The Lead-up to the EEZ
5. The articulation of the concept of freedom of the seas is generally
attributed to a Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, and his book MARE LIBRUM,
published in 1608.[5]
The concept he expounded was that the oceans belonged to all States
equally, to be used freely by ships of all States, without interference
by other States, for the purposes for which the sea was used, primarily
navigation and fishing. For self defence and coastal use purposes a
territorial sea belt of 3-4 nautical miles was internationally accepted,
based on the maximum cannon range of that period. This legal framework
governed the relations between States in their use of the oceans for the
next three and a half centuries.
6. The pressures for change that developed in the mid-20th century are
generally identified as beginning with two United States presidential
proclamations in 1945, the "Truman Proclamations", one dealing with the
continental shelf and the other dealing with
fisheries.[6] In the
first the U.S. declared that it had the exclusive right to exploit the
mineral and hydrocarbon resources lying on or under its continental shelf
(the extent of the seaward reach of the continental shelf was left
unclear.) In the second the U.S. stated its policy to develop
internationally agreed conservation zones for fish stocks off its
coasts and implied a custodial concept for itself as the coastal State.
7. The erosion of the concept of freedom of the seas developed rapidly
from this point. Initially a few and later many countries claimed
resource rights according to distance from shore, the maximum claims going
out to 200 nautical miles.[7]
There was increasing awareness that the resources of the oceans, living
and non-living, that could be exploited for economic gain were concentrated
in broad belts off coastal areas. Arguments were made that the living
resources in these broad belts, whose shallow water habitats were in most
areas over the continental shelves should, in some way, appertain to the
adjacent coastal States similarly to what had been accepted for the
minerals and hydrocarbons of the continental shelf. There was, at
the same time, growing awareness that the living resources, though
sustainable if properly managed, were, if not properly managed, as
exhaustible as the subsea non-living resources. Further, there was
a growing fear that they would become exhausted if the system of open
access under the rule of freedom of the high seas continued.
8. Major changes had occurred since World War II in the technology of
fishing. Gigantic factory-freezer trawlers had appeared in large numbers,
using increasingly efficient sonar fish finders and fishing equipment,
roaming the oceans often many thousands of miles from their home ports,
and adding pressure on fish stocks to a degree never experienced before.
World catches had increased steadily, but stock failures had also started
to appear in areas of the world traditionally dependent on the living
resources off their coasts. International fisheries management
organizations which developed in the post-war years were increasingly
perceived as ineffective for reducing catches to sustainable levels.
There were two main causes: the competitive pressures between member
States for high catch allocations for their vessels; and the unwillingness
and inability of these States, with vessels thousands of miles away from
their flag State enforcement authorities, to enforce such limits and rules
as were agreed, while the vessel operators were concerned only to maximize
their profits. Developed coastal States were increasingly troubled,
foreseeing impoverishment of their coastal communities. Developing coastal
States had even greater concerns, foreseeing not only the loss of
traditional food supplies but also any hope of future wealth from catches
and exports of resources off their own coasts.
9. Inevitably coastal States, developed and developing, came to believe
that it was unreasonable to stand by and watch the living wealth of the
ocean areas off their doorsteps consumed and destroyed by fishing fleets
from other countries. It seemed much more reasonable that, first of all,
coastal States should have sole control over all fisheries off their
coasts for the purpose of conservation and management; and secondly,
that the economic benefits from the living resources off their coasts
should flow to their coastal populations. The result, it was argued,
would benefit the world through the maintenance of a stable animal protein
supply.
|
