The exclusive economic zone
Abstract The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) derives from the 1945 Truman proclamation on the continental shelf, though it has earlier antecedents. The new placement of about one-third of the sea under national jurisdiction has enormous implications. The benefits of the new maritime zone, for example, will not be shared equally by all coastal states, and the land-locked states lose completely resources to which they once had free access. The rights of the coastal state within its EEZ are considerable, and its obligations much fewer. The EEZ provisions in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) represent a balancing of interests, as does the system of dispute settlement specified in the Convention. The United States has not signed the Treaty on the grounds, among others, that the common heritage principle, which calls for sharing the resources under the high seas, goes against the fundamental principles of free enterprise, and that US corporations would have to give up potential profits without gaining any advantage in return. Such criticism is unsound for a number of reasons. The US claims that all of the Treaty's provisions, except for those on seabed mining, are already customary international law, but even if this were true in principle, the particular detailed provisions are probably binding only by agreement. The US cannot claim rights under the Treaty if it refuses to become a party to it, including the EEZ.
The new law of the sea and the pacific basin
Abstract The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is indispensable for the well‐being of the states, especially the new island states, of the Pacific Basin. Since the Treaty will be signed at Caracas in December 1982, it is important to anticipate its impact in the Pacific Region area. The article examines the need for a new ocean law to replace the old law of the Geneva Conventions. It argues that exploitation of manganese nodules in the “Area”; will be legal only under the rules of Part XI of the Convention and that the principles of the Common Heritage of Mankind are now part of customary law. Finally, the seaward expansion of Pacific states authorized in the new treaty both necessitates, and provides an opportunity for, coordinated planning for the management of ocean resources and usages.
Deep seabed mining and unilateral legislation
Abstract Mining and other kinds of exploitation of the deep seabed and the ocean floor as well as the subsoil thereof are fairly new developments, made possible by modern technology. It is contended here that unilateral exploitation of these areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction is not authorized by existing principles, by the common heritage of mankind concept, or by the emerging consensus at the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea. Invocation of the freedom of the seas doctrine by individual states or corporations for unilateral exploitation purposes find no support in international law. The 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and the 200‐meter rule are already obsolete, and the doctrine of the freedom of the seas does not cover every new ocean activity made possible by the progress of science; absolute freedom no longer exists. Exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed were not dealt with by the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, nor does the Convention on the Continen...