1182 
crease their ability to harvest. This results in an increase in production of from 
6% to 8% per year. Resources are available to permit a substantial annual yield 
of food from the sea somewhere between 4 and 40 times present levels (27), (28). 
The difference between 4 and 40 is chiefly in economic estimates and not in natural 
history estimates. 
The need for animal protein in the world is such that the nations are not 
going to reverse their present activities in this direction by permitting a raising 
of costs of production to support a new machinery of government which will be 
of doubtful utility. 
One could go on criticizing the suggestions of Pell, Danzig, Borghese, Hichel- 
berger, Auerbach and their associates in a negative manner for some time and 
in considerable detail. Their proposals invite such extensive negative criticism 
because they are not built on the real and extensive practice of nations in these 
matters, and the substantial progress in the increased use of the sea being made 
along these lines. To legislate for space, or for Antarctica, where there is not much 
history of human activity, or many resources available for use, is one thing; 
to revolutionize the governance of the ocean where there has been a long history 
of human utilization, and where there are many additional resources for use, is 
another. To revolutionize the relationship of nations among themselves, and to 
Support the substitution of international government for international cooperation 
among national governments on the sole excuse that better governance is needed 
for the ocean is patently impossible. The reed is too slender to support so large a 
bloom. 
Yet everybody dealing seriously with the ocean realizes that there is need for 
much additional international cooperation respecting the use of the ocean, and 
a steady improvement in the governance of that use as it grows more intensive. 
Accordingly I propose to discuss a few of the main problems that, exist in the 
real world and suggest some approaches to their solution. There will be no sur- 
prises by way of suggested solutions. 
1. Freedom of Commerce.—The key problem respecting the ocean is to keep 
free the flow of commerce among nations over, through and on the ocean so that 
this can be exercised by all nations with reasonable regard to the interests of 
ether nations in their exercise of the freedom of the seas. 
Few, if any, nations are entirely self-supporting within their boundaries and 
those who are nearest to being so self-supporting are among the poorest. The 
very real hope that now exists in the world for the extinction of poverty and the 
liberal provision of needs and desires for existence to all is dependent absolutely 
upon the flow of ocean commerce. Land trade routes are not able to handle the 
level of commerce among nations required to support the present human popula- 
tion of the world at present economic levels, much less larger human populations 
at improved social and economic levels. To the extent that ocean commerce is re- 
tarded or prevented from growth, the economic situation of the human popula- 
tion will be degraded, or the population will require to shrink, or both (depending 
upon the severity of interference with commerce). 
2. International Straits and Narrows.—The key problem in keeping ocean 
commerce open is at the choke points where the land narrows the sea-passage. 
Under the three-mile rule for the territorial sea the present channels of com- 
merce grew. Under a 12-mile rule for the territorial sea many of these straits and 
passages disappear as channels of traffic of an international character and come 
under national sovereignty. Under a 50 mile rule for the territorial sea most 
international straits would disappear. Under a 200 mile rule for the territorial 
sea the major existing channels of sea commerce would mostly pass through 
territorial waters at some point or another. 
Although customary international law permits of the innocent passage of 
ocean commerce through the territorial sea, the granting of that privilege by a 
sovereign is a quite different thing in practice than a sovereign exercising a right 
pertaining to him under international law. The temptation of the sovereign own- 
ing the territory through which a trade channel passes is to interfere with that 
passage to his own advantage (80). This has been evidenced repeatedly through 
history. Also the situation in times of war changes the power of both the belli- 
gerent and non-belligerent sovereign, under customary international law, mate- 
rially. 
To the extent that the territorial sea is broadened the free flow of commerce 
among nations, over, under, and on the sea is threatened. 
The real problem here, however, is that the 1958 Convention did not clearly 
provide for warships and military aircraft to transit in innocement passage inter- 
