Page images
PDF
EPUB

No. 4]

EVALUATION OF UNITED STATES OCEANS POLICY

611

tional machinery for the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed resources.30

In 1970 there were a number of significant developments in this area, most of which reflected a recognition by the developed countries that future international deliberations on basic oceans issues were unavoidable and even desirable. Many, too, evidenced the desire of the United States to assume leadership and establish the initiative in future discussions.

The U.N. Seabeds Committee met in New York in March where the United States proposed a relatively comprehensive set of principles 31 and indicated a willingness to attend a future law of the sea conference or conferences if the issues were "treated in manage

30 24 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A/2574C (1969).

31 Press Release USUN-27(70) (Rev. 1). The objectives stated were as follows: "1. To encourage exploration and exploitation of seabed resources.

2. To assure that all interested States will have access, without discrimination, to the seabed for the purpose of exploring and exploiting mineral resources.

3. To encourage scientific research and the dissemination of scientific and technologic information related to seabed resources.

4. To encourage the development of services, such as aids to navigation, maps and charts, weather information, and rescue capability.

5. To provide procedures for the assignment of rights to minerals or groups of minerals in specific areas under terms that protect the integrity of investments in seabed resource development, that encourage economic efficiency in the exploration and exploitation of seabed resources, that prevent a race for claims, and that discourage operators from seeking to hold large areas for purely speculative purposes.

6. To provide for a reasonable return on risk investment.

7. To provide revenue to benefit international community purposes, taking special account of the needs of the developing countries, and to meet the operating expenses of the international body established to administer its provisions.

8. To assure that exploration and exploitation of seabed mineral resources will be carried out in a manner that will protect human life, prevent conflicts between users of the seabed, safeguard other uses of the ocean environment against undue interference, avoid irreparable damage to the environment and its resources, and promote the use of sound conservation practices.

9. To provide terms and procedures governing liability for damage resulting from exploration and exploitation of seabed minerals so that damage will be adequately repaired or compensated.

10. To provide for the stability of rules, and yet for the flexibility to

612

MCGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 17 able packages" 32 The following month Canada introduced in its House of Commons the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (creating a Pollution Control Zone extending 100 nautical miles from the coastline and to all adjacent waters located above its continental shelf) 33 and a companion bill extending Canada's territorial sea to 12 miles.34 Within such a zone, Canada asserted the right to regulate this discharge of substances and to control shipping.3

35

The Canadian proposal was immediately challenged by the U.S. Department of State as constituting “unilateral extensions of jurisdictions on the high seas [which] the United States can [not] accept".36 Notwithstanding, the Canadian Parliament promptly en

introduce modifications over time responsive to new knowledge and
new developments.

11. To provide effective procedures for the settlement of disputes.
12. In the overall, to establish an international regime so plainly viable
that States will in fact ratify the treaties establishing it." Id., at
pp. 3-5.

32 U.S. Dept. of State Press Release No. 49 (Feb. 18, 1970); U.S. Dept. of State Press Release USUN-81(70) (June 12, 1970) ("procedures for the resolution of these issues should be structured so as to insure that each issue receives appropriate attention").

33 Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act Bill C-202 Sect. 3, (1) and (2). It was passed by the House of Commons on April 22, 1970. House Commons Debates, Apr. 22, 1970, 6170-6172. Id., at Sect. 4. The Act has been printed in (1970), 9 Int'l L. Materials 543.

34 Bill C-203, an Act to Amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, ibid., at p. 553 (1970).

35 Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, n. 33 supra, at Sect. 4.

