Basic HTML Version
How
and
Why
the
Ocean Controversy Developed
1
F
or more than 300 years
the freedom of the high
seas was recognized among
nations. Hugo Gratius, a
Dutch jurist, wrote in 1609
that the ocean "is common
to all , because it is so
limitless that it cannot
become the possession of
anyone." He concluded the
seas "can neither be seized
nor enclosed."
In 1610, the English
forbade fishing closer than a
cannon shot from their
coasts. This distance
worked out to three nautical
miles and has, until recent
decades, been the
universally accepted limit of
territorial seas.
But after World War 11 this
limit became increasingly
meaningless. Exploding
world populations intensified
the search for mineral and
food resources.
Wide-ranging fishing fleets
threatened to vacuum rich
fishing grounds. Offshore oil
and gas drilling proliferated
(already one fifth of oil and
gas comes from offshore
rigs and sorne authorities
estímate it may be half by
the end of the century).
Heavy supertanker traffic
and ocean pollution
increased. Unilateral claims
to territorial seas and
offshore rights proliferated
at an explosive pace.
Sorne coastal nations
claimed a three-mile
territorial sea. Others 12
miles. Still others claimed
15, 20, 30, 50, 150 or even
200 mile territorial seas.
Sorne claimed only fishing
rights in their areas; others
had additional claims.
Fishing wars increasingly
erupted in the 1950s. Chile,
Ecuador and Peru reserved
fishing rights out to 200
miles. But not all nations
took these and other
territorial claims seriously.
lncreasing confticts over
the oceans led to the first
Law of the Sea Conference
in Geneva, Switzerlánd, in
1958. Between 1958 and
1960 the conference
attempted to define limits of
coastal jurisdiction over
continental shelves.
A continental shelf was
first defined by the
conference as the area
between the coast and 650
feet deep, "or beyond that
limit where the depth
of ... waters permits
exploitation of natural
resources." The result was
more confusion. lt meant a
highly technological nation
could keep claiming offshore
waters all the way to the
other side of the ocean if it
had the technology.
By 1960 many coastal
nations had established a
12-mile zone of territorial
control. But not everyone
recognized them. The
12-mile zone also created
problems.
The jump from three to
12 miles meant jurisdiction
would overlap in more than
100 vital straits between six
and 24 miles in width. Under
the former three-mile limit
those straits would be high
seas (international law).
Ouickly the proliferation of
claims over control and
regulation of strait waters
jeopardized the free and
innocent passage of ships,
supertankers, submarinas
and aircraft so necessary
for trade and defense.
Sorne strait states,
sensitive to pollution and
heavy traffic, asserted that
large petroleum tankers and
nuclear-powered vessels are
inherently " noninnocent."
The 1960s brought greater
awareness of the widening
gap between the have and
have-not nations. The
developing nations pushed
for a greater share of aid,
technology and trade
advantages from developed
nations. Meanwhile, the
development of
ocean-mining and marine
research technology made
seabed mining a future like–
lihood. The ocean bottoms
covered with its black
modules suddenly looked like
black gold.
In 1967, Arvid Pardo, then
Malta's ambassador to the
U.N., noted in a rousing
speech that the minerals on
or in the deep seabed were
the "common heritage of
mankind." He proposed that
the profits from mining
seabed minerals should be
shared among all nations
according to need.
Ambassador Pardo's plan
was instantly endorsed by
the small developing, and
especially landlocked,
nations.
In December , 1970, by a
unanimous resolution, the
U.N. General Assembly
declared the oceans beyond
the limits of national
jurisdiction to be the
"common heritage of all
mankind" and should be
exploited for the benefit of
mankind as a whole.
In 1974, Algeria used the
U.N. platform to launch an
official call from the Third
World for a New lnternational
Economic Order- a
redistribution of the world's
wealth with a greater share
for developing nations. The
riches of the sea suddenly
seemed a promising pathway
to quickly help achieve a
"new arder" ... except for
the one big divisive issue that
still divides developed and
developing nations and
threatens to doom the Law of
the Sea Conference to
failure-the política! structure
and power of the
supranational seabed mining
authority.
Treaty on grounds that it would
" inhi bit United States exploitat ion
of the sea for its abundant mineral
resources.")
negotiators fear that a breakdown
of the Law of the Sea Conven t ion
wi ll i nflame a new wave of anger,
hostility and belligerency by the
T hird World against t he industrial
world , especially t he Uni t ed
S tates.
gy. But they insist the t reaty must
be concluded with or wit hou t
Washington, and at t his spri ng's
session.
Now many governments fear a
United States reject ion of key
parts of the painfully negotiated
treaty wi ll rekind le reservations
and claims held by other nations.
As a result the whole package of
negot iations could unwind. Many
14
Developing nations want t he
United States involved in the Law
o f the Sea T reaty because it is the
leader in ocean-mining technolo-
That means decisions made by
many key indus t r ial nations befare
the next session of the Law of the
Sea Conference may determine the
news you will be reading abou t for
years to come!
(Continued on page 34)
The
PLAIN TRUTH