30 



our driftnet action by the U.N., are consistent with that Law of the 

 Sea Convention, but I have got to ask you, do you believe that a 

 country could use one of these dispute settlement procedures of the 

 Law of the Sea to undercut the agreements? 



Our decision that they are consistent would not be binding on 

 any panel or tribunal. Is that not a decision that would have to be 

 made by the tribunal or panel, and they could decide contrary to 

 our interpretation, and in effect destroy our agreements? Do you 

 disagree? 



Ambassador Colson. Well, Senator, I suppose it is always pos- 

 sible for someone to use a court in the United States or an inter- 

 national dispute settlement issue to advance something that is con- 

 trary to what the United States or a particular individual believes. 

 So, hypothetically, certainly arguments could be made by someone 

 to say that the donut agreement or the driftnet agreement is incon- 

 sistent with international law. I certainly do not think that they 

 would prevail in that kind of an argument. 



The dispute settlement provisions in the Law of the Sea Conven- 

 tion in the fisheries area, they are bifurcated. In respect of some- 

 one challenging the fisheries management practice of a country 

 within that country's 200-mile zone, all that can occur is for there 

 to be a compulsory conciliation process. There is not a binding re- 

 sult. I do not believe that there is anything that would happen that 

 would infi-inge upon U.S. domestic authority management author- 

 ity out of the Law of the Sea Convention. 



Senator Stevens. I am not covering the EEZ. I am covering the 

 agreements that we have reached with other nations such as the 

 Central Bering Sea agreement. That agreement covers the high 

 seas. 



Ambassador CoLSON. Yes. 



Senator Stevens. That area is beyond the 200-mile limit of ei- 

 ther Russia or the United States. It is my understanding that, if 

 these tribunals are appointed, the signatory will be able to nomi- 

 nate only 1 or 2 of a 21-member panel. These panels do not have 

 a tradition of deciding in favor of the United States. They have 

 been basically in favor of the high seas fishing nations. 



Now, we have an agreement with Russia. Basically, the Central 

 Bering Sea agreement came about because of pressure from the 

 United States and Russia. It was not really acceptable to some of 

 the high seas fishing nations, but I think they understood our posi- 

 tion. We declared a moratorium before we had the agreement, as 

 a matter of fact. 



I do believe we have got to look at the ability of nations such as 

 ourselves and Russia and the nations of the North Pacific to make 

 an agreement to protect our stocks. 



We have done that in the North Pacific. We have said, we are 

 laying down these rules. We are agreeing, and any nation that 

 taxes us on is going to take on us in a military way. I mean, we 

 really asserted control. We let the Navy and the Coast Guard en- 

 force those agreements. 



Now, why would we enter into a Law of the Sea Convention that 

 would submit our existing agreements to change with only 1 mem- 

 ber, or maybe at the most, 2, of a 21-member panel from the Unit- 

 ed States? 



