^l Canada, “Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,” paper submitted by the government to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, House of Commons, 2 November 1973.

² US Department of State, Office of the Geographer, Limits in the Seas, Series A, No. 46, 12 August 1972. The continental margin is the submerged prolongation of continents and includes the continental shelf, slope, and rise.

³ Kash, Don E. et al., “Energy Under the Oceans: A Technology Assessment of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Operations,” National Science Foundation, September 1973.Google Scholar

⁴ Excluding Hudson Bay.

⁵ Allan Gotlieb, Statement in First Committee, United Nations General Assembly, Press Release 77, 15 November 1967.

⁶ In the Arctic areas above 60° latitude, uniform pollution zones of 100 miles were declared.

⁷ In Canada, with a population of 22 million, 80,000 people were employed in fishing operations and another 16,000 in processing in 1972.

⁸ Sedentary species are covered by the Convention on the Continental Shelf. See Anthony Scott's essay in this volume.

⁹ Canada, “Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,” paper submitted by the government to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, House of Commons, 2 November 1973.

¹⁰ UN Document A/AC.138/25; “US Draft of UN Convention on International Seabed Area,” International Legal Materials 9 (1970): 1046.

¹¹ See below, p. 777.

¹² Sea Breezes (Save Our Seas newsletter) 1 (November-December 1973).

¹³ See below, p. 777.

¹⁴ UN Document A/AC.138/59 (“International Sea-bed Regime and Machinery Working Paper Submitted by the Delegation of Canada”), 24 August 1971.

¹⁵ Gotlieb, A. E. and Dalfen, C. M., “National Jurisdiction and International Responsibility: Canadian Approaches to International Law,” address to First Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law, 13 October 1972.Google Scholar (Mimeographed.)

¹⁶ In Canadian eyes, however, the United States undermined the effort by striking bilateral fisheries agreements with countries such as Brazil and Mexico.

¹⁷ Sharp, Mitchell, Secretary of State for External Affairs, “Canada Extends Its Territorial Sea,” statement to the House of Commons, 17 April 1970.Google Scholar (Mimeographed.)

¹⁸ “We really are not prepared, in light of these developments, to accept the proposition that it is always desirable to proceed multilaterally instead of unilaterally.” Ibid., p. 2.

¹⁹ Canada, Laws, Statutes, etc., Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, 1964, 13 Eliz. 2, ch. 22.

²⁰ Fisheries Zone Contiguous to Territorial Sea of the United States Act, U.S. Code, Supplement 2, Title 16 (1966).

²¹ Canada, Canada Privy Council, “Order Respecting Geographical Coordinates, of Points from which Baselines may be determined Pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act,” 26 October 1967, Canada Gazette, part 2, 8 November, 1967.

²² Those baselines went into effect in June 1969. Canada Gazette, 11 June 1969; Canada, Department of External Affairs, “Law of the Sea,” Press Release No. 34, 4 June 1969.

²³ US Department of State, “Canadian Fisheries Closing Lines Legislation,” Press Release No. 53, 12 March 1971.

²⁴ US Department of State, “Canada Drafts Agreement on Reciprocal Fishing Privileges,” Press Release No. 47, 16 February 1970.

²⁵ Canada, Bill C-203, Act to Amend Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, 1970, 18&19 Eliz. 2.

²⁶ Beesley, J. A., “Rights and Responsibilities of Arctic Coastal States: The Canadian View,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 3 (October 1971): 7.Google Scholar

²⁷ US Department of State, Press Release No. 121, 15 April 1970; New York Times, 16 April 1970.

²⁸ Canada, House of Commons, “Summary of Canadian Note Handed to the United States Government on 16 April 1970, ”in Debates, Official Report, vol. 6, 28th Parl., 2d sess., 17 April 1970, pp. 6027ff.

²⁹ Text of reservation in MacDonald, R. St. J., “The New Canadian Declaration of Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” inCanadian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 8 (Vancouver: The Publications Centre, The University of British Columbia, 1970); p. 34;Google Scholar UN Document L/T/587/Rev. 1 (press release), 9 April 1970.

³⁰ Best, John, “Nixon Was So Angry He Refused Trudeau's Call,” Globe and Mail(Toronto), 25 August 1973, p. 7.Google Scholar

³¹ The Canadian legislation “provided that naval vessels and other ships owned by foreign governments may be exempted from the application of Canadian anti-pollution regulations, if the ships in question substantially met Canadian standards” (Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 1970, p. 34); UN Document L/T/587/Rev. 1 (press release), 9 April 1970.

³² For the background to this decision, see Hollick, Ann L., “Seabeds Make Strange Politics,” Foreign Policy 9 (Winter 1972–73): 148–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Ratiner, Leigh S., “United States Ocean Policy,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 2 (January 1971): 249–59.Google Scholar

³⁴ Jean Marchand, Minister of Transport, before Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, House of Commons, 29th Parl., 1st sess., Issue No. 26, 4 December 1973, p. 7.

