345 



Mr. EoGERS. Has there been a review of our position since the Rus- 

 sians denied the passage of the Coast Guard vessel through the straits 

 in the Arctic ? 



Dr. Frosch. I am not aware of any formal review. I have not been 

 involved in it. 



Mr. Rogers. Do you think there should be ? 



Dr. Frosch. I think this would be a good occasion to reexamine the 

 situation. 



Mr. Rogers. As I understand it, before a vessel comes into our ports, 

 a Russian vessel, they obtain permission. 



Dr. Frosch. Oh, yes. That is separate from the right of innocent 

 passage, of course. 



Mr. Rogers. Yes ; I understand. 



Dr. Frosch. Yes. 



Mr. Rogers. I understand when we go by innocent passage we must 

 obtain permission, is this true, within the territorial waters of Russia ? 



Dr. Frosch. I am afraid I do not know. 



Mr. Rogers. Would you let us know that. I think it would be im- 

 portant. It is my understanding they require us to at least ask permis- 

 sion even to go through an innocent passage. 



Dr. Frosch. There are really two questions there, I think. One ques- 

 tion is whether there is anything in international law or legal tradition 

 that would require us to give notice, and then the second question is, 

 if there is not do we give notice anyway ? 



I will try to provide an answer to both questions. 



(The information follows:) 



Innocent Passage — Facts Relating Thereto 



In response to the questions on innocent passage, the following information 

 is provided : 



The U.S. position in relation to innocent passage of foreign vessels, including 

 those of the U.S.S.R., is formulated only after close interagency coordination 

 rather than being determined solely by any one agency. This position is that all 

 ships have the right of innocent passage and is predicated on customary inter- 

 national law, the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Corfu 

 Channel case, and the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the 

 Contiguous Zone. The Department of the Navy considers it to matter of vital 

 importance to its world-wide naval operations that this position be maintained. 



The U.S. did review its position on innocent passage in view of the Russian 

 denial of the passage of two Coast Guard icebreakers on 29 August 1967. This 

 denial of passage by the U.S.S.R. was considered to be in violation of international 

 law and resulted in an oflScial U.S. protest note to that effect. Upon review it 

 was determined that it was in the best interest of the U.S. to maintain our present 

 position based on international law rather than formulate a new policy based 

 on violation of such law by a foreign state. 



The United States does not seek permission for the passage of government 

 vessels undertaking innocent passage through the territorial waters of any 

 country including the Soviet Union. Clearance or permission, however, is obtained 

 when the contemplated entry is not clearly within the rights relating to innocent 

 passage and the foreign waters to which such rights apply. 



Permission in some form or other is required before ships enter the port of 

 any foreign country. This permission may be a blanket clearance under special 

 agreement or it may be on a case by case basis. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have 

 from time to time permitted port calls for each other's oceanographic ships, 

 specific permission being required in each instance. 



There is no consensus among maritime nations requiring notification of inno- 

 cent passage through territorial waters or through straits used for international 

 navigation. Specifically, the Territorial Sea Convention did not include a require- 



86-705— 68— pt. 1 23 



