INTERNATIONAL LAW 7 



have "provided the impetus for a rash" of claims by other states to 

 authority over areas of the high seas (as indicated above) (McDougal 

 and Burke, 1962, p. 967). India has, since 1956, claimed a right to 

 establish fishing conservation zones oiU to 100 miles beyond her ter- 

 ritorial sea. 



In vie^v of these new claims, it is appropriate to inquire how 

 effective a fishery management program might be in the northeast- 

 ern Pacific based on such extended claims of jurisdiction. This is 

 not to suggest, or recommend, at this point, the desirability of an 

 extension by the United States or Canada of their jurisdiction over 

 high seas fishery resources, but rather to engage in a limited explora- 

 tion of the immediate consequences to fishery management activities 

 of such an extension. 



Extension of United States or Canadian jurisdiction over the high 

 seas from 3 to 12 miles ^vould have little effect on fishery manage- 

 ment programs in the northeastern Pacific. An extension by Canada 

 ^\ ith the use of straight base lines could close the entire area inside 

 the Queen Charlotte Islands (Hecate Strait) to foreign fishermen. It 

 would preclude effective fishing off the west coast of the Queen 

 Charlotte Islands and off Vancouver Island north of 50° North Lati- 

 tude, where the continental shelf is generally narro^v. A 12-mile 

 limit from present base lines would leave the outer banks luipro- 

 tected south of this parallel along the coast of Washington and 

 northern Oregon as far south as Cape Arago. Off the coast of 

 Alaska, a 12-mile limit would mean that Soviet and Japanese fisher- 

 men ^vould have to stay farther from shore than at present. But the 

 more productive outer banks in the Gulf of Alaska would not be 

 included, and effective control of the various Alaska coastal fisheries 

 ^vould still be lacking. The expanded exclusive zones would not be 

 large enough to cover the habitat of most commercially significant 

 stocks of fish there. The fish ^vould roam in and out of such areas 

 without restriction and uncontrolled fishing outside the 12-mile 

 limit could nullify management programs within those limits. 



Extension of exclusive fishery jiuisdiction to the edge of the con- 

 tinental shelf, or to 200 miles, would have a different effect. A 

 200-mile limit would be easier to administer, since it is much more 

 easily found than is the "edge" of the continental shelf. In the 

 oceans off most of the nations of the world a 200-mile limit would 

 extend beyond the continental shelf, as the latter is normally defined. 



