FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 70, NO. Z 



the probability might be, the stake is big enough 

 for a substantial number of nations to try to 

 block a proposal for a territorial sea wider than 

 12 miles, or, failing this, to refuse to sign any 

 treaty containing such a provision. Thus, 

 chances are slim for an effective global treaty 

 specifying a territorial sea broader than 12 miles 

 to come out of the pi'oposed 1973 conference. 

 This will not, of course, prevent some nations 

 from extending their territorial seas through 

 unilateral claims. If any effective global agree- 

 ment on fishery matters should come out of this 

 conference, however, it would be based on the 

 principle of separating out the question of juris- 

 diction over fisheries from the total package of 

 national jurisdictions comprising sovereignty. 



The conference may not result in an overall 

 agreement on fishery issues, but it is quite likely 

 that there will be a general recognition of special 

 rights of coastal states in terms of exclusive fish- 

 ery jurisdiction or other forms of preferential 

 allocation of resources. Such a principle will be 

 supported not only by developing nations but 

 also many of the developed nations. 



One way of protecting fishery interests of 

 coastal states beyond the territorial sea would 

 be the recognition of exclusive fishery jurisdic- 

 tion within a certain zone, perhaps defined in 

 terms of a fixed distance and/or a depth. It 

 would be up to the particular coastal state wheth- 

 er it chooses to allow foreign fishermen to fish 

 within the zone under conditions set by the coast- 

 al state. Some coastal states might prefer to 

 allow foreign fishing for the resources that are 

 not utilized or grossly underexploited by their 

 own fishermen, probably charging foreign ves- 

 sels a substantial fee. Arrangements might also 

 be made for such resources to be developed from 

 coastal bases as a condition for allowing for- 

 eign fishing. 



Another way of protecting the interests of 

 coastal states would be for coastal fisheries to be 

 given preferential rights (including a right to 

 adopt and implement conservation measures 

 which would be binding on foreign vessels) to 

 all resources within a certain zone beyond the 

 territorial limit. This would involve problems 

 of determining what portions of such resources 

 or catches therefrom should be allocated to the 



coastal fisheries concerned, including the ques- 

 tion of whether the coastal state should have a 

 right to control the exploitation of the resources 

 that are not used by them to any substantial 

 degree. Under this principle, the formula to be 

 adopted would perhaps vary from case to case. 

 Preferential fishing rights might also be applied 

 to specific resources important to the coastal 

 states without establishing a fixed zone. This 

 would involve such additional questions as the 

 determination of major areas of distribution of 

 the resources concerned, and the eff"ect of for- 

 eign fishing for other resources on the particular 

 resources in the same area. 



Among the three alternatives mentioned 

 above, more nations might favor the first to en- 

 sure a greater degree of control and simplicity 

 of implementation. The main question in this 

 case would be how the zone should be defined. 

 Some of the nations supporting this idea may 

 still be thinking in terms of a distance of 12 nau- 

 tical miles from the shore for their exclusive 

 fishery zone, with a narrower territorial sea. 

 Some others are apparently considering varying 

 distances to meet the specific situations. A sub- 

 stantial number of nations seem to favor much 

 greater distance, up to 200 miles, and/or to the 

 outer edge of the continental shelf. 



A small number of nations might prefer pre- 

 ferential fishing rights for specific resources that 

 are important to their coastal fisheries. This 

 would be a rather complex concept and a variety 

 of problems would arise from its implementation. 

 Many different formulae could be considered. 

 The existing arrangement for yellowfin tuna in 

 the eastern tropical Pacific may fall in this gen- 

 eral category in that allowance is made, within 

 the total catch limit, for vessels of smaller car- 

 rying capacities. Various bilateral fishery agree- 

 ments between the United States and nations op- 

 erating distant-water fisheries off her coast also 

 include provisions for reducing the adverse ef- 

 fects, on coastal fisheries, of foreign fishing on 

 the high seas. The treatment of anadromous 

 fishes, particularly salmon, and marine mammals 

 returning to land for breeding might also be con- 

 sidered a special case in this general category. 

 Different formulae are in practice to handle such 

 a case. For North American salmon, the absten- 



268 



