1 At the First Law of the Sea Conference, which was held at Geneva from February 24 to April 27, 1958, 86 delegations were in attendance. Four Conventions containing a total of 106 articles emerged from the conference. These Conventions are in effect for those countries which ratified or acceded to them.

2 The 1958 Convention on the High Seas provides in Article 2 for the following freedoms of the high seas: (1) freedom of navigation; (2) freedom of fishing; (3) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines; (4) freedom to fly over the high seas; and (5) other freedoms which are recognized by the general principles of international law. 13 UST 2312, TIAS No. 5200, 450 UNTS, 52 AJIL 842 (1958). The major maritime powers have, since 1958, considered that freedom of scientific research is one of the implied freedoms of the high seas.

3 The Second Law of the Sea Conference was held at Geneva from March 17 to April 26, 1960, for the purpose of deciding on a uniform breadth of the territorial sea and exclusive fisheries zone. Eighty-eight delegations were in attendance. No agreement was reached. The Third Law of the Sea Conference convened its first session in New York in December, 1973 for the purpose of establishing a new regime for the oceans. Over 140 delegations attended the New York session, as well as subsequent sessions in Caracas, Geneva, and again New York.

4 By the beginning of 1976, 29 states claimed a 3-mile territorial sea, 18 had claims between 3 and 12 miles, 56 claimed 12 miles, 11 claimed between 12 and 200 miles, and 9 claimed 200 miles. See National Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction, in Office Of The Geographer, Bureau OF Intelligence And Research, U.S. Dept. Of State, International Boundary Study, Series A, limits In The Seas, No. 36 (Rev. ed. 1975) (hereinafter International Boundary Study).

5 For a description of certain straight baseline regimes, see Straight Baselines, The Philippines, in International Boundary Study, NO. 33 (1971) and Straight Baselines, Indonesia, id., No. 35 (1971).

6 The coastal state might have jurisdiction in the economic zone with regard to scientific research, pollution control and abatement, the establishment and use of artificial islands and installations, and the production of energy from water, currents, and winds.

7 As of August 2, 1976, the opening date of the second New York session of UNCLOS III, there were 157 independent countries of the world, a figure which excludes Rhodesia.

8 The original twenty-five “least-developed countries” were Afghanistan, Benin (Dahomey), Bhutan, Burundi, Central African Empire, Chad, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Haiti, Laos, Lesotho, Maldives, Malawi, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sikkim, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Upper Volta, and Yemen. See UN Doc. E/AC.54/ L.72 (1975). Sikkim was adsorbed into India in 1975. Bangladesh, Democratic Yemen, and Gambia have since been added to the list.

9 Afghanistan, Andorra, Austria, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Central African Empire, Chad. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Laos, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Mongolia, Nepal, Niger, Paraguay, Rhodesia, Rwanda, San Marino, Swaziland, Switzerland, Uganda, Upper Volta, Vatican City, and Zambia.

10 The criteria for inclusion of states among the “geographically-disadvantaged” have never been well established. At the spring 1976 New York session of UNCLOS III, the following coastal states were members of the “Land-locked and Geographically Disadvantaged” group: Algeria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Qatar, Singapore, Sudan, Sweden, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Zaire. Byelorussia, which is land-locked, was also a member of the group. For a discussion of definitional problems see Alexander, & Hodgson, , The Role of the Geographically-Disadvantaged States in the Law of the Sea, 13 San diego L. Rev. 560 (1976).Google Scholar

11 The so-called “Group of 77,” representing the developing states of the world, now has a membership of over 100 countries. At UNCLOS III it has attempted to operate on a rule of consensus.

12 See Franck, , Barade, , & Aron, , The New Poor: Land-Locked, Shelf-Locked, and Other Geographically Disadvantaged States, 7 N.Y.U.J. INT'L. L. & POL. 33-57 (1974)Google Scholar. See also, Alexander & Hodgson, supra note 10.

13 As an illustration, a policy declaration adopted by the Organization of African Unity at Addis Ababa in July 1973 supports the right of land-locked and other disadvantaged countries to share in the exploitation of living resources of the economic zones of neighboring states on an equal basis as nationals of the coastal states. See Danzig, A Funny Thing Happened to the Common Heritage on the Way to the Sea, 12 San Dieco L. Rev. 659 (1975).

