446 



tion zones off its shores in accordance with the above principles, * * * 

 provided that corresponding recognition is given to any fishing in- 

 terests of nationals of the United States which may exist in such areas.'' 

 The Proclamation emphasized that the " * * character as high seas of 

 the areas in* which such conservation zones are established and the 

 right to their free and unimpeded navigation are in no way thus 

 affected." 



These two assertions seemed to imply that all nations should come 

 to an understanding, negotiate fisheries treaties, and respect agree- 

 ments concerning fisheries regulation and conservation on the high seas. 

 Furthermore, in context with the events of the time and despite the 

 disclaimer in the "White House press release, the continental shelf proc- 

 lamation might have been ai> expression of "White House strategy for 

 the claims of the Federal Government to the right over offshore oil 

 reserves, the so-called "tidelancl" disputes. Unfortunately, the two 

 Presidential proclamations led to widely varied interpretations, inter- 

 nationally and domestically, despite the fact that the proclamations 

 did not legally alter the 3-mile territorial limits of the United States. 



Within a few years of these, presidential actions, numerous coastal 

 nations issued similar proclamations, but without distinguishing sys- 

 tematicallv among fishing zones, the seabed and subsoil of the con- 

 tinental shelf, and the concept of the high seas. Although these 

 proclamations varied in scope, they included rights which were not 

 then considered within the acceptable regulations of the international 

 community. For example, Mexico and Argentina claimed jurisdiction 

 over their respective continental shelves, including fisheries, but with- 

 out interference with free navigation on the high seas. Other South 

 American nations went even further, claiming rights over the shelf, 

 the water above it. and the air space above/ Nations having very nar- 

 row shelves simply extended their claims of exclusive sovereignty and 

 jurisdiction 200 miles offshore, to include the seabed and the subsoil 

 and fishing rijrhts. 



In the United States, the legal principle of multiple use of a resource 

 exists on public lands and in the navigable waters of streams. The Tru- 

 man Proclamation in essence extended this legal principle into the sea. 

 Imparting to it another dimension, the Proclamation established a 

 distinction between the use of the seabed and that of the overlying 

 water. It asserted the basic premise that each nation possessed sovereign 

 rights over the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of 

 its continental shelves. 



Some analysts view the Proclamation as detrimental to international 

 relations and the interests of the United States. They contend that 

 those not acquainted with the national interests of the United States in 

 the proper context of international relations as a whole tend to consider 

 it in the U.S. interest to establish boundaries as far out into the ocean 

 as possible and establish exclusive jurisdiction over everything within 

 them. For example : 



The trouble with this parochial View is that whatever the United States can do 

 in this respect it has t<» agree that other countries can do the same thine The 

 reaction we got from the blunder of issuing the Truman Proclamation on 



'Frnrirls T. Christ v. Jr and Anthony Scott "The Common Wealth In Orenn Fisheries : 

 V° m / 1 r"Mcms of Grow tb and Economic Allocation." (Unltimore, Johns Hopkins Press 

 196u), page 163. v 



