549 



nautical miles was never adopted as a limit universally; 

 claims of up to 12 such miles (ca 24 km) have always 

 been valid. 



A Convention of 1884 sustained all states' rights 

 to lay cable on the deep sea-floor; but it was not until 

 the Treaty of Paria, between Britain and Venezuela in 

 1942, and the Truman Proclamation of 1945, that any 

 state claimed jurisdiction and control over any part of 

 the sea-floor. By its important action, the United 

 States eff'ectively laid claim to an area of shelf larger 

 than Alaska and Texas combined. 



Three-and-a-half centuries of precedent thus led to 

 recognition of the following zones: (1) internal waters 

 and bays within the control of the coastal state; (2) 

 territorial sea under the control of the coastal state; 

 (3) continental shelf over which the coastal state might 

 claim control; (4) contiguous zones for special pur- 

 poses; (5) the high seas, held to be res communis; and 

 (6) the deep sea-floor, held to be res millius. New 

 technology for ocean research and exploitation after 

 World War II indicated obvious conflict under this 

 system. 



The International Law Commission had been 

 created in 1947 under the United Nations. It proposed 

 in 1956 that a Conference on Law of the Sea be held. 

 This occurred in 1958 at Geneva and adopted four 

 Conventions as follows : 



(1) Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone: 

 ratified 10 September 1964. This Convention confirmed 

 the control of the coastal state over all resources 

 within a territorial sea. In addition, the coastal state 

 might declare control over a contiguous zone for 

 security, customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary 

 purposes, but not to interfere with the right of innocent 

 passage. The width of the territorial sea is still un- 

 decided. Of 91 coastal states, 50 declare 12 nautical 

 miles, 17 declare more than 12, 10 declare between 3 

 and 12, and 14 declare 3 such miles (Oda, 1968). A 

 narrow territorial sea is favoured by military interests 

 and by states with international fishing fleets; Japan 

 is the only major fishing nation which adheres to three 

 miles. A wide territorial sea is favoured by states 

 wishing to protect a coastal fishery. Obviously, the 

 US has been in a delicate position and only recently 

 declared 12 nautical miles to be the width of its 

 territorial waters. 



(2) High Seas: ratified 30 September 1962. This 

 includes all waters outside territorial ones and declares 

 freedoms of navigation, overflight, fishing, and the 

 laying of submarine cables and pipelines. Also 

 included are regulations on piracy and pollution. 



(3) Continental Shelf: ratified 10 June 1964. This 

 Convention is mainly concerned with the sea-floor and 

 does not include the water lying above. It has already 



been pointed out that certain living resources are 

 included. The most serious contention concerns the 

 extent of the shelf, which is defined in the Convention 

 as extending; '. . . to the sea-bed and subsoil of the 

 submarine area adjacent to the coast, but outside the 

 area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, 

 beyond that limit, to where the depth of the super- 

 jacent waters admit of the exploitation of the natural 

 resources of the said areas." Two schools of thought 

 prevail here. One contends that as this Convention is 

 entitled 'Contenental Shelf, the sea bottom beyond 

 its geographic limits of about 200 m depth is not 

 included. The other contends that the exploitability 

 provision defines a 'juridical shelf which could include 

 the slope or even the whole ocean bottom. It should 

 be kept in mind that the shelf area is a huge one; 

 without the slope it comprises 10 x 10^ mi^ (about 

 28 X 10'' km^), which is equal to 20 per cent of the 

 total land area on Earth (Mero, 1966, 1968). An 

 excellent review of the problem is that of Tubman 

 (1966). 



(4) Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of 

 the High Seas: ratified 20 March 1966. This remains 

 the most controversial of the Conventions, being the 

 only one which did not more or less standardize a 

 body of existing custom but which contained genuine 

 innovation. The problem that one non-cooperating 

 state could vitiate fishery conservation eff"orts was a 

 major reason for calling the Geneva Conference. This 

 Convention 'virtually forces consideration of the need 

 for conservation of a fish stock by all participating 

 nations if only one (or an adjacent coastal state) 

 insists on it,' but 'it says nothing about the principles 

 to be followed, nor, more fundamentally, about the 

 objectives sought' (Crutchfield, 1968). It does not treat 

 allocations or provide more than case-by-caseconsider- 

 ation of conservation. 



Prognosis. Christy (1968) outlines four approaches 

 to the developing law of the sea. The 'wait and see' 

 approach leaves exploitation to chance. Support for 

 wait-and-see comes in part from proponents of case 

 law who heed the dictum of Oliver Wendell Holmes: 

 'The life of the law is not logic, but experience.' 

 Additional support accrues from those who note our 

 lack of knowledge and experience in the sea. 



The second approach is that of the 'national lake'. 

 The obstacle here is that the division of the sea would 

 be highly inequitable. The USSR would get little, 

 whereas tiny oceanic islands would gain title to huge 

 territories. 



The 'flag' approach is the third. It is supported 

 mainly by mineral and military interests of powerful 

 nations. Burke (1966a, 19666, 1968, 1969), McDougal 

 (1968), and Wilkey (1969), all defend this point of 



