215 



detailed proposals for an international institution to license development of the 

 mineral resources of the ocean. 



This obviously represents a very critical juncture for the development of new- 

 international institutions and for the protection of the marine environment. 

 Some have suggested that the coming U.N. conference on the law of the sea 

 raises, not merely important issues, but some of the great issues of the century. 

 If this conference does, as seems likely, suggest the creation of an international 

 institution to regulate ocean mineral development, then sufficient environmental 

 standards must be included to prevent further deterioration of the oceans' en- 

 vironmental quality. The creation of such institutions can be likened, in a 

 constitutional sense, to the debates concerning the Articles of Confederation in 

 United States history or to the creation of the League of Nations or the United 

 Nations. The magnitude of this task can be fully appreciated by realizing the 

 scope of such an institution. In terms of geographic area, an ocean resources 

 development institution would have jurisdiction of nearly seven-tenths of the 

 earth's surface. It would license resources which have both immense present and 

 potential wealth. Finally, these resources, and consequently this agency, will 

 become increasingly important as land based sources of mineral resources are 

 depleted. 



Another area of principal concern in the developing law of the sea is the 

 extent to which the coastal state wuU have jurisdiction over the high seas. As 

 mentioned, the old three-mile limit of the territorial sea has for all practical 

 purposes been abandoned by a majority of states which now adhere to the 

 twelve-mile limit. In addition, a number of other states in Latin America and 

 elsewhere have claimed jurisdiction over the high seas to 200 miles. The conflict 

 between the coastal state and international controls is also central to the pro- 

 tection of the marine environment. The question is to what extent should the 

 coastal state be given authority, exclusive, primary or otherwise over the high 

 seas to regulate and abate pollution. In addition to the territorial sea, the con- 

 cept of the contiguous zone is being reformulated. Many are advocating the con- 

 cept of a "partimonial sea," or "exclusive economic zone," in which the coastal 

 -state would have exclusive, or at least primary, jurisdiction to extract living 

 and mineral resources, to control scientific research, and to exclusively control 

 ocean pollution. 



B. Issues for Sierra Club Policy Formulation 



1. The Approaches to the Control of Marine Pollution 



Pollution of the oceans can be controlled by actions taken at the national, 

 regional, or international levels. 



The coastal state under customary and conventional international law can 

 regulate pollution which affects its territory or territorial sea. However, under 

 the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 

 the coastal state may not extend such controls beyond 12 miles. While the 12-mile 

 rule probably represents a majority of states' practice, a minority of states 

 unilaterally assert jurisdiction over the high seas beyond this point. 



By its Arctic Waters Bill of 1970, Canada claimed limited jurisdiction, not 

 sovereignty, up to 100 miles from its Arctic shores to protect the fragile Arctic 

 ecology from oil pollution and other disasters. It is believed that such disasters 

 may occur in transporting oil from the Arctic slope, and other northern regions, 

 through the icy Northwest Passage. In addition to Canadian claims, a number 

 of Latin American countries justify their 200-mile limits in order to conserve 

 fishery resources. Peru's 200-niile limit is based in part upon the "bioma" or eco- 

 systems theory. This theory is invoked to justify protection of the abundant, 

 biologically rich ocean areas in the Humboldt Current, which, at its outer limits, 

 lies 200 miles from Peru's shores. Many other states may follow the Canadian 

 and Latin American approach by making extensive imilateral claims to the high 

 seas upon finding environmental considerations, such as unique marine ecologies, 

 to support such extended claims. 



In the United States, the mining industry has introduced bills (HR13094 

 (1972), HR9 (1973)) which would provide for the unilateral appropriation of 

 hard mineral resources by the United States. The Sierra Club opposed these 

 bills. 



Under present international law, there is doubt about the validity of unilateral 

 claims by the coastal state over the high seas beyond 12 miles. Further, it may 

 not be desirable from a policy view point to permit claims which would shrink 

 the international area of the oceans and weaken the principle of freedom of the 



26-282—74 15 



