¹ United States v. F/V Taiyo Maru No. 28, Civil No. 74-101-SD, 395 F.Supp. 413 (D. Me. 1975). Also excerpted infra p. 138.

² United States v. Kawaguchi, Crim. No. 74-46-SD, 395 F.Supp. 413 (D. Me. 1975).

³ 6 U.S.C. §§1081, 1091 (1970).

⁴ Apr. 28, 1958, 15 UST 1606; TIAS No. 5639; 516 UNTS 205; 52 AJIL 851 (1958).

⁵ Apr. 28, 1958, 15 UST 2312; TIAS No. 5200; 450 UNTS 82; 52 AJIL 842 (1958).

⁶ According to the defense, the vessel was licensed and rigged for the tuna fishery, but some sharks were caught incidentally to the tuna fishing. Defendant’s Reply Memorandum at 23. The issue becomes important because the vessel also claimed that its tuna fishing was made lawful by an executive agreement with Japan allowing tuna fishing by Japanese vessels in the contiguous fisheries zone “except off the mainland of the continental United States (including Alaska)” and certain other specified areas. See Agreement with Japan on Certain Fisheries Off the United States Coast and Salmon Fisheries, Dec. 20, 1972, para. 1(3), [1972] 3 UST 3781, TIAS No. 7528, superseded, Dec. 24, 1974, TIAS No. 7986. In the Agreed Minutes accompanying the 1974 bilateral agreement with Japan, the parties noted that the term “mainland” as used above “includes islands adjacent to the continent of the United States of America.” Id. at 41.

⁷ N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 1974, at 4, col. 6; Nat'l Fisherman, Nov. 1974, at 3-A, col. 1 & 26-A, col. 3.

⁸ Portland, Me., Press Herald, Sept. 6, 1974, at 1, col. 2 & 16, col. 4; id. Sept. 7, 1974, at 1, col. 2 & 8, col. 1.

⁹ 16 U.S.C. §§1081–94 (1970); see generally Fidell, Ten Years Under the Bartlett Act: A Status Report on the Prohibition on Foreign Fishing, 54 B.U.L. Rev. 703 (1974).

¹⁰ The amount of the bond appears to have been the result of a compromise between counsel. Earlier, the U.S. Attorney's office had indicated that it would seek a settlement of $500,000 in the civil forfeiture proceeding against the vessel. Nat'l Fisherman, Dec. 1974, at 22-A, col. 5 & 29-A, col. 4.

¹¹ See generally N. Poulantzas, The Right Of Hot Pursuit In International Law 39-268 (1969); 4 M. Whtteman, Digest of International Law 677–87 (1965).

¹² G. Knight, The Law of the Sea: Cases, Documents and Readings 425 ( 1975).

¹³ Act of May 20, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-308, 78 Stat. 194, codified at 16 U.S.C. §1081 et seq. (1970).

¹⁴ Act of Oct. 14, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89–658, 80 Stat. 908, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§1091–94 (1970).

¹⁵ See generally Fidell, supra note 9, at 740 & n. 211; see also Oliver, Wet War— North Pacific, 8 San Diego L. Rev. 621, 628 (1971) (Koyo Maru pursuit); N.Y. Times, Sept. 17, 1973, at 65, col. 5 (Mitsu Maru No. 30 pursuit). Hot pursuit was also commenced from the contiguous fisheries zone in the case of the Bulgarian trawler Limoza, United States v. M/V Limoza, Civil No. 74-455 ( S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 4, 1974); United States v. Donchev, Crim. No. 74-115 (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 4, 1974), seizure noted in N.Y. Times, Jan. 27, 1974, at 1, col. 4, and in the case of the South Korean vessel Kum Kang San. United States v. South Korean Stem Trawler Kum Rang San, Civil No. A75-179 (D. Alas., filed Aug. 13, 1975); United States v. Yong Whan Kim, Crim. No. A75-95 (D. Alas., filed Aug. 13, 1975).

