App. B—The Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. Insular Territories • 297 



United States "will continue to exercise its rights and 

 fulfill its duties in a manner consistent with international 

 law, including those aspects of the Convention which 

 either codify customary international law or refine and 

 elaborate concepts which represent an accommodation 

 of the interests of all States and form a part of interna- 

 tional law."" The presidential statement accompany- 

 ing the EEZ proclamation contains similar language.'^ 

 The body of the Convention contains only one refer- 

 ence to territories. Article 305(1) provides that self-gov- 

 erning associated states and internally self-governing ter- 

 ritories "which have competence over the matters 

 governed by this Convention including the competence 

 to enter treaties in respect of those matters" may sign 

 the convention. Accompanying Resolution III declares 

 that in the case of territories that have not achieved a 

 self-governing status recognized by the United Nations, 

 the Convention's provisions "shall be implemented for 

 the benefit of the people of the territory with a view to 

 promoting their well-being and development." The 

 former provision recognizes that territories may achieve 

 a degree of autonomy allowing them to participate in 

 international matters. The Cook Islands and Niue, 

 states associated with New Zealand, have signed the 

 Law of the Sea Treaty under Article 305(1).'' Resolu- 

 tion III restates the commitments of Article 73 of the 

 Charter and of Resolutions 1514 and 1541. Article 

 305(1) and Resolution III both reiterate international 

 norms compatible with U.S. territorial management. 



Practices of Other Countries 



Where there is no treaty or other explicit source, in- 

 ternational law may be ascertained from "the customs 

 and usages of civilized nations."'* A 1978 study re- 

 viewed the law and practice of six nations with respect 

 to their overseas territories.'^ The study found as a gen- 

 eral rule that metropolitan powers with overseas terri- 

 tories or associated states: 1) have either given the pop- 

 ulation of the overseas territory full and equal 

 representation in the national parliament and govern- 

 ment or 2) have given the local government of the over- 

 seas territory jurisdiction over the resources of the EEZ. 

 The first category includes Denmark (Faroe Islands and 

 Greenland), France (overseas departments and territo- 

 ries), and Spain (Canary Islands). The second category 



"Declarations Made Upon Signature of the Final Act at Montego Bay, 

 Jamaica, on Dec. 10, 1982 — United States of America. (Quoted in Theuten- 

 berg. The Evolution of the Law of the Sea, 223 [Dublin; Tycooly International 

 Publishing, 1984]). 



''^Statement on United States Oceans Policy, 19 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 

 383 (1983). 



"Status Report, U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, ST/LEG/SER.E14 

 at 701 (1985). 



"The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 577, 700 (1900). 



"T. Franck, Control of Sea Resources by Semi-Autonomous States (Wash- 

 ington, DC; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1978). 



includes the United Kingdom (Caribbean Associated 

 States), New Zealand (Cook Islands and Niue), and the 

 Netherlands (Netherlands Antilles). While small, this 

 study includes all instances of overseas territories hav- 

 ing no, or token, representation in the metropolitan gov- 

 ernment. The study concludes that the United States 

 represents the sole significant exception to the rule. 

 American territories have neither fuU representation nor 

 local control of the EEZ. 



WhUe some information in the 1978 study is no longer 

 current (for example, the Caribbean Associated States 

 are now fully independent nations), its conclusion still 

 seems correct. British practice, as exemplified by the 

 recent declaration of an exclusive fisheries zone around 

 the Falkland Islands, is for the national government to 

 establish policy and for the territorial government to im- 

 plement it. Thus, the Falkland's government will de- 

 cide on the optimum level of fishing, issue licenses, and 

 establish and collect fees and taxes. London will pro- 

 vide advice and technical assistance.'* 



The practice of the Netherlands is similar. Matters 

 of broad policy are decided in the Hague, with consid- 

 eration given to the preference of the Antilles. Explo- 

 ration and management are in the hands of the AntUles, 

 and the benefits from production would go to the is- 

 lands." 



The Territories Under International Law 



Though relatively recent, the EEZ is a generally ac- 

 cepted concept of international law. The United States 

 based its proclamation on international law and declared 

 its intent to follow that law in managing the zone. The 

 declarations of the United Nations, the Law of the Sea 

 Convention, and the practice of other nations are not, 

 of themselves, mandatory upon the United States. Taken 

 as a whole, however, they outline international norms 

 for the treatment of territories. These norms suggest that 

 if territories are not fully integrated (and represented) 

 in the national government, their natural resources 

 should be managed for the benefit of the local popu- 

 lation. 



Territorial Laws Affecting the EEZ 



Geography, history, and culture bind the territories 

 to the sea. All of them have adopted laws pertaining to 

 activities in the ocean. These range from coastal zone 

 management and water quality laws akin to those 

 adopted by the States to broad claims of jurisdiction 

 amounting to local EEZs. 



^''Conversation with Robert Embleton, Second Secretary, British Embassy, 

 Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 1986. 



"Conversation with Harold Henriquez, Netherlands AntUles Attache, Em- 

 bassy of the Netherlands, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 1986. 



