6. Lateral Jurisdictional Limits of Contiguous Zones

If it be recognized that developing technologies may bring into grasp in the relatively near future some of the great resources of the sea and of the sea bed and its subsoil at very considerable distances from shore in at least a few areas, and that states or private initiative will require assurance in advance that their interests will be generally admitted, some principle should be formulated for the delimitation of the contiguous zones between adjacent states. The principle here enunciated will, the writer hopes, prove to be of universal applicability.

Where a state is actually prepared to explore or to utilize the resources of the sea bed and its subsoil beyond the territorial sea (perhaps out to the "edge" of the "continental shelf," "3 or to a median line in a gulf or lake), the techniques described below may be deemed so reasonable that they will be accepted by neighboring states, or even employed by one state in its assertion of jurisdiction, subject to subsequent mutual agreement or to appeal to established legal authority.34

34

The basic principle proposed is that the lateral jurisdictional limit should be developed progressively from the outer limit of sovereignty, which is the seaward limit of the territorial sea. In this progressive development or extension of the line of lateral jurisdiction, greater and greater stretches of the coasts of the two adjacent states are taken into consideration, thus taking into account all of the sinuosities of the coast, including gulfs and peninsulas, large and small. That part of the line from the low-tide coastal terminus of the land boundary, through the territorial sea, has already been covered, and therefore we begin at the outer limit of territorial waters in the normal sense.

The most reasonable and just line would be one laid down on the "median line" principle-a line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the seaward limits of the territorial sea of the two states concerned. In actually laying the lines down on the chart, because all lines measured outwardly from the envelopes of arcs of 3-mile radius of the territorial sea must likewise be constructed as arcs of circles of greater radius and be concentric with the arcs of the 3-mile "envelope" of the territorial sea, the median-line-principle line may best be constructed from points on the actual coast line itself.

But because relatively few coasts are mapped so accurately as to make a line "every point of which is equidistant from the nearest point" on the outer limit of the two territorial seas much more than a close approximation to the true "median line" (if the coasts were accurately mapped), it is suggested that the lateral line be laid down, first, by describing the envelope of the arcs of circles of 6-mile radius from the coasts of the two states, noting carefully the point in which they intersect, and connecting that with the point of intersection of the 3-mile arcs. Then proceed successively to describe the envelopes of arcs of 9-mile, 12-mile, 15-mile radius, etc., until the line is carried out as far as desired. The lateral jurisdictional line thus developed is very sensitive to the vagaries of the coast lines of both states. In the example selected for Figure 4, which is the Gulf of Venezuela 35 just north of Lake Maracaibo, it will be noted that, at about 27 miles from shore, a point on the south coast, and then a point on the east

33 The desire to establish claims to jurisdiction, even to sovereignty in some instances, may be ascribed in part to chauvinistic cartography, because it sometimes seems gratifying, especially to some government officials, to point to expansive zones on the map as if they were universally accepted as national territory. It should be remembered that the supposed value of the "continental shelf" lies largely in the possibility of extracting vast quantities of petroleum from the submarine subsoil-witness "Lake Maracaibo' and its great production. Two facts should be kept in mind: (1) that petroleum is found beneath only a small percentage of the land surface of the earth, and that geologically its occurrence in the "continental shelf," however extensive, presumably is limited to a small portion of the total "shelf"; and (2) that in stormy seas it may be feasible to extract petroleum only in relatively shallow waters for many years to come. The feasibility of conducting petroleum operations in oceanic waters more than, say, 150 feet or 50 meters deep may be quite remote. Discretion suggests the unwisdom of becoming greatly concerned regarding precise delimitation of seaward areas of national jurisdiction in waters 600 feet or 200 meters deep, near the outer edge of the "continental shelf."

34 The method here suggested would provide the "equitable principles" for accord between the United States and a neighbor state which are referred to in Presidential Proclamation No. 2667, signed Sept. 28, 1945 (Fed. Reg., Vol. 10, Oct. 2, 1945, p. 12303; also this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 40 (1946), p. 45). Various decrees and laws of other states since that date similarly call for accord on the basis of equitable principles.

35 An attaché of one of the embassies in Washington asked the writer several years ago to show him how to lay down a "boundary" between Colombia and Venezuela in these waters. No literature on such techniques was found, and several hypotheses were formulated and tried successively. Perhaps no more interesting problem of this sort could have been posed, for the example has about all possible variations.

