6. REVISION OF THE CONVENTION (1987)

6. REVISION OF THE CONVENTION

(from "Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting")

The USSR spoke of the new situation it sees in the activities of the Commission resulting from the cessation of commercial whaling. This has eliminated regulatory functions and moved research and conservation objectives to the forefront. Thus it believed it essential to amend the 1946 Convention appropriately, so as to take account of the norms of the International Law of the Sea, to make provision for the financial aspects of the Commission, as well as the legal status of the functions and objectives of the Scientific Committee. The USSR believed that the regulations established by the Commission should pay due regard to the sovereign rights of coastal states and their fishery zone jurisdiction, and incorporate provisions for the adoption of decisions and cooperation with other international organisations. It therefore proposed that a special working group should be established in the near future for this purpose.

This proposal was seconded by Mexico, Norway and Japan, who all spoke of the needs they saw for revision and recalled the previous attempts to achieve this. Japan and Norway also pointed out that they do not regard the present cessation of commercial whaling as the prime motivation.

Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, UK and New Zealand, while recognising the changed circumstances and perceptions since 1946, also noted the evolutionary approach in the Commission's work and suggested that the question of revision was of rather low priority and need not be seen as a matter of urgency.

At a later session, the USSR put forward a proposal for a Working Group to meet in the UK in November/December 1987 to examine questions related to the 1946 Convention. It would report to the 40th Annual Meeting, and at a later stage consider specific proposals for revision of the Convention. Mexico seconded this proposal.

Brazil proposed a clarification of wording for this two stage approach, which was supported by Norway, together with Iceland and Argentina. The UK, Australia, Oman, the Federal Republic of Germany, the People's Republic of China, Netherlands and the USA expressed some doubts about making such a decision now. Japan and France spoke in favour of the Soviet proposal.

Further discussion of the factors and practicalities involved by the USSR, Switzerland, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, UK, Peru and Oman led to the decision to

establish a Working Group charged with the responsibility of examining questions related to the operation of the 1946 Convention, and which would meet in the week prior to and report its results to the 40th Annual Meeting of the Commission.

The Chairman proposed that Ambassador E.H. Iglesias, the Commissioner for Argentina and the previous Chairman of the Commission, should act as convenor of this Working Group. This nomination was supported by the USSR, Brazil and Spain, and agreed by the Commission.