1. Charles, : “Les iles artificielles”, R.G.D.I.P. 1967, pp. 352–353.Google Scholar

2. Margue in his Report for the Council of Europe, Doc. 3054, (Assembly), p. 6(10).Google Scholar

3. Definition of Malta in U.N. Doc. A/9021, p. 69, Ch. XVI.Google Scholar

4. “Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht”, 1967, pp. 69–70; 76.Google Scholar

5. See hereunder, II.

6. Mouton, : “The Continental Shelf”, 1952, p. 239.Google Scholar

7. Compare, for instance, de Ferron, O.: “Le droit international de la mer”, 1960, II no. 40, p. 81.Google Scholar

8. Comp.: U.N. Doc. A/AC 138/73, dated 12 May 1972, pp. 4–5; and A/AC 138/dated 3 July 1973, pp. 3–8.

9. Yearbook I.L.C. 1954, vol. I; p. 91 no. 12.Google Scholar

10. Cf. Margue, , op.cit.Google Scholar; Jitta, , “De toepasselijkheid van nationaal recht op installaties in volle zee”, preadvies N.V.I.R. pp. 23–27, (1969)Google Scholar (The applicability of national law on installations on the high seas”).

ll. See, inter alia, Sipri-Yearbook 1969–1970; Hersch in “War/Peace Report” 09 1968–1969, p. 21Google Scholar; a further example is the radar towers off the English and American coasts.

12. For factual data see: Auburn, , “The international Seabed area” in (1971) 20 I.C.L.Q. p. 181CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vgl. Riphagen, in “Internatonal legal aspects of artificial islands”, International Relations, vol. IV, 1973, p. 330Google Scholar; Report Stratton Commission, V, 13–8; VI, 245 e.v.Google Scholar;

Knight, G. “International Legal Aspects of deep draft harbor facilities” in Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 1973, 01, pp. 370–371Google Scholar; they may be found further in the Report: “A superport for Louisiana”, report by the Louisiana Superport Task Force, June 1972; “The Atlantic Generation Station” by the “Public Service Electric & Gas Co” and “Energy oil and the State of Delaware” by the “Delaware Bay Oil Transport Committee on the State of Delaware”, 01 15, 1973.Google Scholar These last articles may be found in the Record of the Hearings before the Committee on Commerce U.S. Senate, 1st sess. on S. 80, March 5, 6 and 12, 1973, Serial no. 93–20.

13. Resp., Deepwater Port Facilities Act of 1973, and the Offshore Marine Environment Protection Act of 1973.

14. Plan “Noordzeepoort”; see Van der Essen, in A/AC 138/SCII, SR 9 at p. 66.Google Scholar

15. See the brochures of Bos, and Kalis, : “Sea Island project”Google Scholar – “A solution for the waste disposal problem” and “The building of islands in the open sea offers possibilities for industrial development”; ir. Marinus, H.L. in “Intermediair” 8 02 1974, no. 6, pp. 1–7Google Scholar: “Brittenburg plan voor een luchthaven in de Noordzee” (Plan for an airport in the North Sea); In the Netherlands plans are being considered for the building of parks of windmills erected on rigs at sea for the generation of electricity (size of the parks ± 50 square kilometers! ) see, “Trouw”, 12 07, 1974.Google Scholar

16. Costs decline as the islands planned grow bigger, see brochure, supra, note 15, pp. 40–41.

17. U.N. Doc. A/AC 138/35 and the Comments in A/AC 138/SCII/SR 9 pp. 66–67; the initial motivation was the problem of jurisdiction (advice of the Council of State to which van der Essen refers, Pasinomie, 7e série, 1969, pp. 646 f.).

18. UNGAOR, 27th session, suppl. no. 21, A/8721, p. 4.

19. Res. 653 (1972), Council of Europe doc. 3054 for the report of Mr. Margue.

20. The Committee remarks that the question should be resolved within the U.N. (Doc. 3117, 3May 1972). The recommendation is transferred to the ad-hoc Committee for the study of the legal problems of the exploitation of the sea and pollution; comp. letter of A. Plate, Secretary Legal Affairs Committee, to the author dated 20-11-1973.

