science would result through such a mechanism. First, to be meaningful, technology transfer in marine science must be regular and sustained and not as a result of negotiations with the occasional research vessel which seeks permission. As previously pointed out, a consent regime will increase research costs, thereby reducing the amount of research which is conducted and the attendant transfer of marine science technology. Second, neither scientific objectives nor the objectives of developing countries will be served if the cost of research becomes a major factor in determining where research will be conducted. For our part, we believe that transfer of marine science technology can best be accomplished through a multilateral effort, not through ad hoc bargaining for consent to do research.

In a statement before Sub-Committee III of the Seabeds Committee in 1972, we stated our willingness in principle

to commit funds to support multilateral efforts in all appropriate international agencies with a view towards creating and enlarging the ability of developing states to interpret and use scientific data for their economic benefit and other purposes; to augment their expertise in the field of marine science research: and to have available scientific research equipment including the capability to maintain and use it.

In that statement, we emphasized that these funds would be in addition to financial efforts by the international seabed authority. We reemphasize our willingness today to participate in such programs.

Dept. of State Press Release, No. 317, July 26, 1974. For the 1973 U.S. draft articles on scientific research, see the 1973 Digest, Ch. 7, § 10, pp. 295-297. For the U.S. draft articles on the coastal seabed economic area, see Id., § 3, pp. 245248.

Exploration of the Sea Convention

On September 18, 1974, the United States ratified the 1970 Protocol to the Convention for the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The Protocol is to enter into force on the date on which all states parties to the Convention have become parties to the Protocol. The United States acceded to the 1964 Convention (TIAS 7628; 24 UST 1080) on April 18, 1973. (See the 1973 Digest, Ch. 7, § 10, pp. 293-294.)

Pursuant to Article I(2) of the Protocol, a two-thirds majority vote of members of the Council is required to approve its annual budget rather than a simple majority vote. The provisions of the Convention under which the scheme of contributions of contracting parties requires acceptance by all the contracting parties remains unchanged.

See Senate Exec. V, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., Nov. 9, 1973; the Protocol was approved by the U.S. Senate on Sept. 4, 1974.

International Rivers

$ 11

§ 12

International Maritime Law

Navigation

Public Law 93-519 (88 Stat. 1659), approved December 13, 1974, amends 14 U.S.C. 2 to authorize icebreaking operations in foreign waters pursuant to international agreements. As amended by the italicized phrase, 14 U.S.C. 2 now reads as follows:

The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall administer laws. and promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department; shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate, with due regard to the requirements of national defense, aids to maritime navigation, icebreaking facilities, and rescue facilities for the promotion of safety on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall, pursuant to international agreements, develop, establish, maintain, and operate icebreaking facilities on, under, and over waters other than the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall engage in oceanographic research on the high seas and in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and shall maintain a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of

war.

The Senate Report on the legislation stated that its immediate aim was to provide a statutory basis for increased efficiency in clearing ice from the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence Seaway system, portions of which lie within Canadian waters. Coast Guard icebreaking in the Canadian portions of the system will be mutually beneficial to both nations as it will increase the efficiency of the Seaway system by extending winter navigation thereon.

See Senate Rept. No. 93-1084, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Aug. 12, 1974, p. 1.

Liner Conferences

On April 6, 1974, the United Nations Conference on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences adopted a Convention on the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences. The final vote was 72 to 7, with 5 abstentions. The United States voted against adoption. The U.N. Conference was held under the auspices of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The Code is basically a set of rules to govern the conferences, into which are organized the great majority of the world's ocean shipping lines. These lines transport most of the non-bulk cargoes moving in international ocean-borne trade. The rules of the Code cover four principal subjects: relations among conference members, especially as regards admission to conferences and participation in the trade, or cargo-sharing; relations between conferences and shippers, including a requirement for consultations between the two; general freight rate increases and other rate matters; and a conciliation procedure which applies to certain types of disputes arising out of the Code. Of particular significance among these subjects are the rules which (a) permit conferences to restrict membership; (b) establish a mathematical formula for cargo-sharing in conference pools (generally 40 percent of the cargo for each of the national shipping lines at either end of the trade and 20 percent for third-country shipping lines); and (c) require a 15-month interval between general freight rate increases. The Convention would also establish a Registrar, at the United Nations in Geneva, which would perform certain of the administrative functions for the conciliation process. Before the Convention enters into force it must be ratified by at least 24 countries with a combined 25 percent of the world's liner tonnage.

On April 7, 1974, Ronald A. Webb, Director of the Office of Maritime Affairs, Department of State, and head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Conference, submitted a statement explaining U.S. opposition to the Code. The following excerpt from Mr. Webb's statement provides a general U.S. view of the Code:

We wish to recall . . . that the United States has from the beginning sympathized with the idea of an international Code to regulate conference practices. This was a natural sympathy arising out of our own experience in the regulation of liner conferences and our view that regulatory rules or standards are most effective and cause least friction when they are internationally established. In similar vein we have sympathized with the aspirations of the developing countries to protect their trade interests by redressing the balance of rights and obligations as between conferences and shippers in their own trade.

