1 U.N. General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/3572). The states in attendance at the Conference were: Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelo-Russian S.S.B., Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Liberia, Luxembourg, Federation of Malaya, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian S.S.B., Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Republic of Viet-Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

2 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L.52); Convention on the High Seas (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L.53); Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L. 54); and Convention on the Continental Shelf (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L. 55). In addition, an Optional Protocol of Signature concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L.57) emerged from the Conference. The Protocol provides that disputes between parties to the Protocol and to any one or more of the Conventions on the Law of the Sea arising out of the interpretation or application of any such Convention, except certain provisions of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. For texts of the Conventions and Protocol see below, p. 834 et seq. The four Conventions remained open for signature until Oct. 31, 1958, under the auspices of the United Nations, after which they may still be acceded to by any nation. At the present date, each of these four Conventions has been signed by at least 35 nations including the United States and the United Kingdom. They will go into effect after 22 ratifications.

3 International Law Commission, Report, U. N. General Assembly, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/3159); 51 A.J.I.L. 154 (1957).

4 See, for example, Brierly, The Law of Nations 176-178 (5th ed., 1955).

5 N. Y. Times, March 14, 1958, p. 50, col. 7; N. Y. Times, March 20, 1958, p. 58, col. 4.

6 Declaration on Maritime Zones signed at Santiago, Chile, Aug. 18, 1952, by Peru, Chile and Ecuador and subsequently by Costa Rica. Argentine Decree No. 14,708 (Oct. 11, 1946). The Argentina Decree of 1946 includes a statement that free navigation on the epicontinental sea would not be affected, so that the net effect appears to be a claim to an exclusive fisheries contiguous zone. In 1956 the representatives of Peru, Ecuador, Chile and Costa Rica explained to the United Nations that their respective governments had merely intended to proclaim fishing and conservation authority and had not intended to extend territorial waters to 200 miles. XJ.N. Does. A/C.6/SE.486 at 28, 29 (1956), A/C.6/SE.489 at 43, 45 (1956), A/C.6/SE.496 at 84, 86 (1956), A/C.6/SE.498 at 97 (1956).

7 See U. S. Naval War College, International Law Situation and Documents, 1956, pp. 479-480.

8 Canadian Comments on the International Law Commission's final Report on the Law of the Sea, letter of Sept. 10, 1957, U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/5 at 5, 6-7 (1957); U. S. Naval War College, op. cit. 447-448.

9 Art. 2, Convention on the High Seas (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L.53). In spite of the right of innocent passage accorded foreign vessels, a state has large freedom in imposing regulations, which the foreign vessel is obliged to respect, designed to promote traffic safety, sanitation, conservation and the public policy and fiscal interests of the state. 1 Hyde, International Law 518 (2d ed., 1945). Art. 17 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L.52) specifically provides that foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage “shall comply with the laws and regulations enacted by the coastal State in conformity with these articles and other rules of international law… . “

10 Convention on International Civil Aviation of Dec. 7, 1944, in force April 4, 1947, T.I.A.S., No. 1591.

11 Par. 6 of Art. 14 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone ;loc. cit. at 6) requires submarines when navigating in a territorial sea to stay on the surface and to show their flag. A similar rule was contained in the articles provisionally approved by the 1930 Hague Conference for the Codification of International Law. See Annex to the Final Act of the Hague Conference for the Codification of International Law, 1930 (League of Nations Doc. 1930. V. 7, p. 15). However, it is not realistic to assume that belligerent submarines will obey the law in time of war at the risk of detection and of charges of violating a neutral's territorial sea.

12 Jane ‘ s Fighting Ships 1957-58, p. 332; Hanson W. Baldwin, The Great Arms Race 25 (1958).

13 Britannica Book of the Year 1958, p. 432; Jane's Fighting Ships.

14 Some of the other areas where such an extension would materially reduce the high seas are the Baltic Sea, the Bay of Bengal, the seas around Indonesia and the Philippine Islands and from the Philippine Islands to Japan, the Yellow Sea, the Bering Sea and the Caribbean Sea. The Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Chihli (Pohai) and the Gulf of Paria, and possibly the Baltic Sea, would be cut off from the high seas by territorial waters. Disconnected lakes might exist in the seas around Indonesia and the Philippine Islands. The Straits of Gibraltar, the Large Strait at the mouth of the Bed Sea, the Malacca and Singapore Straits, the Torres Strait, Tsugaru Strait and the Bering Strait would become territorial waters. If the Philippine and Indonesian claims (See Evensen, Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagoes 27 (U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/18), and N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 1958, p. 3, col. 1) that the waters “around, between and connecting” the islands of an archipelago should be treated as internal waters and the surrounding areas, determined from straight base lines, treated as territorial waters were accepted, the whole of the South Eastern Pacific would be removed from the high seas as would other areas such as the waters surrounding the Federation of the West Indies in the Caribbean. The harmful effects of any such extension on sea navigation would be great and the effects on air navigation might be catastrophic.

