1 The term “sea spaces” is meant to include all parts of the seas, whether they are internal waters,territorial sea or high seas. It differs from the expression “ocean space” coined by Ambassador Dr. Arvid Pardo, since the latter does not include internal waters (see the definition of ocean space in article 1 ofthe Draft Ocean Space Treaty submitted by Malta to the UN Sea-Bed Committee in 1971, UN Doc. A/AC. 138/3 of August 23, 1971, and article 1 of the draft submitted by Malta in 1973 to Sub-Committee II—UN Doc. A/AC. 138/SC.II/L.28, of July 16, 1973).

2 See e.g., Pardo, A., “The Future of the Sea” in Bouchez, L. J. and Kaijen, L., eds., The Future of the Law of the Sea (1973) 1–20, at pp. 4–8Google Scholar; Boasson, Ch., “Resources of the Sea and International Law” (1971) 6 Is.L.R. 291–308, at pp. 296–302.Google Scholar

3 For a list of national claims to maritime jurisdiction updated to April 1974, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Office of the Geographer, Limits in the Seas, no. 36, 2nd revision, 1974.Google Scholar

4 Rousseau, Ch., Droit International Public (7th ed., Précis Dalloz, 1973) 225.Google Scholar

5 On other meanings which have at times been attributed to the notion of freedom of the seas, see Lapidoth, R., Freedom of Navigation with Special Reference to International Waterways in the Middle East (1975).Google Scholar

6 On the historical evolution of this principle, see e.g., Gidel, G., Le droit international public de la mer (1932) vol. 1, pp. 123–200Google Scholar; Fulton, Th. W., The Sovereignty of the Sea—An Historical Account of the Claims of England to the Dominion of the British Seas, and of the Evolution of the Territorial Waters: with special reference to the Rights of Fishing and the Naval Salute (1911)Google Scholar; Fenn, P. Th., The Origin of the Right of Fishery in Territorial Waters (1926)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cauchy, E., Le droit maritime international considéré dans ses origines et dans ses rapports avec les progrès de la civilisation (1862)Google Scholar; Hautefeuille, L. B., Histoire des origines, des progrès et des variations du droit maritime international (2nd ed., 1869)Google Scholar; Fahl, G., Der Grundsatz der Freiheit der Meere in der Staatenpraxis von 1493 bis 1648,—Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (1969)Google Scholar; Verzijl, J.H.W., International Law in Historical Perspective (1971) vol. 4, pp. 8–39.Google Scholar

7 Expression borrowed from Nys, E., “Une bataille de livres: épisode de l'histoire littéraire du droit international,” in Etudes de droit international et de droit politique (2nd series, 1901) 260–272.Google Scholar

8 For a discussion of these arguments, see Lapidoth, R., “Freedom of Navigation—Its Legal History and Its Normative Basis” (1974–1975) 6 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 259–272.Google Scholar

9 Trelles, C. Barcia, “Le droit de communication” in “Francisco de Vitoria et l'Ecole moderne du Droit international,” (1927–II) 17 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International 113–337, at pp. 195–205.Google Scholar

10 “…[F]reedom of trade is based on a primitive right of nations which has a natural and permanent cause…”, Grotius, H., Mare Liberum (English trans, by Magoffin, R. Van Deman, 1916, reprint ed., 1972) 63.Google Scholar

11 G. Gidel, op. cit., at p. 208.

12 Ibid. at p. 212. See infra, Conclusions.

13 Preamble to the Convention on the High Seas, 1958.

14 Except for the limit implied in the provision that the contiguous zone and the territorial sea together may not extend beyond twelve miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured (article 24 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone). It seems however that at present a general trend is developing for the acceptance of a twelve mile limit of the territorial sea: See Informal Single Negotiating Text prepared by the Chairman of the Second Committee [of the 1975 Geneva session ofthe Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea], U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/ Part II, of May 7, 1975, article 2, p. 5. Though the “Informal Single Negotiating Text” prepared by the chairmen of the three committees at the Geneva session has not received the consent of the participants and is only a “procedural device” and only provides “a basis for negotiation” (see Note by the President of the Conference), it seems that on the question of the breadth of the territorial sea it does more or less reflect a common attitude. See e.g., Stevenson, J. R. and Oxman, B. H., “The Preparations for the Law of the Sea Conference” (1974) 68 A.J.I.L., 1–32, at p. 9.Google Scholar

15 See infra part IV.

16 See supra n. 5.

17 See article 5 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, and in particular paragraphs 1 and 6, cited infra, part IV.

18 See e.g., article 48 (7) of the Informal Single Negotiating Text presented by the chairman of the Second Committee [of the 1975 Geneva Session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea], U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/ Part II, of May 7, 1975, p. 20; and articles 15 and 16 of Informal Single Negotiating Text presented by the chairman of the First Committee [of the 1975 Geneva session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea], U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/ Part I, of May 7, 1975, pp. 6–7. Unfortunately however, it seems that the rules proposed for the exclusive economic zone and for sea-bed exploitation beyond the limits of national jurisdiction are less favourable to navigation than those which apply to the continental shelf (compare text cited in preceding note to those mentioned in this note).

