, dann hakelt man das vierte bei; da geht es denn dern funften schlecht, man hat Gewalt, so hat. man Recht. Nan fragt ups Was und nicht ums Hie. Ich musste keine Schiffahrt kennen: Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, dreieinig sind sie, nicht zu trennen.

628 PARTICIPANTS LIST PAP.TIC IBAD'ZS LIST

paul Adam James N, Barnes OBCD Center for Law and Social parzs, France Policy Washington, DC. U.S.A. Lewis N. Alexander U.S. Department of State Jeffrey B. Barton Washington, DC, U.S.A. San Diega Law Review La Jolla, CA, U.S.A. Gunnar Alexanderson Stockholm School Erwin Beckert of Economics Fuhrungsakademie der Stockholm, Sweden Bundeswehr Hamburg, F.R. Germany Scott Allen Law of the Sea Institute John Bernhard Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. Ministry of Foreign Af fairs R. P . Anand Copenhagen, Denmark East-West Center Honolulu, HZ, U.S.A. Rudolf Bernhardt Max-Planck Institute for David I,. Anderson Comparative Public Law Rgnig, Homann, Homann, and International Law Kors4 Jensen a Steen Heidelberq, F.R. Germany Hansen Copenhagen, Denmark J.E. Blankhart Royal Netherlands Naval Lee G. Anderson College University of Delaware Den Helder, Netherlands Newark, DZ, U.S.A. Erich Blissenbach Ib Andreasen, Ib Preussag AG Ministry of Foreign Hannover, F.R. Germany Affairs Copenhagen, Denmark Andre Bluteau Department of Justice Steinar Andresen Ottawa, Canada Pridtjof Nansen Foundation Lysaker, Norway Boleslaw A. Boczek Kent State University Alan Archer Rent, OH, U.S.A. University of Aberdeen Aberdeen, United. Kingdom Gerhard Breuer Federal Ministry of Jonathan Bar-Gur Transportation University of Wales, Hamburg, F.R. Germany Cardiff, United Kingdom PARTICIPANTS LI'ST

John Briscoe Jerome D. Davis Washburn, Kemp & Wagenseil Aarhus University San Francisco, CA, U.S.A Aarhus, Denmark

Wol f gang E . Burhenne Jost W.E. Delbriick International Union for Institute for Conservation of Nature International Law and Natural Resources; Kiel, F.R. Germany International Council of Environmental Law Detlev Christian Dicke Bonn, F.R. Germany University of Fribourg Bosingen, Switzerland Raul Duarte Cabarao portugal Rudolf Dolzer Max-Planck Institute for Daniel S. Cheever Comparat.ive Public Law Ocean Development and and International Law International Law Heidelberg, F.R. Germany University of Pittsburgh pittsburgh, PA. U,S.A. Andrew C. Durham The Pentagon Gerald S. Clay Washington, DC, .S.A. Hawaii Ocean Law Association. Daniel J. Dzurek Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. University of Chicago Chicago, IL, U.S.A. Thomas A Clingan, Jr . University of Miami Ross D. Eckert Coral Gables, FL, U.S.A. Claremont Men's College Claremont, CA, U,S.A. R.C.A. Coenen North Sea Working Group John Rdmondson Amsterdam, Netherlands IPC Science and Technology Press Celestino Rocha da Costa Guildford, United Kingdom Minister of Justice Sao Tome, Rep. Popular de Antonius Eitel Sao Tomb e Principe Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bonn, F.R. Germany John P. Craven Law of the Sea Institute Klaus Michael Erben European Parliament Honolulu, H!, U.S.A. Frankfurt a. Main Domenico Da Empoli F.R. Germany University of Yaples Naples, Italy

629 PARTICIPANTS I.I ST

Wilfried Fiedler Mo jc iech Goralc zyk Institute for University of Warsaw International Law Warsaw, Poland Kiel, F.R. Germany Thomas A. Grigalunas Tilemann Fischer University of Rhode Island Lawyer Kingston, RI, U.S.A. Hamburg, F.R. Germany Je spe r Gro l an Carl-August. F leischhauer Univer s ity of Aarhus Ministry of Foreign Af f airs Aarhus, Denmark Bonn, F . R ~ Germany T.P. Groustra-De Kat Stefan Forch Minister of Science Policy Berlin, F.R. Germany The Hague, Netherlands

Leslie Foster Lothar Gundling Dalhousie University Max-Planck Institute for Halifax, Nova Scotia Comparative Public Law and International Law Canada Heidelberg, F.R. Germany Gunter Freer icks Ministry o f Def ense Gerhazd Hafner Bonn, F.R. Germany Vienna University Vienna, Austria Jochen A. Frowein University of Bielefeld Robert Hage Bielefeld, P.R. Germany Department of External Af fairs Paul M. Fye Ottava, Canada Moods Hole Oceanographic Institution Michael Hardy Woods Hole, NA, U.S.AD Commission of the European Communities John King Gamble, Jr. Brussels, Belgium Pennsylvania State University Wo1 f gang Harms Erie, PA, U.S.A University of Muenster Muenster, F.R. Germany Norton Ginsburg University of Chicago Vol kmar J . 8ar t j e Chicago, XL, U. S.A. Science Center Berlin Ber 1 in, F . R. Germany Edgar Gold Dalhousie University Tore Haug Hali f ax, Nova Scotia University of Troms4 Canada Tromsg, Norway PARTICIPANTS I IST

