Legal Problems in Undersea Mineral Development

Abstract

As the depth of water in which we can drill increases, the problem of jurisdiction grows more and more complex. What was once the magic number200 meters - has become meaningless. The question is, how do the coastal nations arrive at a fair definition of rights in exploiting the undersea mineral resources of the earth? Introduction The subject we shall consider here concerns two questions:To what seaward boundary should the U. S. assert, consistently with this country's international commitments, exclusive American jurisdiction over submarine mineral development?Beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, what international arrangements to govern mineral development are in the best interests of the U. S., and, pending the negotiation of such arrangements, what law governs? In considering these questions we must be aware of other national interests-national defense, navigation, fisheries, protection against pollution, to name some of them. A nation's jurisdiction can be likened to a bundle of sticks. Landward of a base line, which is the low-water line or straight line joining points along an irregular coastline, the coastal nation has exactly the power that it has on land, a complete bundle of power that it has on land, a complete bundle of jurisdictional sticks. Outward from the base line to the limit of territorial waters, say 3 miles, as our Government insists, or 6 or 12 or more, as other nations claim (there being no formal international agreement on this), the coastal nation has most of the sovereign powers that it has on land. These extend to all four powers that it has on land. These extend to all four elements of the marine environment - the sea bed, the overlying water column, the water surface, and the superjacent air space. This near-plenary control over territorial waters is subject, under international law, to an easement in favor of innocent passage of merchant ships, and warships in peacetime, subject to certain restrictions. Beyond territorial waters, some sticks begin to fall out of the bundle of sovereign powers. Coastal nations, under international law, have some powers beyond the belt of the territorial sea, but these are restricted, extra-territorial powers.* The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone provides (Art. 24) that a contiguous zone may be provides (Art. 24) that a contiguous zone may be established to encompass a belt 12 miles wide measured from the same base line from which the territorial sea is measured. In this contiguous zone, the coastal nation may, for example, exercise limited controls to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary regulations "within its territory or the territorial sea". Beyond that, the surface of the ocean is part of the high seas over which the coastal nation has no more power than does any other nation of the world. The freedoms of the high seas include those of navigation, fishing, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and of overflight by aircraft. JPT P. 237