Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, following its seventh sess., Mar. 28-May 19, 1978 (ante, this Ch., pp. 937–940).

In a review of the seventh session of the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (March 28-May 19, 1978) before the Subcommittee on Arms Control, Oceans and International Environment of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on June 16, 1978, Ambassador Richardson responded to a question from Senator Charles H. Percy about the impact which enactment of proposed United States seabed mining legislation would have upon the negotiations, as follows:

Many participants in the conference warn that unilateral action by the United States would have a devastating effect, that it would trigger other unilateral claims and that it would precipitate denunciation of any attempt by the United States unilaterally to defy a position that is generally supported by other countries, that the concept of the common heritage of mankind is incompatible with unilateral exploitation under a claim of traditional high seas law. We have been, and are, in the process of seeking to respond to that kind of concern. I believe that it is essential that members of the Conference understand that seabed mining cannot be held up by a simple failure to agree at the Conference; that this would be in the long term contrary to the interest of the international community itself, insofar as it prevented or forced delay in the development of the very technology needed to make the common heritage an economic reality.

Subsequently, in a statement to the press on August 21, 1978, prior to commencement of the resumed seventh session of the Conference (August 21-September 15, 1978), Ambassador Richardson noted that, while a successful Conference would yield numerous and impressive "other benefits," these would not suffice for United States acceptance of a seabed mining regime which did not meet certain criteria in assuring access to seabed minerals:

For the United States, these interests include assured access to seabed minerals. As a compromise, we shall continue to try to create a parallel system of mining which attracts investment, is economically viable over the long term, and accommodates the just claims of the developing world. This system should insure access and tenure by all qualified miners, set realistic production controls and financial arrangements, provide for transfer of technology under fair commercial terms and conditions, and be administered by an international body which makes decisions on a basis that recognizes the important interests at stake in investment, production, and consumption.

Press Release USUN-76(78), Aug. 21, 1978; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 2021, Dec. 1978, p. 42.

On the closing day of the resumed seventh session, September 15, in response to a statement by the Chairman of the Group of 77,

Ambassador Satya N. Nandan, rejecting unilateral exploitation of the seabeds as being incompatible with the "accepted" principle that the seabeds and their resources were the "common heritage of mankind," Ambassador Richardson replied, in part:

I want to emphasize that there is no government represented here that is more dedicated than the United States to the conclusion of a broadly acceptable comprehensive law of the sea treaty at the earliest possible date. But from the outset of these negotiations, it has also been our consistent position that exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed beyond areas of national jurisdiction are freedoms of the high seas enjoyed by all nations.

Legal restraints may be imposed on national action beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of any state only by their inclusion in rules of international law. With respect to seabed mining we are unaware of any such restraints other than those that apply generally to the high seas and the exercise of high seas freedoms, including the prohibition on sovereignty claims, the exclusive jurisdiction of states over their ships and nationals, and the duty to have reasonable regard for other high seas users. States will become subject to additional restraints when they adhere to a treaty that establishes an international authority to manage and oversee seabed mining. They will then have voluntarily accepted the alteration of those freedoms in the broader interest of creating a stable legal regime for the use and management of the world's oceans and their resources. But we cannot accept the suggestion that other states, without our consent, could deny or alter our rights under international law by resolutions, statements, and the like.

Dept. of State File No. P80 0012-1442.

For the remaining portion of Ambassador Richardson's statement, see, further, this Digest, pp. 160-162; summarized, Provisional Summary Record of the 109th Plenary Meeting of the 3d U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/SR 109, pp. 9-12.

On March 16, 1978, the United States Senate, by a vote of sixtyeight in favor to thirty-two opposed, adopted a resolution of advice and consent to the ratification of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, together with Annexes A and B thereto and the Protocol relating thereto, done at Washington on September 7, 1977. The resolution was subject to amendments to incorporate a joint statement of interpretation issued by the two Governments into two treaty articles (IV and VI), two

conditions, one of which specifically related to article V, four reservations, one of which specifically related to article III, and five understandings, two of which specifically related to articles III and IV of the treaty.

On April 18, 1978, the Senate, by the same vote, adopted a resolution of advice and consent to the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, together with the Annex and Agreed Minute relating thereto, done at Washington on September 7, 1977, subject to six reservations, one of which specifically related to the Neutrality Treaty as well as to the Panama Canal Treaty, and six understandings.

The texts of the respective treaties, each followed by the operative portion of the Senate resolution of ratification, follow:

TREATY CONCERNING THE PERMANENT NEUTRALITY AND OPERATION OF THE PANAMA CANAL

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama have agreed upon the following: ARTICLE I

The Republic of Panama declares that the Canal, as an international transit waterway, shall be permanently neutral in accordance with the regime established in this Treaty. The same regime of neutrality shall apply to any other international waterway that may be built either partially or wholly in the territory of the Republic of Panama.