21. See Moore, I., Arbitrations, at p. 901.Google Scholar

22. Comp. Johnson, , “Artificial Islands” in International law Quarterly 1951, pp. 205–206Google Scholar; Jessup, , “The law of territorial waters and maritime jurisdiction” 1927, pp. 69–70Google Scholar; Colombos, “The international law of the sea” 4th rev.ed. 1959, pp. 108–111Google Scholar; Schäfer supports Russel, , see “Die Fluginsel”, Göttingen 1932, p. 58.Google Scholar

23. Schafer, , “Die Fluginsel” Göttingen 1932Google Scholar; Dahmen, , “Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der Fluginsel”, Köln 1935Google Scholar and the literature referred to there.

24. Fixel: “The seadrome and international law”, Air Law 1931, p. 26Google Scholar comp. Dahmen, , op.cit., p. 37Google Scholar; Sandiford, , “Le isole galeggianti e la libertà del mare” Rivista Marittima 1931, 07, p. 4.Google Scholar

25. Schäfer, , op.cit., pp. 34–39Google Scholar; Dahmen was of the opinion that they should be treated as analogous to natural islands (pp. 38–43) and on the basis of the results of the Hague Conference and the danger constituted for the freedom of the sea he considered that floating islands did not have a territorial sea, op.cit. pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

26. Conférence pour la codification du droit international, Tome II, Eaux territoriales 1929, p. 52.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 53.

28. Acres de la Conférence pour la codification du droit international, Procès-verbaux de la deuxième commission, Eaux territoriales, p. 217.

29. Comp. supra, note 25. Harvard Research (1929) 23 A.J.I.L. Spec. Supp., p. 276Google Scholar and Johnson, , op.cit., pp. 203–212.Google Scholar

30. II, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1952, pp. 25, 33Google Scholar; A/CN 4/77, p. 12 ad art. 11; I, Yearbook I.L.C. 1954, p. 91Google Scholar; Yearbook I.L.C. 1956, p. 253–270.Google Scholar

31. Yearbook I.L.C. 1954, p. 92.Google Scholar

32. A/Conf. 13/CI/L.112; III Conf. on the Law of the Sea, First Comm. pp. 161 ff.; 242.

33. Comp. Bardonnet in R.G.D.I.P. 1972, p. 47Google Scholar; Oppenheim, , “International Law” vol. I, p. 487Google Scholar, Conv. on the territorial sea, artt. 1 + 2.

34. Comp. Charles, , op. cit., R.G.D.I.P. 1967, pp. 355–356Google Scholar; Mouton, , “The Continental Shelf”, 1952, p. 228.Google Scholar

35. Comp. Riphagen, , op.cit., p. 346.Google Scholar

36. Conv. art. 8.

37. O'Connell, , “International Law”, 2nd ed., p. 428.Google Scholar

38. This was required within the I.L.C.; comp. McDougal, and Burke, , “The public order of the Oceans”, p. 422.Google Scholar

39. This is suggested by A. Tammes who writes that in the absence of a precedent the emplacement of a television island cannot be regarded as “recognised”, N.J.B. (Dutch Jurists Journal) 1964, p. 672Google Scholar; Mouton gave to it no special significance with regard to artificial islands: “The Continental Shelf” p. 185, and his article in “Internationale Spectator” 1963, pp. 550Google Scholar; however, later he claims that emplacement should serve a “lawful purpose”. In his explanation he does not go beyond indicating some uses which already by positive law are forbidden, such as piracy, slave trading etc., vide Yearbook of the A.A.A., 1965, vol. 35 p. 156.Google Scholar

40. Report I.L.C. U.N.G.A.O.R.ll sess. Suppl. no. 9 (A/3159), pp. 23–24; McDougal, and Burke, , op. cit., pp. 758–760.Google Scholar

41. 2nd Committee, 26 March 1958, Off. Rec. Vol. IV, pp. 41 and 134.

42. Waldock, in “Rechtsgeleerde Adviezen”, p. 23.Google Scholar

43. Waldock, , op.cit., pp. 23–26Google Scholar; Johnson, ibid., p. 6; Bos in N.T.I.R. 1965, p. 350Google Scholar; Green in Yearbook of the A.A.A. 1965, p. 147Google Scholar; McDougal, and Burke, , op.cit., pp. 759–761.Google Scholar

44. McDougal, and Buike, , op.cit., p. 790 e.f.Google Scholar

45. Comp. Mouton, , Yearbook op.cit., p. 156 fGoogle Scholar; and the “testban treaty” U.N.T.S. vol. 480, 45Google Scholar; “Treaty on the prohibition of the emplacement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass-destruction on the seabed and the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof”, Febr. 11, 1971, Documents of Disarmement 1971, p. 7; in this respect also the regional treaty of Tlatelolco U.N. Doc. A/6663 especially arts. 1,2 and 4,2 juncto 28,1; Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter dated 29-12-1972, Trbl. 1973 no. 172 (Dutch treaty journal).