FIG. 4. Lateral jurisdictional limits of contiguous zones

The Colombia-Venezuela situation in the Gulf of Venezuela illustrates typical problems in defining a water boundary from land out to the presumed "edge" of the "continental shelf." Beginning at the coastal terminus of the demarcated land boundary (11°51'07.41 N., 71°19'19".80 W.), the "normal" jurisdictional "boundary" is developed by describing envelopes of arcs of circles at successive intervals of 3, 6, 9, etc., nautical miles, until it crosses the presumed edge of the continental shelf a little short of the 45mile envelope intersection in this instance. This "normal" jurisdictional line ignores islands the Monks Islands (Los Monges) belonging to Venezuela, and Aruba (belonging to The Netherlands).

An alternative line is shown (-

---) assuming that the two countries were to agree to take the Monks Islands into account. In this instance, the developed line, after reaching a point 27 miles from the mainland of the two states, connects intersections of arcs of 24-, 21-, 18-, 15-, and 12-mile radius as it approaches the islands; then, because the 9-mile arcs do not intersect, a long straight line connects two intersections of 12-mile arcs before again widening to 15- and 18-mile arcs, which presumably carry the line to (and beyond) the edge of the "continental shelf."

coast (Peninsula de Paraguana) become the nearest points of Venezuela, whereas the nearest points of Colombia at the same distances necessarily remain on the Guajira peninsula."

36 If greater refinement in the lateral jurisdictional line were desired, it could be developed at increments of one mile from the outer limit of territorial waters. In a region known to be highly mineralized and in which mining operations are believed to be practicable it would seem desirable to map the coasts accurately, and then to lay down the lateral boundary of the most sensitive and accurate type on the "median line" principle, every point being equidistant from the nearest points on the shores of the two states concerned. But otherwise the adoption of 3-mile increments would seem most feasible and altogether fair and adequate. Every 3-mile-increment turning point is actually a point on the line drawn on the strict "median line" principle; and it is appreciably easier to lay down on the chart than the true "median line."

In laying down one of these lateral jurisdictional lines on a chart it is important to use a beam compass, so that both the pivot-point and the pencil-point are always perpendicular to the chart on which the line is being developed. An ordinary compass, with spreading points, becomes very inaccurate as the distances from the coast increase. And if ordinary charts are used in high latitudes (especially Mercator charts) it is essential to take into consideration the changing scale as the distance from the equator increases one minute of latitude equals one nautical mile at the particular latitude.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Precise delimitation of all seaward areas of national jurisdiction is essential if the resources of the sea bed and subsoil, and of the waters themselves, are to be utilized constructively for the benefit of mankind. Presumption of the right of the state to develop those resources, perhaps at considerable distances from shore, should therefore be recognized by the international community under conditions that assure: (a) the progressive development of the interests of the international community; (b) the maintenance of peace under law; (c) orderly, conservational use of the resources provided by nature; and (d) unhampered, peaceful navigation of the maximum area of waters and overlying airspace. It might also afford revenues accruing to the international community.

37

2. No single belt of adjacent seas, whether 3 or 3,000 miles wide, could actually and effectively serve all the purposes of each national state-for security, fishing, surface and air commerce, mineral exploitation, and other interests and also be acceptable to other states. No such "crustacean psychosis in an avian age" can cope with the problems emerging from the vast expanses of water that cover more than two-thirds of the earth's surface. The "one ocean" and its many arms in gulfs, bays, and seas, with their overlying airspace and the underlying sea bed and subsoil, constitute the area of greatest common interest to all mankind.

3. It should be realized that some of the unilateral assertions of jurisdiction or even full and exclusive sovereignty over wide areas of adjacent seas and sea bed are explicable only in the search for national security or revenue, in a desire for national aggrandizement, or in a sort of "cartohypnosis" (hypnotism by cartography), and that most of them cannot be acknowledged by the international community-the interests and rights of which should predominate. 4. Delimitation of the territorial sea and of any contiguous zones is generally feasible only in geometrical terms based on the present geographical characteristics of the shorelines. However much may be learned about the present submarine topography and about the geological past (which will far exceed the expectations of most people), "boundary" descriptions could not be expressed in submarine topographic terms analogous to the geographic terms employed in land boundary descriptions, nor should they have to await the results of accurate hydrographic surveys based on the most modern techniques.