19 On the question whether legally a state of belligerency can still exist despite the prohibition of the use offorce by the U.N. Charter, see e.g., Feinberg, N., The Legality of a “State of War” after the Cessation of Hostilities under the Charter of the United Nations and the Covenant of the League of Nations (1961) 42et seq.Google Scholar; Feinberg, N., The Arab-Israel Conflict in International Law—A Critical Analysis of the Colloquium of Arab Jurists in Algiers (1970) 79–84Google Scholar; Higgins, R., Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations (1963) 214–215Google Scholar; Rosenne, Sh., “Directions for a Middle East Settlement—Some Underlying Legal Problems” (1968) 33 Law and Contemporary Problems 44–67, at pp. 52–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gross, L., “Passage through the Suez Canal of Israel-Bound Cargo and Israeli Ships” (1957) 51 A.J.I.L. 530–568, at pp. 566–568Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “Legal Aspects of the Middle East Situation” (1968) 33 Law and Contemporary Problems 5–31, at pp. 16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “The Middle East Problem” (1970) 64 A.J.I.L. 270–281, at p. 274Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, E., “The Legal Irrelevance of the ‘State of War’” in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1968) 58–68, at p. 63 et seq.Google Scholar; Mensbrugghe, Y. van der, Les garanties de la liberté de navigation dans le canal de Suez (1964) 167 and 168–169Google Scholar; Moore, J.N., “The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the Obligation to Pursue Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes” (1971) 19 Kansas L.R. 403–440 at pp. 422–423Google Scholar; Martin, P. M., Le conflit israélo-arabe — Recherches sur l'emploi de la force en droit international public positif (1973) 98.Google Scholar The opposite opinion has been expressed by Baxter, R. R., “The Definition of War” (1960) 16 Revue Egyptienne de Droit International 1–14, at p. 8 et seq.Google Scholar, and “The Legal Consequences of the Unlawful Use of Force under the Charter” in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1968) 68–75, at p. 71 et seq.; Broms, B., The Legal Status of the Suez Canal (1961) 138et seq.Google Scholar; Khadduri, M., “The Palestine Conflict in International Law” in Khadduri, M. (ed.), Major Middle Eastern Problems in International Law (1972) 19–23.Google Scholar

20 Schwarzenberger, G., International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals vol. II, The Law of Armed Conflict (1968) 40.Google Scholar See also by the same author The Frontiers of International Law (1962) 247; Jessup, Ph.C., “Should International Law Recognize an Intermediate Status between Peace and War?” (1954) 48 A.J.I.L. 98–103Google Scholar, (As the title of Professor Jessup's article implies, it is mainly de lege ferenda oriented). It should be noted that this theory has been criticized; see e.g., Feinberg, N., The Legality of a “State of War” after the Cessation of Hostilities under the Charter of the United Nations and the Covenant of the League of Nations (1961) 46–50.Google Scholar

21 Skubiszewski, K., “Law of War and Neutrality” in Sørensen, M. (ed.), Manual of Public International Law (1968) 799–843 at p. 809.Google Scholar See also Starke, J. G., An Introduction to International Law (7th ed., 1972) 489–495, 560.Google Scholar

22 K. Skubiszewski, op. cit., at pp. 836–840; Reuter, P., Droit International Public (4th ed., 1973) 380.Google Scholar

23 Introduction to the Report of the International Law Commission for 1956, (1956) 2 Yearbook of the ILC, p. 256, para. 32.

24 See e.g., the proposal of Norway to the ILC (1955) 2 Yearbook of the ILC, p. 52, para. 7, and proposals by India, Norway and Turkey (ibid., 1956, vol. II, pp. 51, 69, 74); the proposal of Saudi Arabia at the 1958 Geneva Conference (A/CONF.13/C.1/L.5, Official Records of the [First] U.N.Conference on the Law of the Sea, 1958, vol. III U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/39, p. 156, para. 1), and the statement of her Representative at the First Committee (ibid., at p. 3, para. 26).

25 To be sure, this statement was made to the First Committee which dealt with the territorial sea, but the principle applies equally to the other Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, and therefore the First Committee proposed that the General Committee of the Conference should decide in which body the question should be debated—ibid., at p. 195, para. 16 (62nd meeting, April 23, 1958).

26 Ibid., at p. 195, para. 12.

27 Oppenheim, L. and Lauterpacht, H., International Law—A Treatise (8th ed., 1955) vol. 1, p. 595.Google Scholar

28 Meyers, H., The Nationality of Ships (1967) 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Ibid.

30 Panhuys, H. F. van and Boas, M. J. van Emde, “Legal Aspects of Pirate Broadcasting—A Dutch Approach” (1966) 60 A.J.I.L. 303–341, at p. 319.Google ScholarCf. article 96 (d) of the Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee, p. 35.

31 Opinions differ on the consequences of the absence of this link, see e.g., H. Meyers, op. cit., at pp. 275–299.

32 On the problem concerning flags of international organizations, see H. Meyers, op. cit., at pp. 323–351.

33 The rights and duties of a State under international law do not depend upon its being recognized by certain other States, see Whiteman, M. M., “Effect of Non–recognition” Digest of International Law (1962) vol. 2, pp. 604–665.Google Scholar

34 N. Molwan v. Attorney General for Palestine [1948] A.C. 351.

35 See e.g., the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969; International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969; see also G. Gidel, op. cit., at pp. 64–71 who favoured a restrictive interpretation of the term vessel.

36 H. Meyers, op. cit., at pp. 15–16.

37 Ibid., at p. 18. See also the definition used by Abraham, H. J. in his article on “Seeschiffahrtsrecht (Seerecht)” in Strupp-Schlochauer, , Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts (1962) vol. 3, pp. 240–247, at pp. 242–243Google Scholar; “Ein Schiff ist ein schwimmfãhiger Hohlkörper von nicht ganz unbedeutender Grösse, der fähig und bestimmt ist, auf oder unter dem Wasser fortbewegt zu werden und Personen und Sachen zu tragen”. See also Dictionnaire de la terminologie du droit international (Paris, 1960) 405–406.