46. Brierly-Waldock, , “The law of nations”, pp. 309–310.Google Scholar

47. Gidel, : “Le droit public de la mer”, 1932, 1, p. 125.Google Scholar

48. Van Doom, in N.J.B. 1973/1979 pp. 252–253.Google Scholar

49. Schäfer, , op.cit., p. 17.Google Scholar

50. Mouton, , “The Continental Shelf”, 1952, p. 220.Google Scholar

51. Fixel, Journal of Airlaw 2, 1931, p. 26.Google Scholar

52. Fauchille, , “Droit International Public” 1925, Vol. 1, 2 pp. 438, 9.Google Scholar

53. “Die Rechtstellung künstlicher Flugstützpunkte auf offener See”, Archiv für Luftrecht, 1932, p. 301.Google ScholarDahmen, , op.cit., pp. 24–26.Google Scholar

54. Schäfer, , op.cit., p. 17.Google Scholar

55. Comp. Suy, , “Volkenrechtelijke aspecten van de REM-affaire”, p. 38Google Scholar; Margue in Council of Europe, doc. 3054 at pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Verzijl, , “International Law in historical perspective”, vol. IV p. 93Google Scholar; on emplacement of ODAS, see Voelckel, in A.F.D.I. 1971, pp. 846–847Google Scholar; Haucke, , “Piraten-sender auf See”, 1969, pp. 82 e.f.Google Scholar; Mouton, in “Internationale Spectator” 1963 at p. 550.Google Scholar

56. Riphagen, , op.cit., pp. 333–334.Google Scholar

57. See, Green, , op.cit., p. 147.Google Scholar

58. Proposal of the Sovjet Union U.N.G.A.O.R., A/8421, p. 73 ff., art. 10 (French).

59. Comp. Hackworth, , Digest of international law, Vol. II, p. 680Google Scholar; Hand. II, 1964–1965Google Scholar, Bijl. 330; (Second Chambers, Neth.).

60. Deepwater Port Facilities Act of 1973, S. 1751.Google Scholar

61. See 101 (a) 4.

62. Sections 103(b) (2); 111 and 114.

63. At the moment of writing no printed transcripts of the hearings were available. I used texts in mimeo-form of testimony by Prof. Moore on June 12 and October 2, 1973, in commissions resp. of House and Senate.

64. Treaty on the Continental Shelf, Trbl. 1959, no. 126, art. 2, lid 1; Verzijl, , “International Law in historical perspective”, vol. III, p. 79.Google Scholar

65. Treaty art 5, 4.

66. Mouton, , “The continental Shelf”, p. 395.Google Scholar

67. Comp. Brown, , “The legal regime of inner space”, Current legal problems, 1969, p. 186Google Scholar; O'Connell, , op.cit., vol. I, p. 507Google Scholar; Burke, , “Towards a better use of the Ocean”, p. 111Google Scholar; Charles, , op.cit., pp. 358 e.f.Google Scholar

68. Mouton, , Yearbook, op.cit., p. 162.Google Scholar

69. Vide Kamerstukken Zitting 1968–1969, 10 098; “Ontwerp wet bodemmaterialen Noordzee”; art. 1; 11, 1 (Draft Law Bottom materials North Sea); for other State practice vide Zitting 1969–1970, 10 098 M.v.A. pp. 1–2.

70. The proposal of the I.L.C. contained such a procedure (art. 73); it was accepted in the Fourth Committee (A) (Conf. 13/42, p. 106), but rejected in the plenary session, and replaced by an optional protocol (A/Conf. 13/38, pp. 54–55; A/Conf. 13/L 56).

71. Comp. Labastida, , Cornell International Law Journal Vol. 3, no. 2, 1970, pp. 134–135Google Scholar; Ratiner in Journal of maritime Law and Commerce vol. 2, p. 238.

72. Goldie, in Alexander, (ed.), “The Law of the Sea”, 1968, p. 106Google Scholar; Auburn, in I.C.L.Q., 04, 1971 p. 186Google Scholar; the developing countries in particular are critical toward scientific research; Burke, , “Law, science and the ocean”, Law of the Sea institute, University of Rhode Island, occ. paper no. 3 08 1969, p. 4Google Scholar and the delcarations of Mexico A/AC 138/SC III/SR 28, p. 85; Brazil ibid., p. 87; China A/AC 138/SC III/SR 38.

