UNESCO. General Conference; 30th; Records ... - unesdoc - Unesco

61.3 La segunda razón, y ésta es muy importante en los términos del debate que tenemos planteado, es que,
desde el punto de vista técnico-científico, el mantenimiento de la expresión “la naturaleza y los recursos del
océano y de las zonas costeras” dentro del artículo dedicado a la finalidad de la COI no sólo no afecta a los
Estados llamados insulares, o Estados archipielágicos, sino que los beneficia ampliamente porque permite a la
Comisión Oceanográfica desarrollar plenamente los programas que ya lleva a cabo en materia de gestión
integrada de zonas costeras, programas que van en beneficio de todos los Estados Miembros. La Comisión
Oceanográfica Intergubernamental ha dado muestras de la eficacia con que lleva a cabo esos programas. Por lo
tanto, nos resulta sorprendente que los Estados que precisamente más beneficio extraen de esos programas
señalen ahora que la COI no puede ejecutarlos eficazmente o que habría que limitar las capacidades de la
Comisión en este sentido. La realidad es que si se empiezan a introducir términos que moderen el alcance de esa
expresión se están limitando las facultades de la Comisión Oceanográfica Intergubernamental. Ésa es la realidad.
61.4 Finalmente, con lo que respecta a las extrañas referencias que se hicieron a la Convención sobre el
Derecho del Mar o a la manera en que esos Estatutos afectan a los derechos de los Estados, quisiera llamar la
atención de los Estados Miembros sobre el Artículo 3, párrafo 5 de los Estatutos, donde se estipula que ninguna
disposición de los Estatutos “implica la adopción de una posición sobre la naturaleza o la extensión de la
jurisdicción de los Estados ribereños en general o de un Estado ribereño en particular”. Es decir, estos Estatutos
no alteran las posiciones políticas que los Estados mantienen en materia de derecho del mar. Por todas estas
razones, señora Presidenta, y principalmente por las dos razones que ya he evocado, quisiéramos señalar que
apoyamos el proyecto de Estatutos en la forma en que fueron presentados por la Comisión III, que recoge en
todos sus términos los Estatutos aprobados por la Asamblea de la Comisión Oceanográfica Intergubernamental,
que es órgano rector de una organización internacional de carácter intergubernamental. Gracias.
(61.1) Mr GONZALEZ (Argentina) (Translation from the Spanish):
Thank you, Madam President. In any case, we consider it regrettable, most regrettable, that an attempt is
being made to reopen a debate on a question that, far from being overlooked, was debated at length in
Commission III. I should therefore like to extend my warmest thanks to the Chairperson of the Commission, the
distinguished representative of Uganda, who has rendered a fair account of the debate held in that Commission,
providing yet more evidence of his able chairmanship.
(61.2) Since the debate on this question has been reopened - or an attempt has been made to reopen it - we must
once again take the floor to state the two main reasons why we are supporting the revised Statutes of IOC approved
by Commission III, namely the text contained in document 30 C/63 Add., in particular Article 2 of the Statutes.
They are the following: firstly, as you are aware, Madam President, the Statutes of IOC are the result of a very
lengthy process, going back five years and culminating in their approval by the 20th session of the IOC Assembly.
The IOC Assembly is not a coffee-club for three or four experts but a body consisting of all of UNESCO’s Member
States plus some States that are not members of UNESCO. In other words, the representatives sitting behind the
name-plates of Argentina, Belize or Tonga are the same people who three months ago sat, or could have sat,
together to express their opinions on this matter. Yet no reservations whatsoever were expressed at that time. The
work carried out three years ago was approved unanimously by the IOC Assembly. That is why I find it very hard
to understand the surprise expressed by some delegates here at some of the conclusions of the IOC Assembly.
(61.3) The second reason - and a very important one for our debate - is that, from the technical and scientific
viewpoint, keeping the phrase “the nature and resources of the ocean and coastal areas” in the article on the
purpose of IOC not only does not harm the so-called island or archipelago States but is extremely beneficial to
them since it enables the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission to implement fully the programmes that it
is conducting on the integrated management of coastal areas, programmes that benefit all the Member States. The
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission has demonstrated how efficiently it runs those programmes. We
therefore find it astonishing that the very States that benefit most from these programmes should now be saying that
IOC cannot execute them efficiently or that the Commission’s capacities in this area should be limited. The truth of
the matter is that, if terms altering the scope of that article are introduced, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission’s powers would be curtailed. That is a fact.
(61.4) Finally, with respect to the odd remarks about the Convention on the Law of the Sea or the way in which
those Statutes affect States’ rights, I should like to draw the Member States’ attention to Article 3, paragraph 5,
where it is stipulated that nothing in the Statutes shall “imply the adoption of a position by the Commission
regarding the nature or extent of the jurisdiction of coastal States in general or of any coastal State in particular”. In
other words, those Statutes do not alter the political positions taken by States in terms of the law of the sea. For all
these reasons, Madam President, and in particular the two I have mentioned, I should like to say that we support
the draft Statutes in the form in which they were presented by Commission III, which are word for word those that
were approved by the Assembly of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the governing body of an
intergovernmental international organization. Thank you.
62. The PRESIDENT:
We have here two proposals which are in discord, so we may eventually have to vote. I shall read out the
list of speakers and ask you again for brevity. We have Canada, Costa Rica, Haiti, Mexico, United Republic of
724