61 



would be made by payments occurring from the exploitation of 

 the non-living resources of the exclusive economic zone. Pay- 

 ments v/ould be marie from the fund to developing countries and 

 be used for other beneficial purposes. The proposal was sup- 

 ported by ten other countries, most of which were co-sponsors. 

 There is broad opposition among coastal states. 



Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries between Opposite or 

 Adjacent States 



The two delimitation groups, those favoring a solution 

 based upon equitable principles (Group of 29) and those pre- 

 ferring emphasis- on the median or equidistance line (Group of 

 22), met separately and jointly on several occasions. The 

 focus of the joint discussions was a lack of agreement on a 

 text as a basis for negotiation. The G-22 wished to utilize 

 the text contained in the Draft Convention, while the G-29 

 rejected that approach. Accordingly, the discussions pro- 

 ceeded along the lines of previous discussions with both sides 

 concentrating on the various elements contained in any possible 

 solution. When the G-22 insisted on inclusion' of a general 

 reference to principles of international law, the other side 

 agreed on condition that the term be accorded sufficient 

 clarity. Subsequent discussions indicated that the two sides 

 were in fact little closer to a final solution than before. 

 The basic disagreement as to the relative weight to be placed 

 upon "equitable principles" and the "median or equidistance 

 line" remains. The group concluded its work, deferring future 

 negotiations to the summer session. 



COMMITTEE THREE 



Committee Three met only once during the session. Chair- 

 man Yankov convened a brief informal meeting to elicit the 

 views of the committee on whether any issues within the 

 mandate of the commitee remained to be discussed or nego- 

 tiated. He stressed that, in his view, negotiations had 

 been completed at the Ninth Session and that any attempt to 

 reopen substantive negotiations would seriously endanger the 

 delicate compromises already achieved. He stated that the 

 only reason that he would see for further meetings of the 

 Committee would be in the event that additional matters were 

 referred to it by the plenary. There was general agreement 

 expressed by several delegations with the views of the Chair- 

 man. 



The United States representative intervened to state 

 that the United States reserved its position on the status of 

 the work of the committee pending the outcome of our review 

 of the draft convention. Further, he made clear that there 



80-949 O— 81 5 