5. New delimitation problems arise only with respect to "contiguous zones"both the seaward limits that may be established for specific purposes (supplementary zones for particular fishing privileges, mineral exploitation, etc.), and the lateral lines of jurisdiction between adjacent states. Therefore, principles and techniques should be developed and acknowledged for the delimitation of contiguous zones in the adjacent sea areas-in which coastal states will be presumed to have limited specific rights for clearly defined purposes. 6. In the exact geographical-geometrical delimitation of all the limits of the territorial sea and any contiguous zones, the following principles and techniques should prevail, and should meet the requirements of most situations (subject to modification by mutual agreement):

(a) Begin by laying down the seaward limit of the territorial sea as the envelope of the arcs of circles whose radius is equal to the width of whatever belt of sea is under consideration-whether 3 miles, or any other width-measured outwardly from the coastline in question, including all islands (properly, from the intersection of the plane of the low-water datum with the shore).

(b) Eliminate any impracticable or highly objectionable pockets of high sea that may appear in the envelope of arcs of circles, by simple, geometrical criteria.

(c) Consider the problem of bays, estuaries, ports, and other "inland waters" only after the seaward limit of the territorial sea has been laid down, and introduce a minimum number of straight lines to serve as the outer limits of inland waters, which thus serve as if they were parts of an artificial coastline in laying down the outer limit of the territorial sea. If the problem of providing a minimum belt of terrorial sea 3 miles wide (or territorial sea width) were to arise, reverse arcs from the points of intersection of the outer envelopes of arcs may be drawn (as on Fig. 2 above).

(d) Lay down the seaward limit of any contiguous zone or zones (contiguous to the territorial sea or to any zone beyond) that may be accepted by

37 A phrase employed in an article on "Mapping Some Effects of Science on Human Relations" (Scientific Monthly, Vol. 61 (1945), pp. 45-50) a subject in which the writer has had a special interest for several years.

the international community by exactly the same techniques as those used in delimiting the territorial sea. That is, it should constitute the envelope of arcs of circles of any stipulated radius, measured from the low-water datum of the coastline in question; and any objectionable pockets of high sea should be eliminated by simple, geometrical criteria.

(e) Lay down any lateral jurisdiction limit or boundary, first through the territorial sea by a single straight line (except where islands make it unfeasible) from the low-water-datum terminus of the land boundary out to the point of intersection of the envelopes of arcs of circles of 3-mile (or territorial sea width) radius from the coasts of the two states.38

(f) In extending a lateral jurisdictional limit through a "contiguous zone" out to any desired distance (beginning at the outer limit of the territorial sea), it may be laid down either on the "median line" principle (every point being equidistant from the nearest point or points on opposite shores) or as a series of straight lines connecting points of intersection of successive envelopes of arcs of radii, increasing by increments of 3 miles (or any other accepted unit) measured from the nearest points on opposite shores-that is, from the intersection of the low-water-datum plane with the coast.

Where islands are found, the following rule should be applied in determining whether they should be disregarded in laying down the lateral jurisdictional line: Draw parallel lines tangent to opposite ends or sides of the island which enclose the minimum area of water between island and mainland. If the water area subtended between island and mainland within the parallel lines is less than the area of the island, the island is taken into consideration as if it were part of the mainland. But if the water area exceeds the area of the island, the island is diregarded in laying down the lateral line through the contiguous zone.

(g) Lay down the median line, in any lake, gulf or bay (as in any river) as the line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest point or points on opposite shores, measured from the low-water datum. All islands should be disregarded except those which meet the test prescribed above in relation to the extension of any lateral jurisdiction limit through a contigu

ous zone.

