INTERNATIONAL LAW 5 



We ha\'e especially endeavored to shed some light on a ninnber of 

 the more pressing issues before the negotiators now considering a 

 new North Pacific Treaty, and to bring to light certain aspects of the 

 problems involved in the current negotiations which may not have 

 been thoroughly considered to date. We ^vould be quick to note, 

 however, that although we have tried to encompass the more pressing 

 issues, and consider and sift most of the relevant economic and bio- 

 logical data, it has been impossible in a paper of this brevity to 

 document fully some of the views expressed. This suggests the need 

 for continuing research by those interested in these problems, and 

 for a continuing exchange of views on how the conflicting hopes and 

 desires of the various participants in these fisheries can best be 

 resolved. 



First ^ve ^vish to examine the general rules or principles of inter- 

 national la^v that have special significance in the northeastern 

 Pacific. 



INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE HIGH SEAS FISHERIES 



The dominant principle in the present legal regime of high seas 

 fisheries is that anyone is free to fish just about anywhere. This 

 principle developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with 

 the navigational needs of the great commercial nations that \vanted 

 to send their merchant vessels trading throughout the world. Na\'i- 

 gation, not fishery, ^vas their primary concern. Navigation has not 

 lost its importance, but high seas fishing has, in recent years, become 

 much more significant than in former years and has been increasing 

 in importance at a constantly accelerating rate since the end of 

 World War II. The resulting increase in competition for high seas 

 fishery resources, along ^vith a number of other factors, has brought 

 aboiu increasing claims to exclusive use of the high seas. 



There has never been unanimity on the question of the scope of 

 territorial seas. The great sea powers of the recent past— Great 

 Britain, France, Japan, the United States, and Germany— have gen- 

 erally argued for 3 miles. Many other countries, such as Norway, 

 Sweden, U.S.S.R., Spain, Portugal, and the Latin-American countries 

 have claimed more extensive areas. At present the claims range from 

 3 to 12 miles. To illustrate, Japan, the United States, and Crreat 

 Britain, among others, claim 3 miles; India, 6 miles; Mexico, 9 



