edge still at about 40 fathoms and with depths increasing rapidly 

 beyond. 



In the Sea of Okhotsk, the 100-fathom line varies from 20 to 100 

 miles olfsliore, and encompasses about one fourth of the whole area. 

 Except for a deep basin near the Kuriles, all of the sea is less than 

 1,000 fathoms, an area of some 400,000 square miles. 



Differing Doctrines of the '"'■Legal Shelf 



The historical and conventional territorial limits of the coastal 

 nations hpve long been a subject of international controversy. EA^en 

 in the United States, controversy and litigation were carried on, par- 

 ticularly between the individual States and the Federal Government. 

 Since this paper is concerned mainly with the continental shelf, the 

 near-shore boundaries will be discussed only as they pertain to the 

 subject. Most of the maritime nations of the world recognize and claim 

 three nautical miles as the territorial sea, with a nine-mile contiguous 

 zone beyond that.^ The rest of the 109 sovereign states that border the 

 sea claim a wider territorial sea which may be as much as 200 miles 

 offshore, as is the case with Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, 

 Korea, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay (Appendix 1 ) . 



^Vhere the 200-mile figure originated is not very clear. But during 

 a Senate floor debate on the "Unlawful Seizure of U.S. Fishing Ves- 

 sels" off the South American shores, the late Senator Bartlett asked 

 if those countries had in fact established a 200-mile territorial sea limit. 

 Senator Warren Magnuson answered: 



Yes. Now I have a strange anecdote to relate about the 200-mile limit. In 

 Peru, I held talks with the highest officials of the government about the 200-mile 

 limit. They looked me squarely in the eye and said, "We did not establish the 

 200 miles. You did"^ — meaning we, the United States. 



I said, "How is that?" They pulled out a musty old order that had been in a 

 drawer — I guess they kept it handy — issued during World War II by President 

 Roosevelt, establishing a 200-mile neutrality zone around the western part of 

 South America as protection. They picked that up and said it should be 200 

 miles off their coast for fishing and other territorial matters.^ 



The physical dimensions of the continental shelf have not been used 

 to delineate the extent of jurisdiction of the coastal states for the sea- 

 bed. One obstacle was the lack of complete and accurate data which 

 could be used by the coastal states throughout the world. A more com- 

 pelling reason was the absence of uniformity in the widths of the 

 continental shelves. Some nations have hardly any shelf to speak of; 

 the conveniently adopted 100-fathom (200-meter) isobath is within 

 even their territorial seas and contiguous zones. 



As the importance of the continental shelf began to increase, some 

 nations undertook, by unilateral action, to establish policy and juris- 

 diction over their continental shelves. In the United States this action 



2 Congress enacted a law in 1966 establishing tliis fisheries contiguous zone. This is the 

 same zone established by the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Con- 

 tiguous Zone, in 19.5S. which "mav not extend bevond twelve miles * * *." (Article 24.2). 



» Congressional Record (Daily ed.. Apr. 3. 19ft8). p. S3818. Three South American coun- 

 tries (Chile, Ecuador. Peru) arrived at the 200-mile figure by taking the western limit of 

 what they termed "bioma". The delegates of these countries at the Santiago negotiations 

 on fishery conservation problems defined the "bioma" as "the whole of the living com- 

 munities of a region which, under the influence of the climate and in the course of cen- 

 turies, becomes constantly more homogeneous, until, in its final phase, it becomes a 

 definite type. * * * The western limit of these "bioma" are variable, and they are wider 

 opposite the Chilean coast, and narrower opposite Ecuador, hut the mean width mav be 

 taken to be about 200 miles." (CEP Doc. No. 2, Sept. 23, 1955, contained in : "Santiago 

 negotiations on fishery conservation problems," U.S. Department of State, Public Service 

 Division, 1955, pages 30-32.) 



