55 



These three bills deal with the problems of intelligent management 

 of our coastal areas. 



Tlie Department of Defense supports the objectives of these bills. 

 However, we have certain observations which are respectfully sub- 

 mitted for you and your committee's deliberations. 



I would prefer in some of this to summarize my statement — I believe 

 the committee has complete copies— since some of the observations deal 

 with technicalities and perhaps can be dealt with in that way. 



Senator Inouye. Without objection, your full statement will be 

 incorporated in the record. 



Dr. Frosch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



The first general observation has to do with some of the definitions 

 contained in the bills, S. 2802 and S. 3460. Some of these definitions are 

 not consistent with the generally accepted definitions under interna- 

 tional law. 



We are concerned that the use of the term "coastal zone" could be 

 interpreted, although not intended, as an attempt by the United States 

 to extend its sovereignty beyond its territorial seas without going 

 through the suitable international process to do so. 



In the statement there are some comments as to why this interpreta- 

 tion might be possible. 



In addition, the term "seaward boundary," which is used in these 

 bills, is not a recognized term of international law, nor does it have a 

 real understood legislative content since it has not been used before. 



On the other hand, there is a term or a pair of terms that are used 

 to correspond to what seems to be meant by "seaward boundary," and 

 this is the use of the term "territorial sea" in its recognized content 

 of international law, and the proper use of the term "baseline" which 

 is somewhat different than the definition given in the bills. 



Finally, the term "estuarine sanctuary," as used in S. 3460, is a new 

 term which does not have an established meaning in international law, 

 and again we are concerned that if used loosely, it could be interpreted 

 as bearing upon the international law of the territorial seas, again, as 

 a matter of domestic legislation without having gone through any in- 

 ternational processes to make such a modification of law. 



So we specifically recommend that that definition be modified by 

 adding the sentence : "Such sanctuaries shall not in any event extend 

 beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea of the United States." 



I note that, of course, there is a problem posed by the fact that the 

 legal limit of territorial sea may not correspond to a desired scientific 

 or an engineering or a pollution limit. Nevertheless, it seems to us that 

 some form of international due process would need to be followed in 

 order to establish legal definitions, particularly if they are to extend 

 beyond currently agreed international law. 



Senator Inoute. May I at this point interrupt you, sir ? 



Dr. Frosch. Certainly. 



Senator Inouye. Wliat is your legal definition of "territorial sea." 



Dr. Frosch. The "territorial sea" is defined in a Geneva Conven- 

 tion on Territorial Sea, and it generally means that area of waters 

 beyond the internal waters of the state in which it has the rights of 

 sovereignty, that is, to collect taxes, to control, to police, to have ex- 

 clusive use, with the exception of allowing the right of innocent pas- 

 sage of ships through the territorial sea. 



65-319—76 5 