ARTICLE II

The Republic of Panama declares the neutrality of the Canal in order that both in time of peace and in time of war it shall remain secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality, so that there will be no discrimination against any nation, or its citizens or subjects, concerning the conditions or charges of transit, or for any other reason, and so that the Canal, and therefore the Isthmus of Panama, shall not be the target of reprisals in any armed conflict between other nations of the world. The foregoing shall be subject to the following requirements:

(a) Payment of tolls and other charges for transit and ancillary services, provided they have been fixed in conformity with the provisions of Article III (c);

(b) Compliance with applicable rules and regulations, provided such rules and regulations are applied in conformity with the provisions of Article III;

(c) The requirement that transiting vessels commit no acts of hostility while in the Canal; and

(d) Such other conditions and restrictions as are established by this Treaty.

ARTICLE III

1. For purposes of the security, efficiency and proper maintenance of the Canal the following rules shall apply:

(a) The Canal shall be operated efficiently in accordance with conditions of transit through the Canal, and rules and regulations that shall be just, equitable and reasonable, and limited to those necessary for safe navigation and efficient, sanitary operation of the Canal;

(b) Ancillary services necessary for transit through the Canal shall be provided;

(c) Tolls and other charges for transit and ancillary services shall be just, reasonable, equitable and consistent with the principles of international law;

(d) As a pre-condition of transit, vessels may be required to establish clearly the financial responsibility and guarantees for payment of reasonable and adequate indemnification, consistent with international practice and standards, for damages resulting from acts or omissions of such vessels when passing through the Canal. In the case of vessels owned or operated by a State or for which it has acknowledged responsibility, a certification by that State that it shall observe its obligations under international law to pay for damages resulting from the act or omission of such vessels when passing through the Canal shall be deemed sufficient to establish such financial responsibility;

(e) Vessels of war and auxiliary vessels of all nations shall at all times be entitled to transit the Canal, irrespective of their internal operation, means of propulsion, origin, destination or armament, without being subjected, as a condition of transit, to inspection, search or surveillance. However, such vessels may be required to certify that they have complied with all applicable health, sanitation and quarantine regulations. In addition, such vessels shall be entitled to refuse to disclose their internal operation, origin, armament, cargo or destination. However, auxiliary vessels may be required to present written assurances, certified by an official at a high level of the government of the State requesting the exemption, that they are owned or operated by that government and in this case are being used only on government non-commercial service.

2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the terms "Canal," "vessel of war," "auxiliary vessel," "internal operation," armament" and "inspection" shall have the meanings assigned them in Annex A to this Treaty.

ARTICLE IV

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama agree to maintain the regime of neutrality established in this Treaty, which shall be maintained in order that the Canal shall remain permanently neutral, notwithstanding the termination of any other treaties entered into by the two Contracting Parties.

ARTICLE V

After the termination of the Panama Canal Treaty, only the Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal and maintain military forces, defense sites and military installations within its national territory.

ARTICLE VI

1. In recognition of the important contributions of the United States of America and of the Republic of Panama to the construction, operation, maintenance, and protection and defense of the Canal, vessels of war and auxiliary vessels of those nations shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Treaty, be entitled to transit the Canal irrespective of their internal operation, means of propulsion, origin, destination, armament or cargo carried. Such vessels of war and auxiliary vessels will be entitled to transit the Canal expeditiously.

2. The United States of America, so long as it has responsibility for the operation of the Canal, may continue to provide the Republic of Colombia toll-free transit through the Canal for its troops, vessels and materials of war. Thereafter, the Republic of Panama may provide the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica with the right of toll-free transit.

ARTICLE VII

1. The United States of America and the Republic of Panama shall jointly sponsor a resolution in the Organization of American States opening to accession by all nations of the world the Protocol to this Treaty whereby all the signatories will adhere to the objectives of this Treaty, agreeing to respect the regime of neutrality set forth herein.

2. The Organization of American States shall act as the depositary for this Treaty and related instruments.

ARTICLE VIII

This Treaty shall be subject to ratification in accordance with the constitutional procedures of the two Parties. The instruments of ratification of this Treaty shall be exchanged at Panama at the same time as the instruments of ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, signed this date, are exchanged. This Treaty shall enter into force, simultaneously with the Panama Canal Treaty, six calendar months from the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification.

ANNEX A

1. "Canal" includes the existing Panama Canal, the entrances thereto and the territorial seas of the Republic of Panama adjacent thereto, as defined on the map annexed hereto (Annex B) [not reproduced in this Digest], and any other interoceanic waterway in which the United States of America is a participant or in which the United States of America has participated in connection with the construction or financing, that may be operated wholly or partially within the territory of the Republic of Panama, the entrances thereto and the territorial seas adjacent thereto.

2. "Vessel of war" means a ship belonging to the naval forces of a State, and bearing the external marks distinguishing warships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned