1 The following states were represented by delegates: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Japan, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela. Germany (Fed. Rep.), Italy and Poland were represented by observers.

2 The FAO “Working Party for Rational Utilization of Tuna Resources in the Atlantic Ocean held its first session in October, 1963 (for its report, see FAO Fisheries Reports, No. 13, Rome, 1963), and a second session in July, 1965 (see FAO Fisheries Reports, No. 27, Rome, 1965), at which it drew up a draft convention on the basis of a draft submitted by the representatives of the United States of America.

3 As of May 18, 1967, the Convention had been signed, subject to ratification or approval, by Brazil, Japan, Korea, Spain and United States of America. The Convention remains open for signature at FAO Headquarters in Rome indefinitely and will enter into force upon the deposit with the Director General of the Organization of seven instruments of ratification, approval or adherence. The instrument of ratification of the United States was deposited with the Director General on May 18, 1967. For text of the Convention, see 6 Int. Legal Materials 293 (1967).

4 See W. T. Burke in ‘ ‘ Ocean Sciences, Technology, and the Future International Law of the Sea” (Ohio State University Press, January, 1966), p. 78. The following are among the principal works which examine the constitutional aspects or the activities of one or more fishery bodies: P. C. Jessup, “L'exploitation des richesses de la mer,“ in 29 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 425 (1929); J. Tomasevich, , International Agreements on Conservation of Marine Resources (Stanford University, 1943)Google Scholar; L. L. Leonard, , International Regulation of Fisheries (Washington, D. C, 1944)Google Scholar; Swygard, , The International Halibut and Sockeye Salmon Fisheries Commissions: A Study in International Administration (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, 1948)Google Scholar; Papers presented at the International Technical Conference on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea (Rome, April 18-May 10, 1955), U.N. Doc. A/CONF.10/7; S. I. Shuman, , “Pacific Fishery Conservation Conventions,” 2 Sydney Law Review 436 (1958)Google Scholar; L. Focsaneanu, “Le droit international maritime de 1'Ocfian Pacifique et de ses mers adjacentes,” in 1961 Annuaire Français de Droit International 173; S. Oda, International Control of Sea Resources (Leyden, 1963); D. M. Johnston, , The Inter-national Law of Fisheries (Yale University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; F. T. Christy, andA. Scott, , The Common Wealth in Ocean Fisheries (Johns Hopkins Press, 1965)Google Scholar. In addition, FAO has begun a series of detailed monographs on the establishment, structure, functions and activities of international fishery bodies. This series will in due course cover all extant fishery bodies; so far, monographs have been published on the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council (1965), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (1965) and the Regional Fisheries Advisory Commission for the Southwest Atlantic (1966).

5 Cf.52 A.J.I.L. 851 (1958). The Convention was opened for signature on April 29, 1958, and entered into force on March 20, 1966. See, in particular, on this Convention, F. V. Garcia Amador, , The Exploitation and Conservation of the Resources of the Sea (2nd ed., Leyden, 1959)Google Scholar; A. Gros, , “ L a Convention sur la Pêche et la Conservation des Resources Biologiques de la Haute Mer,” in 97 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 1 (1959)Google Scholar; and W. W. Bishop, , “ The 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas,” in 62 Columbia Law Review 1206 (1962)Google Scholar.

6 The draft articles prepared by the International Law Commission provided at one stage that an international fishery authority should be created within the framework of the United Nations and be given general powers to regulate fishery activities in any area of the high seas (1953 I.L.C. Rep. 17). However, the idea of creating an international authority with legislative powers was dropped and replaced by that of compulsory arbitration before special commissions in case of dispute (1956 I.L.C. Rep., U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/104, p. 98). This procedure is laid down in Arts. 9 to 11 of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas.

7 Resolution on International Fishery Conservation Conventions and Resolution on Co-operation in Conservation Measures. Cf.52 A.J.I.L. 865 (1958).

8 The 1902 Statutes (the Statutes of the Council as revised in 1950 appear in a separate publication issued by the Council) will be superseded when the Convention for the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (see Exec. Doc. H, 89th Cong., 2d Sess.), signed on Sept. 12, 1964, comes into force. It is expected that this will take place on July 22, 1967. The present members of the Council are: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (Fed. Rep.), Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and United Kingdom. Canada and the United States of America have indicated that they will apply for membership.

9 The Commission was set up by an international conference held at Madrid, Spain, in November, 1919. The present members of the Commission are Algeria, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Monaco, Morocco, Rumania, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Republic and Yugoslavia. The Statutes of the Commission, as amended in 1958, have been issued by the Commission in a separate publication.

10 Though created in 1923, this Commission underwent constitutional changes in 1930 and 1937. The 1923, 1930 and 1937 agreements were superseded by the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea of 1953, 222 U.N. Treaty Series 77. The members of the Commission are Canada and the United States of America.

11 The 1930 Convention (U. N. Legislative Series, Laws and Regulations on the Regime of the High Seas, Vol. I, pp. 195-200) setting up this Commission was supplemented by understandings contained in the Protocol of Exchange of Ratifications signed by the parties on July 28, 1937 (ibid.,pp. 199-200) and was amended by a Protocol signed on Dec. 28, 1956 (290 U. N. Treaty Series 103). Members of the Commission are Canada and the United States of America.

12 The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which was signed on Dec. 2, 1946 (T.I.A.S., No. 1849; 43 A.J.I.L. Supp. 174 (1949)) and came into force on Nov. 10, 1948, was amended by the Protocol of Nov. 19, 1956 (T.I.A.S., No. 4228), which came into force on May 4, 1959. Present members of the Commission are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom and United States of America. The 1931 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and other subsequent instruments superseded by the 1946 Convention did not provide for the establishment of a Commission.

13 The Agreement (120 U. N. Treaty Series 59) creating this body within the framework of FAO under Art. XIV of the FAO Constitution, was approved by the Fourth Session of the FAO Conference (1948) and came into force on Nov. 9, 1948. The Agreement was amended at the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Sessions of the Indo- Pacific Fisheries Council (1952, 1955, 1958 and 1961, respectively). The amendments made by the Ninth Session of the Council were approved by the Eleventh Session of the FAO Conference (1961). The text of the Agreement as at present in force is to be found in FAO Basic Texts, Vol. I ll , fascicle 2. The following states are parties to the Agreement: Australia, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America and Viet-Nam.

14 The Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission was signed on May 31, 1949 (80 U. N. Treaty Series 3) and came into force on March 3, 1950. Present members of the Commission are: Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama and United States of America.

15 The Agreement (126 U. N. Treaty Series 237) creating this body within the framework of FAO under Art. XIV of the FAO Constitution, was approved by the Fifth Session of the FAO Conference (1949) and came into force on Feb. 20, 1952. Amendments to the Agreement were approved by the Twelfth Session of the FAO Conference (1963). The text of the Agreement, as amended, is to be found in FAO Basic Texts, Vol. I ll , fascicle 7. The following states are parties to the Agreement: Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.

16 The International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries was signed on Feb. 8, 1949 (157 U. N. Treaty Series 157; 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 40 (1951)), and came into force on July 3, 1950. This Convention has been supplemented by a Declaration of Understanding and several Protocols which may be found in a handbook issued periodically by the Commission. Present members of the Commission are: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany (Fed. Rep.), Iceland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom and United States of America.

17 The International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean was signed on May 9, 1952 (205 U. N. Treaty Series 65; 48 A.J.I.L. Supp. 71 (1954)), and entered into force on June 12, 1953. The members of the Commission are Canada, Japan and United States of America.

18 This Commission was set up by agreement at the Conference on the Use and Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific, held in Santiago, Chile, in 1952. The agreement was signed on Aug. 18, 1952, and appears to have come into force on that date (See U. N. Legislative Series, Laws and Regulations on the Regime of the Territorial Sea, p. 724, for an English translation). The members of the Commission are: Chile, Ecuador and Peru.

19 The Convention on Co-operation for the Execution of Fisheries, Oceanological and Limnological Research in the Western Pacific was signed in Peking on June 12, 1956, and came into force on the same day. The Russian text was issued by the Secretariat of the Commission in Peking in 1958. The members of the Commission are: Chinese People's Republic, Korean Democratic People's Republic, Mongolian People's Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.

20 The Treaty concerning Fisheries on the High Seas in the Northwest Pacific Ocean was signed on May 14, 1956, and came into force on Dec. 12, 1956 (Japan Official Gazette Extraord., No. 49, Dec. 12, 1956, p. 5. For an English translation, see 53 A.J.I.L. 763 (1959). The members of the Commission are: Japan and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

21 The Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals was signed on Feb. 9, 1957, and came into force on Oct. 14, 1957 (314 U. N. Treaty Series 105). This Convention was amended and its duration extended by a Protocol signed on Oct. 8, 1963, which came into force in 1964 (494 U. N. Treaty Series 303). The members of the Commission are: Canada, Japan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and United States of America. In 1911, a convention was concluded for the conservation of fur seals and sea otters but did not provide for the establishment of a Commission.

22 The Agreement on Measures for Regulating the Catch and Conserving Stocks of Seals in the Northeastern Part of the Atlantic Ocean was signed on Nov. 22, 1957, and came into force on June 27, 1958 (309 U. N. Treaty Series 269). Present members are: Norway and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

23 The Convention concerning Fishing in the Black Sea was signed on July 7, 1959, and came into force on March 21, 1960, (377 U. N. Treaty Series, 220). The members of the Commission are: Bulgaria, Rumania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

24 The Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Convention was signed on Jan. 24, 1959, and came into force on June 27, 1963 (484 U. N. Treaty Series 157). Present members of the Commission are: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany (Fed. Rep.), Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and United Kingdom. This Commission replaced the Permanent Commission set up by the Convention for the Regulation of Mesh of Fishing Nets and the Size Limits of Fish of 1946.

25 The Commission was established by the Agreement concerning Co-operation in Marine Fishing, which was signed on July 28, 1962, and came into force on Feb. 22, 1963 (460 U.N. Treaty Series 219). Present members are: Bulgaria, Germany (Dem. Rep.), Poland, Rumania and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

26 The Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning Fisheries was signed on June 22, 1965, and came into force on Dee. 18, 1965. For an English translation, see 4 Int. Legal Materials 1128 (1965). The members of the Commission are Japan and the Republic of Korea.

27 This Regional Commission was created within the framework of FAO under Art. VI (1) of the FAO Constitution by a Resolution adopted at the Thirty-Sixth Session of the FAO Council (1961) in order to advise the FAO Conference and through the FAO Conference its members (Report of the Thirty-Sixth Session of the FAO Council, p. 147). Present members of the Regional Commission are: Cameroon, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Portugal, Senegal, Spain and United Kingdom.

28 This Regional Commission was created within the framework of FAO under Art. VI (1) of the FAO Constitution by a resolution adopted by the Eleventh Session of the FAO Conference (1961) (Report of the Eleventh Session of the FAO Conference, p. 67). Present members of the Regional Commission are: Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

29 Henceforth the Commission will be referred to as the ‘ ‘ Atlantic Tuna Commission'' and similarly the convention creating it will be referred to as the “Atlantic Tuna Convention.''

30 Waters adjacent to the territorial sea of a state over which that state claims exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries, for example, as provided for by the Fisheries Convention signed in London on March 9, 1964, by certain European States (58 A.J.I.L. 1070 (1964)).

31 See the proposal made by Spain in Conference Doc. FID:AT/66/5, p. 1, and the debate recorded in Conference Docs. FID: AT/66/PV. 8, pp. 7 et seq.,and PV. 9, pp. 15 et seq.

32 At no time was there any question of a world-wide body to deal with tuna. The only commission which, under the convention creating it, covers a given resource wherever it is to be found is the International Whaling Commission (see Art. I, par. 2, of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling).

33 See par. 43(a) of the Report of this Conference.

34 Art. V.

35 Art. I I , par. 1.

36 Art. 2 of the 1964 Convention.

37 Art. I, par. 1.

38 Art. I, par. 1.

39 Report of the Commission, 1962, p. 15.

40 See proposed amendment submitted by Uruguay in Conference Doc. F I D : AT/66/ 5/Add. 3, p. 1. For discussion, see Conference Docs. FID: AT/66/PV. 8, pp. 9-10; PV. 9, p. 28, PV. 10, p. 21.

41 See in particular Conference Does. FID: AT/66/PV. 8, pp. 18 et seq.,and PV. 18, pp. 7-8.

42 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (Art. 2); General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (Preamble and Art. V); International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean (Art. 1); International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (Art. I, par. 1).

43 The conventions creating the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (Art. I, par. 1); the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (Art. I, par. 1) and the Japanese-Soviet Fisheries Commission for the Northwest Pacific (Art. I, par. 1).

44 Amendment proposed by Uruguay, Conference Doc. F I D : AT/66/5/Add. 3.

45 Amendment proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Conference Doc. FID: AT/66/5/Add. 9.

46 See, for instance, Conference Docs. FID: AT/66/5/PV. 8, pp. 7 et seq.,p. 23; PV. 9, pp. 25 et seq.

47 Proposals by Argentina in Conference Doc. FID:AT/66/5/Add. 6, p. 1, and by Nigeria (which was not represented at the Conference) in Doc. FID: AT/66/5.

48 Proposal by Argentina in Conference Doc. FID: AT/66/5/Add. 3, p. 1.

49 Conference Docs. FID: AT/66/5/PV. 8, pp. 3 et seq.;PV. 9, pp. 3 et seq.;PV. 13, pp. 1 et seq.;PV. 14, pp. 41 et seq.;and PV. 18, pp. 4-5.

50 Conference Does. FID: AT/66/5/PV. 8, pp. 10 et seq.;PV. 9, pp. 21 et seq.and PV. 10, pp. 19 et seq.

51 Original proposal by Canada in Conference Doe. FID: AT/66/5/Add. 8, and amendment thereto proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Doc. FID: AT/ 66/5/Add. 9. For debate, see Conference Docs. FID: AT/66/5/PV. 7, pp. 21 et seq.; PV. 9, pp. 29 et seq.;PV 10, pp. 1 et seq.and PV. 18, pp. 10 et seq.

52 Art. 2 reads as follows: ‘ ‘ Nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to affect the rights, claims, or views of any Contracting State in regard to the extent of jurisdiction over fisheries.“

53 Art. I, par. 2, reads as follows: “Nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to affect adversely (prejudice) the claims of any Contracting Government in regard to the limits of territorial waters or to the jurisdiction of a coastal state over fisheries.'

54 These three conventions contain a provision to the effect that nothing in the convention shall affect the status of the territorial sea or inland waters of the contracting parties.

55 See Conference Doc. F I D : AT/66/5/PV. 18, pp. 11 et seq.,and 42 et seq.

56 See note 87 below, for an example of one remote possibility of a state becoming bound by a recommendation against its will.'

57 The definition contained in Art. IV, par. 1, of the Convention is as follows: “the Scombriformes with the exception of the families Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber.”See also FAO Fisheries Reports, No. 13, Annex 3, p. 22.

58 One of the methods of tuna fishing involves the use of live bait.

59 FAO Fisheries Reports, No. 27, Annex 4, p. 14.

60 The Convention establishing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is clearer in its definition of the species it covers, as it refers to (a) the species of tuna, (b) “the kinds of fishes commonly used as bait in the tuna fisheries … , “ and (c)“other kinds of fish taken by tuna fishing vessels.“

61 Art. VIII, par. 1 (a), of the Convention. For discussion, see Conference Doc. FID: AT/66/5/PV. 15, pp. 44 et seq.

62 Art. VI of the Convention. Panels, if established, collect and keep under review information on the species or geographic area for which they are responsible and recommend studies and investigations. They may also propose recommendations for adoption by the Commission concerning joint action by member states.

63 No decision will be taken concerning the location of the seat until the Commission is formed, but an offer has already been made by Brazil.

64 FAO Fisheries Reports, No. 13, pp. 12-13.

65 Art. IV, par. 1. In addition par. 2 of this article provides that the Commission shall collect and analyze statistics, study and appraise information on measures and methods for the conservation of tuna and tuna-like fishes, recommend studies and investigations, and publish and disseminate reports.

66 Preamble, Art. IV, par. 2 (b), and Art. VIII, par. 1 (a). See also the definition of conservation in Art. 2 of the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. On the subject of conservation policy in general, see M. McDougal, and W. Burke, ,The Public Order of the Oceans 941-1007 (Yale University Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

67 See, for example, the recommendations adopted by the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council at its Tenth Session in 1962 (Proceedings of the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council, Tenth Session, p. 14), and the Regional Fisheries Advisory Commission for the Southwest Atlantic at its Second Session in 1964 (FAO Fisheries Reports, No. 29, p. 9).

68 For example, the Convention establishing the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Art. II, par. 5, and the Convention creating the Commission for Fisheries 6esearch in the Western Pacific, Art. 111(4).

69 Art. V, par. 1.

70 Art. VIII, par. 1.

71 Art. 7, par. 1. Under Art. 7, par. 2, other kinds of measures, including the fixing of total catches, may be added on the proposal of two thirds of the member states present and voting, but must be subsequently accepted by all member states.

72 Report of the Conference, par. 43(c), pp. 5-6.

73 For example, the Convention creating the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Art. I I , par. 5; and the Convention creating the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, Art. V, par. 2 (d).

74 For example, the Convention creating the International Pacific Halibut Commission, Art. 1ll , par. 2. In this ease the conservation measures have to be submitted to the Heads of State for approval and therefore derive their binding force from such approval and not from the action taken by the Commission itself.

75 See Arts. IV (b) and VI, par. 2, of the Convention establishing the Japanese- Soviet Fisheries Commission for the Northwest Pacific; Art. 10, par. 1, read in conjunction with Art. 9, par. 2, and Art. 5 of the Convention establishing the Joint Commission for Black Sea Fisheries; and Arts. II to V of the Convention establishing the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. In the latter, it is required that two out of the three Commissioners representing each contracting party must vote affirmatively (Art. VI).

76 E.g.,Art. 90 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at Chicago on Dec. 7, 1944, with respect to the adoption and amendment of Annexes to the Convention relating to international standards and re commmended practices.

77 For details, see Art. V I I I of the Convention.

78 The Protocol was signed at Washington on Nov. 29, 1965, but is not yet in force.

79 Art. V III of the Convention.

80 In the ease of a recommendation which has met with the objection of one or less than a quarter of the members of a panel or the Commission as a whole as appropriate. The reason for referring to only one member is to cover the ease of panels of not more than three members, in which case one member would constitute more than a quarter of the panel's members.

82 Art. X, par. 3.

82 Art. IV.

83 Art. V, pars. 2 and 3.

84 Art. VIII.

85 See the Commission's handbook, September, 1965, p. 35.

86 Art. 10. A similar procedure for the termination of acceptance of recommendations is also envisaged in the Protocol of Nov. 29, 1965, to amend the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.

87 In the case of the Atlantic Tuna Commission, there would appear to be one unlikely situation in which, at least theoretically, a member state could become bound by a recommendation against its will. This situation could only arise if the following circumstances obtain: (a) a recommendation is adopted by the Commission on the proposal of a panel; (b) a given member state is not a member of the panel (although, if it had a substantial interest in the matters dealt with by the panel, it would probably have chosen to become a member); and (c) none of the members of the panel objected to the recommendation. In this ease the non-member of the panel would not have the right or opportunity to object to the recommendation and would become bound by it upon its adoption by the Commission.

88 Art. IX, par. 1.

89 The nearest approach to this method is to be found in the Agreement concerning an International Observer Scheme for Factory Ships engaged in Pelagic Whaling in the Antarctic, signed on Oct. 28, 1963. See Fifteenth Report of the International Whaling Commission, p. 23. This Agreement, which was never implemented and has since expired, provided for the appointment by the International Whaling Commission of observers to join pelagic whaling expeditions. These observers were to have been responsible to the Commission.

