concept that the forces of a foreign sovereign are completely immune from jurisdiction of a sovereign through whose territory they are passing, when the permission to pass through is granted by that territorial sovereign, is not quite applicable in situations created by our far flung bases in foreign countries. Our forces in these cases are present in the foreign country on a different basis.

THE NATO-SOFA, The Military Bases Agreement with the Philippines, and the Administrative Agreement with Japan are examples of relinquishment of a measure of jurisdiction by the host government to the visiting government. These agreements were the outgrowth of the collective security needs of the Free World to have member nations' armed forces personnel, their civilian components and dependents, stationed at bases in foreign countries on a semipermanent bases. The discipline and control of such forces should, in all logic and reasoning, be the responsibility of the commanding officer of the forces. Only by the exercise of discipline may a commander assure and maintain the combat readiness of his forces. These agreements are designed to cover operational visits of armed forces to foreign countries rather than the goodwill-courtesy type of visits which Navy warships make from time to time. For the most part the good will visits to such countries merge into operational visits. A U.S. ship visiting in those countries where either Army, Navy or Air Force bases are regularly maintained are accorded the

privileges and benefits of the agreements in effect. In some instances, personnel from a visiting ship or from bases in one NATO country on leave in another, are considered to be covered by the agreement between the U.S. and the visiting country.

The mechanics of the implementation of the SOFA in the NATO area are carried out through U.S. country representatives, designated by the Department of Defense on the basis of service interest. For instance, in Italy the Country Representative is the USSSO, Rome, and in Portugal it is CINCNELM-both are Navy's responsibility. Army has responsibility in France, Belgium, and Germany. The Air Force has responsibility in England, Turkey, Norway and Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Iceland and Luxembourg.

The service having responsibility in each country performs all the functions of liaison with the host government, including claims settlement, on behalf of all sister services. The one important exception is that of claims settlement authority specially granted to the Commander Sixth Fleet for claims up to $100. This exception was found desirable to permit adjustment of grievances of a minor nature by the Sixth Fleet prior to departure from any of its numerous ports of call. Leaving a foreign port with no "unfinished business" makes for a hearty welcome on a return visit and pleasant memories in the minds of our friends. Larger claims however, are left to the Country Representative for settlement.

only on government non-commercial service also are recognized as having complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any state other than the flag state while on the high seas. As this latter provision was drafted by the International Law Commission complete immunity would have been extended to government-owned ships in commercial service. As would be expected, USSR supported the original draft. However the conference rejected any such extension of the immunity doctrine.

It is a well recognized principle of international law that a merchant ship on the high seas is subject to being boarded only by a warship of its own state. There are exceptions to this rule which have been incorporated into Article 22 of the convention. Briefly stated, a warship is justified in boarding a foreign merchant ship encountered on the high seas if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the ship is engaged in piracy or the slave trade, or, though flying a foreign flag, or refusing to show its flag, the ship is in reality of the same nationality as the warship. In addition, this article furnishes general instructions to a warship encountering a boarding situation. as authorized by this convention.

*** the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

There is the further provision that the merchant ship is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage it may have sustained if the suspicions which formed the basis for its boarding prove to be unfounded and if the ship itself has not committed any act justifying the suspicions.

It is well to remember that the limitations on the right of a warship to visit merchant ships on the high seas, as adopted by this convention, are applicable in time of peace and not in time of war when different rules apply.

CONVENTION OF FISHING AND CONSERVATION OF THE LIVING RESOURCES OF THE HIGH SEAS 5

THIS CONVENTION ESTABLISHES a new legal system for the conservation of the marine resources of the high seas. Its aim is to obtain through international cooperation the "optimum sustainable yield" from the living re

5. U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L54. Signed by 49 States including U. S.

sources of the high seas in order to secure a "maximum supply of food" to meet the needs of the world's expanding population.

In order to effectuate its purpose the convention imposes on all states the duty to adopt conservation measures to conserve high seas fishing, and recognizes in the coastal state a special right to participate in the establishment of the conservation measures applicable to stocks of fish in areas of the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea.

