REPORTS ON THE WORK OF THE IHO FOR THE PERIOD 2007 - 2011

REPORTS ON THE WORK OF THE IHO FOR THE PERIOD 2007 - 2011
http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/conf/18IHC2012/docs/CONF18_WP1_Add.1.pdf

Addendum 1 to WORK PROGRAMME No. 1 CORPORATE AFFAIRS
REPORT ON WORK TO REVISE IHO PUBLICATION S-23

Report on work to revise IHO Publication S-23 – “Limits of Oceans and Seas”


PDF P4

A. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY UP TO THE XVIIth IHC IN 2007 PDF P2 (omit)

B. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY FROM XVIIth IHC IN 2007 TO THE XVIIIth IN 2012 PDF P2 (omit)



C. WAY FORWARD PDF P4
9. The work of the S-23 WG and the positions expressed by various members of the WG have been affected significantly by diplomatic lobbying of the interested States. The highly political nature of the issue is, to a large degree, overwhelming the technical purpose of the publication and of the Organization. Based on the history of efforts over the last 20 years to find a way forward in naming this sea area, it has to be recognized that a new edition of the publication S-23 can not be progressed until an agreement between the interested States is reached. This position has been reflected most recently in the responses expressed by various Member States to CL 24/2012.


10. In the circumstances, noting the lack of any significant progress made over such a considerable number of years and considering that the proposals of the S-23 WG have not been accepted by Member States as indicated in　CL 38/2012　the question that now has to be asked is whether Member States still wish to pursue the development of an up-to-date edition of S-23. 

If the answer to this question is YES, then Member States must be prepared to indicate how this can now be achieved. 

If the answer is NO, then Member States must decide 
　　whether the current but out of date 3rd edition of S-23, which has not been revised for nearly 60 years, will continue to be an active, but ineffective, IHO reference publication 

or 　

　　whether the publication should be discontinued. 


In deciding the way forward, Member States should also consider the adverse effect on the reputation and the credibility of the Organization and its publications if it is unable to resolve this matter after so long.





Referemce：CL24/2012  2012/02/20
http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/circular_letters/english/2012/Cl24e.pdf



reference:CL38/2012 2012/03/30
 http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/circular_letters/english/2012/Cl38e.pdf

PDF P8
 Item 4. As there has been no consensus between the members of the S‐23 WG on the issue of naming the sea area between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, what are your views on possible ways
forward for progressing a new edition of S‐23?



• Thirty‐one (31) Member States provided comments to the question of possible ways forward for progressing a new edition of S‐23. Eleven (11) Member States did not comment. Twenty‐two (22) Member States indicated that the concerned States must continue their efforts to find a common accepted way to name the sea area in question, some of them indicating views on how the issue could be handled. It may be noted that three (3) Member States indicated that the updating of S‐23 should be considered on a regional level or chapter by chapter;