38 Warbrick, C., “The Regulation of Navigation” in Churchill, R., Simmonds, K. R. and Welch, J., eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea: Collected Papers (1973) vol. III, pp. 137–154, at p. 137.Google Scholar

39 (1970) 9 International Legal Materials (hereinafter referred to as I.L.M.), 1 and (1972) 12 id. 267.

40 See Churcill, A. and Nordquist, M., eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea (1975) vol. IV, pp. 245–284.Google Scholar

41 (1970) 9 I.L.M. 45.

42 (1972) 11 I.L.M. 284.

43 (1972) 11 I.L.M. 277.

44 (1973) 12 I.L.M. 1319.

45 Some of these subjects are presently dealt with by the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea; see e.g., the work of Committee III on the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and the proposal on unauthorized broadcasting contained in Informal Single Negotiating Text presented by the Chairman of the Second Committee (articles 95 and 96, p. 35).

46 On the concept of reasonable use of the seas, see Bierzanek, R., “La nature juridique de la haute mer” (1961) 65 Revue générale de droit international public 233–259, at pp. 242–247Google Scholar; McDougal, M.S. and Schlei, N. A., “The Hydrogen Bomb Tests in Perspective: Lawful Measures of Security” (1955) 64 Yale LJ. 648–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDougal, M.S. “The Hydrogen Bomb Test and the International Law of the Sea” (1955) 49 A.J.I.L. 356–361.Google Scholar Prof. O. de Ferron speaks in this context of “l'usage correct et rationnel de la haute mer” and he mentions that “[l]'obligation internationale de tolérance … forme le contenu de la liberté des mers”—Ferron, O. de, L'évolution du régime juridique de la haute mer (1951) 28 and 30.Google Scholar See also Bos, M., “La liberté de la haute mer: Quelques problèmes d'actualité” (1965) 12 Netherlands International Law Review 337–364, at pp. 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also infra, Conclusions.

47 Bouchez, L. J., “The Freedom of the High Seas: A Reappraisal” in Bouchez, L. J. and Kaijen, L., eds., The Future of the Law of the Sea (1973) 21–50, at p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Prof. Y. Dinstein on the other hand maintains that “freedom of the high seas traditionally comprises … freedom of pollution” (“Oil Pollution by Ships and Freedom of the High Seas” (1971–2) 3 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 363–374, at p. 364).

48 Matters which are at a certain time within the domestic jurisdiction of the State may later become subject to international regulation, see the Advisory Opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice on Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (1923)Google Scholar, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B, No. 4.

49 See the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, articles 22 and 23, and the 1884 Paris Convention for Protection of Submarine Cables. On police functions on the high seas, see also G. Gidel, op. cit., at pp. 288–300, Simonnet, M. R., La convention sur la haute mer adoptée à Genève le 29 avril 1958 (1966) 145–207Google Scholar; Ferron, O. de, Le droit international de la mer (1958).Google Scholar

50 This subject will be dealt with only cursorily.

51 On innocent passage, see e.g., Gidel, G., Le droit international public de la mer (1934) vol. 3, pp. 193–291Google Scholar; Whiteman, M. M., Digest of International Law (1965) vol. 4, pp. 343–480Google Scholar; Slonim, S., “The Right of Innocent Passage and the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea” (1966) 5 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 96–127Google Scholar; Emanuelli, C., “La pollution maritime et la notion de passage inoffensif” (1973) 11 The Canadian Yearbook of International Law 13–36.Google Scholar

52 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, articles 14–23.

53 See Gross, L., “The Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea and the Right of Innocent Passage Through the Gulf of Aqaba” (1959) 53 A.J.I.L. 564–594, at pp. 581–582Google Scholar; Hyde, Ch. Ch., International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States (2nd ed., 1947) vol. 1, p. 517Google Scholar; Bloomfield, L. M., Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aqaba in International Law (1957) 87–88Google Scholar; Deddish, Lt. M. R., “The Right of Passage by Warships Through International Straits” (1969–1970) Judge Advocate General Journal 79–85, at p. 80Google Scholar; Walker, P. B., “What is Innocent Passage?” (1969) 21 Naval War College Review 53–76, at p. 58Google Scholar; Salans, C. F., “Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran: Troubled Waters” (1968) 94 no. 12 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 54–62.Google ScholarCf., however Sørensen, M., “Law of the Sea” (1958) 520 International Conciliation, 193–256, at p. 234Google Scholar; S. Slonim, op. cit., at pp. 100–102; National Petroleum Council, Law of the Sea (1973) 77–78Google Scholar; Alexander, L. M., “Coastal State Competence to Regulate Traffic in Straits and Other Areas Near Their Coast vs. World Community Needs to Maximize Vessel Mobility” in Clingan, Th. A. and Alexander, L. M., eds., Hazards of Maritime Transit (1973) 19–28, at p. 21.Google Scholar It seems that the International Law Commission has preferred the objective criterion: see (1956) 2 Yearbook of the ILC 272–273 (commentary on article 15).

54 The text of the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text presented by the Chairman of the Second Committee (supra, n. 14) also refers only to the behaviour of the foreign ship while it is in the territorial sea, see article 16, p. 8.

55 See e.g. M. Sørensen, op. cit., at p. 235; S. Slonim, op. cit., at pp. 115–121; Reilingh, O. G. de Vries, “Warships in Territorial Waters, Their Right of Innocent Passage” (1971) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 29–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In 1956 the International Law Commission was also of the opinion that States may subject the innocent passage of foreign warships to previous notification or authorization, see article 24 of the Draft Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea, (1956) 2 Yearbook of the ILC 259. For an account of the changes which the attitude of the Commission on this matter had undergone see commentary to article 24, ibid., at pp. 276–277.

