APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI 
43 
of the coastal nation (Section 103). The FCMA requires that the Secretary 
of State initiate and conduct negotiations for the purpose of entering 
into international fisheries agreements providing for the conservation 
and management of highly migratory species such as tuna. This is in 
contrast to the single negotiating text which encourages the establish- 
ment of international commissions but also gives coastal states exclu- 
sive control over tuna withif its exclusive economic zone. 
Another difference between the Law of the Sea text and the FCMA 
involves anadromous species such as salmon. The Law of the Sea single 
text gives the coastal state responsibility for salmon stocks orig- 
inating within its waters, and requires all other states to cooperate 
with the state of origin to insure conservation and rational management. 
Enforcement of regulations regarding anadromous stocks, caught beyond 
the exclusive economic zone of the host state, is to be by agreement 
between the state of origin and the harvesting state. The FCMA, however, 
gives the United States exclusive management authority over anadromous 
species throughout their migratory range, including the high seas beyond 
the 200-mile fishery conservation zone. The bill does indicate, though, 
that such management authority will not extend to salmon and other 
anadromous species during the time they are found within any foreign 
nation's territorial sea or fishery conservation zone. In such a case, 
the Act requires that negotiations be conducted by the two nations in 
order to provide for the effective conservation and management of 
anadromous species. 
An additional major area of difference between the fishery articles 
of the Law of the Sea single text and our Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act is with regard to enforcement. The new United States 
legislation provides for absolute enforcement by the United States 
within the fishery zone and permits imprisonment of individuals and 
forfeiture of vessels if any violation of United States regulations 
should occur. The new LOS single text (Article 61), however, gives the 
coastal state broad enforcement powers within the zone but stops short 
of permitting imprisonment or confiscation of property. This is a 
rather substantial difference, and there will be an additional question 
of whether the Congress will be willing to forego the right of the 
United States courts to apply corporal punishment to foreign fishermen 
found violating United States fishery regulations. In spite of this, 
nevertheless, one must conclude that the differences between the current 
single text and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act recently 
passed by Congress are relatively small. Both give the coastal states 
wide authority and jurisdiction over living resources and broad powers 
to enforce its regulations on foreign vessels, as well as on its own 
flag vessels fishing in the zone. 
The Enforcement Problem 
The Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides for absolute 
coastal nation enforcement of fishing regulations within the 200-mile 
zone on March 1, 1977. Given that a number of nations (possibly the 
434 
