217 ^ 



ment of the '200-mile claims by Latin American countries. These countries advo- 

 cate that the coastal state be given primary or exclusive jurisdiction to regulate 

 resource development on the high seas up to 200 miles. This jurisdiction would 

 include the right to control pollution, and some proposals submitted to the U.N.. 

 suggest that the coastal state have exclusive jurisdiction over environmental 

 matters in the partrimonial sea. 



It would appear unnecessary, and undesirable, for the Sierra Club to take d 

 particular position on whether the territorial sea. contiguous zone, or partrimonial 

 sea should be limited to a breadth of 12, 100 or 200 miles. The demarcation of such 

 limits is a political issue which is highly controversial. From an environmental 

 position, such boundaries are necessarily based upon arbitrary factors rather 

 than upon scientific, ecological data which recognize the fundamentality of all 

 oceanic life. Finally, acrimonious debates exist between the United States and 

 Latin American countries over the 200-mile limit, and the Sierra Club should 

 avoid the breadth issue in order to influence the formulation of important environ- 

 mental issues. 



If the "patrimonial sea" is made a part of international law, then it would 

 be desirable from an environmental view that the coastal state be given certain, 

 Ijerhaps primary, but not exclusive jurisdiction in that area up to 200 miles from 

 shore. The waters above the continental shelf to 200 miles are the richest in 

 resources, both living and mineral. The continental shelf waters are biologically 

 the richest marine areas, while the open sea is comparatively a biological desert 

 devoid of much marine life. In these fertile "pastures" of the sea, plankton 

 produces abundantly due to favorable factors including upwelling of bottom 

 nutrients, light, and temperature. This "primary" production occurs in the very 

 shallow euphotic zone consisting of 2 to 3% of the upper waters, and, as the base 

 of the food chain, it powers 90% of all oceanic life. The continental shelf also 

 contains the greatest concentration of mineral resources, such as oil and gas, and 

 unfortunately, the waters over the continental shelf are also the most polluted. 

 As man's dependence upon marine mineral resources increases, the dangers of 

 marine pollution will rise sicmificantly. Thus, if the concept of the "patrimonial 

 sea" is embodied in inteniational law at the U.N. conference, the coastal state 

 should not be given exclusive pollution control jurisdiction in this area because 

 of its wealth of bioiogical and mineral riches and because the abundant biological 

 resources vitally affect the entire web of marine life throughout tlie oceans. 



If the "patrimonial sea" develops, the coastal state should be requii*ed to act 

 as a custodian, for all nations, of its marine environment. Although some coun- 

 tries are lieavily dependent uf'On ocean resources for economic reasons and as 

 food source, resource development in the patrimonial sea may affect the interests 

 of other states. The adequate protection of marine environment may be important 

 to the countries advocating this concept, or a 200-mile limit, for several reasons. 

 A clean environment is important to any country dependent on the ocean as a 

 source of food. Further, many developing countries are situated in tropical 

 zones of the ocean v.hich contain delicate ecologies that can be as easily disrupted 

 as arctic waters. Environmental controls will al.so be important to countries 

 other than the coastal states. Pollution from offshore oil wells may not only 

 injure the state permitting such drilling, but it may impair the quality of ocean 

 waters of riparian or other coastal states. In brief, in view of the highly inter- 

 related nature of the marine envirnmnent. if the coastal state is given jurisdiction 

 over a "patrimonial sea." it should be rec|uired to act as a custodian of the 

 marine environment to assure the ocean's ecological integrity for all natiors. 



Finally, the coastal state's jurisdiction of pollution in that area should be 

 subject to international standards. If the coastal state did not enact minimum 

 environmental standards, then an international body should have authority to 

 promu'gate and enforce them. This interplay of coastal state and international 

 environmental jurisdiction would be similar to the regulation of water pollution 

 in the United States by the federal and state governments. Thus, the coastal state 

 wouVl have primary — but not exclusive — jurisdiction for environmental controls 

 in the patrimonial sea : but if it fai'ed to enact or enforce minimum international 

 environmental s'^andards, then an international authority would have the Juris- 

 dictinn to prescribe such measures. 



3. Ohlipntiom Under International Law to Prevent Pollution and Preserve the 

 Marine Environment 



The principal prohibitions of polluting the oceans are contained in Articlps 

 24 and 2.5 of the 10.58 Geneva Convention on the High Seas. The prohibitions of 

 the High Seas and other Geneva conventions have proved wholly inadequate to 



