60 



and those who thought that the Committee Two text had, as a 

 package, been highly negotiated and should not be reopened. 

 Western states were joined by the Eastern bloc in opposition 

 to the change. Several delegations pressed for the formation 

 of a small consultation group on this subject. 



Warship Activities in 200-mile Economic Zone - Article 58 



Brazil argued that Article 58 should be revised to make 

 clear that it does not authorize military exercises in the ex- 

 clusive economic zone without the authorization of the coastal 

 state. This proposal received support and opposition along the 

 same lines as the proposed change to Article 21, but it received 

 less attention. 



Military Installations and Structures - Article 60(1) 



Brazil and Uruguay suggested that, in accordance with 

 their amendment contained in C.2/Inf. Mtg/11, the limitations 

 on coastal state jurisdiction over artificial islands, instal- 

 lations, and structures contained in subparagraphs (a), (b), 

 and (c) should be deleted. 



Duty to Remove Installations - Article 60(3) 



The U.K. raised the problem created by the requirement 

 in the present text that all installations in the EEZ (and on 

 the shelf) be "entirely" removed. It was suggested that a 

 new form: of words be used to allow partial removal, based on 

 international standards and provided that navigation and 

 fishing interests are adequately protected. In principle', 

 this proposal received widespread support, particularly among 

 broad margin states, and no opposition. Wording remains a 

 problem. 



Straddling Fish Stocks - Article 63 



Argentina pressed its suggestions for a change in the 

 text to provide for cooperation among affected states for the 

 conservation of so-called "straddling stocks", that is, stocks 

 found both within and without the exclusive economic zone. 

 This change would incorporate the thrust of the language in 

 Article 117, dealing with the same subject on the high seas. 

 The suggestion was supported by others, including Canada, who 

 pointed out that consultations were underway on the subject, 

 but was opposed by a number of distant water fishing states. 



Common Heritage Fund ' - 



Nepal drew the attention of the committee to its sugges- 

 tion contained in C. 2/Inf .Mtg/45 , Rev. 1, for the establish- 

 ment of a "common heritage fund", contributions to which 