56 It should be remembered, however, that several States, including the Soviet Union and other communist States as well as Columbia, have formulated reservations on this subject when they signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention; see Status of Multilateral Treaties in Respect of which the Secretary-General Performs Depository Functions, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER. D/6, 1973, pp. 396–398.

57 According to the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text presented by the Chairman of the Second Committee (supra, n. 14), innocent passage would apply also to warships, see article 29(2), p. 13.

58 W. R. Russell, “The Law of the Sea and the Future for the Shipping Industry” paper submitted to the conference on The Law of the Sea, organized by the Financial Times and Fairplay International Shipping Journal, February 1974, p. 2.

59 For lists of the principal international straits, see e.g., Commander R. H. Kennedy, “A Brief Geographical and Hydrographical Study of Straits which Consitute Routes for International Traffic” U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/6 and Add. 1, of October 23, 1957, and Commander R. H. Kennedy, “A Brief Geographical and Hydrographical Study of Bays and Estuaries, the Coasts of which Belong to Different States” U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/15, of November 13, 1957, published in Official Records of the [First] U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, 1958, vol. 1, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/37, at pp. 114–164 and 198–243; “Width of Selected Straits and Channels”, Sovereignty of the Sea (1969) 3 Geographic Bulletin (Department of State Publication 7849) 22–28. On straits, see e.g., Briiel, E., International Straits: A Treatise on International Law (1947Google Scholar); McNees, R. B. “Freedom of Transit Through International Straits” (1974–1975) 6 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 175–212Google Scholar; Volta, F., “Passage Through International Straits: Free or Innocent? The Interests at Stake” (1974) 11 San Diego L.R. 815–833.Google Scholar

60 The Corfu Channel Case (Merits) United Kingdom/Albania), International Court of Justice, Reports, 1949, p. 4.

61 See Lapidoth, R., Les détroits en droit international (1972) 19–32.Google Scholar

62 See e.g., Baxter, R. R. and Triska, J. F., The Law of International Waterways with Particular Regard to Interoceanic Canals (1964) 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDougal, M.S. and Burke, W. T., The Public Order of the Oceans—A Contemporary International Law of the Sea (1962) 212.Google Scholar On the Eastwind and Edisto Northeast Passage incident (1967) and the question of the effective international use of the Vilkitsky Straits, see Knight, H. G., “The 1971 United States Proposals on the Breadth of the Territorial Sea and Passage Through International Straits” (1972) 51 Oregon L.R. 759–787, at pp. 771–772Google Scholar; Pharand, D., “Soviet Union Warns United States Against Use of Northeast Passage” (1968) 62 A.J.I.L. 927–935, at pp. 930–931.Google Scholar

63 See Hodgson, R. D. and McIntyre, T. V., “Maritime Commerce in Selected Areas of High Concentration” in Clingan, Th. A. and Alexander, L. M., eds., Hazards of Maritime Transit (1973) 1–18, at pp.3–7.Google Scholar

64 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, at p. 28.

65 On this point, see SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: General Principles and Substantive Law” (1950) 27 British Year Book of International Law 1–41, at pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

66 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, at p. 29.

67 See e.g. The U.S. Draft Articles on the Breadth of the Territorial Sea, Straits, and Fisheries, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 138/SC.II/L.4 (1971); The USSR Draft Articles on Straits Used for International Navigation, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 138/ SC.II/L.7 (1972); Draft Articles submitted by Greece, Cyprus, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, the Philippines, Spain and Yemen, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 138/SC. II/L.18 (1973); Working Paper on the Sea Area within the Limits of National Jurisdiction submitted by China, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 138/SC. II/L. 34 (1973); Draft Article on Straits submitted by Italy, U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/SC. II/L.30 (1973); Draft Articles Relating to Passage Through the Territorial Sea submitted by Fiji, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 138/SC. II/L.42 (1973); Preliminary Draft Articles on the Delimitation of Coastal State Jurisdiction in Ocean Space and on the Rights and Obligations of Coastal States in the Area Under Their Jurisdiction, submitted by Malta, U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/ L.28 (1973).

68 See e.g., draft articles on the Territorial Sea and Straits submitted by the U.K., U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3 (1974); Draft articles on item 2.1 of the list of subjects and issues submitted by Spain, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.6 (1974); Draft articles on straits used for international navigation submitted by Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, The German Democratic Republic, Poland, Ukraine, the U.S.S.R., U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.11 (1974); Amendments to draft articles on the Territorial Sea and Straits submitted by Denmark and Finland, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.15 (1974); Draft articles on navigation through the territorial sea, including straits used for international navigation submitted by Oman, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.16 (1974); Draft articles relating to passage through the territorial sea submitted by Fiji, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.19 (1974); Straits used for international navigation: semi-enclosed seas, submitted by Algeria, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.20 (1974); Draft articles on definition of straits used for international navigation submitted by Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.44 (1974); Draft article on straits and waterways submitted bythe Dominican Republic, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.59 (1974); Draft articles on enclosed and semi-enclosed seas submitted by Iraq, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 62/C.2/L.71 (1974); Definition of international strait submitted by Canada, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 62/C.2/L.83 1974); see also Working Paper on Main Trends [at the Caracas session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea], U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/WP.1, of October 15, 1974, provisions nos. 51–67 (pp. 32–40), and 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text Presented by the Chairman of the Second Committee (supra, n. 14), articles 34–44, pp. 15–18.

69 According to the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text (ibid.), a distinction would be made between two categories of waterways:

(a)straits used for international navigation between one area of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another area of either of these two kinds of sea spaces through which no alternative high sea route or route within an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience exists,

(b) other straits used for international navigation which link areas of high seas and exclusive economic zones with other areas of these kinds as well as straits between the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and the territorial sea of a foreign State.