15 N. Y. Times, July 16, 1958, p. 1, col. 8. The announcement of Communist China, N. Y. Times, Sept. 5, 1958, p. 1, col. 6, p. 3, col. 2, made clear that flights over the extended territorial sea would not be permitted. Furthermore, the sea would be measured from straight baselines instead of from the contour of the coastline.

16 In the Convention on International Civil Aviation (T.I.A.S., No. 1591) and the related agreements, the territory of a state is deemed to be the land areas and territorial waters adjacent thereto under the sovereignty, suzerainty, protection or mandate of such state. Although it can be argued that territorial waters as used therein means the territorial waters as they then existed or as they may thereafter exist, it is also arguable that the term would not include any extension of territorial waters, e.g., an extension from three miles to twelve miles.

17 N. Y. Times, June 30, 1958, p. 1.

18 Beeves, Jesse R., “The Codification of the Law of Territorial “Waters,” 24 A.J.I.L. 485, 492 (1930).Google Scholar

19 See commentary to Article 3, Int. Law Commission Report, U. N. General Assembly 11th sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9, at 12 (A/3159).

20 Int. Law Commission Report, ibid. at 4; 51 A.J.I.L. 161 (1957).

21 Speech of Mr. François, Rapporteur of the International Law Commission, to the 485th meeting of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Nov. 28, 1956, U.N. Doe. A/Conf. 13/19 at 9-10 (1956).

22 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, Art. 1.

23 U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/SR.14 at 12-15.

24 Ibid. 16.

25 In response to this declaration fishing-vessel owners from Britain, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain and West Germany met in Holland and announced that they would continue to fish within the new twelve-mile limit, but outside the old fourmile limit, and asked their respective governments for help. The British Government announced that armed escorts would protect British trawlers if necessary. N. Y. Times, July 21, 1958, p. 12, col. 6. After the breakdown of NATO attempts to solve the dispute, a fleet of British trawlers sailed for Icelandic fishing waters convoyed by British frigates. Attempts by Iceland's coast guard to arrest trawlers within the claimed twelve miles were beaten off with physical violence. N. Y. times, Sept. 3, 1958, p. 1, col. 6.

26 Law No. 9 of the Republic of Panama (Jan. 30, 1956).

27 For discussion of these claims and their implications see note 14 above.

28 N. Y. Times, April 12, 1958, p. 31, col. 6.

29 Fisheries Case, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 116; 46 A.J.LL. 348 (1952).

30 [1951]I.C.J. Rep. 128-129.

31 See commentary to Article 5, Int. Law Commission Report (cited note 3 above) at 14-15.

32 Ibid.

33 Fisheries Case, loc. cit. 127.

34 Ibid. 133, 142.

35 Ibid. 128.

36 See commentary to Article 5, Int. Law Commission Report (cited note 3 above) at 14-15.

37 Ibid., Art 5

38 10 Fed. Reg. 12303; 13 Dept. of State Bulletin 485 (1945); 40 A.J.I.L. Supp. 45 (1946).

39 Lauterpacht, “Sovereignty Over Submarine Areas,” 27 Brit. Year Bk. Int. Law 376, 380-382 (1950).

40 Convention on the Continental Shelf, Art. 2.

41 Ibid., Art. 1.

42 Ibid., Art. 3

43 See commentary to Article 67, Int. Law Commission Report (cited note 3 above) at 41.

44 Final Act, Inter-American Specialized Conference on “ Conservation of Natural Resources: The Continental Shelf and Marine Waters,” Ciudad Trujillo, March 15-18, 1956, p. 13 (Conference and Organization Series, No. 50, Pan American Union, 1956).

45 The Island of Palmas (Miangas) Arbitration, 2 Int. Arb. Awards 829 (Perm. Ct. of Arb., 1928); 22 A.J.I.L. 867 (1928).

46 The Proclamation stated that the United States regards the natural resources of the continental shelf as “subject to its jurisdiction and control” but further stated that this in no way affects “ t h e character as high seas of the waters above the continental shelf and the right to their free and unimpeded navigation.” 13 Dept. of State Bulletin 485 (1945).