'Wol f gang Hauser Uwe Jenisch Institute for Foreign and Ministry of Economics International Trade Law State of Schleswig- Frankfurt a. Main Holstein F . R. Germany Kiel, F.R. Germany

G. 7. F . Van Hegelsom Douglas M. Johnston Rpyal Netherlands Dalhousie University Naval College Halifax, Nova Scotia. Den Helder, Netherlands Canada

Gunther Hepper Hans G. Kausch Ingenieruhochschule f . Institute for Seefahrt Warnemundej International Law Riel, F.R. Germany Wustro GermanDemocratic Republic Rent M. Keith Department of Planning Wichard von Heyden and Economic Development Industrie und Handelskamtwr Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. Kie l, F .R. Germany David. Kennedy Institute for Sandra S. Hodge International Law University of Virginia Kiel, P.R. Germany Law School Charlottesville, VA, U.S.A. Wilhelm A. Kewenig Institute for Ann Z. Hollick U.S. Departmentof State International Law Washington, DC, U.S.A. Kiel, F.R. Germany Jutta Koehn Edward Hume Federal Ministry for Petro-Canada Researchand Technology Calgary,Alberta, CanadaBonn, F.R. Germany

Poul Hvilsted Albert W. Koers Aarhus, Denmark University of Utrecht Utrecht, Netherlands Ginny Ingebretsen Elverumlaererhbyskole Hans R. Kramer Elverum, Norway Institute for World Economics Cuenther Jaenicke Riel, F.R. Germany Fr ankfurt University Frankfurt a. Mai'n Elias Krispis F.R. Germany University of Athens Athens, Greece

631 Robert B Krueger Costa Ricky Mahalu Nossaman, Krueger k March University of Hamburg Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A. Hamburg, F.R. Germany

philip Kunig Mario C. Nanansala University of Hamburg Coast S Geodetic Survey Hamburg, F. R. Germany Manila, The Philippines

Tadao Kuribayashi Gerard J. Nangone Keio University University of Delaware Tokyo, Japan Newark, DE, U.S.A.

Rainer Lagoni James Barney Marsh Institute for University of Hawaii International Law Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. Kie l, F. R. Germany Jochen Martin B irg it La i tenber ger Rossbach 6, Kirchner University of Bonn Frankfurt a. Main Bonn, F.R. Germany F.R. Germany

Roy S. Lee Pietro Merlo Ocean Economics and Hamburg, F.R. Germany Techno logy United Nations Lydia Nesrobian New York, NY, U S. A. Law of the Sea Institute Honolulu, HI, U. S. A Detlev Lehning DENINEX, Deutsche Michael Meyer Erd5lversorgungs- Institute for qesellschaft International Law Essen, F.R. Germany Kiel, F.R. Germany

Norman Letalik Ursula Mikliss Dalhousie University University of Bochum Halifax, Nova Scotia Bochum, F.R. Germany Canada Edward Miles Rainer Xucas University of Washington Federal Ministry of Seattle, WA, U.S.A. Economics Bonn, F.R. Germany Chzyuku Nxzukamx Kanazawa University Siegfried Nagiera Kanazawa, Japan Institute for International Law Nanfred Nuckulis Kiel, F R. Germany Bilfinger & Berger Bau AG Hamburg, F.R. Germany PAÃ'I'1 Cl >AWED LC Sl

Fritz Muencb Jochen Pfeifer Nax-Planck Institute for Velbert, F.R. Germany Comparative Public Law and International Law Frida M. Pfirter de Armas Heidelberg, F.R. Germany Rosario, Argentina

Zngo Von Muench Carlos Alberto Mota Pinto University of Hamburg University of Coimbra Hamburg, F.R. Germany Portugal

Wol f gang Muench Renate Platzoeder Schr ieshe im Research Institute of F.R. Germany International Affairs Muenchen-Ebenhausen Brigitte Namgalies F.R. Germany Institute for International Law Alexandra Post Kiel, F.R. Germany University of the Federal Armed Forces Satya Nandan Neubiberg, F.R. Germany Ministry of ForeignAf fairs Jurgen Pratie Fiji Industrie und Handelskaamer zu Luebeck L.D.M. Nelson United Nations, NY,U.S.A. Luebeck, F .R. Germany Wilfried Prewo Horio Okatsu Institute for World East-West Center Economics Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. Kiel, F.R. Germany Peter $rebech Norbert J. Prill University of Tromsg University of Bonn Troms4, Norway Bonn, F.R. Germany

