297. Memorandum From the Head of the U.S. Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Secretary of State1
At the Conference of Heads of Delegations at 10:00 A.M., October 21, to consider Draft Article II and the Argentine objection thereto, New Zealand proposed the following substitute:
That Article II, as drafted, be eliminated and that the following be substituted as paragraph 1 in Article III:
“Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation towards that end, as initiated and applied during the International Geophysical Year, shall continue and be further encouraged subject to the provisions of the present treaty.”
The Soviet suggested a reformulation as follows:
“Scientific cooperation on the basis of freedom of non-commercial scientific investigation as initiated and applied during the International Geophysical Year, shall continue and be further encouraged subject to the provisions of the present treaty.”
The Argentinian expressed himself as opposed to the Soviet suggestion, but indicated that the New Zealand suggestion merited study and perhaps would prove acceptable. There seemed to be general sentiment that the New Zealand suggestion might very well prove to be a way out.
Committee I met at 11:00 A.M. At the suggestion of the Argentine representative discussion of Article II at this time was postponed.
Opening the discussion of the provision on inspection for purposes of ensuring peaceful use and observance of the treaty’s provisions (Article V of the working paper draft), the UK representative [Page 586] stated that since the reaction to the proposal his Government had put forth during the meetings of the Preparatory Committee to create a Committee of Inspection and Control had been generally unfavorable, the UK was not introducing that proposal. He proposed, however, that the following paragraph be added to Article V of the working paper draft:
“Each High Contracting Party will inform the other Parties of all expeditions and missions to Antarctica, whether scientific or otherwise, both current and intended, on the part of their vessels or nationals, or proceeding from their territories; and shall give details of all arms, aircraft and warships which it is intended to introduce into the region.”
In answer to the Soviet representative’s inquiry regarding the reference to arms in the UK proposal, the UK representative stated this would apply to warships used for peaceful purposes and any arms used for policing purposes.
The U.S. representative observed that application of Article V should not be restricted to parties to the treaty as this proposed addition appeared to suggest. He also suggested that the UK proposal might be more properly considered in connection with the article on administrative measures.
Discussing Article V as a whole, the Soviet representative said his Government considered the working paper draft to be adequate. Representatives of South Africa, Norway, Belgium and Australia also expressed general agreement with the working paper draft. After several points of clarification regarding the UK draft, as well as observers and their functions, were raised, it was agreed to postpone further discussion of Article V until tomorrow.
Committee II met at 3:00 P.M. to resume discussion of Article IV. The South African, Japanese and Belgian representatives expressed opposition to the French proposal to delete paragraph 1(c) and stated their approval of the working paper draft. The Chilean representative said his delegation accepted the working paper draft of Article IV in principle, although he thought some of the wording might be improved. The Argentine representative expressed a similar view.
The French representative, who was alone in his opposition to the inclusion of paragraph 1(c) in Article IV, insisted that this paragraph implied a legal negation of France’s rights in Antarctica and was, therefore, unacceptable to France. Several representatives of both claimant and non-claimant countries, including the Soviet representative, emphasized their belief that the inclusion of paragraph 1(c) was necessary to maintain the delicate balance in the treaty between claimants and non-claimants. The Australian representative, Mr. Casey, appealed to the French representative and through him to the French Government to reconsider the French objection.
[Page 587]After a brief recess it was agreed to defer discussion of this Article for several days.
The Soviet representative opened discussion of the provision pertaining to settlement of disputes arising under the treaty (Article VII working paper draft) by proposing the following amendment:
“In the last sentence of the Article replace the words ‘at the request of any party to the dispute’ with the words ‘with the consent, in each case, of all the parties to the dispute.’”
The Argentine representative supported the Soviet proposal which he said reflected the traditional position of Argentina regarding the submission of disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The Chilean representative also supported the Soviet proposal.
The Australian, French, New Zealand, Japanese, South African, UK, Belgian, and Norwegian representatives expressed their approval of the working paper draft, which would require the submission of disputes to the ICJ at the request of any party to the dispute. The U.S. Representative pointed out that Article VII applied only to the limited subject matter covered by the Treaty and said he hoped that the article would be considered in that light.
At the suggestion of the Soviet representative it was agreed to defer further consideration of Article VII to a later meeting.
The United Kingdom representative submitted the following proposal for an article in the Treaty over jurisdiction of persons and offenses in Antarctica:
- 1.
- Any person in Antarctica shall be subject only to the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the country of which such person is a national.
- 2.
- In order to make this jurisdiction effective, the contracting parties undertake to cooperate with one another and to enter into mutual arrangements in respect of such matters as the arrest and transfer or extradition of persons charged with offenses, and for the service of documents in connection with any civil proceedings.
- 3.
- Pending the making of such other arrangements as the parties may subsequently agree upon, matters involving claims by nationals and organizations of one party arising out of acts or omissions in Antarctica by nationals or organizations of another party shall be determined in such manner as may be agreed upon by the parties concerned.
The Chilean and Argentine delegates stated that this was a very complicated question and requested that discussion be deferred in order to allow time to reflect on the UK proposal. This request was adopted.
For the U.S. Representative:
Secretary
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/10–2159. Confidential. Drafted by Phleger and Fisher.↩