213 



diction up to 12 miles to protect certain restricted interests, namely, those relating 

 to its customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary regulations. 



There is a very critical difference between the rights of the coastal state in its 

 territorial sea and the contiguous zone. The essential difference is that in the 

 territorial sea the coastal state has full sovereignty except for the right of 

 innocent passage ; but in the contiguous zone, the coastal state has jurisdiction 

 limited to only the four mentioned purposes. Under the 1958 Convention the con- 

 tiguous zone could extend no more than 12 miles from the shoreline. However, 

 since the territorial sea, whose breadth was never determined in 19G0, is being 

 extended to 12 miles, it is clear that the contiguous zone will, if it survives, be 

 extended to some point beyond 12 miles. 



(d) The Continental Shelf: Under the 19.58 Geneva Convention on the Con- 

 tinental Shelf, the coastal state has sovereign rights over its resources in the 

 seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf. Under this convention, the coastal 

 state does not have jurisdiction over the w^aters or living resources above the 

 continental shelf, but it only has the rights to manage and develop the resources 

 which lie on top of or beneath the soil of the continental shelf. 



There is an inherent defect in this convention because <if the ambiguities in 

 the definition of "continental shelf" in article 1(a). Under article 1(a) the 

 coastal .state has jurisdiction over the seabed and suIksoII : (a) to a depth of 

 200 meters or (b) to "where the superjacent waters admit exploitation." The 

 definition of the "continental shelf" is thus not confined to the "geological con- 

 tinental shelf." Under tlie latter "exploitability test." a state may claim juris- 

 diction far out beyond the continental shelf to the point where it can exploit 

 the resources. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that a coastal 

 state would have jurisdiction over the deep ocean floor far beyond the point 

 where the continental shelf tapers off and touches the bottom or abyssal floor. 

 There is a great debate among legal scholars as to w'hether the drafters of article 

 1(a) intended such a result. The two basic interpretations of article 1(a) are 

 that it (1) is confined to a narrow shelf no more than the 200 meter isobath, or 

 (2) that a coastal state has jurisdiction to the middle of the ocean which is 

 equally distant from the opposite shores of another coastal state. Tliis latter posi- 

 tion was that initially argued by the oil companies and later modified by tlie 

 National Petroleum Council. Certainly this definition of the continental shelf 

 should be clarified under existing law because of the great dangers in permitting 

 a coastal state to claim great areas of the ocean floor in the guise that it is within 

 article 1(a) of the doctrine of the continental shelf. 



(d) The High Seas : Under the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, the 

 oceans are governed by the concept of the freedom of the seas. This means free- 

 dom of navigation, freedom of fishing, freedom to lay submarine cables and 

 pipelines, free<lom of overflight. In addition to certain rights of states, the con- 

 vention also defines obligations with regard to pollution. Articles 24 and 2.5, 

 require states to draw up "regidations" to prevent pollution of the seas by oil 

 from ships or pipelines or exploring and exploiting the seabed or subsoil. Further, 

 states are required to take measures to prevent pollution from tlie dumping of 

 radioactive material and to cooperate with international organizations to pre- 

 vent harm to the oceans from those materials or "other harmful agents." These 

 two articles are primarily concerned with oil and radioactive materials. In addi- 

 tion they are largely ineffective as evidenced by the continued pollution of oceans 

 since 1958. Finally, they reflect a piecemeal approach to the causes and control 

 of marine iK)llution. 



(e) Other Treaties Covering Pollution of the Seas: In addition to the four 

 Geneva conventions setting out tlie zones of the sea, certain other conventions also 

 are concerned with marine pollution. Th^ 1954 London Convention on Pollution 

 of the High Seas by Oil prohibits certain discharges of oil from ships within a 

 zone of 50 miles from the coast, but this convention only pertains to discharges 

 near the coast and not to oil pollution on the high seas. Although the convention 

 is being amended to broaden that limited zone of protection, the amendment 

 is not yet in force. Even if it does become effective, the convention is ineffective 

 becau.se enforcement lies only with the state of registry of the offending vessel. 

 Such enforcement is highly unlikely because many states of registry are chosen 

 largely because of the weak or nonexistent laws governing shipping. 



In response to the Torrey Canyon incident, two other conventions were adopted 

 dealing with pollution of oil by ships. These are the 1969 Brussels conventions 

 which establish liability up to $14.000,0(X) for certain oil spills from ships and 

 also establish a right of a coastal state to intervene to prevent threatened pollu- 

 tion of its shores from such a catastrophe. However, these tw^o treaties apply 



