The Press MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1974 Antarctica and the law of the sea

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33520, 29 April 1974, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1974 Antarctica and the law of the sea

The law of the sea and the prospecting for minerals i i the Antarctic both raise problems of conservation which concern New Zealand, so it is fitting that this country should be represented at forthcoming c inferences on these subjects. The United Nations international conference on the law of the sea will meet in Caracas. Venezuela, in the middle of this year. Early next year the 12 Antarctic Treaty nations at their meeting in Oslo. Norway, will consider the effects of prospecting for minerals in Antarctica. The last occasions on which the international community took positive action about the Antarctic and the law of the sea were both in the late 19505. Four conventions on the law of the sea were signed in Geneva in April, 1958; the Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington in December. 1959. Since then changes in attitudes, in engineering, and in the demand for food and raw materials have made the agreements inadequate. The problems to be dealt with at Caracas are the more pressing and more intractable. The nations there will probably agree to extend the territorial limit to 12 miles, subject to the right of passage through about 100 straits that are between six and 24 miles wide. But fierce wrangling can be expected over whether countries should have jurisdiction over the sea and the seabed beyond that limit and, if it is granted, what the nature of such jurisdiction should be Proposals have been made to grant States at least economic control up to 200 miles out. Lively argument may also be expected about the nature of the organisation which will be established to control the exnloitation of the seas and seabeds beyond the outer limits of all national jurisdiction. The principle that the high seas and the ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction belong to the international communit} has been generally accepted But there is little agreement on how licences to mine the deep seabed should be allocated, how taxes should be levied and the revenues distributed

The problems with which the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty will be dealing are less pressing. Although some minerals are certainly present in commercially useful quantities in Antarctica, the technology to exploit them has not yet been sufficiently developed. The means to obtain these minerals will undoubtedly be at hand before the treaty officially comes up for review in 1991. Pressures for the commercial exploitation of Antarctica’s resources will revive the questions of sovereignty and competing territorial claims which have, bv agreement, been allowed to lie more or less dormant since the signing of the treaty. If the issues concerning the exploitation of the deep seabed are resolved satisfactorily at Caracas, useful precedents may be established for deciding how, by whom, and for whose benefit the resources of Antarctica are to be exploited

New Zealand can be expected to side for the most part with those who are urging a greater degree of international control over the exploitation of the resources of the sea and Antarctica, the use of revenue from their exploitation to lessen the imbalance between rich and poor nations, and the effective enforcement of stringent regulations to protect the environment and prevent pollution. These positions, “morally” sound, are also the sensible positions for New Zealand to support, since New Zealand is a small State, poorly equipped to exploit her Antarctic territory or the sea around this country New Zealand is economically and politically dependent for her security on the maintenance of order and freedom on the seas and in Antarctica. It will be to New Zealand’s advantage to prevent richer and more powerful countries from attempting to purchase their own temporary advantage at the cost of continuing political tension and environmental depredation of the oceans and Antarctica.