Sovereign rights and responsibilities: Applying public trust principles to the management of EEZ space and resources

Abstract

Since the United States proclaimed its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone in 1983, US agencies have given little attention to the need to develop effective management principles and strategies for the resources of this vast ocean area. Instead, they have relied upon existing programs and authorities to oversee the development of ocean energy and fisheries. This approach has been criticized by marine policy analysts because it perpetuates the existing, fragmented single-sector ocean regime characterized by inconsistent policies and endemic use conflicts. This paper proposes the adoption of certain principles deriving from the common law public trust doctrine in the management of EEZ resources and space. Historically, the public trust doctrine protected the public's rights and interests in nearshore resources and uses (commerce, navigation, and fishing). These traditional public rights were held by the crown or the government in trust for the people and could not be readily destroyed even though shorelands and coastal waters subject to the public trust might be conveyed into private ownership. In modern times the doctrine has been expanded in the United States to protect public rights in other uses and activities (e.g. conservation, scenic and ecological values, and preservation of open space and habitat) and extended geographically to apply to inland rivers, streams, and lakes. The public trust doctrine already applies in many states to the space, resources, and uses of the territorial sea. Because of the overlap of EEZ and territorial sea resources and uses, this paper considers the advantages of applying public trust principles and concepts to managing the EEZ. These principles include the need to preserve trust lands, waters, and resources for public use and benefit. The doctrine also provides a basis for distinguishing between, and ranking, public uses of trust resources, and imposes both substantive and procedural standards against which the conduct of the govermental trustees of trust, resources may be measured. The authors contrast the public trust doctrine with the ‘public trust’ deriving from the property clause of the US Constitution, and conclude that the broad discretion afforded federal officals under the latter is inconsistent with effective environmental management. Finally, the authors recommend a set of ‘presumptions’ derived from public trust principles that federal courts might follow to resolve serious EEZ space and resource-use conflicts.