Where the nationals of only one state are engaged in fishing a stock of fish on the high seas that state shall adopt conservation measures. Where the nationals of two or more states are engaged in fishing the same stock of fish in any area of the high seas these states are required to negotiate an agreement concerning the conservation measures to be applied. Should the nationals of a state, not a party to the conservation arrangements in force, commence fishing the same stock of fish in any area of the high seas the new fishing state is required to join in the conservation program following the procedures established for this purpose. Arbitration is provided if states cannot agree.

The Convention recognizes that all coastal states including those whose fishing industries have not been developed, or whose fishing efforts are confined to their territorial seas, have a legitimate interest in conservation programs relating to the stocks of fish in the high seas areas adjacent to their territorial seas. Hence it is provided that "A coastal state is entitled to take part on an equal footing in any system of research and regulation" relating to conservation in such an area "even though its nationals do not carry on fishing there."

Thus a coastal state may unilaterally adopt conservation measures relating to stocks of fish in high seas areas adjacent to its territorial sea if negotiations with any other states concerned have not resulted in agreement within six months. Pending arbitration the measures adopted by the coastal state shall be valid as to other states if there is urgent need for conservation measures, they are based on scientific findings, and are not discriminatory against foreign fishermen.

Where a coastal state has in force conservation measures relating to an adjacent high seas area a state whose nationals undertake to fish in such an area may not enforce inconsistent conservation measures. Negotiation with the coastal state is required and arbitration is provided for in the event of disagreement.

In addition, a state whose nationals fish in a high seas area adjacent to a coastal state is bound upon request to negotiate with the coastal state with a view to prescribing by agreement the conservation measures to be taken. Arbitration is prescribed in event of disagreement.

ARTICLE 9 IMPOSES compulsory arbitration of any dispute relating to the negotiation of conservation agreements if requested by any of the parties to a dispute and provided settlement by other peaceful means is not agreed upon. The arbitral body provided shall be an ad hoc commission whose members shall be chosen from among well-qualified persons not nationals of the states involved in the dispute and "specializing in legal, administrative and scientific questions relating to fisheries." Selection shall be by agreement between the parties to the dispute or by the Secretary General of the United Nations failing such an agreement.

Article 9 is a vital part of the convention. While states that ratify this convention will be required by its terms to negotiate among themselves in regard to the conservation of the living resources of the high seas, there is no way of insuring that they reach agreement in every case. Thus, in the absence of the compulsory arbitration provisions of this and related articles the Convention would be ineffectual and fall short of its intended purpose.

The recognition of a special interest in coastal states in fish stocks situated in areas of the high sea adjacent to their coasts is a departure from the traditional principle of freedom of the seas (freedom of fishing) and is a consequence of the conflict of interests between the coastal states and the high seas fishing states. Though amounting to a considerable concession on the part of the fishing states this Convention may, nevertheless, tend to reduce the pressure of some coastal states for a 12 mile territorial sea. If such is the case it will have been a substantial contribution to the security interests of the Free World.

CONVENTION ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF 6

THIS CONVENTION FINDS its basis in recent state practice in which there has been general acquiescence by the community of states. In 1942 a treaty between the United Kingdom and Venezuela divided between the parties their rights to the submarine areas of the Gulf of Paria. The Truman Proclamation of Septem

6. U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L55. Signed by 46 States including U.S.

ber 1945 announced that the United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and the sea bed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States and subject to its jurisdiction and control. By 1956 some 20 states had made similar claims. The Convention on the Continental Shelf converts this state practice into codified international law.

Article 1 defines the continental shelf as the sea bed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside of the territorial sea to a depth of 200 meters or beyond that limit to the extent that the depth of the water admits the exploitation of the natural resources of the area. Although the Convention recognizes in the coastal state sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the continental shelf, the superjacent water and airspace above retain their character as high seas.

The "natural resources of the continental shelf" are defined as the mineral resources and other non-living resources of the sea bed and subsoil, and the living organisms belonging to the sedentary species that are attached to the sea bed at the time of harvesting.

The coastal state is authorized to erect installations on the continental shelf for the purpose of its exploration and exploitation. However, the exercise of these rights must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing or the conservation of the living resources of the sea.

