1177 
between sovereigns, not among their citizens or between the citizens of one 
sovereign and another sovereign. While citizens and firms are frequently the ob- 
jects of international law, only sovereigns are its subjects. The citizen on the 
high seas operates under rights pertaining to the sovereign whose flag he wears, 
not under rights pertaining to him as an individual under international law. 
There is a wide range of procedures available for the peaceful settlement of 
such disputes among sovereigns (13) and they are in use steadily in the prac- 
tice of nations. 
The normal way to settle such disputes is by ordinary diplomatic communica- 
tion. Not infrequently this leads to an agreement between the sovereigns to limit 
the activities of their citizens on the high seas in a manner that is mutually 
agreeable, and eliminates the dispute. This may be an agreement for a short 
‘period of time, say a year, open to renegotiation at the end of that time. There 
are a number of such agreements which have worked well over a considerable 
span of years. The agreement may last for a stated period of years, and many 
such agreements provide for an international commission appointed as among 
the nations party to the agreement to attend to these affairs, jointly, in the in- 
terim, within terms laid down by the convention establishing it. By such agree- 
ment the allocation of the use of particular resources as between the citizens of 
the nations party to the agreement can be, and sometimes is, made. (14). 
Other procedures include arbitration or referral to the International Court of 
Justice. Admittedly there can be situations arise where the interests of sovereigns 
are so incompatible that there is a refusal to reach agreement through these nor- 
mal peaceful channels, or that it takes a number of years of intensive dispute be- 
fore this is done. An example is provided by the dispute among the United States ; 
Ecuador, Peru and Chile over the claim by the latter three to exclusive jurisdic- 
tion over the sea, the seabed, and their resources to a minimum distance of 200 
marine miles from shore. The three claiming countries have repeatedly refused 
to join the United States in taking the case to the International Court of Justice 
(15). Peru and Ecuador from time to time seize a United States vessel under this 
claim. United States vessels have continued to operate in the disputed area. 
The United States has attempted to protect its citizen in exercising its rights in 
the disputed area not only by vigorous diplomatic activity but by general legisla- 
tion designed to mitigate the economic effects on its vessels of seizure or molesta- 
tion on the high seas under claims not recognized by the United States. 
It needs to be pointed out that the Pell, Danzig, Borghese, or other proposed 
draft treaties alluded to above, will not prevent or solve disputes of this nature. 
Treaties are not binding upon sovereigns under international law unless accepted 
by the particular sovereign. The International Court of Justice has recently once 
more laid out the limitations of such conventional law in its decision on the 
North Sea case involving Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany, and Den- 
mark (16). The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in 
such cases unless the particular sovereign has accepted its jurisdiction generally 
or will stipulate this for the particular case. The General Assembly of the United 
Nations cannot enact legislation (no matter what it is called) which is binding 
upon sovereigns unless the sovereign in question agrees that it is. 
3. The Outer Edge of the Continental Shelf.—A. driving worry expressed re- 
peatedly by the proponents of change noted above, is that there was going to be 
a mad “Colonial” scramble by the nations of the world to extend their sovereignty 
out over the sea-bed in order to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over the rich re- 
sources lying there. This fear was successfully inserted in a speech by President 
Johnson (17). What needed to be done rather quickly to stop this, they felt, was 
to prohibit expropriation of the sea-bed. To do this it was necessary to define 
what the present bounds of sovereign territoriality were so that what lay beyond 
national jurisdiction could be defined. This demanded a more precise definition of 
the outer boundary of the continental shelf. 
There are several points in this complex idea that need to be dealt with. They 
include: 
(a) As set out clearly by the International Court of Justice in its recent 
decision in the North Sea Cases, the Continental Shelf of a nation constitutes. 
a natural prolongation of its land territory in and under the sea ipso facto 
and ab initio. It is so by inherent right. It is exclusive. It cannot be disposed 
of by others to others except by agreement of the sovereign. 
(b) The doctrine of the continental shelf is a recent instance of encroach- 
ment on maritime expanses which, during the greater part of history, apper-- 
tained to no one. The principle is applied that the land dominates the sea. 