In the first category, a right of transit passage would be recognized, whereas the second category would be subject to the right of innocent passage.

70 Blum, Y. Z., Historic Titles in International Law (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 See e.g., Sahovic, M. and Bishop, W. W. in Sørensen, M., ed., Manual of Public International Law (1968) 332–335.Google Scholar

72 Article 5, paragraph 2. The 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text proposes a similar solution to archipelagic waters, i.e., the waters enclosed by straight baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands, to which the sovereignty of the archipelagic State extends (articles 117–128, pp. 42–46).

73 See references supra n. 2, and Hood, D. W. and McRoy, C. P., “Uses of the Ocean” in Hood, D. W., ed., Impingement of Man on the Oceans (1971) 667–687Google Scholar; “Uses of the Sea” Study prepared by the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. E/5120, of April 28, 1972.

74 “ODAS means a structure, platform, installation, buoy or other device, not being a ship, together with its appurtenant equipment, deployed at sea essentially for the purpose of collecting, storing or transmitting samples or data relating to the marine environment or the atmosphere or the uses thereof”—Safety Provisions of Ocean Data Acquisition Systems, Aids and Devices (ODAS), published by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization on behalf of UNESCO/IOC and IMCO by agreement between the Organizations, 1972, p. 10.

75 For a discussion of this draft, see e.g. Voelckel, M., “Le statut juridique des ‘Systèmes d'acquisition de données océaniques’ (S.A.D.O.)” (1971) 17 Annuaire français de droit international 833–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 See Introduction to the document cit. supra n. 74.

77 See e.g. Hirsch, A., “Superports” in Gamble, J. K. and Pontecorvo, G., eds., Law of the Sea: The Emerging Régime of the Oceans, Proceedings of the Law of the Sea Institute Eighth Annual Conference, (1973) 217–222.Google Scholar

78 The desirability of superports off the coast of the U.S. is hotly debated; see e.g. Cole, B. J., “Two Approaches to the Superport Question” (1973, September) Marine Technology Society 3–9Google Scholar; Noone, J. A., “Energy Report/Oil Import Needs versus Environmental Costs: Key Issue in Deep Water Ports Legislation” (1973) 5 no. 45 National Journal Reports 1665–1675.Google Scholar

79 See e.g., Commander Frankel, B., “Offshore Tanker Terminals: Study in Depth” (1973) 99 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings no. 3/841, pp. 56–71Google Scholar; Patton, K. L. and Johnson, D. A., “Seadock: A Deepwater Petroleum Unloading Facility” in 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference (1974) vol. 2, paper no. OTC 2098Google Scholar; J. M. Heckard and D. L. Woodford, “Environmental Studies for Major Offshore Developments” ibid., paper no. OTC 2097; Knight, H. G., “International Legal Problems in the Construction and Operation of Offshore Deep Draft Port Facilities” in Clingan, T. A. and Alexander, L. M., eds., Hazards of Maritime Transit (1973) 91–136, at pp. 91–93.Google Scholar

80 Mills, P. J., “The Louisiana Superport Authority: Its History and its Future” in 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference (1974) vol. 2, paper no. OTC 2096–B.Google Scholar

81 Article 15(1) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea.

82 See also Koers, A. W., “Artificial Islands in the North Sea” in Gamble, J. K. and Pontecorvo, G., eds., Law of the Sea: The Emerging Régime of the Oceans (1973) 223–231, at p. 226.Google Scholar See however Charles, H., “Les îles artificielles” (1967) 71 Revue générale de droit international public 342–368Google Scholar, who maintains that “il semble bien qu'il ne s'agit là que d'un principe dont l'Etat riverain est seul juge de l'application.” (p. 356).

83 H. G. Knight, op. cit., at pp. 103 and 114.

84 Article 2. See infra part IV.

85 It is interesting to note, that the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text would grant the coastal State “exclusive rights and jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures” within an exclusive economic zone which may extend up to 200 miles from the coast. Offshore ports are certainly included in “artificial islands, installations and structures”. Apparently the text does not restrict the power of the coastal State to the construction of devices which serve the exploration, exploitation, conservation and managing of the natural resources in the area (compare article 45(1)(a) toarticle 45(1)(b), and 48(1)(a) to 48(1)(b) of the Informal Single Negotiating Text presented by the Chairman of the Second Committee, p. 19). According to article 66 (p. 28) the provisions of article 48 are intended to apply mutatis mutandis also to artificial islands, installations and structures on the continental shelf.

86 Article 3 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

87 See A. W. Koers, op. cit., at p. 227.

88 For a discussion of this provision, see infra part IV.

89 M. Bos, op. cit. supra n. 46, at p. 350. See also H. F. van Panhuys and M. J. van Emde Boas, op. cit., supra n. 30, at pp. 313–315; McDougal, M.S. and Burke, T. W., The Public Order of the Oceans (1962) 763.Google Scholar

90 See article 75(d) of the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee, p. 30.

91 See e.g. H. G. Knight, op. cit., at p. 105; W. Riphagen, “International Legal Aspects of Artificial Islands” September 1973, p. 4.

92 H. G. Knight, ibid., at pp. 111–113.

93 Article 5(2) and 5(4) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. Compare to article 48(2) of the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee, p. 20 (This article deals with artificial structures in the proposed exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf—see article 66).

94 Article 9 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea (compare also to article 11 of the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee) p. 7. Professor A. W. Koers maintains that only areas in the immediate vicinity of the territorial sea can be designated as a roadstead, op. cit., at pp. 229 and 230.