Choon-ho Park Wolf Ramin East-West Center R.F.A. Marine Honolulu, HX, U.S.A. Kiel, F.R. Germany

Carlos Parra Elmar Rauch Rotterdam,Netherlands Ministry of Defense Bonn, F.R. Germany Ann Marie Peeters Ghent University Jack Regentin Ghent, Belg ium Departmentof State Washington, DC,C U.S.A. Paul Peters ll InternationalPe ro- Marilyn Regentin leumMaatschappij Washington, DC,DC U. S,A. The Hague,Nethe therlands

633 PAi7 I CEPASTS 2 I ST

Bodo Richter Marco Ruxvo Fachhochschule Flensburg Intergovernmental Flensburg, F.R. Germany Oceano graph ic Commi ss ion UNESCO Kibe H. Riedel Paris, France Institute for International Law Vitoria dos Santos Costa Kiel, F.R. Germany Univ Federal do Rio Grande do Norte Horst Risse Natal, Brazil University of Bonn Bonn, F.R. Germany Manohar Lal Sarin Kleve, F .R. Germany Wilhelm Roehl Freie un@ Hansestadt Ulrich Scheuner Hamburg University of Bonn Hamburg, F.R. Germany Bonn, F.R. Germany

Ondolf Rojahn A.R.HE Schneider University of Hamburg International Council of F.R. Germany Environmental Law Bonn, F.R. Germany Hans Ulrich Roll Deutsches Komitee fur Klaus Schroeder Neeresforschung und University of Bonn Meerestechnik e.V. Bonn, F.R. Germany Hamburg, F.R. Germany Hans-Joachim Schutz Shabtai Rosenne Institute for Permanent Nission of International Law Israel to the United Kiel, F.R. Germany Nations United Nations, NY, U. S.A. Tullio Scovazzi Nilano, Italy David A. Ross Woods Hole Oceanographic Viktor Sebek Institution Advisory Committee on Oil Woods Hole, NA, U.S.A. pollution of the Sea London, United Kingdom Edna Larsson Rossiter World Federation of United Niels Seeberg-Klverfeldt Nations Associations University of Virginia Bellaire, TX, U.S.A Law School Charlottesville, VA, U.S.A. Holger Rotkirch Ministry of Foreign Af fairs Peter Seide1 Helsinki, Finland Federal Ministry of Transport Hamburg, F.R. Germany PARTICIPANTS LIST

R. C . Sharma Andre Thomashausen School of International Institute for Studies International Law New Delhi, India Kiel, F.R. Germany Robert W. Smith Raimundo Palhares Trauma U. S. Department of State Lisbon, Portugal Washington, DC, U.S.A. William T. Trainor, Jr. Eduard Somers U.S. Department of State Ghent University Washington, DC, U.S.A. Ghent, Belgium Tullio Treves A.H.A, Soons State University of Milano Ministry of Transport Milano, Italy The Hague, Netherlands Dirk G. Troost Jurgen Stadie UNESCO Bundeswehrverwaltungs- Division of Marine Science schule IV Paris, France Unterammergau F.R. Germany Geir Ulfstein University of Tromsg CarI dinar Stalvant Troms4, Norway University of Stockholm Stockholm, Sweden Hans-Joachim Unbehau Zetel Alphons Studier F.R. Germany Institute fur Allgemeine Uberseeforschung Arild Underdal Hamburg, F.R. Germany University of Oslo Oslo, Norway W i1 1iam L. Sul 1 ivan National Oceanic and Walfgang Graf Vitzthum Atmospheric Admin- University of the Federal Armed Forces istration Washington, DC, U.S.A. Munich, Neubiberg F.R. Germany

Frank B. Swayze Budislaw Vukas Pentagon University of Zagreb Washington, DC, U.S.A. Zagreb, Yugoslavia Taro K. Takeuchi Edgar B. Washburn INTSEL Corporation Washburn,Kemp k Wagenseil Tokyo, Japan San Francisco, CA, U.S.A,

Phiphat Tanqsubkul Hermann Weber RamkhanhaengUniversity University of Hamburg Bangkok, Thailand Hamburg, F.R. Germany

6'3 5 Stephan Freiherr Von Kelck Embassyof the Federal Republic of Germany washington, DC, U.S.A.

Christian L, Xxktor Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada Hans Jurgen Mildberq University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, United Kingdom

KIaus Dieter adolf University of TQbingen Ti1hingen, F.R. Germany

Rudiqer Nolfrum University of Bonn Bonn, F.R. Germany

Jan Willisch New College Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom

Herbert Wuensche German Democratic Republ ic Branch of the Internat iona l Law As soc i a t ion Potsdam, German Democra t ic Republic

Richard Young Executive Board Lax of the Sea Institute Van Hornesville, NY, U S.A.

Paul C. Yuan Institute of Legal Studies Be i j ing, Ch ina

Chr istiane Zitscher Altenholz-Klausdorf F.R. Germany