Installations erected for these purposes may be maintained together with safety zones necessary for their protection which may extend a maximum of 500 meters around the installation. Due notice must be given of the construction of such installations and ships of all nationalities must respect the safety zones established in regard thereto. Neither the installations nor their safety zones may be established so as to interfere with recognized sea lanes.

THE TERRITORIAL SEA LIMIT

THE MOST IMPORTANT and controversial questions before the conference involved the breadth of the territorial sea and the related question of fishing rights in coastal waters.

These questions were considered against a background of conflicting claims, based on economic, political and military considerations and the feeling shared by some states that the three mile limit no longer met the legitimate needs of

the coastal states. It will be remembered that the first international conference to consider this question was held at The Hague in 1930. At that conference there was so little concurrence of opinion as to the appropriate breadth of the territorial sea that no proposals were submitted for vote. This failure was because of the unwillingness of the major powers to settle their differences.

It was the objective of the United States to preserve the three mile limit as the breadth of the territorial sea traditionally recognized in international law, and the limit which best served the principle of freedom of the seas. It was considered that the legitimate interests and requirements of coastal states in extended areas of coastal waters could be accommodated without resorting to an extension of sovereignty. Many proposals were introduced and none were accepted by the two-thirds majority required under the rules of the conference. When it became clear that the three mile rule would not receive the required support to be adopted, the United States Delegation in the interests of maintaining a narrow territorial sea and reaching conference agreement introduced a compromise proposal. This proposal which provided for a six-mile territorial sea and a contiguous zone of six miles for coastal fishing subject to certain existing fishing rights, losing by but seven votes, came the closest of any to receiving conference approval.

In order that the position of the United States concerning the breadth of the territorial sea would not be misunderstood, Mr. Arthur H. Dean, chairman of the United States Delegation, at the close of the conference made clear the United States position. He stated in part:

Our offer to agree on a 6-mile breadth of territorial sea, provided agreement could be reached on such a breadth under certain conditions, was simply an offer and nothing more. Its nonacceptance leaves the pre-existing situation intact.

We have made it clear from the beginning that in our view the 3-mile rule is and will continue to be established international law, to which we adhere. It is the only breadth of the territorial sea on which there has ever been anything like common agreement. Unilateral acts of states claiming greater territorial seas are not only not sanctioned by any principle of international law but are, indeed, in conflict with the universally accepted principle of freedom of the seas.

Furthermore we have made it clear that in our view there is no obligation on the part of states adhering to the 3-mile rule to recognize claims on the part of other states to a greater breadth of territorial sea. And on that we stand.

While we consider that the 3-mile rule is existing

international law, nevertheless we are still optimistic that upon reflection the great majority of our good friends in the international community will come to realize that international agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea and on fishing rights is necessary in order that a regime of law may be effected and that the diverse and often conflicting interests of national states may not jeopardize the peace of the international community.

CONCLUSION

THE CONVENTIONS THAT were adopted in 1958 will come into force thirty days after the 22nd instrument of ratification has been deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations. Each convention is a separate instrument and there is the possibility that some governments will not ratify all agreements. Notwithstanding, the general acceptance of these principles of international law as evidenced by the agreements adopted at Geneva will tend to reduce the areas of dispute and friction among nations and thereby serve the cause of peaceful and friendly relations between the nations of the world.

As one of its final acts the 1958 Geneva Conference called upon the General Assembly of the United Nations to study the advisability of convening a second international conference for the further consideration of the questions left unsettled. Responding to this recommendation the General Assembly has called such a conference to convene at Geneva on March 17, 1960. The agenda will be limited to two questions, namely, the breadth of the territorial sea and fishing rights in coastal waters.

As the breadth of the territorial sea is increased there is a corresponding reduction in the free seas of the world. This loss of free seas occurs along the thousands of miles of coast line throughout the world and in the narrow passages which are of great importance to the mobility of naval forces. The effectiveness of seapower depends upon the ability to move, unhampered, to wherever it is needed and by the shortest routes. The results of the 1960 Conference will, therefore, be of utmost importance to the Navy and to our national security. Naval strategists throughout the world will be watching this conference with keen interest. Its results can have an immediate effect upon the Law of the Sea and thus upon our naval forces.

