Sweden and Norway; France and Brazil; South 

 Africa and Southwest Africa. We shall deal here 

 only with the dispute that most concerns the 

 United States. 



The unilateral reactions of Chile, Ecuador and 

 Peru to the Truman Proclamations of 1945 culmi- 

 nated in the Declaration of Santiago, Aug. 18, 

 1952, in which the three countries asserted "as a 

 principle of their international maritime policy 

 that each of them possesses sole sovereignty and 

 jurisdi'^tion over the areas of the sea adjacent to 

 the coast of its own country and extending not 

 less than two hundred nautical miles from the said 

 coast."^* The United States refused to recognize 

 this principle and was willing to have the Cali- 

 fornia-based distant-water tuna fleet continue to 

 fish for tuna within the 200 mile zone. 



As a consequence. United States fishing vessels 

 within this zone began to be seized, their catches 

 confiscated and the owners fined. ^^ In response, 

 the Fishermen's Protective Act was passed in 1954 

 to reimburse the vessel owners for fines they are 

 forced to pay to governments seizing their vessels 

 on the basis of claims not recognized by the 

 United States.'* The Act further provides that 

 the United States shall have a claim against the 

 seizing governments for the amounts of reimburse- 

 ment. 



From the time the Act became effective 

 through 1967, 75 United States fishing vessels 

 have been seized and fines totalling $489,470 

 imposed upon their owners. However, only 

 $332,702 worth of claims for reimbursement of 

 such fines have been filed.'' Since 1961, 50 

 percent of the vessels in the United States tuna 

 fleet have either been chased, seized, harassed or 



Declaracion Sobre Zona Maritima, Art. II, Art. XIV, 

 U.N. Legislative Series, Laws and Regulations on the 

 Regime of the Territorial Sea, U.N. Doc. No. St/Leg./Ser. 

 B 16, Treaty No. 20, at 724 (1957). 



37 



For a list of the seizures through June 1963, see 

 American Society of International Law, International 

 Legal Materials 61-62 (Jan. 1964). 



'*68 Stat. 883 (1954); 22 U.S.C. §§1972-75. 



''h. Rep. No. 1566, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968), 10 

 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 3839, 3843 (Sept 20, 

 1968); Testimony of Ambassador Donald McKeman, 

 Hearings Before Senate Commerce Committee on S. 

 2269, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 69 (1967). $120,966.90 was 

 paid to Ecuador; $114,800.00 to Mexico; $44,000.00 to 

 Honduras; $22,500.00 to Panama; $22,128.00 to Peru; 

 and $ 8,277.90 to Columbia. 



shot at."" The State Department has not suc- 

 ceeded in recovering any part of the moneys paid 

 to the seizing governments. 



In 1968, the Act was amended significantly.''^ 

 It now entitles United States vessel owners to 

 reimbursement for any license fees, registration 

 fees, or other direct charges, in addition to fines, 

 they must pay to secure the prompt release of 

 their seized vessels and arrested crews. It is 

 estimated that this amendment will cost $ 1 20,000 

 to $170,000 a year .''^ 



Furthermore, the Act now authorizes a tem- 

 porary, four-year voluntary insurance program 

 under which the Secretary of the Interior will 

 guarantee reimbursement for certain additional 

 losses. The vessel owner will be reimbursed for the 

 destruction of or damage to the vessel, its fishing 

 gear or other equipment, directly resulting from 

 the seizure. The owner and crew of the vessel will 

 be reimbursed for (1) the market value of fish 

 caught before the seizure and confiscated or 

 spoiled during the period of detention, and (2) 50 

 percent of the potential income lost because 

 fishing time was interrupted by the seizure and 

 detention. 



Vessel owners participating in the insurance 

 program will be required to pay the expenses of its 

 administration and at least one-third of its cost, 

 which is estimated at $506,668 for the four-year 

 period."" 



Finally, the Act requires the Secretary of State 

 to withhold from any funds progranuned under 

 the Foreign Assistance Act to any country which 

 seizes a United States fishing vessel and fails to 

 satisfy the United States claim resulting therefrom 

 an amount equal to the unpaid claim. 



Not only does the existing situation exacerbate 

 general relations between the United States and 

 the South American countries involved to the 

 detriment of other important objectives they 

 share. It also discourages the development of the 

 vast food reserves of the sea. For example, the 

 South American countries seizing United States 

 tuna vessels take relatively small quantities of 



'"PX. 90-482, 82 Stat. 729, Aug. 12, 1968. The Act is 

 now to be referred to as the "Fisherman's Protective Act 

 of 1967." 



"^H. Rep. No. 1566, 10 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 

 3839, 3848 (Sept 20, 1968). 



VIU-56 