95 H. Charles, op. cit. supra n. 82, p. 364.

96 Article 8 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea. Professor A. W. Koers (op. cit., at p. 230) and Professor W. Riphagen (op. cit., at p. 3) interpret this provision differently. See also article 10 of the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee, p. 7, which states explicitly that “offshore installations and artificial islands shall not be considered as permanent harbour works”.

97 This principle has been criticized by ProfessorJohnson, D. H. N., “Artificial Islands” (1951) 4 The International Law Quarterly 203–215, at pp. 203–204.Google Scholar

98 See H. Charles, op. cit., at p. 366; A. W. Koers, op. cit., at p. 230. See also article 48(4) and 48(5) of the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee, p. 20.

99 Professor Charles Rousseau would limit the powers of the coastal State considerably; “Un pouvoir in rem de l'Etat riverain à l'égard de l'ouvrage lui même ne serait concevable que s'il s'agissait d'un ouvrage public construit par ledit Etat ou sous son contrôle et affecté à un service public en rapport direct avec l'utilisation de la haute mer aux fins de la pêche ou de la navigation (phare, balise, signal, etc.)”. In addition the coastal State would have personal jurisdiction over its nationals on the island—Rousseau, Ch., “Légalité au regard du droit international de l'opération de police … sur une île artificielle en haute mer” (1965) 69 Revue générale de droit international public, 517–527, at p. 523.Google Scholar See also article 48(2) of the 1975 Informal Text, Second Committee, which speaks of “exclusive jurisdiction … including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration regulations”.

100 See also article 48(7) of the 1975 Informal Text of the Second Committee, and article 16 of the Informal Text of the First Committee (p. 6).

101 See U.S. v. Ray (1969) 63 A.J.I.L. 642–644, at p. 642.

102 Hodgson, R. D., “Islands: Normal and Special Circumstances” in Gamble, J. K. and Pontecorvo, G., Law of the Sea: The Emerging Régime of the Oceans (1973) 137–199, at p. 197.Google Scholar

103 Auburn, F. M., “The International Seabed Area” (1971) 20 I.Comp.L.Q. 173–194, at p. 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

104 Die Welt, November 12, 1973.

105 (1973) 8 Ocean Industry no. 4, pp. 187–194; A. W. Koers, op. cit. supra n. 82, at pp. 223–224.

106 There may also exist “natural artificial” islands or semi-artificial islands—see e.g., R. D. Hodgson, op. cit., at p. 197; H. Charles, op. cit. supra n. 82, at p. 352.

107 H. Charles, ibid., at p. 352.

108 See Ocean Industry, op. cit.; H. Charles, op. cit., at pp. 344–346; R. D. Hodgson, op. cit., at p. 197.

109 Ch. Rousseau, op. cit. supra n. 99, at p. 522.

110 Article 10 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea.

111 D. H. N. Johnson, op. cit. supra n. 97, at p. 205. Another proposed definition would use the element of capability of the island of effective occupation and use—ibid., at p. 204, n. 6.

112 Article 5(4) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

113 See articles 45(b), 66, 68, 75(d) of the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee, pp. 19, 28, 30. However, compare article 48(1) (a) to 48(1) (b), ibid., at p. 20.

114 W. Riphagen, op. cit., at pp. 10, 23.

115 These data are based on Bates, Ch. C. and Yost, P., “Where Trends the Flow of Merchant Ships?” in Gamble, J. K. and Pontecorvo, G., eds., Law of the Sea (1973) 249–276, at pp. 250–253.Google Scholar

116 Gross tonnage is a ship's enclosed cubic capacity, a gross ton being equal to a hundred cubic feet of permanently enclosed space; deadweight tonnage, which excludes the weight of the ship itself, is the weight in tons of the cargo, fuel, stores, and ballast that a ship can carry before submerging her load line.

117 Tankers of between 200,000 and 400,000 tons are called V.L.C.C. (very large crude carriers), and those of more than 400,000 tons are called U.L.C.C. (ultralarge crude carriers).

118 For a fascinating description of supertankers, see Mostert, Noël, “Supertankers” The New Yorker, May 13, 1974, and May 20, 1974.Google Scholar See also Remery, G. F. M., “Mooring Forces Induced by Passing Ships” in 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference (1974) vol. 2, paper no. OTC 2066.Google Scholar

119 Ch. C. Bates and P. Yost, op. cit., at p. 251. On new developments in ships, see also Holubowicz, R. P., “The Other Revolution” (1970) 96 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings no. 10/812, pp. 43–48Google Scholar; W. R. Nichols, Jr., “Ships at Sea: Maritime Facts of Life” (1971) 97 ibid., no. 4/818, pp. 35–41.

120 Capt. M. J. Hanley, Jr., “Surface Effect Ships” (1966) 92 ibid. no. 11/765, pp. 34–4B; Heere, W. P., “Air Cushion Vehicles—a Legal Puzzle” (1971) 2 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 108–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Surface Effect Ships are also called “non-displacement craft”.

121 Frankel, E., “Present and Future Approaches to the Creation of Systems for Reducing Risks through Improvements in Technology and Regulation” in Clingan, T. A. and Alexander, L. M., eds., Hazards of Maritime Transit (1973) 49–65, at p. 55.Google Scholar However, due to the recent changes in the trend of oil consumption, many tankers are at present idle—about 11% of the total world tanker tonnage or some 500 tankers were idle at the beginning of August 1975.

122 C. Warbrick, op. cit. supra, n. 38, at p. 138.

123 E.g., the S.S. Torrey Canyon, a tanker of 120, 890 deadweight tons, ran aground off the southwest coast of England on March 18, 1967, and ultimately released 118,000 tons of crude oil into the English Channel. In January 1971, the 17,000 ton tanker Arizona Standard, proceeding into San Francisco Bay, collided with her sister ship, Oregon Standard, which was outbound with a cargo of bunker oil. This collision resulted in the release of 840,000 gallons of oil into the bay and along the Pacific coast. In January, 1975 the 265,000 ton tanker Showa Maru ran aground near Singapore and released some 200,000 gallons of oil into the sea.