³⁵ This is no longer the situation in the US Department of State, where in summer 1973 law of the sea was transferred to a special office attached to Undersecretary Rush and headed by John Norton Moore.

³⁶ The small size of the Canadian delegations and their cohesiveness may be explained by what Mr. Beesley described as “Canadian theory and practice … that one of the functions of a foreign service is to represent the government and the country abroad, whether in bilateral negotiations or multilateral negotiations. When the subjects are technical, requiring special expertise, then other departments are either represented or, in some cases, lead the delegation. In every case, however, every member of the delegation is considered to represent the Canadian Government as a whole, and not merely his particular ministry. Thus, External Affairs officers are accustomed to reflect a composite governmental view rather than the position the External Affairs Department may have taken in the inter-departmental discussions leading to the development of the position.” Letter to author from Ambassador J. Alan Beesley, Canadian Embassy, Vienna, Austria, 31 October 1973, p. 13.

³⁷ The Department of Defense has not been represented by its legal office since 1972, but it has continued to wield a unique form of influence based on strategic rather than legal expertise.

³⁸ Best, Globe and Mail (Toronto), 25 August 1973, p. 7.

³⁹ The legal bureau has two divisions, legal advisory and legal operations; the first is responsible for general expertise in international law and the second for presenting the Canadian case at international conferences. Within the Legal Operations Division, there are four sections, one of which is law of the sea.

⁴⁰ The Ministry of Transport has a major part in the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) negotiations while the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has recently become an important participant.

⁴¹ Charlottetown Guardian, 28 August 1973.

⁴² Indeed, many technical provisions of the US draft treaty appear to be closely modeled on the Canadian system and can be traced to exchanges within the economic and technical working group. See, for instance, text of Statements of D. G. Crosby in the Economic and Technical Subcommittee of the UN Seabed Committee on 21 March 1969 and 13 March 1970.

⁴³ The only Canadian departments represented in 1968 and 1969 were the Departments of External Affairs, and of Energy, Mines and Resources. During the same years, US agency participation included the Departments of State, Defense, and the Interior. Since 1970, the only new agency regularly participating on the Canadian delegation has been the Department of the Environment, created in 1971. As noted above (p. 769) Department of National Defence participation has been limited primarily to detailing an officer to the law of the sea division of the legal bureau to serve as secretary to ICLOS and the UN Seabed Committee delegation. Although members of ICLOS, those departments with distant water interests have not participated in the negotiations: the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. The contrast with the sizable and diversified US agency participation is striking. Since 1970, new members of the United States delegation have come from the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, Transportation, the National Science Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

⁴⁴ Newman, Peter, “Why Canada Wants Texas Gulf,” New York Times, 5 August 1973.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Newman, Barry, “Mysterious Nodules at Bottom of Oceans May Yield a Treasure,” Wall Street Journal, 21 September 1973, p. 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ According to the Wall Street Journal, a US corporate executive has described INCO as “the man who comes to the wife-swapping party without his wife.”

⁴⁷ “Deep Sea Drilling Project Extended,” p. 17.

⁴⁸ “Canada Apprehensive over US Program Seeking Ocean-Floor Drilling Sites,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 28 May 1970.

⁴⁹ Statement of D. G. Crosby in the Economic and Technical Subcommittee of the UN Seabed Committee, 13 March 1970, p. 6.

⁵⁰ The Deep Sea Drilling Project has since made it official policy to avoid structures that may contain gas pockets (“Deep Sea Project,” The Oil and Gas Journal, 2 November 1970, pp. 120–22).

⁵¹ L. H. J. Legault, Statement to the Fourth Governor's Conservation Congress, 12–15 December 1971.

⁵² UN General Assembly, Draft Articles on Fisheries by Canada, India, Kenya and Sri Lanka, A/AC.138/SC.II/L.38,16 July 1973.

⁵³ “Whereas the Fisheries Council of Canada has felt in the past that the Government of Canada did not place sufficient emphasis on fisheries matters in the development and execution of international affairs policies; and Whereas to alarge extent this shortcoming is now being corrected through extensions of fisheries jurisdiction; negotiation of bilateral fisheries agreements and development of principles of international law … and Whereas these activities have been accompanied as they proceeded, by an increasing consultation with the Canadian fishing industry; and Whereas an impressive team of international fisheries experts and negotiators … has been established in the Department ofExternal Affairs. Therefore be it resolved that the Government of Canada be urged to keep this highly respected and qualified team together … in order that the necessary expertise and continuity may be maintained for the critical developments which lie ahead in international fisheries and international law of the sea.” From a mimeographed sheet, entitled “Fisheries Council of Canada 1972 Annual Meeting Resolution No. 23, International Negotiations,” which I received from the Canadian embassy.

⁵⁴ “Fisheries Minister Remains Optimistic About Industry,” Charlottetown Guardian, 1 November 1973.