73. See, for instance, Emery, , in Alexander, (ed.), “The Law of the Sea”, 1967, p. 156.Google Scholar

74. McDougal, and Burke, , op.cit., p. 724Google Scholar; Henkin, in Gullion, (ed.) “Uses of the Seas”, p. 78Google Scholar; see the decl. of Canada in U.N. Doc. ENDC/PV 410,8; and the Italian proposal on ENDC/PV 410, 41–47 in which it is implicit.

75. Dutch Law Installations North Sea, 3 Dec. 1964, Stbl. no. 447; the Russian Decree, in R.G.D.I.P. 1969, 73; the U.S. law in several places goes beyond the narrow limits of the Conventions, 43 U.S.C., pp. 1331–43 (1964), cf. the Presidential proclamation whereby a national park was created on the shelf, procl. no. 3339, C.F.R. 1959–1963 Comp., p. 71 (1960); 25 Fed.Reg. 2352.

76. The claims before 1958 show a clear discrepancy with the text of the Treaty on this point, comp. Lauterpacht, B.Y.I.L. 1950: “Sovereignty over submarine areas”, pp. 389–393Google Scholar; Dahm, : “Völkerrecht”, I, 1958, pp. 707–708Google Scholar; Verzijl, , N.T.I.R. 1959, p. 131Google Scholar; Gidel, I.L.A. Report, 45th Conf. Lucerne 1952, was of the opinion that sovereignty over the shelf was already lex lata (p. 145)Google Scholar. The claims in general used the terms “sovereignty” and “jurisdiction and control”; the difference between these terms is purely academic, com. Scelle, : “Plateau continental et droit international”, Paris 1955, p. 36Google Scholar. The I.L.C. thrice significantly changed the text, see Yearbook 1951, Vol. II, pp. 99–100; 1953, Vol. II, p. 46; ibid., 47; 1956, II, p. 297.

77. Slouka, , “International custom and the Continental Shelf”, p. 115.Google Scholar

78. The fact that the relevant art. 2 does not allow reservations is, in the light of note 76 supra, not proof that it is declaratory of international law; this seems to be a mistake of the Court, (North Sea Continental Shelf Cases), I.C.J. Rep. 1969 p. 39; correctly, Baxter, (Recueil A.D.I., 1970–1971, pp. 46 and 99)Google Scholar points out that rules in a treaty can never be regarded as conclusive evidence of customary law. It may be argued that the Court also presupposes the existence of more than economic rights on the reasoning that the shelf “may be deemed to be actually part of the territory”, etc. (Reports I.C.J. 1969 p. 31)Google Scholar. When the I.L.C. says that, once the shelf has been once an object of active economic interest, it is natural that the coastal State would resist a “first come, first served” solution (I.L.C. 1956 report Vol. II, p. 298, par. 7–7)Google Scholar, then this equally should go for “active defensive” (and other) interests. That even proponents of the limited view did not exactly understand what the legal nicety of this view contained, may be evidenced by the discussion in Geneva on the military use of the shelf. Logically the Bulgarian proposal forbidding the coastal State from building military installations on the shelf (A/Conf. 13/C4/L 41) would have as a consequence that the other States were allowed to do so! (See the discussion A/Conf. 13/42, pp. 76, 27; 28; 84; 1).

79. Cf. Malta draft U.N. Doc. A/8421, pp. 106 e.f.; Decl. of Santo Domingo A/8721, pp. 70 e.f.; Conclusions of seminar of African States in Yaoundé ibidem, p. 74 e.f.; proposal of Kenya ibid, pp. 180 e.f.; proposal of Columbia, Mexico and Venezuela, A/9021 pp. 19 e.f.; proposal of Ecuador, Panama and Peru, A/9021, pp. 30 e.f.; Argentina A/9021 e.f.; African States A/9021, pp. 87 e.f., China A/9021, pp. 71 e.f.

80. Cf. China A/9021, p. 71; Malta in A/9021, p. 67.

81. See paragraph V, b.

82. See, inter alia, the Maltese proposal; the declaration of the U.S. Ambassador A/AC 138/SR, p. 63; and the Dutch proposal on an intermediate zone A/AC 138/86.

