216 



seas by which all nations may use and enjoy to a maximum degree the resourcw» 

 of the world's oceans. 



In addition to such considerations, unilateral claims over the high seas are 

 objectionable from an environmental viewpoint for a number of reasons. First, 

 while stringent environmental standards, such as Canada's are desirable, the 

 question is whether other nations would, in the present absence of international 

 minimum standards, adopt measures as strict as Canada's. Other states may not 

 have the same degree of environmental sensitivity as Canada. In this regard, 

 it is significant that not all nations consider environmental i)roblenis to be 

 matters of utmost priority, for it is primarily the highly industrialized, and 

 consequently polluted, nations which will have this concern. Secondly, even if 

 claims up to 200 miles were valid, unilateral controls would leave large parts 

 of the ocean unregulated. This is particularly important since pollution of the 

 oceans is not confined within national, coastal state boundaries ; but, because of 

 ocean currents, it transcends political boundaries of coastal states. Further, 

 oceanographers and U.N. reports note that marine pollution is not confined to 

 particular oceanic areas, but it is a problem of global dimensions. Hence, coastal 

 state controls, even if extended to 200 miles, are inherently limited geographically, 

 and they do not provide an ultimate, nor even an effective, solution to control 

 of marine pollution. Thirdly, there are presently no international minimum 

 pollution control standards like those existing in U.S. laws regarding federal- 

 state regulations of air and water pollution. Since many of the world's 132 

 nations border on the ocean, a principle favoring coastal state regulation of 

 the high seas to or beyond 100 miles would result in many different environ- 

 mental regulations by those nations. Some states might have very high standards, 

 like Canada, or other states might have wejik, inefficient controls. With the ab- 

 sence of uniform, or at least minimum international standards, the different 

 coastal state controls would result in a checkerboard ai)proach to marine environ- 

 mental standards. Finally, some states might not enact environmental controls: 

 and some states may encourage pollution to attract foreign investors due to 

 reduced operating costs in not installing pollution abatement equipment. Thus, 

 'environmental havens" might exist in various parts of the world much in the 

 same way that certain havens from tax and labor laws have been created by 

 certain countries for multinational corporations or for shipping companies. 

 This "flags of convenience" approach has proved disastrous in terms of con- 

 trolling oil pollution from ships. 



On the other hand, the Canadian approach may be necessary: (1) in excep- 

 tional cases where the marine environment contains eco.systems which are vul- 

 nerable, (2) as an interim measure during the present formulation of inter- 

 national law standards on pollution, (3) where other means of control, through 

 bilateral or regional arrangements, cannot be taken. In short, the Sierra Club for 

 the reasons stated above should not support unilateral coastal state extension of 

 jurisdiction over the high seas for polution control except in the limited, excep- 

 tional circumstances set forth in the preceding sentence. 



Presently international efforts are being made on a bilateral or regional basis, 

 to control max-ine pollution. The United States and Canada recently concluded 

 water quality agreements for the Great Lakes, and the United States and U.S.S.R. 

 have concluded agreements for environmental cooperation including matters 

 involving oceanic pollution. On a regional basis, Europeon nations concluded the 

 Oslo Convention on Dumping, and more recently another Ocean Dumping Con- 

 vention was opened for signature. There are other developments which suggest 

 future regional arrangements in the Mediterranean and other enclosed seas. In 

 sum, these international efforts, which in general represent a more comprehensive 

 approach to oceanic pollution control, should be favored over unilateral assertions 

 of jurisdiction on the high seas. 



2. The Territorial Sea, the Contiffiious Zone and the Emerging "Patrimonial 

 Sea" or "Economic Resource Zone" 



With the majority of states adopting a 12-mile tentorial sea, the contiguous 

 zone under the lf)58 Geneva convention has little relevance because it has an 

 outer limit beyond the territorial sea (originally 3 or possibly 6 miles) of 12 

 miles. However, the concept of the contiguous zone is not defunct, but it is beins 

 reformulated under the newer notion of a "patrimonial sea" or a coastal state 

 "economic resource zone." 



In preparation for the law of the sea conference, many states have urged that 

 the coastal state be given certain rights on the righ .«!eas, up to 200 miles, for 

 development of mineral and living resources. This constitutes a further develop- 



