Letter to M.P. making UNA Branch views known ahead of a Government decision.

Peter Lilley Esq. M.P.

23 November 1984

Dear Mr. Lilley,

For nearly three years members of the Harpenden Branch of the United Nations Association have kept themselves informed on the progress of the U.N. Law of the Sea deliberations, first of all as a result of an address by Dr. Pat Birnie and more recently by attendance at a Debate on the subject at Chatham House under the auspices of the Institute of International Affairs.  In view of the impending decision by H.M. Government I would like to let you know our considered views.

Except for one important point, the overall UNCLOS package seems reasonable.  There are many uncertainties, matters still to be resolved and possible dangers from an undue "ganging up" by countries with only an indirect interest in the sea.  However we could go on end on trying to define, resolve, etc, ahead of start-up to the extent that there is no start-up at all or whatever does transpire is ineffective.  So all in all I think the United Kingdom should not seek further definition of ambiguous issues but be prepared to sign and resolve matters afterwards.

However, there is one important matter which haslready been resolved which the United Kingdom should examine most carefully at this stage, namely the requirement for handover of technology, even at a fair and reasonable rate.  It is an entirely different matter of principle from that on which the sharing of natural resources of the International Seabed Area is founded.

We understand that at least one major U.K. mining company has no objection to the Convention's terms for the transfer of technology and there may be others.  We consider that companies are particularly well qualified to judge the acceptability or othewise of the proposed terms.

We therefore recommend that our Government should first critically review the advice received from U.K. mining companies on this issue. Then, if there are not overwhelming objections from the companies to the terms for the transfer of technology, we consider that the U.K. should become a signatory to the treaty.

Yours sincerely

 Harold Beck

Harold Beck

Chairman