KASAHARA: JAPANESE DISTANT-WATER FISHERIES 



lems. Whether or not the Law of the Sea Con- 

 ference can produce a general agreement on this 

 matter, some principle to the above effect is 

 likely to emerge as a consensus of the majority. 

 Exactly to what extent the development of dis- 

 tant-water fisheries has contributed to this gen- 

 eral trend is difficult to assess. It should also be 

 pointed out that some of the European nations, 

 particularly the east European, have followed 

 the example of Soviet fishery development, 

 though on a smaller scale, and have accelerated 

 the trend for extension of coastal jurisdiction. 



FUTURE PROBLEMS 



CHANGES IN REGIMES FOR FISHERIES 



The purpose of this section is to make pre- 

 dictions, based on past performance, on how the 

 Japanese government and industry might re- 

 spond to possible changes in international re- 

 gimes for marine living resources. 



First, a brief analysis of the changes in inter- 

 national regimes that are most likely to take 

 place appears appropriate (Kasahara, in press). 

 The first preparatory meeting of the Law of the 

 Sea Conference (scheduled for 1973), held in 

 March 1971, made it clear that fishery problems 

 were among the most controversial issues con- 

 cerning uses of the ocean. One of the reasons 

 for this is the fact that fisheries are important 

 to many of the developing countries, which com- 

 prise the overwhelming majority of United Na- 

 tions membership. Another factor, which may 

 be more important, is the very nature of fishery 

 problems. It is perhaps useful to note how well 

 some of the major uses of the sea have been 

 served by the existing regimes based largely on 

 the traditional concept of free access. These in- 

 clude transportation, which is the most impor- 

 tant use of the sea, communication, scientific re- 

 search, and recreation. Even the exploitation 

 of mineral resources has not caused insolvable 

 international conflicts. Although developing na- 

 tions might look upon such freedoms as inequit- 

 able because of their limited participation, little 

 real damage has been done in those aspects of 

 use of the sea. The major exceptions to this 



general notion are fishing and pollution. Except 

 for pollution from sea accidents, most of marine 

 pollution originates in areas within the limits 

 of national jurisdiction rather than beyond. This 

 leaves fishing as the most controversial issue. 



Free access to fishing on the high seas may 

 have served for increasing food production from 

 the sea, but it has resulted in numerous inter- 

 national conflicts and necessitated almost con- 

 tinuous negotiations between nations all over the 

 world. Most of the actions taken to extend na- 

 tional jurisdiction in one form or another have 

 been motivated by a desire to control use of living 

 resources. Fishery interests have also created 

 such new concepts as an exclusive fishery zone, 

 preferential rights of coastal states, as well as 

 the allocation of resources in international 

 waters. 



Judging from the nature of recent fishery con- 

 flicts and discussions in the United Nations sys- 

 tem, one of the predominant trends will obviously 

 be further extension of coastal jurisdiction over 

 the exploitation of living resources. Such a 

 trend will continue regardless of the outcome 

 of the Law of the Sea Conference. Extension 

 of coastal jurisdiction might take the form of 

 broader territorial zones, or preferential rights 

 of coastal states. National claims might also be 

 expanded through a new definition of living re- 

 sources subject to the existing continental shelf 

 convention and/or a new sea-bed treaty now 

 under consideration. It is also possible that some 

 nations might translate the new regime for sea- 

 bed resources into a regime for the control of 

 living resources in superjacent waters. 



There is no question that most of the devel- 

 oped nations would prefer a relatively narrow 

 territorial sea as a general rule from the point 

 of view of minimizing potential hazards to im- 

 portant nonextractive uses of the sea, particu- 

 larly shipping and navigation. The probability 

 of coastal states taking unilateral actions to re- 

 strict the right of passage for nonmilitary pur- 

 poses is rather remote, since practically all na- 

 tions are beneficiaries of this right, and such 

 actions would result in retaliatory measures of 

 various kinds. Nevertheless, under certain cir- 

 cumstances, some nations might possibly take 

 such actions for economic gains. However small 



267 



