B -14 



Then there will be the usual 45-day period which I assume 

 will transpire before what we anticipate to be the conference 

 to draft the final definitive regime, or convention, takes place. 



We use the word "definitive regime" because the term "con- 

 vention" was one which at least one country could not accept in 

 a written document. 



MR. HARGROVE: I am Larry Hargrove, of the American Society 

 of International Law; I had a couple of questions growing out of 

 this discussion: 



One is this: It would seem to me from the very fact that 

 the recommendation includes the Section 2 interim guidelines, 

 which are directed toward continuing exploitation activities. 



And also from the explanation that has been given as to 

 the meaning of a conservation regime — i.e. it is interpreted 

 as envisaging the possibility of exploitation as opposed to 

 no exploitation. 



It would seem to me that from these two factors one could 

 resonably conclude that the political judgement of the partici- 

 pants in the meeting was that a moratorium on exploitation of 

 the presently commercially interesting species was not achiev- 

 able — leaving aside the question of whether it might be de- 

 sirable . 



Is that a correct appraisal? Does the United States have 

 any independent judgement on the desirability of the moratorium, 

 leaving aside the question of its political achievability? 



And if so, what is your expectation as to the position you 

 might take in the coming negotations? 



That is one question. 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: Yes. With respect to your first ques- 

 tion, the idea of a moratorium was not, to my recollection, 

 explicitly discussed. 



Was it in your Working Group? 



MR, SCULLY: Not as such. 



The question of a moratorium, at least a temporary mora- 

 torium on harvesting, is an option that we will be considering 

 and will be considered with the EIS. And therefore, I think 



