158 



seas and no right to overfly the territorial sea, inlana waters, or land territory 

 of another nation without its permission. Activity in space in recent years has 

 modified this on the top side of the atmosphere, but that does not concern us 

 here, as it bears no close relationship to the law of the sea. 



The regime applying to the sea floor extended the exclusive jurisdiction, for 

 both exploration and exploitation, of the coastal state out over the resources 

 of the adjacent continental shelf without affecting the character of the super- 

 jacent waters as high seas. There was little controversy attached to this 

 progressive step in the development of international law. 



Three problems were not resolved to the satisfaction of all. 



Which biological resources pertain to the continental shelf and which to 

 the superjacent waters? 



What are the rights of foreign scientists to investigate the resources of the 

 continental shelf? 



What is the outer limit of the continental shelf? 



The first question was resolved by defining the biological resources that i)er- 

 tain to the continental shelf as "living organisms belonging to sedentary species ; 

 that is to say, organisms which at the harrestable stage, either are immobile 

 on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical con- 

 tact with the seabed or the subsoil." 



King crai agreement 



This rather clever definition has resulted in only one interaction among na- 

 tions that I know of, and that is the question of whether the king crab of the 

 North Pacific are in constant physical contact with the seabed in their harvestable 

 stage. The U.S. and Russia agree that they are. 



Japan does not agree but has adjusted its king crab fishery on Russian and 

 American continental shelves on a voluntary basis, anyway, to keep the peace. 



The second point was resolved by the following language : "The consent of 

 the coastal state shall be obtained in respect of any research concerning the 

 continental shelf and undertaken there. Nevertheless, the coastal state shall not 

 normally withhold its consent if the request is submitted by a qualified institu- 

 tion with a view to purely scientific research into the physical or biological 

 characteristics of the continental shelf, subject to the proviso that the coastal 

 state shall have the right, if it so desires, to participate or to be represented 

 in the research, and that in any event the results shall be published." 



This decision was widely disliked by scientists, particularly in the U.S., but 

 was not controversial among sovereign states. I know of no international dis- 

 pute that has arisen from it. 



Taking food from the shelf 



The third point was resolved by defining the continental shelf as follows : 

 "The term 'continental shelf is used as referring to the seabed and subsoil of 

 the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the ter- 

 ritorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth 

 of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources 

 of the same areas." 



Not only was there no serious disagreement over this definition among 

 the nations at the 1958 conference, but it was adopted almost verbatim from 

 the recomendation made by the International Law Commission on the rationale 

 that the commission had adopted. 



Although no disputes have arisen among nations over this definition, hardly 

 any phase of the four conventions has elicited so much debate among private 

 citizens from the academic and industrial communities, particularly in the U.S. 

 One cannot help doubting that these debaters have read the clear commentary 

 of the International Law Commission on this particular point. 



Two separate disputes respecting the liquid ocean became indescribably inter- 

 mixed during both law-of-the-sea conferences. They remain so, and still are re- 

 sulting in interaction of a less than peaceful nature among nations. 



The first dispute arises from causes that are primarily military and mer- 

 cantile. If the territorial sea is 3 miles in breadth, all international straits 

 that have existed for the past century or so remain open to passage by any 

 flag vessel without the consent of the sovereign of the adjacent coasts, and they 

 can be overflown as high seas. 



A 12-mile breadth for the territorial sea would remove international status 

 from many straits most important to navigation in the Caribbean, Southeast 

 Asia, and elsewhere, as well as removing an area of more than 7,700,000 sq km 

 (3-million square miles) from the high seas. The military consequences of such 

 a change would be so great that this aspect dominated the interaction on this 

 point through both conferences. 