7. Ratification is a slow process and it is too early to judge whether a sufficient number will be obtained. Afghanistan has ratified the Convention on the High Seas. No other ratifications have have been deposited with the Secretary General of the U.N. The Conventions and Protocol have been forwarded by the President to the Senate for ratification under Message dated Sept. 9, 1959. See Senate Doc. EX J to N incl., 86th Cong. 1st Sess.The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on Jan. 20, 1960.

MILITARY PERSONNEL-Fleet Reservists-Record Correction-TenYear Statute of Limitations

This case involves members of the naval service transferred to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and the correction of their records pursuant to 10 USC 6332 to reflect additional service credits. In such a situation, the ten year limitation period of 31 USC 71a commences to run from the date of the correction of the member's record rather than the date of transfer. Upon such correction, the member is entitled to retainer pay from the date of transfer in accordance with his grade and number of years of creditable service, as corrected. Comp. Gen. decision B-135771 of 14 July 1959.

MILITARY PERSONNEL-Retired Pay—Survivor Annuity Option Elections-Correction of Military Records-Subsequent to Member's Death

This case concerns the right of a member of the uniformed services to elect a servivorship annuity under the Uniformed Service Contingency Option Act of 1953. When such right arises as the result of the correction of a military record, it comes into existence when the correction is made and such right may not be exercised in advance. Therefore, an annuity election made by a retired naval reserve officer when he was not eligible to make an election does not have any force and effect when, after the officer's death, his military records are corrected to retroactively place him on the disability retired list at the time of release from active duty. Comp. Gen. decision B-138775 of 5 August 1959. MILITARY PERSONNEL-Transportation-Dependents—Dislocation Allowance Commissioned as Officers

● This case involves the transportation of dependents of naval aviation cadets who are commissioned as officers and then ordered to active duty. Such transportation is considered a movement from home, or from place which ordered to active duty, to the first duty station so that payment of a dislocation allowance for such travel is specifically prohibited by paragraph 9003-3 of the JTR. For payment of transportation of dependents of newly appointed officers, the fact that aviation cadets serve in a special enlisted grade is no different from serving in any other capacity while training for appointment as a commissioned officer. Comp. Gen. decision B-139704 of 6 August 1959.

This case involves an enlisted member of the Regular Army who was discharged, after involuntary transfer to the Air Force under the National Security Act of 1947, to accept a commission in the Army of the United States. When relieved from active duty as an officer, he immediately reenlisted in the Regular Army. Such an officer may be regarded as having been an enlisted member in the Regular Army immediately prior to his appointment as an officer in the Army of the United States (notwithstanding the Air Force service), and therefore qualified for a reenlistment bonus under section 208d of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (payable for first enlistment).

Reenlistment bonus payment under section 207 of the Career Compensation Act to former officers who enlisted on or prior to July 16, 1954 (the date of the Act amending the reenlistment bonus provisions of the 1949 Act) even though their officer service was not preceded by enlisted service, will not be questioned in view of the broad language of subsections 207 a and b. This language does not specifically restrict or limit the bonus payment to former enlisted members who enlist and does not specify that the qualifying service must have been rendered in an enlisted status or have been preceded by enlisted service. However, those payments to former officers who enlist after July 16, 1954 may not be made unless the member previously served as an enlisted man in the service in which he enlists. However, such enlisted service does not have to immediately precede the officer service. Comp. Gen. decision B-138918 of 15 July 1959.

MILITARY PERSONNEL-Survivorship Annuity Option ElectionsExecuted By Other Than Member-Validity

In the absence of any authority in the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act of 1953 (10 U.S.C 1431-1444) for the execution of a survivorship annuity option election by anyone other than the member in the case of mental competency, election made by the wife of a physically incapacitated member by virtue of a power of attorney may not be regarded as a valid election. Comp. Gen. decision B-135468 of 19 August 1959. MILITARY PERSONNEL-Subsistence-Per diem-On board vessels-United States vessels transferred to foreign country.

This decision concerns TAD performed by naval personnel aboard U.S. Navy vessels which are being transferred to foreign governments with the title to the vessels being retained by the United States. The ques