124 Beattie, J. H., “Safer, Saner Seaways” (1970) 96 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings no. 12/814, pp. 38–45, at p. 38.Google Scholar

125 On the historical development, see J. H. Beattie, op. cit., and Schwartz, Lieutenant G. P., “New Sealanes Implemented” (1966/1967) 22 Judge Advocate General Journal no. 3, pp. 56–60, at pp. 57–59.Google Scholar

126 See “The Activities of IMCO Pertaining to Ships' Routeing, Traffic Separation Schemes, Areas to be Avoided by Certain Ships and Related Questions” IMCO document Misc. (72)8, 1972, p. 2; Quéneudec, J. P., “Chronique du droit de la mer” (1971) 17 Annuaire français de droit international 757–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

127 Richey, M. W., “The Separation of Traffic at Sea” (1966) 19 The Journal of the Institute of Navigation (London) 411–435.Google Scholar

128 See the IMCO publication referred to in n. 126 and IMCO Resolution A.284 (VIII) adopted on November 20, 1973, including annex on “Revised General Provisions for Adoption, Terminology, Symbols, Methods, and General Principles of Ships' Routeing”.

129 Resolution A. 228 (VII) of October 12, 1971.

130 New regulation 8, chapter V, of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, published in IMCO document, supra n. 126, at p. 18.

131 C. Warbrick, op. cit., at p. 141.

132 Ibid., at p. 141.

133 Morgan, J. D., “The Establishment of Mandatory Sealanes by Unilateral Action” (1972) 22 The Catholic University Law Review no. 1, pp. 108–130, at pp. 116–123.Google Scholar The power of prescribing sea-lanes hasalso been recognized by the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text of Committee II, in article 19 (p. 10 — the territorial sea), article 40 (p. 16 — straits), article 124 (p. 43 — archipelagic waters).

134 On the fairways in the Gulf of Mexico, see e.g., Griffin, W. L., “Accommodation of Conflicting Uses of Ocean Space with Special Reference to Navigation Safety Lanes” in Alexander, L. M., ed., The Law of the Sea—The Future of the Sea's Resources, Proceedings of the Law of the Sea Institute Second Annual Conference (1967)Google Scholar; id. “Ocean Navigation Fairways Through Gulf of Mexico ‘Oilfields’” (1967) 44 The International Hydrographic Review 177–196; Knight, H. G., “Shipping Safety Fairways: Conflict Amelioration in the Gulf of Mexico” (1969/1970) 1 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 1–20.Google Scholar On the question whether a State may unilaterally recommend or impose sea-lanes beyond its territorial sea, see e.g., J. D. Morgan, op. cit., at pp. 123–130; Commander Legg, B. J., “Fairways Regulations: Jurisdiction and Effect” (1972) 26 The Judge Advocate General Journal 205–214Google Scholar; H. G. Knight, op. cit., at pp. 12–16. On the difference between “shipping safety fairways” and “sea-lanes” see H. G. Knight, op. cit., at p. 1, n. 1.

135 See e.g., Lt. G. P. Schwartz, op. cit., at p. 60; H. G. Knight, op. cit., at p. 19; Cdr. B. J. Legg, op. cit., at p. 212. Cf. however C. Warbrick, op. cit., at p. 141.

136 Resolution A. 179 (VI) of October 28, 1969, IMCO document supra n. 126, at p. 20.

137 See C. Warbrick, op. cit., and Singh, N., International Conventions of Merchant Shipping, British Shipping Laws (2nd ed., 1973) vol. 8.Google Scholar

138 See e.g., Brown, E. D., “Maritime Zones: A Survey of Claims” in Churchill, R., Simmonds, K. R. and Welch, J., eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea, Collected Papers (1973) vol. III, pp. 157–192Google Scholar; Bouchez, L. J., “Some Basic Problems of Coastal State Jurisdiction and the Future Conference on the Law of the Sea” in Caflisch, L., ed., Hydrospace in International Relations (1973) 4 Annals of International Studies 143–170.Google Scholar For basic information about these claimsj see U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer, Limits in the Seas, no. 36: National Claims to Maritime Jurisdictions, 2nd Revision, 1974; Alexander, L. M., “Indices of National Interest in the Ocean” (1973) 1 Ocean Development and International Law Journal 21–49, at pp. 43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; U.N. Legislative Series, National Legislation and Treaties Relating to the Territorial Sea, the Contiguous Zone, the Continental Shelf, the High Seas and to Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea, U.N. Document ST/LEG/SER.B/15 (1970)Google Scholar; ST/LEG/SER.B/16 (1974); ST/LEG/SER.B/18 plus Add. 1 and 2 (1975); Lay, S. H., Churchill, R., Nordquist, M., eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea—Documents (1973) vol. I.Google Scholar

139 Pardo, A., “A Statement on the Future Law of the Sea in Light of Current Trends in Negotiations” (1973/1934) 1 Ocean Development and International Law Journal 315–335, at p. 315–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also L. J. Bouchez, op. cit., at pp. 152–153; Teclaff, L. A., “Shrinking the High Seas by Technical Methods—From the 1930 Hague Conference to the 1958 Geneva Conference” (1962) 39 University of Detroit Law Journal 660–684.Google Scholar

140 A. Pardo, lecture on “Prospects for a Comprehensive Treaty and Some Predictions for the Future” delivered on October 24, 1974, at the Conference on Conflict and Order in Ocean Relations (organized by the School of Advanced International Studies of The John Hopkins University).