36 U.S. Dept. State Release No. 121 (Apr. 15, 1970), which gave as a reason for the objection the following:

"We are concerned that this action by Canada, if not opposed by us, would be taken as precedent in other parts of the world for other unilateral infringements of the freedom of the seas. If Canada had the right to claim and exercise exclusive pollution and resources jurisdiction on the high seas, other countries could assert the right to exercise jurisdiction for other purposes, some reasonable and some not, but all equally invalid according to international law. Merchant shipping would be severely restricted, and naval mobility would be seriously jeopardized. The potential for serious international dispute and conflict is obvious." Actually, as was pointed out in the Canadian reply to the U.S. Government, its position is not inconsistent with the development of international solutions in this area:

"It is well known that Canada takes second place to no nation in pressing for multilateral solutions to problems of international law, and

No. 4]

EVALUATION OF UNITED STATES OCEANS POLICY

613

acted these measures into law. The very imaginative Canadian action proved to have a large impact on subsequent international deliberations by focusing attention on, first, the critical interest of the coastal state in controlling offshore pollution, second, the continuing utility of the specialized contiguous zone as a means of

that Canada has repeatedly and consistently shown its good faith by its continuous efforts to produce agreed rules of law. The Canadian Government is, however, determined to fulfil its fundamental responsibilities to the Canadian people and to the international community for the protection of Canada's offshore marine environment and its living resources, and the proposed legislation is directed to these ends.

The Canadian Government has long been concerned about the inade quacies of international law in failing to give the necessary protection to the marine environment and to ensure the conservation of fisheries resources. The proposed anti-pollution legislation is based on the overriding right of self-defence of coastal states to protect themselves against grave threats to their environment. Traditional principles of international law concerning pollution of the sea are based in the main on ensuring freedom of navigation to shipping states, which are now engaged in the large scale carriage of oil and other potential pollutants. Such traditional concepts are of little or no relevance anywhere in the world if they can be cited as precluding action by a coastal state to protect this environment. Such concepts are particularly irrelevant, however, to an area having the unique characteristics of the Arctic, where there is an intimate relationship between the sea, the ice and the land, and where the permanent defilement of the environment could occur and result in the destruction of whole species. It is idle, more-ower to talk of freedom of the high seas with respect to an area, large parts of which are covered with ice throughout the year, other parts of which are covered with ice most of each year, and where the local inhabitants use the frozen sea as an extension of the land to travel over it by dogsled and snowmobile far more than they can use it as water. While the Canadian Government is determined to open up the Northwest Passage to safe navigation, it cannot accept the suggestion that the Northwest Passage constitutes high seas.

In these circumstances the Canadian Government is not prepared to await the gradual development of international law, either by other states through their practice nor through the possible development of rules of law through multilateral treaties. The Canadian Government has repeatedly made clear that it is fully prepared to participate actively in multilateral action aimed at producing agreed safety and anti-pollution standards and protection of the living resources of the sea but is not prepared to abdicate in the meantime its own primary responsibilities concerning these questions."

Summary of Canadian note of April 16, tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House, April 17, (1970), 9 Int'l L. Materials 607, at pp. 610-611; see also Prime Minister Trudeau's remarks following the introduction of the legislation on April 8, 1970, id., at pp. 610-613.

614

MCGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 17

fulfilling and serving both national and international purposes, third, the potential inhibition that expanded territorial seas and contiguous zones could create on free transit through areas now regarded as high seas or international straits and, fourth, the importance of nationalism as a determinant of international policy.37

The reason for the very strong reaction on the part of the United States to the Canadian offshore proposals became clear when, on May 23, 1970, President Nixon announced a new United States oceans policy, in which he proposed a treaty to limit existing rights of coastal states in their continental shelves to areas lying under depths of 200 meters and establish international régimes for the areas beyond. The Nixon proposal stated in part: The issue arises now and with urgency because nations have grown increasingly conscious of the wealth to be exploited from the seabeds and throughout the waters above, and because they are also becoming apprehensive about the ecological hazards of unregulated use of the oceans and seabeds. The stark fact is that the law of the sea is inadequate to meet the needs of modern technology and the concerns of the international community. If it is not modernised multilaterally, unilateral action and international conflict are inevitable.

[ocr errors]

This is the time, then, for all nations to set about resolving the basic issue of the future regime for the oceans and to resolve it in a way that redounds to the general benefit in the era of intensive exploitation that lies ahead. The United States as a major maritime power and a leader in ocean technology has a special responsibility to move this effort forward.

Therefore, I am today proposing that all nations adopt as soon as possible a treaty under which they would renounce all national claims over the natural resources of the seabed beyond the point where the high seas reach a depth of 200 meters (218.8 yards), and would agree to regard these resources as the common heritage of mankind.

The treaty should establish an international regime for the exploitation of seabed resources beyond this limit. The regime should provide for

37 See infra, at n. 105 et seq. Some have not viewed the Canadian position in as favorable a light. In Ratiner, United States Oceans Policy: An Analysis, (1971), 2 Jour. of Maritime Law and Commerce 225, at p. 234 the Canadian action was characterized as the "staking out [of] bargaining positions." In Bilder, The Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act: New Stresses on the Law of the Sea, (1970), 69 Mich. L. Rev. 1, at p. 30, Canada's justification of its action under principles of "self defense" was characterized as “particularly troublesome and capable of introducing new uncertainties into this already muddy area of international law." This is another way of saying, "better an uncertain and unworkable rule of international law than a workable national solution." The merit of the Canadian position has been increasingly evidenced by the type of criticism that it has drawn. See J. Beesley, Rights and Responsibilities of Arctic Coastal States: The Canadian View, (1971) 3 Journ. Maritime Law and Commerce 1.

85-197 O-73-25

No. 4]

EVALUATION OF UNITED STATES OCEANS POLICY

615

the collection of substantial mineral royalties to be used for international community purposes, particularly economic assistance to developing countries. It should also establish general rules to prevent unreasonable interference with other uses of the ocean, to protect the ocean from pollution, to assure the integrity of the investment necessary for such exploitation and to provide for peaceful and compulsory settlement of disputes.

I propose two types of machinery for authorizing exploitation of seabed resources beyond a depth of 200 meters.

First, I propose that coastal nations act as trustees for the international community in an international trusteeship zone consisting of the continental margins beyond a depth of 200 meters off their coasts. In return, each coastal state would receive a share of the international revenues from the zone in which it acts as trustee and shall impose additional taxes if these were deemed desirable.

As a second step, agreed international machinery would authorize and regulate exploration and use of seabed resources beyond the continental margins.

The United States will introduce specific proposals at the next meeting of the United Nations Seabeds Committee to carry out these objectives.

*

It is equally important to assure unfettered and harmonious use of the oceans as an avenue of commerce and transportation, and as a source of food. For this reason the United States is currently engaged with other states in an effort to obtain a new treaty for these purposes. This treaty would establish a 12-mile limit for territorial seas and provide for free transit through international straits. It would also accommodate the problems of developing countries and other nations regarding the conservation and use of the living resources of the high seas.38

The means selected by the U.S. Department of State to "introduce specific proposals", as announced, were to prepare and present to the U.N. Seabeds Committee a Draft United Nations Convention on the International Seabed Area, dated August 3, 1970.38 The Draft Convention is an imaginative, comprehensive and detailed document with many novel features. It would reserve to the coastal state its existing rights only to the 200 meter isobath and would give it only such rights in the adjacent area beyond, designated the "International Seabed Area", as were expressly authorized.39

38 Wkly. Comp. Presidential Docs., May 25; 1970, at pp. 677-678.

38a U.S. Dept. of State Press Release, No. 229, Aug. 3, 1970; (1970), 9 Int'l L. Materials 1046; U.N. Doc. A/AC. 138/25, Aug. 3, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "Draft Convention").

39 Draft Convention, arts. 2, 27(1). These provisions would effect an enormous renunciation of rights which a coastal state could presently claim under the Convention on the Continental Shelf and under the doctrine of the continental

« PreviousContinue »