83. At present it is generally accepted that there is a limit to the shelf, although opinions differ as to the exact depth of this.

84. G.A. Res. 2750 C (XXV) 17-12-1970.

85. That the area partakes in the freedom regime is generally accepted (vide inter alia, I.L.C. Yearbook 1956, Vol. II, p. 278Google Scholar; IMCO. decl. A/AC 135/W.G.1/SR 59–60; Kalinkin, and Ostrovskiy, in “Morskoye Dno, komu ono prinadlezhit?” pp. 99–105Google Scholar; that it is possible to acquire exclusive rights is sometimes doubted or even denied (vide, Wilberforce, Hansard (Lords) 303: col. 565; 2 July 1969) – In my view it is possible by analogy to the situation in a comparable area, namely space. See; Lay, and Taubenfeld, , “The law relating to activities of man in space”, pp. 79–80Google Scholar; Zhukov, , “Weltraumrecht”, 1968 p. 307.Google Scholar

86. G.A. Res. 2749 (XXV).

87. G.A. Res. 2574 (D) (1969).

88. Cf. Cheng, Bin in Indian Journal of international law 1956, p. 36Google Scholar; see on eventual binding force of resolutions: Lachs, , in Recueil A.D.I. 1964, III, p. 98Google Scholar; Castaneda, , Recueil A.D.I. 1970, I, p. 306Google Scholar and Tunkin, , “Droit international public, problemes théoriques”, p. 103Google Scholar; of the same, “Teorya mezhdunarodnowo prava” (Moscow, 1970) pp. 184–200.Google Scholar

89. For an analysis of the voting on the “Moratorium resolution” vide Gerstlé, “The politics of U.N. voting …”, Law of the sea institute of the University of Rhode Islands, occ. paper no. 7 at p. 5; on the declaration see U.N. monthly chronicle, 1970, dec, p. 46; some states claim that the resolutions are binding, Mexico A/AC 138/SR 81; Irak A/AC 138/SR 85; Chili A/AC 138/SC I/SR 35.

90. See the remarks of Malta A/AC 138/SC I/SR 44, pp. 168–169.

91. Convention on the High seas, art. 6.

92. See the article of March Hunnings in I.C.L.Q. 1965, pp. 424 and ff.Google Scholar

93. Conv. art 5,4; opinion of the I.L.C. in II, Yearbook I.L.C. 1956, p. 300.Google Scholar

94. Cf. Mouton, in “Internationale Spectator” 1963, p. 552Google Scholar; comp. in general on a certain “protective jurisdiction”, Johnson, in “International Conciliation” 1958, p. 230Google Scholar and Oda, in “Japanese annual of international law” no. 11, 1967, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

95. Dahmen, , op.cit., pp. 58–59.Google Scholar

96. Comp. Dahmen, , op.cit., at p. 62.Google Scholar

97. Verzijl, , “International Law in historical Perspective”, Vol. III, p. 96.Google Scholar

98. Cf. Charles in R.G.D.I.P. 1967 at pp. 363–364Google Scholar; Rousseau in R.G.D.I.P. 1965, p. 523.Google Scholar

99. Mr. Josephus Jitta in “De toepasselijkheid van nationaal recht op installaties in voile zee”, pre-advises by Mr. J.W. Josephus Jitta and Dr. C.W. van Santen, Mededelingen van de N.V.I.R. no. 59, March 1969, at. p. 11.

100. Cf. Deepwater Port Facilities Act of 1973, sec. 111(a) and Moore's testimony for House Committee p. 4 and for the subcommittee of the Senate p. 4.

101. Comp. Cheng, Bin in Jitta, , op. cit. p. 13.Google Scholar

102. Comp. Schafer, , op.cit. pp. 47–48Google Scholar; Dahmen, , op.cit., pp. 61–62Google Scholar; Margue, , Doc. 3054, Council of Europe p. 15.Google Scholar

103. Comp. Mouton, , Yearbook A.A.A. 1965, at p. 165Google Scholar, who for this reason pleads for exclusive jurisdiction to the nearest State as having the greatest interests; comp., further, van Santen, , op.cit., at p. 49.Google Scholar

104. In Suy's opinion private parties are already forbidden to build de lege lata, see “Volken-rechtelijke aspecten van de REM-affaire” 1965, p. 41Google Scholar; Belgium is of the same opinion, U.N. Doc. A/AC 138/91 at p. 2.

