international organization with responsibility for 

 taking a world view so that, in time, a world-wide 

 system of regional fishery conventions can be 

 established. It may then also become possible to 

 establish as international law the duty of a new 

 entrant to comply with existing, non- 

 discriminatory, conservation and economic regula- 

 tory measures. 



F. Preferential Treatment of the Coastal State 



The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of 

 the Living Resources of the High Seas recognizes 

 the "special interest" of the coastal State "in the 

 maintenance of the productivity of the living 

 resources in any area of the high seas adjacent to' 

 its territorial sea." It does not deal with the 

 question of access to these resources but only with 

 that of theii conservation. 



However, the practice of States, including the 

 United States, since the Geneva Conventions on 

 the Law of Sea, has sanctioned as part of 

 customary international law an exclusive fisheries 

 zone to a distance of 12 miles from the baselines 

 for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea. 



The panel has recommended that some coastal 

 States bordering on the Northwest Atlantic should 

 be given preferential treatment in the administra- 

 tion of the proposed system of national catch 

 quotas for the cod and haddock fisheries of that 

 region. The question remains whether some prefer- 

 ence should be extended to the South American 

 countries which are claiming fisheries zones of 

 widths unwarranted by any existing treaties or by 

 customary international law, as a way to eliminate 

 this source of international tension. 



The situation off the coast of South America 

 differs from that in the Northwest Atlantic 

 because Chile, Ecuador and Peru take only rela- 

 tively small quantities of the tuna sought by the 

 United States fishing fleets. This situation is 

 typical of that confronting developing coastal 

 States which fear that their future access to the 

 living resources adjacent to their territorial seas 

 may be foreclosed by the operations of distant- 

 water fleets. 



To the extent, however, that the existing 

 framework safeguards the freedom of distant- 

 water fleets to fish for stocks which coastal 

 fishermen are not exploiting fully, it promotes the 

 objective, shared by aU nations, to maximize the 



use of the Uving resources of the sea. And it 

 obviously promotes this objective without hurting 

 the coastal States in question. The panel assumes 

 that the distant-water fleets are not overfishing or 

 interfering with coastal fishing for other stocks 

 either by gear conflict or upsetting the ecological 

 balance. 



Indeed, Professor Dodyk has suggested that the 

 right of foreign fishermen to fish within the 

 12-mile Umit, and even within territorial waters, 

 should be recognized under such circumstances.* ^ 

 But while it would be difficult to dispute the claim 

 of the coastal State to impose fees or taxes which 

 are not prohibitive or discriminatory upon foreign 

 fishermen within its territorial sea or 12-mile limit, 

 or to exclude foreign fishermen therefrom when it 

 is able and willing to exploit the resources in these 

 waters fully, similar claims by the coastal State in 

 the high seas beyond the 12-mile Umit are unwar- 

 ranted. 



Nevertheless, under the conditions specified in 

 the Geneva Convention Resolution on "Special 

 Situations Relating to Coastal Fisheries,"** some 

 preference should be accorded the coastal State 

 even with respect to access to the fisheries of the 

 high seas beyond the 12-mile limit. The coastal 

 State should be assured that it will be given a 

 reasonable opportunity to participate in the future 

 exploitation of stocks not now fished by it.* ' This 

 assurance should be buttressed by an agreement to 

 allocate national catch quotas whenever the 

 coastal State is ready and willing to enter the 

 fishery and requests such quotas. 



The quotas should be allocated so as to guar- 

 antee the coastal State a minimum amount or 

 percentage of the catch which it should be 

 required to take with vessels carrying its flag. It 

 should not be permitted to sell any part of its 

 uncaught quota and indeed should be penalized if 

 its actual catch falls either below or above its 

 quota. Once it establishes fishing operations in line 

 with its quota, it may be permitted to sell its 

 quota. The quota itself should not be regarded as 

 equivalent to a right of exclusive access, which the 



"Dodyk, supra note 26, at 129-36. 



See text accompanying note 79 supra. 



See McKeman, International Fishery Policy and the 

 United States Fishing Industry 2, Paper Presented to 

 Conference on the Future of the United States Fishing 

 Industry, Seattie, Washington, March 24-27 (1968). 



VIII-68 



