17 



The participation of any state whose vessels fish in a region cov- 

 ered by international agreement can only be construed as being a 

 fundamental obligation of international law. 



Stocks of fish of interest to U.S. vessels, such as flounder and 

 place on the "tail" of the Grand Banks, have been severely deplet- 

 ed in recent years. If the United States is expecting any future ben- 

 efit from fishing in this region then it is imperative that the 

 United States participate in regional efforts to properly conserve 

 and manage NAFO fisheries in the northern area. 



Furthermore, U.S. membership in NAFO is critical if the U.S. is 

 to maintain credibility in international fisheries negotiations. The 

 position of the United States in the negotiations concerning the 

 Bering Sea at ICCAT, lATTC and other regional fora and most im- 

 portantly at the United Nations Conference on Straddling and 

 Highly Migratory Fish Stocks is seriously undermined by the U.S. 

 failure to be a full participant at NAFO. 



The same applies to U.S. efforts to pursue the adoption of an 

 international convention for the flagging of vessels to fish on the 

 high seas, the so-called "flagging convention" referred to by Secre- 

 tary Colson earlier. 



For these and other reasons, the United States' participation in 

 NAFO, we feel as a formal treaty member, is long overdue. 



We would also like to express our support for the resolution 

 H.Con.Res. 135 introduced by Congressman Young. Effective con- 

 servation and management of Bering Sea fisheries requires a seri- 

 ous commitment to multilateral negotiations, and we are encour- 

 aged to see this reflected in the wording of the resolution. 



We would also encourage the subcommittee to closely monitor 

 the negotiations at the United Nations Conference on Straddling 

 and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The conference is currently 

 scheduled to reconvene March 14 to 31 of 1994, with a final session 

 scheduled for August of 1994. 



We would like to recommend that your subcommittee or the full 

 Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, possibly in conjunc- 

 tion with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, consider hold- 

 ing a hearing on the U.N. conference early next year. 



Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's 

 hearings. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or 

 other Members of the committee may have. 



Mr. Manton. Thank You. 



[The statement of Mr. Gianni can be found at the end of the 

 hearing.] 



Mr. Manton. That concludes the testimony of our panelists. We 

 will now go to a few questions. 



Ambassador Colson, a few years ago customary international law 

 was revised to change fishing rights from 3 to 200 miles, so, obvi- 

 ously, the boundaries of territorial waters are not sacred. What 

 would you think of an agreement between U.S. and Russia that 

 bars fishing activity in the Donut Hole waters? 



Mr. Colson. Mr. Chairman, I think the executive branch would 

 have a great deal of difficulty with that sort of approach to this 

 problem. 



It is true that, over time, the rules of the Law of the Sea have 

 been somewhat fluid. But in 1982 the international community 



