In the implementation of the new Law of the Sea on Australia and New Zealand there are no difficulties in terms of their position: both lie relatively far from the important international sea-lanes, both have hardly any neighbouring countries to argue with over the position of baselines or the size of territorial seas, fishing and economic zones, and both lie far enough apart so that their 200-nautical-mile zones only overlap slightly. Australia and New Zealand are relatively unimportant fishing nations and therefore did not see any reason to put their sea zones under national jurisdiction. The poor development of their deep-sea fishery has not changed: for example, even by the end of the 1970s the Australian firms contracted to explore the fishing resources in the 200-nautical-mile zone could not do this by themselves but had to work with firms from lapan, the Republic of Korea, the United States and Poland (cf. the policy of joint ventures of New Zealand, p.27).

Both countries do not have a deep-sea mining industry of a high technological standard. Therefore, their interests are not aimed at the continental shelf. And both countries are still under the influence of British tradition as an important seafaring nation, and therefore do not want the freedom of the sea disturbed (see Beeby 1975; Blezard 1980).

The Maritime Law Proclamation of Australia and New Zealand

Notwithstanding the above, Australia was one of the earliest states which pro claimed their continental shelf because of an unusual problem: since the 1930s Japanese pearl-fishers had worked on the Australian coast and the Australians feared the destruction of sedentary species. World War II put an end to the pearl-fishing. In the peace negotiations with Japan following the war, Australia asked for a dialogue on the preservation of sedentary species and other living resources before the pearl-fishing could commence again. In spite of this demand, the pearl-fishing continued without further talks.