1 One of the many effects of UNCLOS III has been a return to what might be described as quasi-polemical confrontation in the law of the sea, somewhat along the same lines as those delineated in the famous encounter between Hugo Grotius and John Selden. The mare liberum v. mare clausum controversy may resemble the contemporary North-South issues sufficiently to inhibit the advocates of the North philosophy, who may also be affected by a sense of political inevitability about the outcome in conference diplomacy.

2 Grotius is justly famous for the systematic nature of his scholarship, but he was equally prominent as an advocate for his client. Major jurists of later eras did not, as a rule, consciously adopt the role of advocate in their scholarship, and it is only in fairly recent years, as other cultural perspectives have been brought to bear on the evolution of international law, that we are all familiar with the charge that international law in general was devised as a sophisticated normative system designed to rationalize and vindicate the policies of the rich and privileged states. The doctrine of the freedom of the high seas has, of course, been denounced by many of the newer states as an ingenious, fair-sounding device designed to perpetuate the built-in comparative advantages of mobility favoring the rich shipping states.

3 See, e.g., W. E. Hall, Treatise On International Law 58, 125-42, et seq. (2d ed. 1883).

4 See, e.g., C. J. Colombos, The International Law Of The Sea (1942).

5 See, e.g., G. Gidel, L.E Droit International Public De La Mer (2 vols., 1932); and more recently, M. S. Mcdougal&W. T. Burke, The Public Order Of The Oceans: A Contemporary International Law Of The Sea (1962).

6 See, e.g., T. W. Fulton, Sovereignty Of The Sea (1911); P. T. Fenn, The Origin Of The Right Of Fisheries In Territorial Waters (1926); P. C. Jessup, Law Of Territorial Waters And Maritime Jurisdiction (1927); A. S. De Bustamente Y Sirven, E L Mar Territorial (1930); And C. V. Meyer, The Extent Of Jurisdiction In Coastal Waters (1937).

7 See, e.g., S. A. Riesenfeld, Protection Of Coastal Fisheries Under International LAW (1943); and, more recently, N. M. Poulantzas, The Right Of Hot Pursuit In International Law (1968).

8 See, e.g., Scientific Papers and Proceedings of the UN Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources, held at New York in 1949, and the Technical Papers and Report of the UN International Technical Conference on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea, held at Rome in 1956.

9 Franck, , Baradei, El, and Aron, , The New Poor: Land-locked, Shelf-locked and Other Geographically Disadvantaged States, 7 N.Y.U.J. Int. Law And Pols. 33 (1974)Google Scholar; and Johnston, The New Equity in the Law of the Sea, 31 INT. J. 79 (1975-76).

10 Convention on the Continental Shelf, 15 UST 471, TIAS No. 5578, 499 UNTS 311, 52 AJIL 858 (1958) and Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea, 17 UST 138, TIAS No. 5969, 559 UNTS 285, 52 AJIL 851 (1958).

11 John Knauss (oceanographer), Lewis Alexander (geographer), and Dale Krause (oceanographer).

12 See, e.g., the chapters by Raoul Andersen, Geoffrey Stiles, and Paul Alexander in Marine Policy And The Coastal Community (D. M. Johnston, ed., 1976).

13 The last of these approaches may not appear in the literature until after the conclusion of UNCLOS III which, because of its protracted course and stressful features, has engaged the interest of psychiatrists, more perhaps than any other diplomatic conference.

14 Johnston, The Future of Fishery Management in the Northwest Atlantic: Canadian Perspectives in The Economic Consequences Of A 200-Mile Fishing Limit (L. Anderson, ed., 1976).

15 For a recent biblography of Latin American writings on the law of the sea, see A. Szekely, Bibliography On Latin America And The Law Of The Sea (Law of the Sea Inst., Spec. Pub. No. 5, 1976).

16 PROC, ASIL, 64 AJIL 52 (No. 4, 1970).

17 Early examples of “institutional” studies of this kind were F. T. Christy, Jr.,&A. Scott, The Common Wealth In Ocean Fisheries (1965); D. M. Johnston, The International Law Of Fisheries (1965); And H. Kasahara&W. Burke, International Fishery Management In The North Pacific: Present And Future (1972).

18 See Resources for the Future Program of International Studies of Fishery Arrangements, Paper Series (1973-75); and Christy, Disparate Fisheries: Problems for the Law of the Sea Conference and Beyond, 1 Ocean Devel. And Int. Law 337 (1974). There is a subset of the same literature which proceeds from the premise that the level or structure of fishery authority may be less important than the management principles to be implemented. E.g., The Future Of International Fishery Management (H. Gary Knight, ed. 1975).

19 In some degree the existing literature on coastal zone management represents the first evidence of this aspect of “law of the sea” literature, although it overlaps considerably with land use planning studies and related areas of research.

20 For examples of “empirical” analyses of this kind, see Alexander, Indices of National Interest in the Oceans, 1 Ocean Devel. And Int. Law 21 (1973); D. M. Johnston&E. Gold, The Economic Zone In The Law Of The Sea: Survey, Analysis And Appraisal Of Current Trends (Law of the Sea Institute, Occas. Paper Series, No. 17, 1973); and Shyam, Rights of the Coastal States to Fisheries Resources in the Economic Zone: An Empirical Analysis of State Preferences, 3 Ocean Management 1 (1976). Another approach to predictive analysis is that of content analysis, e.g., Friedheim&Kadane, Quantitative Content Analysis of the United Nations Seabed Debate: Methodology and a Continental Shelf Case Study, 24 Int. Organ. 479 (1970).

21 See, e.g., Alexander, Regionalism and the Law of the Sea: The Case of Semienclosed Seas, 2 Ocean Devel. And Int. Law 151 (1974).