¹⁶ Japanese Practice in International Law, 18 Japan. Ann. of Int. L. 92, 97 (1974).

¹⁷ U.S. Dept. of State, Office of the Geographer, Limits in the Seas: National Claims to Maritime Jurisdictions 62 (2d rev. 1974).

¹⁸ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction at 15.

¹⁹ 16 U.S.C. §1082(c) (1970).

²⁰ 19 U.S.C. §1581(d) (1970); see also id. §1581(b).

²¹ Id. §1401(1) (1970); see also 14 U.S.C. §143 (1970).

²² 14 U.S.C. §637(a) (1970).

²³ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction at 14. For a recent case involving hot pursuit of the Japanese fishing vessel Koyo Maru No. 2 for a violation of the Canadian fisheries waters, see Regina v. Itoh, No. 164/75 (B.C. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 1975).

²⁴ The decision was also an implicit rejection of Professor Johnston’s view that "the analogy with the contiguous zone of unilateral jurisdiction for other purposes—customs, fiscal and sanitary control—is not entirely appropriate, since in the case of fishery authority the relevant interests, or objects of protection, being shareable resources in the high seas, do not possess the character of exclusivity which was the raison d’etre of the original contiguous zone authority. To press the analogy is to commit the mistake of equating shareable and unshareable interests." D. Johnston, The International Law of Fisheries 341 (1965), quoted in Defendant's Reply Memorandum at 9. Professor Poulantzas, in contrast, seems to be in sympathy with a right of hot pursuit initiated in exclusive fishery zones that extend no more than 12 miles from the baseline. Poulantzas, supra note 11, at 177–7 (semble). Professor O'Connell, writing in 1970, noted that there were "difficulties" in showing that "practice of nations has resulted in the creation of an exclusive fishery jurisdiction over coastal waters which is altogether outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions. ...” O’Connell, International Law and Contemporary Naval Operations, [1970] 44 BYBIL 19, 73.

²⁵ 395 F.Supp. at 419.

²⁶ Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102 (1933) (The Mazel Tov).

²⁷ Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952).

²⁸ The rule is not without exceptions, of course. In United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974), rehearing en banc denied, 504 F.2d 1380 (2d Cir. 1974), noted in 88 Harv. L. Rev. 813 (1975), 69 AJIL 406 (1975), motion to dismiss denied on remand, F. Supp. 916 (E.D. N.Y. 1975), the Second Circuit remanded a criminal case for further proceedings with respect to the accused's allegation that he was tortured by Brazilian agents while he was being illegally abducted to the United States from Uruguay. In a later case, United States ex rel. Lujan v. Gengler, 510 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1975), 69 AJIL 895 (1975), the same court declined to intervene where there was an allegation of abduction, but not of torture.

²⁹ 395 F.Supp. at 419–20 (footnote omitted).

³⁰ Id. at 420 (footnote omitted). For an Italian decision reviewing the 1958 Conventions in the context of hot pursuit initiated in a customs zone, see Re Martinez, 28 Int. L. Rep. 170 (1963) (hot pursuit may be initiated in a customs contiguous zone for offenses committed within that zone).

³¹ 395 F.Supp. at 421.

³² 16 U.S.C. §1081 ( 1970).

³³ Offshore Shrimp Fisheries Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 92-242, §15, 87 Stat. 1061, codified at 16 U.S.C. §1085 (Supp. III, 1973).

³⁴ See generally Fidell, The Case of the Incidental Lobster: United States Regulation of Foreign Harvesting of Continental Shelf Fishery Resources, 10 Int. Lawy. (Jan. 1976); Jacobs, United States Participation in International Fisheries Agreements, 6 J. Maritime L. & Com. 471, 478–79 (1975); U.S. Dept. of State Press ReI. No. 363 (Sept. 12, 1974).

³⁵ UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP/8/Part II, Art 97(2), at 36 (1975), 14 ILM 682 (1975).

³⁶ See supra note 6.