141 A. Pardo, supra n. 139, at p. 316.

142 On Archipelagos, see O'Connell, D. P., “Mid-Ocean Archipelagos in International Law” (1970) 45 British Year Book of International Law 1–77Google Scholar; G. Marston, “International Law and ‘Mid-Ocean’ Archipelagos” in L. Caflisch, ed., supra n. 138 at pp. 171–190; Syatauw, J. J. G., “Revisiting ‘The Archipelago’—An Old Concept Gains New Respectability” in Status Report on Law of the Sea Conference: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, 1973, pp. 759–774.Google Scholar

143 E.g., U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.15.

144 E.g., U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.49, 51, 52, 63, 64, 70, 73.

145 Articles 117–131, pp. 42–46.

146 Article 123.

147 A. Pardo, op. cit. supra n. 139, at pp. 316–319.

148 See supra n. 138.

149 See supra n. 14.

150 Article 1 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

151 Ibid., article 2. See also North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), International Court of Justice, Reports, 1969, pp. 1–258, at p. 22, para. 19.

152 Article 3 of the 1958 Convention.

153 For an interesting discussion of these provisions see W. L. Griffin, op. cit. supra n. 134. See also Auburn, op. cit. supra n. 103, at p. 183.

154 E.g. Argentina (1946), Honduras (1950), Panama (1946), Peru (1947) (see supra n. 138).

155 Text (English translation) in (1947) 41 A.J.I.L. Suppl., p. 11.

156 See e.g., Henkin, L., “Changing Law for the Changing Seas” in Gullion, E., ed., Uses of the Seas (1968) 69–97, at pp. 78–81Google Scholar; Henkin, L., Law for the Sea's Mineral Resources (1968) 16–24Google Scholar; Henkin, L., “International Law and ‘the Interests’: the Law of the Seabed” (1969) 63 A.J.I.L. 504–510Google Scholar; Henkin, L., “A Reply to Mr. Finlay” (1970) 64 A.J.I.L. 62–72.Google Scholar

157 See e.g., Finlay, L. W., “The Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf—A Rejoinder to Professor Louis Henkin” (1970) 64 A.J.I.L. 52–61.Google Scholar The same attitude has been adopted by the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text of the Second Committee, article 62 (p. 27). The continental margin includes the continental shelf, the continental slope and the continental rise, i.e. the land underlying the seas and oceans from the area beneath the territorial sea down to the abyssal plain.

158 E.g., Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Korea, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uruguay—see references supra n. 138.

159 See 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text, Second Committee, articles 45–61 (pp. 19–26). A comprehensive study of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea by Sh. Rosenne will appear in our next issue.

160 A. Pardo, op. cit. supra n. 140.

161 See Hodgson, R. D. and Mclntyre, T. V., “Maritime Commerce in Selected Areas of High Concentration” in Clingan, T. A. Jr., and Alexander, L. M., eds., Hazards of Maritime Transit (1973) 1–18, at p. 2.Google Scholar

162 See e.g., Anand, R. P., “‘Tyranny’ of the Freedom-of-the-Seas Doctrine” (1973) 12 International Studies 416–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Interests of the Developing Countries and the Developing Law of the Sea” in Caflisch, L., ed., Hydrospace in International Relations, supra n. 138, pp. 13–29Google Scholar, at p. 16.

163 G. Gidel, op. cit. supra n. 6, at p. 212.

164 See 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text Presented by the Chairman of the Second Committee, articles nos. 14–32 (the territorial sea), 34–44 (straits), 47 (exclusive economic zone), 74–75 (the high seas), 123–124 (archipelagic waters). Different régimes of navigation (freedom of navigation, free transit or innocent passage) are proposed for the various sea spaces.

165 The 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text has not proposed any limit for normal straight baselines, but it has proposed a 80–125 miles limit for straight baselines of archipelagos; see article 118(2), p. 42, Second Committee.

166 International Court of Justice, Reports, 1951, p. 116.

167 See A. Pardo, op. cit. supra n. 140.

168 Article 4 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea.

169 See supra n. 69.

170 See also E. Frankel, op. cit. supra n. 121.

171 See C. Warbrick, op. cit. supra n. 38, at pp. 141–142.

172 See ibid., at pp. 142–143; Holloway, D. R., “Navigational Aids in Offshore Operations (with Particular Reference to the European Area)” in 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference (1974) vol. I, paper no. OTC 2011.Google Scholar

173 See N. Singh, op. cit. supra n. 137, at pp. 33–38; Gardner, J. M., “The Red Sea Lights Agreement: Another Instance of International Cost-Sharing” (1975) 69 A.J.I.L. 129–134.Google Scholar

174 See Warbrick, op. cit.

175 This sort of indirect interference with navigation is called by Commander Dr. Donald Walsh “virtual restrictions to navigation”.

176 See the 1975 Informal Single Negotiating Text of the Second Committee, article 19 (the territorial sea), article 40 (straits), article 124 (archipelagic waters). There are considerable differences between these various provisions.

177 Ibid., First Committe, article 16 (p. 6).

178 W.I. Griffin, op. cit. supra n. 134.

179 For a summary of the discussions, see ibid.

180 Ambassador A. Pardo, statement delivered before the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction on March 23, 1971. See also Fauchille, P., Traité de droit international public (1925) vol. 1, part 2, p. 61, para. 483 (35)Google Scholar; SirWaldock, Humphry, “The Legal Basis of Claims to the Continental Shelf” (1950) 36 Transactions of the Grotius Society 115–148, at p. 137.Google Scholar