B -16 



Is it the U.S. position that a treaty ought to be the end 

 product? 



And 



if not, how would the United States, or states which 

 may favor some other form, envisage putting an effective manage- 

 ment regime, particularly one with some enforcement measures, 

 into effect? 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: It is the United States' position that 

 a treaty should be the end outcome of this process. As a matter 

 of fact, our preference was that the Antarctic Treaty powers 

 provide, as the next step, for the calling of a conference to 

 write such a treaty. 



The result was instead what you see — which is a special 

 meeting of the Consultative Parties to do a draft, and then 

 to decide on the further step. 



There was almost complete unanimity on the necessity for 

 a conference which would result in a convention or treaty. 

 Those were not the precise words used. The recommendation 

 speaks of a "definitive regime" and uses circumlocutions, but 

 the understanding of all of us was that that would be the 

 outcome and it is our hope and expectation that when we meet 

 in Canberra there will be unanimity on that, in proceeding 

 directly to that. 



MR. HARGROVE: Could I add one point to that? 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: Surely. 



MR. HARGROVE: I think that it is also a logical conse- 

 quence of our position that a conservation regime should ap- 

 ply to the full range of species covered — that a treaty would 

 be required as the instrument in which to frame that conser- 

 vation regime — because, that means going more than 60 degrees 

 South Latitude. 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: That is to say, if the alternative to 

 a treaty would be an agreed measure — 



MR. SCULLY: From a practical point of view, I don't know 

 that any other alternatives have been put forward, other than 

 something like agreed measures done specifically pursuant to 

 the Antarctic Treaty and specifically limited to the Antarctic 

 Treaty area. 



