FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 70, NO. 2 



fishing: vessels (each side desigrnated three ports 

 for emergency calls) . Negotiations for another 

 fishery agreement began in 1963, and the previ- 

 ous agreement was revived with certain modi- 

 fications for another 2 years. The agreement 

 has since been revised and modified from time 

 to time. Under the agreement signed in June 

 1970, the Japanese delegation agreed to enter 

 into negotiations with a view to restricting 

 purse-seine fishing. A new agreement was 

 signed in December 1970 establishing three reg- 

 ulatory areas for purse seining: one is closed 

 and the numbers of Japanese and Chinese sein- 

 ers are limited in the remaining two. 



Although these agreements have helped re- 

 duce the number of incidents greatly, their non- 

 governmental status made it difficult for Japan 

 to enforce the agreed regulatory measures, and 

 many violations have occurred. The important 

 stocks of groundfish in the East China Sea are 

 generally in poor condition due to overexploita- 

 tion. There is no way of developing an overall 

 international agreement to protect and allocate 

 these resources, for diplomatic relations do not 

 exist among some of the countries exploiting 

 the same stocks. China has taken the greatest 

 proportion of the total landings, although no re- 

 liable estimate is available. Japan's catch has 

 been substantial, while the proportions taken by 

 South Korea, North Korea, and Taiwan have 

 been relatively small. 



Extension of Limits of National Jurisdiction 



Japan has been dealing with an increasing 

 number of problems arising from the extension 

 of the limits of national jurisdiction through uni- 

 lateral claims by coastal states. As a general 

 trend is for more nations to claim broader zones, 

 a review of Japan's responses to these claims is 

 appropriate. 



United States.— ExceT>t for the abstention pro- 

 visions of the North Pacific fisheries treaty, the 

 Japan-United States crab agreement, and reg- 

 ulatory measures recommended by INPFC for 

 Bering Sea halibut, Japanese fisheries in the 

 eastern half of the Pacific Ocean have been rel- 

 atively free of restrictions. The Japanese gov- 



ernment initially controlled the expansion of 

 groundfish fishing into waters south of the Alas- 

 kan Peninsula on the basis of unofficial discus- 

 sions with the United States, but the situation 

 changed in 1965 when the government issued 

 regular licenses to a substantial number of ves- 

 sels. 



Negotiations for resolving problems arising 

 from the establishment of an exclusive fishery 

 jurisdiction zone by the United States in 1966 

 (3-12 miles) began in January 1967, and an 

 agreement came into effect in May 1967. While 

 the United States took the position that an ex- 

 clusive fishery zone could be established by a 

 domestic law, Japan held the view that such a 

 zone had no legal basis without an international 

 agreement. As in the case of the crab dispute, 

 the governments shelved their legal positions 

 and worked out practical arrangements. 



The agreement covered a wide variety of fish- 

 ing activities, both within and outside the fishery 

 zone. For example, Japan was permitted to con- 

 tinue the established fisheries within the fishery 

 zone for crabs off the Pribilof Islands, groundfish 

 along the Aleutians except during certain periods 

 in certain areas, whales along the Aleutians and 

 the Gulf of Alaska except between long 150°W 

 and 163°W, salmon ofl^ the Aleutian Islands west 

 of long 175°W, and tunas except in waters 

 around the Hawaiian Islands and off the main- 

 land coast. Certain areas within the zone were 

 also designated for loading and support activi- 

 ties. In turn, Japan undertook to refrain from 

 fishing in certain areas of international waters 

 during the first part of the halibut season and 

 during the main crab pot fishing season. The 

 agreement has since been revised twice, the most 

 recent revision (effective January 1971) being 

 summarized in Figures 12 and 13. (In compar- 

 ison, the United States-Soviet agreement is sum- 

 marized in Figures 14 and 15.) 



It is obvious that the United States has tried, 

 with some success, to reduce the eflFects of for- 

 eign fishing in international waters on impor- 

 tant domestic fisheries in turn for allowing for- 

 eign fishermen to continue their fishing in areas 

 within the exclusive fishery zone where such 

 fishing does not seriously aflfect domestic fish- 

 eries. The United States has also avoided con- 



256 



