The Chair said that Article 32, dealing with non-participants in subregional or regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements, would be placed after Article 16 dealing with new participants in his revised text. The delegate of Brazil expressed doubts concerning the relationship between Article 32 and the General Principles outlined in Article 1. He stated that as non-participating entities are identified in Article 32, they should be similarly identified in Article 1 to ensure comprehensive coverage. The Chair agreed that a mechanism is needed to develop Article 1, paragraph (3) and that a reference might be included in this Article. Peru, supported by New Zealand, stated that paragraph (1) should end "in accordance with the relevant provisions of UNCLOS and this Agreement", thus ensuring that non-participants are obliged to participate in the conservation and management of stocks. The Russian Federation, supporting Peru, said that regional and subregional arrangements must not by threatened by non-participating States and that flags of convenience are of particular concern. He also stated that Article 17, dealing with the responsibilities of the flag State, should be strengthened to make the regime more effective. The Korean delegate, supported by Poland, stated that in paragraph (1), it should be made clear that membership in regional and subregional arrangements and organizations should be open to all States without discrimination. Iceland said the text should be amended to reflect that such organizations be competent. China expressed concern that the word "obligation" in paragraph (1) should be followed by "in accordance with the relative provisions of the Agreement". Mexico supported China's proposal and questioned the reference to non-member and non-participating vessels in paragraph (3). The Chair said something must be done to deal with vessels that are non-members and that do not fish in accordance with regional or subregional measures. The delegate of the EU stated that the relationship between Article 32 and Article 8, dealing with cooperation for conservation and management, is very important. The open nature of these agreements should be made clear. He agreed with Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Argentina, and the Marshall Islands, that the Korean proposal has more relevance to Article 8, and expressed support for the US proposal if it is linked to Article 8 as well. Poland supported the proposals of China and Peru. Mexico said the US text is similar to the Chair's, but expressed concern that all possible conservation and management measures should be examined. Morocco supported the Chair's text. Lebanon said the presence of international agreements should provide the basis for action concerning "any violation of a non-member".
Noting delegates reference back to Article 8, Korea said, that in his view, the last sentence of paragraph (3) imposes conditions for the participation of interested States in order to become a participant. Paragraph (4) states that only those States that participate in regional organizations shall have access to the fishery. He argued for the Korean proposal to be inserted into Article 32.
Peru said he had some difficulty with paragraph (3) because the term "internationally agreed" could refer to just two States. He suggested the wording "in conformity with this agreement" conclude the final sentence. He rejected any provision in the text that implied "open ended" participation, as this would be in direct conflict with Article 8.
Uruguay agreed with the Chair's text and said the obligation to cooperate is consistent with UNCLOS, He thought the US amendment could be incorporated into the text and supported Peru with regard to the scope of field of application of fishing in the particular region. The Chair reminded delegates that the safeguard clause in paragraph (3) does require States to take measures consistent with this Agreement and international law. Indonesia said reference should simply be to UNCLOS. China said the Chair's text in paragraph (2) should remain.