In the light of these hopes and sympathies . . . which were well known to most delegations here, we recognize that our negative vote may have caused some disappointment. . . . Despite some setbacks, we had always expected that in the end the Code would evolve in a form which the United States could accept. We shall explain, however, why we have voted as we did.

First, as to our no vote on the Code as a whole. We considered that, in light of our opposition to some of the major provisions of

the Code, a no vote was more correct and consistent than an abstention. As we have stated previously on many occasions, certain provisions of the Code conflict with fundamental U.S. economic policy views. This involves more than just conflict between potential treaty law and our own domestic regulatory legislation, but rather basic differences in economic philosophies. Regulatory legislation can, after all, be changed, and although difficult we were prepared to seek such changes in order to promote international harmony in shipping regulation. We had hoped, however, that others would not attempt to impose principles on us which, going beyond regulatory rules, were contrary to our own economic philosophy, particularly in relation to the role of competition. Three issues were especially critical. First, we believe that competition among shipping lines benefits trade interests. Second, we consider that cargo-sharing schemes, like most other forms of economic protection, no matter how attractive in the short run, are of long term detriment to those protected. Third, we believe that economic development benefits from commercial negotiation in a way not always foreseeable or capable of planning. For these fundamental reasons, certain sections of the Code are objectionable to us:

A. The membership provisions encourage the continuation of closed conferences. In this regard. . . it is ironic that the closed conference system, which was so bitterly attacked by developing countries throughout most previous UNCTAD shipping meetings, is now sanctioned on an international scale by those same developing countries under the auspices of UNCTAD.

B. The cargo-sharing provisions will cartelize the transportation of trade. Such provisions subordinate trade to transport; they restrict the choice of shippers and may result in delay of shipments and consequent loss of trade.

C. The provisions on freight rates freeze them for unduly long periods, which could strangle the liner industry. Rate rigidity will hurt shippers as much as carriers.

For the full text of Mr. Webb's statement, see Dept. of State File EB/TT/MA. See also Ch. 4, § 5, supra, pp. 189-190. A summary of the U.S. position on the Code is also set out in Dept. of State Press Release, No. 137, Apr. 10, 1974. The full text of the Code may be found at UNCTAD Doc. TD/Code/11/Rev. 1, May 9, 1974.

Load Lines

On April 3, 1974, the Chief Counsel of the U.S. Coast Guard was asked whether the Coast Guard had authority to assign an internationally valid load line to a passenger vessel of less than 79 feet in length. The response, in pertinent part, was as follows:

It is my opinion that an internationally recognized subdivision load line can be assigned under [the 1960 Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea] for all passenger vessels, regardless of size.

SOLAS 1960 requires all passenger vessels (any ship which carries more than 12 passengers, regardless of length) to be assigned a subdivision load line which is to be recorded in the Passenger Ship Safety Certificate. See Chapter II, Regulation 11. It is further provided that in no case shall a subdivision load line be placed above the deepest load line as determined by the Load Line Convention presently in force [the 1966 Load Line Convention]. Thus, all passenger vessels can be assigned a load line which will be recognized by all countries which are parties to SOLAS 1960.

If what is desired by certain passenger vessels less than 79 feet in length is an internationally valid load line certificate issued in accordance with the 1966 Load Line Convention, under the authority of the 1973 Load Line Act, the situation differs. The 1966 Convention is not applicable to any new vessel under 79 feet in length or to any existing vessel less than 150 gross tons. However, section 4 (c) of the Act provides that vessels to which the Convention does not apply may voluntarily obtain load lines, thereby submitting to all of the requirements of the Act. Therefore, under domestic law, vessels to which the Convention does not apply may be assigned load lines and issued load line certificates, but there is no requirement for countries which are parties to the Convention to recognize these certificates for any purpose. Thus, while a passenger vessel less than 79 feet in length may be assigned a load line and issued a load line certificate in the same manner as vessels to which the Convention applies, there is no requirement that these be recognized internationally.

Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard Law Bulletin, No. 408, (n.d.), pp. 9-10. The 1960 Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea is at TIAS 5780; 16 UST 185. It entered into force for the United States May 26, 1965. The 1966 International Convention on Load Lines is at TIAS 6331; 18 UST 1857, and entered into force for the United States July 21, 1968. The International Voyage Load Line Act of 1973 is P.L. 93-115, 87 Stat. 418, approved Oct. 1, 1973. See also the 1973 Digest, Ch. 7, § 12, pp. 297–300. Several other specific questions were raised and are addressed below:

(a) Should a load line assignment to a volunteering vessel be considered valid by other acceding countries? No. No load line assigned under the Load Line Convention to a vessel to which the Convention does not apply need be recognized by other acceding countries.

(b) Can a vessel to which neither the ILLC, 1966 nor SOLAS 1960 Conventions apply be issued an internationally valid load line? No. While other countries may accept a load line assigned to these vessels as a matter of comity, there is no requirement that they do so.

(c) On what grounds, if any, may the Commandant refuse to authorize assignment of a load line to a new vessel less than 79 feet in length? We have authority under the Act to issue regulations setting forth conditions for the assignment of load lines to these vessels. Any reasonable conditions or vessel classifications which we establish will be valid so long as they are related to the established criteria for assigning load lines. It is impossible in the abstract to enumerate further the valid grounds for refusing to assign a load line.