(h) If the "edge of the continental shelf" is under consideration as the seaward limit of a contiguous zone, it seems advisable to indicate a specific submarine contour and to disregard the theoretical physical submarine feature. This is because the place where the continental shelf ends and the "continental slope” begins (at a perceptible increase in slope), although commonly assumed to be at 100 fathoms below sea level (alternatively at 200 meters, which is slightly more), is now believed to average about 70 to 75 fathoms (or less than 150 meters); and in some areas there is no continental shelf in the proper sense of the term. In addition, beyond the continental shelf in the strict sense there are islands with "island shelves." 7. The practical difficulties of making reliable determinations of position, in latitude and longitude, and in relation to any seaward areas which are delimited, must be taken into consideration. This is especially true in areas of "contiguous zones" from which land features are not visible from points on or very near the surface of the sea. Determination of position with accuracy is feasible in many situations and instances only by means of electronic devices (in which distances are measured in millionths of a second of time required in the transmission of electrical impulses), most if not all of which will require the establishment and maintenance of shore stations at points precisely indicated on charts, on which the limits of the "contiguous zone" are also indicated. It may be necessary to establish the obligation of the state to erect and maintain such stations (when the limits of the contiguous zone have been internationally agreed to) depending upon the nature and magnitude of the operations involved in the seaward areas. 8. Codification of the principles and techniques of delimitation of all types of boundaries of the territorial sea and any contiguous zones is highly desirable. It is also to be desired that states will publish maps or hydrographic charts showing the limits of the territorial sea, and of any contiguous zone or zones, laid down in accordance with accepted delimitation principles and techniques, and showing also the precise location of any shore stations or aids to accurate determination of position by surface or aircraft.

38 See the author's International Boundaries, Fig. 25 (p. 188), for the method of laying down such an extension of the boundary through the territorial sea. By laying down the 3-mile arcs from each country as if its neighbor's land were sea, an intersection of arcs from the two countries will be found, even where their land boundary terminates at a salient point.

80859-51-36

EXHIBITS

[Article from the New York Times, February 18, 1951]

OIL SHORTAGE SEEN FACING INDUSTRY-EXPANSION PROGRAM, COSTING BILLIONS, INVOLVES AID FROM WASHINGTON-DEPLETION RATE A FACTOR-INDUSTRY SURE OF FINANCING PROVIDED TAX CHANGES DON'T MAKE BURDEN TOO HEAVY

(By J. H. Carmical, petroleum editor, New York Times)

Despite its huge expansion since World War II it is becoming increasingly clear that the oil industry is facing a gigantic task in supplying military and civilian demand in the present emergency. In an effort to meet these demands the industry has embarked on a program to increase its capacity by an additional 1,000,000 barrels daily. The chief difficulty in meeting that goal is expected to be in the crude-oil branch. The first step is at the request of the Petroleum Administration for Defense. A committee has been appointed by the National Petroleum Council. This committee is headed by Dr. Robert E. Wilson, chairman of the Standard Oil Co. (Indiana).

The program is expected to cost billions of dollars. In addition, there will be materials and labor. However, as to materials, particularly steel, industry expects to have the aid of authorities in Washington.

Despite the huge cost, the steel industry is confident that the necessary financing can be provided by itself or through private sources provided that the tax laws are not changed so that it will have to bear too heavy a burden. Already, it is maintained that the Treasury Department's tax recommendations to Congress would make the oil industry carry an undue portion of the total tax burden.

BILLION IN REVENUE

Russell B. Brown, general counsel of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, last week estimated that if these recommendations were enacted into law, the oil industry would be asked to account for $1,000,000,000 in revenue over and above the proposed increase in rates applicable to all other corporations and individuals.

In addition to increasing the Government levy on gasoline to 3 cents a gallon from 12 cents, the Treasury would drastically reduce the 272-percent tax exemption now permitted for depletion of producing wells. Although there is some opposition to increasing the gasoline levy, which would bring the Federal take to roughly 25 percent of the refinery selling price, the chief objection, particularly to those engaged in crude oil production, is to the proposed change in the depletion provision of the law.

Mr. Brown pointed out that during the 25 years in which the present depletion rate has been in effect the oil industry has explored for, found, and produced ever-increasing supplies of crude oil. He said that Congress established the present rate of depletion, because it had to find a method and an amount "that would insure proper tax payments and at the same time not discourage capital investments in such industries."

TO ENCOURAGE RESEARCH

Originally, the depletion provision was placed in the tax law so as not to discourage the search for oil. If all the net profit resulting from the discovery of an oil well should be taxed, Congress felt that the incentive to search for oil would be lessened. For that reason, it was determined that 271⁄2 percent of the gross income resulting from the production of oil and gas wells should be exempt from income-tax payments.

556