90 Art. IX.

91 Art. II, par. 1.

92 Art. VII.

93 Art. VI.

94 See, in particular, Conferences Docs. FID: AT/66/PV. 7, pp. 9 et seq.,and PV. 15, pp. 49 et seq.

95 The European Fisheries Conference, on Jan. 17, 1964, adopted a Resolution on Fisheries Policing, inviting governments participating in the Northeast Atlantic fisheries to attend a technical conference to prepare a draft convention embodying a code for fishing and related activities in the Northeast Atlantic. Canada and the United States of America were also invited to attend so that the extension of the code to the Northwest Atlantic could be envisaged. Various meetings have been held and progress is being made towards the preparation of a draft convention for consideration by governments. In addition, the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission set up in 1964 a Special Committee on International Control, which has already reported to the Commission, but has been requested to continue its work. A Protocol to amend the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries with respect to measures of control was signed at Washington on Nov. 29, 1965. Pursuant to the Protocol, the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries may, on its own initiative, make proposals for national and international measures of control on the high seas.

96 On the lines of a proposal submitted by France. See Conference Doc. FID: AT/ 66/5/Add. 2, p. 5.

97 Art. IX, par. 3.

98 Art. II, considered above at pp. 681-682 in connection with the Convention area.

99 See note 95 above.

100 Art. 1 of the Statutes.

101 Art. XIV.

102 Art. V, par. 1. In addition, the agreement of all the contracting parties is required for the admission of a new member to the Commission.

103 Art. 1 of the Statutes. At its Third Session (April, 1966), the Commission adopted a resolution on the revision of its statutes which, if approved by the competent FAO bodies, would entail an enlargement of its membership.

104 Art. 4 of the Statutes.

105 Art. V, par. 3.

106 Art. IX.

107 Art. IX.

108 Art. X, par. 2.

109 Art. XV, par. 3.

110 Art. 15, par. 3.

111 Art. XIV.

112 See Conference Doc. F I D : AT/66/PV. 15, pp. 35 et seq.

113 The Convention creating the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (Art. II, pars. 11 and 12); and the Convention creating the Japanese-Soviet Fisheries Commission for the Northwest Pacific (Art. III , , par. 8).

114 The Convention creating the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (Art. I, par. 3).

115 The term “utilized” was defined by the Commission as meaning “consumed fresh or substantially processed.” See Report of the Commission, 1953, p. 8, and Background Paper No. 5, submitted to the 1965 meeting of the Commission.

116 The conventions establishing the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (Art. II) and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (Art. III, par. 1).

117 The conventions creating the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (Art. XI, par. 3), and the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (Art. 4, pars. 3 and 4).

118 Art. X, par. 2 (c).

119 For discussions, see in particular Conference Docs. FID: AT/66/PV. 12 and PV. 16, pp. 5 et seq.

120 Annual Report for the year 1962, pp. 15-16.

121 Summary Minutes of the 17th Annual Meeting, 1965, p. 13.

122 Annual Proceedings, Vol. 7 (year 1956-1957), p. 11.

123 Res. X, adopted at the Commission's Eighth Session, October, 1964.

124 Ninth Report of the Commission, p. 15.

125 See among the recent contributions to the extensive literature on the subject: K. Zemanek, , Das Vertragsrecht der International Organisationen (Vienna, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P. Cahier, , Etude des accords de siège conclus entre les organisations Internationales et les Etats où elles résident 1-188 (Milan, 1959)Google Scholar; B. Kasme, , La Capacité de l'Organisation des Nations Unies de conclure des traités 1-35 (Paris, 1960)Google Scholar; F. Seyersted, , Objective International Personality of Intergovernmental Organizations (Copenhagen, 1963)Google Scholar

126 In accordance with the following statement of the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations ([1949] I.C.J. Rep. 180): “Whereas a State possesses the totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law, the rights and duties of an entity such as the Organization [United Nations] must depend upon its purposes and functions as specified or implied in its constituent documents and developed in practice.''

127 Agreements setting up the International Sugar Council (Art. 27, par. 5, and Art. 38, par. 6), T.I.A.S., No. 4389; the International Coffee Organization (Art. 22, pars. 1 and 2), T.I.A.8., No. 5505; the International Wheat Council (Art. 25, par. 5, and Art. 33, par. 7), T.I.A.S., No. 5115; the Olive Oil Council (Art. 31, par. 4, and Art. 32, pars. 1 and 2).

128 Art. XI, par. 2. The Convention is, however, the only one which expressly envisages the conclusion of “agreements” to this end.

129 Art. XI, par. 1.