105. Comp. Jitta, , and Van Santen, , op. cit., pp. 16 e.f., 49 e.f.Google Scholar

106. Van Santen, , op.cit., p. 49Google Scholar and Council of Europe Doc. 3054.

107. Van Santen, , op.cit., at p. 49Google Scholar pleads in favor of treating a purely private installation as a “hostis humanae generis”, however he makes exceptions.

108. Text in UNESCO/IOC docs SC-72/Conf. 85/8, Annex III; the preparatory conference of governmental experts to formulate a draft Convention on ODAS decided to delay action on this draft since the legal aspects of scientific research should be decided in the U.N. Seabed Committee (see G.A.O.R. 27th session suppl. 21, A/8721, par. 261 (p. 64).

109. Convention art. 5.

110. Vide in the text art. 1:

111. Comp. Voelckel in A.F.D.I. 1971, pp. 842–843.

112. Art. 12.

113. Vide in the text art. 6.

114. See the remarks of the Netherlands in UNESCO/IOC docs SC-72/Conf. 85/8, Annex III at p. 13.

115. Trbl. 1973, no. 173.

116. Art, IV, juncto the annexes I, II, III.

117. Art. III, I(c).

118. Art III, I(b) (i).

119. Art XII.

120. See the brochures of the Bos and Kalis Company, mentioned supra note 15.

121. Comp. the remarks of Mr. Kendall on the possible effects of natural gas tanker collisions in the neighbourhood of floating nuclear plants. Hearings on S. 80 “Offshore Marine environment protection Act of 1973 at p. 143”.

122. It seems that thermal pollution can be brought to very reasonable proportions, see Mr. Zechella, ibid., pp. 173–175.

123. U.N. Doc. A/AC 138/91 dated 11 July 1973, p. 1.

124. A/AC 138/SC II, L 35 art 1,3 dated 16 July 1973 and the explanation by Mr. Stevenson, U.S. Mission Press release 18 July 1973, at p. 4.

125. U.N.G.A.O.R. 26th sess. suppl. 21 A/8421 pp. 119; art 63.

126. U.N.G.A.O.R. A/9021, Vol. III, p. 69.

127. The question came up in the Committee on the law of the sea, vide A/8721, par. 185–186 (p. 46); Concrete proposals are made on this topic: Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar, Tunisia and Turkey A/AC 138/SC II/L 43, A/9021 III, pp. 98–99; A/9021, III, p. 105; Roumania A/9021, III, pp. 106–107; Greece A/9021, III, p. 70; (A/AC 138/SC II, SR 61); Tunisia A/AC 138/SC II/SR 58, pp. 127–128 and SR 62. The organisation of African Unity A/9021, Vol. II, p. 7 (French), A/AC 138/39.

128. A/AC 138/91, art. c.

129. A/AC 138/SC II/L 35 art. 1,(4).

130. Ibid. art. 3, (2).

131. sec. 114.

132. Knight, H.G., “International legal aspects of deep draft harbor facilities”, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1973, pp. 386–389.Google Scholar

133. In testimony before the Senate joint subcommittee, Oct 2, 1973.

134. A/AC 138/SC II/L 21; U.N.G.A.O.R. A/9021, vol. III, p. 19 art. 7.

135. Working paper of Ecuador, Panama and Peru A/AC 138/SC II/L 27; A/9021, vol. III, 30 e.ff. artt. 9 and 19.

136. A/AC 138/SC II/L 37; GAOR A/9021, Vol. III, pp. 78 e.ff., art. 25.

137. A/AC 138/53; A/8421, p. 109 e.ff., art 62.

138. GAOR A/8421, pp. 145–146 (French).

139. A/AC 138/91, art. (d).

140. A/AC 138/SC II/L 35, art 1 (3).

141. Ibid. art 5; A/AC 138/97.

142. A/AC 138/97, art 5.

143. A/AC 138/SC II/L 27, GAOR A/9021, pp. 30 e.ff., art 9; A/AC 138/SC II/L37, GAOR A/9021, Vol. III, p. 80, II.

144. Sec. 103, 3.

145. Sec. 111, b.

146. A/AC 138/91, art. (e), p. 4.

147. Ibid., p. 2.

148. Ibid., art. (a).

149. This should be developed along the rules contained in the space treaty of 27 Jan. 1967, Trbl. 31, IV–VI. We find the principle as well in the above mentioned “Declaration of Principles”