THE LAW OF THE SEA: IMPLICATIONS FOR NORTH AMERICAN NEIGHBORS

NOTES

• United Nations, General Assembly, Res. 2750C(XXV), December 17, 1970. The conference will open formally in late 1973 but will not begin serious discussion until some time in 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Baltimore Sun, January 25, 1973, p. 15.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian-American Committee, The New Environment for Canadian-American Relations. (Washington/Montreal: National Planning Association and Private Planning Association of Canada, 1972), p. 10.
   Google Scholar
• United States, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1945, Proclamation No. 2667, “Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and the Seabed of the Continental Shelf,” September 28, 1945 (Washington: GPO, 1961), pp. 352–53.
   Google Scholar
• Robert B. Krueger, “International and National Regulation of Pollution from Offshore Oil Production,” San Diego Law Review, 7 (July, 19791, 543.
   Google Scholar
• Morton A. Kaplan and Nicholas DeB. Katzenbach, The Political Foundations of International Law. (New York: Wiley, 1961), p. 150.
   Google Scholar
• Canada, Department of External Affairs, External Affairs, 10 (1958), 2–3. In addition, Canada wanted this limit based on a straight base-line which allows measurement from a line drawn from prominent point to prominent point rather than from the exact shoreline. This would have resulted in a considerable extension of the territorial sea. This method was approved in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, International Court of Justice Reports, 1951, p. 116.
   Google Scholar
• First presented at the UN General Assembly in 1956. Canada, The Law of the Sea. (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1959), pp. 9–10.
   Google Scholar
• New York Times, April 9, 1960.
   Google Scholar
• United States, Department of State, Department of State Bulletin 63 (May 11, 1970), 610–11. Hereafter cited as DSB
   Google Scholar
• R. Kaplan, “The Seabed,” Text of Statement to First Committee of the Seabed (item no. 26), Canadian Mission to the United Nations, Press Release No. 58, November 5, 1968, p. 5.
   Google Scholar
• The obvious anomaly here is that some underdeveloped states – notably some coastal ones – shed their altruism at the same point. They want exclusive and unlimited coastal jurisdiction for themselves alone.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, op. cit., PP. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Canada is also sensitive to the problem of creeping jurisdiction – control for one purpose extended to additional areas – as a threat to the freedom of the seas concept. See L.H. Legault, Text of Statement to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed and Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction. Canadian Mission to the United Nations, Press Release No. 1, March 6, 1970, p. 5.
   Google Scholar
• J.Alan Beesley, “The Law of the Sea Conference: Factors Behind Canada's Stance,” Canada, Department of External Affairs, International Perspectives, (July/August, 1972), 34.
   Google Scholar
• United States, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard M. Nixon, 1970, “Statement about United States Ocean Policy,” May 23, 1970 (Washington: GPO, 1971), pp. 454–56. The Continental Margin is that area of the seabed where the Continental Shelf slopes steeply rather than gradually to the deep sea floor (or abyssal plain).
   Google Scholar
• United States Congress, Senate, Outer Continental Shelf Hearings Before the Subcormnittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., Part 3, September 22, 23, 1970. “Draft United Nations Convention on the International Seabed Area of August 3, 1970,” pp. 71–96.
   Google Scholar
• Ann L. Hollick, “The Law of the Sea and U.S. Policy Initiatives,” Orbis, 15 (Summer, 1971), p. 677.
   Google Scholar
• see John R. Stevenson, “International Law and the Ocean,” DSB, 62 (March 16, 1970), p. 340.
   Google Scholar
• United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, “The Law of the Sea Crisis,” Staff Report, December 1971, p. 2. Robert L. Friedheim holds that some smaller states reject international maritime law as something imposed by large maritime states to insure their supremacy in ocean affairs. “The ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Dissatisfied’ States Negotiate International Law: A Case Study,” World Politics, 18 (October, 1965), 24. The same author has also pointed out that developing nations have not yielded to the temptation of forcing their majority because, among other things, they wish to obtain concessions on development assistance which are not ordinarily thought of as part of the Law of the Sea issue. “A Law of the Sea Conference: Who Needs It?” SAIS Review, 17 (Fall, 1972), 43–45.
   Google Scholar
• United States, Congressional-Record, v. 117, April 10, 1971, S2815–18.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Senate, “The Law of the Sea,” op. cit., p. 8.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, op. cit., p. 551.
   Google Scholar
• Hollick, op. clt., p. 677.
   Google Scholar
• Draft United Nations Convention, op. cit., p. 72.
   Google Scholar
• Coastal states would have regulatory authority over coastal species – about 80 per cent of all fish caught commercially – but could not harvest more than allocated or required except for conservation purposes; migratory species, such as tuna, would be protected by various international authorities – international or regional; and finally, anadromous species, such as salmon, would be protected by the coastal state in whose rivers they spawned. This last point could cause difficulty in that salmon swim to over a thousand miles at sea – well beyond present concepts of the territorial sea or restricted fishing zones. It should also be noted that the U.S. proposal is well suited to the state of the U.S. fishing industry with its highly developed international tuna fleet and its weakly developed coastal fisheries industry. See Draft Articles on the Breadth of the Territorial Sea, Straits, and Fisheries, UN Doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.4, July 30, 1971.
   Google Scholar
• DSB, 67 (October 2, 1972), pp. 382 ff.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., p. 384.
   Google Scholar
• DSB, 66 (May 8, 1972), 674.
   Google Scholar
• Senate, “The Law of the Sea Crisis …,” op. cit., p. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid
   Google Scholar
• Hollick, op. cit., pp. 681–84.
   Google Scholar
• New York Times, February 28, 1973, p. 53.
   Google Scholar
• The problem is further compounded by environmental considerations. Whether or not the United States imports greater quantities of oil from abroad or moves to develop offshore resources, it will have to deal with the expensive oil pollution problem.
   Google Scholar