14 The “matrimonial sea” proposal first surfaced at the Conference of Latin American States held at Santo Domingo in June 1972. Its thesis was that littoral states of a maritime area should have the right to participate on an equitable basis in fishing in the waters of the area seaward of coastal states’ twelve-mile limits. Nationals of nonlittoral states would be excluded. The concept was not included in the final Declaration of Santo Domingo, June 7, 1972. See 1 Lay, Churchill, & Nordquist, New Directions IN The Law OF The Sea 247 (1973).

15 States having common concerns, particularly with respect to ocean policy issues, may, of course, be considerably removed geographically from one another, as in the case of land-locked or archipelagic states. Seen in this context they do not represent a “region” but rather an “interest group.“

16 A workable dividing line between the North and South Atlantic basins might extend from Cape Sao Roque, Brazil (5° S.Lat.) to Cape Palmas, Liberia (5° N.Lat.).

17 There is no officially designated “Antarctic Ocean.” But because of the existence of the Antarctic Treaty, all waters south of 60° S.Lat. should be included within an oceanic body separate from the South Atlantic, South Pacific, and Indian oceans.

18 In terms of a variety of factors, both physical and nonphysical, the North Pacific might be considered as constituting the maritime area north of the Tropic of Cancer (23½° N.Lat.) and the South Pacific, that area south of the Tropic of Capricorn (23½° S.Lat.). The Central Pacific, lying between the two Tropics, could be subdivided into West and East by the International Date Line (approximately 180° Long.).

19 See Resolution of December 16, 1971, declaring the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace, G.A. Res. 2832, 26 GAOR, Supp. (No. 29), at 36, UN Doc. A/8429 (1971), 9 ILM 217 (1972). The resolution contained no definition of the geographic limits of the Indian Ocean.

20 See Alexander, , Regionalism and the Law of the Sea: the Case of Semi-Enclosed Seas, 2 Ocean Dev. & INT'L. L.J. 151 (1974).Google Scholar

21 Hudson Bay and the Bismarck and Kara Seas would qualify as semi-enclosed seas from a regional standpoint, if there were no requirement that they be bordered by two or more states. So would the Java/Flores/Banda Sea complex in Indonesia. Such seas would not appear susceptible to any form of multistate management schemes.

22 See Revised Single Negotiating Text, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8 Rev.l, May 6,1976.

23 The interspersal of French and British owned islands in the Lesser Antilles has been a major stumbling block to regional cooperation there. Divided jurisdictions also exist in the Solomon Island chain.

24 For a description of the coordinates of the maritime limits of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which is concerned with the management of the yellow fin tuna, see Carroz, Establishment, Structure, Functions and Activities of International Fisheries Bodies, 11 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), Fao Fisheries Technical Paper NO. 58, at 2 (1965).

25 See, for example, Nye, Peace In Parts: Integration And Conflict IN Regional Organization 32 (1971).

26 Zambia is connected by rail with both the east (via Tanzania, Zaire, and Angola) and west (via Rhodesia and Mozambique) coasts of Africa and with the South African rail network. Chad, in contrast, has no direct rail links with the sea.

27 A possible definition of “regions,” as seen on a global basis, could correspond with the Regional Economic Commissions of the UN Economic and Social Council. The four Commissions are: (1) Economic Commission for Europe (ECE); (2) Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP); (3) Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA); and (4) Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). The United States is a member of all the Commissions except ECA.

28 Ruggie, , International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends, 29 INT'L Organization 570 (1975).Google Scholar

29 Ibid.

30 See Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, The International Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE), 1971-1980, in Technical Series NO. 13 (1974). 31 Supra note 28, at 569.

32 See Krieger., A Caribbean Community for Ocean Development, Caribbean Study Project Working Papers: Pacem In maribus IV, at 441 (1973).Google Scholar

33 See Hardy, , Regional Approaches to Law of the Sea Problems: The European Economic Community, 24 INT'L & Comp L.Q. 336 (1975)Google Scholar; Janis, , The Development of European Regional Law of the Sea, 1 Ocean Development & INT'L L. 275 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 UN Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.27, July 3, 1974. See also supra note 14.

35 Supra note 30.

36 See Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Summary Reports, Regional Ad Hoc Tema Meetings (Mexico City, 10-12 April 1975; Casablanca, 3-5 June 1975; Manila, 15-19 September 1975; Cairo, 4-8 January 1976).

