¹ Liang, , “Notes on Legal Questions Concerning the United Nations,” this Journal , Vol. 44 (1950), p. 533.Google Scholar

² U.N. Doe. A/CN.4/53, April 4, 1952.

³ Second Report, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/61, Feb. 19, 1953; Addendum to Second Report, U.N. Doe. A/CN.4/61, Add. 1, May 18, 1953; Third Report, U.N. Doe. A/CN.4/77, Feb. 4, 1954.

⁴ General Assembly, 9th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/2693), 1954, pp. 12–21; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 49 (1955), pp. 23–43.

⁵ See this Journal, Vol. 45 (1951), p. 338; Vol. 46 (1952), p. 125; Vol. 48 (1954), p. 587.

⁶ Semble contra the United States view expressed in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Nov. 29, 1954, and reproduced in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 32 (1955), p. 62.

⁷ Second Report, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/61, Feb. 19, 1953, pp. 6 and 11.

⁸ U.N. Docs. A/CN.4/53, April 4, 1952, pp. 11–15; A/CN.4/61, Feb. 19, 1953, pp. 11–24.

⁹ The Icelandic Government has stressed the divergence thus indicated in “The Icelandic Efforts for Fisheries Conservation, Memorandum submitted to the Council of Europe by the Government of Iceland,” September, 1954, p. 25.

¹⁰ Cf. statement by Jack B. Tate, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State, before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, March 3, 1953, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 28 (1953), p. 486. Note, however, the blurring of the concepts of sovereignty and jurisdiction in Senate Report 2214 of Aug. 4, 1954, to accompany H.R. 9584 relative to the bill which became P.L. 680 of Aug. 27, 1954, 68 Stat. 883. The Swedish Government supplied corrections to the indications given of its claims; U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/71, Add. 1, May 13, 1953.

¹¹ See statement of Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in Senate Report 2214 (cited in note 10). In presenting a claim to the Soviet Government for destruction of a B-50 off Cape Povorotny in 1953, the U. S. Department of State declared: “In the opinion of the United States Government there is no obligation under international law to recognize claims to territorial waters in excess of three miles from the coast.” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 31 (1954), p. 857, at p. 861.

¹² Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, I.C.J. Reports, 1951, pp. 116–144; cf. this Journal, Vol. 46 (1952), p. 348, and pp. 23–30.

¹³ New York Times, Nov. 16, 1954. Cf. Joint Declaration on the Maritime Zone by Chile, Ecuador and Peru, Aug. 18, 1952, Revista Peruana de Derecho International, Vol. 14 (1954), p. 104.

¹⁴ Cf. this Journal, Vol. 47 (1953), p. 701. See Inter-American Juridical Committee, Draft Convention on Territorial Waters and Related Questions (Department of International Law, Pan American Union, November, 1952), passim. By Res. XIX of May 8, 1953, the Inter-American Council of Jurists returned the subject to the Juridical Committee for further consideration. Mr. François’ arrangement of his table by regional groups brings out the fact that no regional consensus is to be found; U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/61, Feb. 19, 1953, pp. 7 and 17–24.

¹⁵ It is notable that Mr. François does not hesitate to consider the possible applicability of neutral and belligerent rights and duties, although the Commission decided to deal only with rules in time of peace; see pp. 4 and 19 of the Report cited above in note 2.

¹⁶ Cf. the familiar proclamations of the United States in 1945; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 45–48; Allen, , “A New Concept for Fishery Treaties,” this Journal Vol. 46 (1952), p. 319.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See discussion and text of resolution in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 32 (1955), pp. 64–67.

¹⁸ Cf. Jessup, “L’Exploitation des Richesses de la Mer,” Hague Academy, Receuil des Cours, Vol. 29 (1929), p. 405 Google Scholar; Leonard, International Regulation of Fisheries (1944); Hayden, International Protection of Wild Life (1942).

¹⁹ See Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 31 (1954), p. 918, at p. 919.

²⁰ The list of the experts is printed in the Report (cited above, note 4), at p. 12. The report of the experts is an annex to U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/61, Add. 1, May 18, 1953.

²¹ Cf. Boggs, , “Delimitation of Seaward Areas under National Jurisdiction,” this Journal Vol. 45 (1951), p. 240.Google Scholar The International Court of Justice in the Norwegian Fisheries Case stated that this method was not “obligatory by law.” For an interesting discussion of specific measurement problems off the coasts of the United States, see Shalowitz, , “Boundary Problems Raised by the Submerged Lands Act,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 54 (1954), p. 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Such installations are dealt with in the Commission’s draft articles on the Regime of the High Seas, especially Art. 6; see Report of the Commission on its Fifth Session (1953), A/2456, p. 12. Cf. Szasz, , “May the United States Build Radar Platforms on its Continental Shelf?”, Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 40 (1954), p. 110.Google Scholar

²³ This Jouenal, Spec. Supp., Vol. 23 (1929), p. 295.

²⁴ See League of Nations, Acts of the Conference for the Codification of International Law, Meetings of the Committees, Vol. III, Minutes of the Second Committee, Territorial Waters, League Doc. C. 351 (b). M. 145(b). 1930. V., V. Legal. 1930. V. 16, pp. 58 ff. For the Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports, see Hudson, , International Legislation, Vol. 2 (1931), p. 1162, at p. 1163.Google Scholar

²⁵ See the excellent discussion of this matter by Selak, in this Journal, Vol. 48 (1954), p. 627. It seems probable that this issue had not been brought to the Commission’s attention when its report was written.

²⁶ I.C.J. Reports, 1949, p. 4; this Journal, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 558.

²⁷ The use of the word “country” in Art. 23, par. 1(b), instead of “coastal state” might be questioned.

²⁸ This Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 596. See comments by Borchard on this holding, ibid., Vol. 29 (1935), p. 103.

²⁹ This Journal, Vol. 48 (1954), p. 603.

³⁰ Cf. Charles de Visscher, Théories et Realités en Droit International Public (1953), p. 181.