47 This controversy, which began prior to World War II and which involves questions both of the coastal state's rights in the continental shelf and of the breadth of the territorial sea, has in recent years become more intense. See N. T. Times, Nov. 14, 1956, p. 31, col. 3, and Nov. 18, 1956, p. 13, col. 1.

48 Final Act, Third Meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, Mexico City, January 17-February 4, 1956, Resolution XIII, pp. 36-37; 34 Dept. of State Bulletin 298-299 (1956).

49 Final Act, Inter-American Specialized Conference on ‘ ‘ Conservation of Natural Resources: The Continental Shelf and Marine Waters,” Ciudad Trujillo, 1956, p. 13 (Conference and Organization Series, No. 50, Pan American Union, 1956).

50 See commentary to Article 68, Int. Law Commission Report (cited note 3 above) at 42-43.

51 Corfu Channel Case, [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4; 43 A.J.I.L. 558 (1949).

52 The Gulf of Aqaba is located at the northern end of the Red Sea and lies east of the Gulf of Suez from which it is separated by the Sinai Peninsula. The Strait of Tiran at the mouth of the Gulf is controlled, together with most of the shore, on the west by Egypt and on the east by Saudi Arabia, which owns the Island of Tiran forming the western boundary of the Strait. A small strip, however, including the port of Aqaba, on the northeast end of the Gulf is controlled by Jordan and a similar strip on the northwest end, including the port of Eilat, is controlled by Israel. The dispute between Israel and the Arab states concerned the question of whether the Strait and the Gulf were international waterways through which shipping to and from the Israeli port of Eilat could pass. See article by Selak below, p. 660.

53 Corfu Channel Case, [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 28.

54 See commentary to Article 17, Int. Law Commission Report (cited above) at 19-20.

55 Corfu Channel Case, loc. cit. 28.

56 Ibid. 29.

57 lbid. 28.

58 Int. Law Commission Report (cited above), Art. 17(4) at 6.

59 Doc. A/CN. 4/Ser. A/1956, p. 203; 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 203 (1956).

60 36 Dept. of State Bulletin 393 (1957).

61 Act of Aug. 4, 1790, Sees. 11-14, 1 Stat. 156-158.

62 See commentary to Article 66, Int. Law Commission Report, cited above.

63 Ibid.

64 Reeves, Jesse S., “The Codification of the Law of Territorial Waters,” 24 A.J.I.L. 486,494 (1930).Google Scholar

65 See commentary (2) (a) to Article 47, Int. Law Commission Report (cited above) at 30-31.

66 McDougal and Burke, ‘ ‘ Crisis in the Law of the Sea: Community Perspectives versus National Egoism,” 67 Tale L.J. 539 (1958).

67 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, Art 3.

68 Ibid. Art. 4, par. 1.

69 Ibid. Art. 5, par. 1.

70 Ibid. Art. 4, par. 2, Art. 5, par. 2.

71 Ibid. Art. 6, pars. 1-2.

72 Ibid. Art. 6, pars. 3-5.

73 Ibid. Art. 7, pars. 1-2.

74 Ibid. Art. 7, par. 4.

75 Ibid. Art. 10, par. 2.

76 Ibid. Art. 8.

77 Ibid. Art. 9, par. 2.

78 Ibid. Art. 9, par. 3.

79 Allen, Edward W., “Geneva ‘Law of Sea’ Conference Described,” Marine Digest, June 14, 1958.Google Scholar

80 Cf. Doc. US/CLS/POS/49/Annex.

81 U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L. 56 at 2 (1958).

82 Ibid. 3.

83 Ibid. 4

84 Ibid. 7.

85 Ibid. 8.

86 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Art. 7, par. 4. Prior to the rule adopted by the Conference there was a multiplicity of views as to the maximum width of the mouth of a bay which could be considered territorial. These varied from 6 to 10 miles, to 50 miles in the case of the Canadian claim over Hudson Bay, up to 115 miles in the case of the. recently asserted Soviet claim over Peter the Great Bay. 1 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law 505-506 (8th ed., 1955), and 37 Dept. of State Bulletin 388 (1957). In the recent Fisheries .Case, involving a dispute between England and Norway, the International Court of Justice refused to find that any rule as to the width of such bays had acquired the status of international law, “although the 10-mile rule has been adopted by certain States both in their national law and in their treaties and conventions, and although certain arbitral decisions have applied it as between themselves.” Fisheries Case, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 131. Under par. 6 of Art. 4, the exception for so-called “historic” bays is preserved.

87 N. Y. Times, July 10, 1958, p. 1.