37 Supra note 22, Part II, Article 58.

38 See Alexander & Hodgson, supra note 10.

39 See W. Butler, The Soviet Union And The Law Of The Sea 127 (1971).

40 Of the semi-enclosed seas noted in Table I, only the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, and the Gulf of Guinea would contain extensive areas beyond the 200-mile economic zone. The other regions would be totally or almost completely closed off by 200 mile zones.

41 12 UST 794, TIAS No. 4780, 402 UNTS 71; 54 AJIL 477 (1960). The original parties were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, USSR, United Kingdom, and United States. Later accessions include Czechoslovakia, Denmark, German Democratic Republic, Netherlands, Poland, and Romania.

42 Such a regime, according to at least some of the littoral states, already exists in the Gulf of Fonseca on the Pacific coast of Central America.

43 Skolnikoff, The International Imperatives Of Technology: Technological Development For The International System 13-16, 102-110 (1972).

44 Koers, International Regulation OF Marine Fisheries 84 (1973).

45 Members of ICES are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, USSR, and United Kingdom.

46 Supra note 22, Part I. Article 20(4) notes that the Authority “may establish such regional centres or offices as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.“

47 Japan, for example, is a member of CECAF, ICCAT, ICNAF, ICSEAF, and IOFC. Cuba belongs to IOFC, Bulgaria to ICSEAF, and the Republic of Korea to ICCAT. The North Pacific systems, on the other hand, tend to have closed membership.

48 Notably PCSP which, since its inception, has been designed to coordinate activities in the 200-mile fishing zones of Chile, Ecuador, and Peru.

49 Supra note 44.

50 Janis, , The Roles of Regional Law of the Sea, 12 San Diego L. Rev. 560 (1975).Google Scholar

51 Supra note 30 at 46.

52 Co-operative Investigations of the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions. Participating countries included Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Kingdom, United States, and Venezuela. Field activities were carried out from 1968 through 1975.

53 Co-operative Investigations in the Mediterranean. Participating countries are Austria, Belgium, Egypt, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, USSR, and United Kingdom.

54 Participating countries in SOC are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, USSR, United Kingdom, and United States. 56 France, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Korea, Mauritania, Morocco, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, USSR, United Kingdom, and United States participate in CINECA.

56 Eight countries participate in CSK. These are China, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Philippines, Thailand, USSR, and United Kingdom.

57 Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil, June 9, 1969, 9 ILM 359 (1970).

58 Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, February 15, 1972, 11 ILM 262 (1972).

59 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, March 22, 1974, 13 ILM 546 (1974).

60 See United Nations Environment Program, Report Of The Intergovernmental Meeting On The Protection OF The Mediterranean, Barcelona, 28 January to 4 February, 1975 (UN Doc. UNEP/WG.2/5, Feb. 11, 1975).

61 United Nations Environment Programme: Final Act of Conference on the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea, 15 ILM 285 (1976). See aho Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, id., at 290; Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, id., at 300; Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency, id., at 306; Resolution Adopted by the Conference, id., at 311. The following sixteen states participated in the Conference on the Protection of the Mediterranean, held at Barcelona in February, 1976, from which the Convention and Protocols emerged: Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, and Yugoslavia. Only Albania, of the Mediterranean littoral states, was absent. Syria withdrew before the end of the Conference, but the other fifteen states signed the Final Act.

62 Supra note 36.

63 Supra note 41.

64 European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts Transmitted from Stations Outside National Territories, January 22, 1965. 634 Unts 239.

65 See 6 ILM 521 (1967). See also Redick, Regional Nuclear Arms Control in Latin America, 29 INT'L Organization 415 (1975).

66 See Cehvenka, Land-Locked Countries Of Africa (1973).

67 See Alexander, & Hodgson, , The Impact of the 200-Mile Zone on the Law of the Sea, 12 San Diego L. Rev. 569 (1975).Google Scholar

68 Supra note 22. Little thought seems to have been given in compiling the articles of the Revised Single Negotiating Text to the specific operational requirements of regional and subregional arrangements. Some of the regional provisions in the text appear virtually unworkable. In law of the sea negotiations, the regional approach to problem solving seems to have become a favorite fall-back position for otherwise unresolved issues.

69 For statistics on the extent of the economic zones which would accrue to each of the coastal states of the world see Theoretical Areal Allocations of Seabed to Coastal States … in International Boundary Study, supra note 4, No. 46 (1972).

70 Supra note 44.

71 See Alexander, , Indices of National Interest in the Oceans, 1 Ocean Dev. & INT'L. L.J. 21 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar