The Wrangell sentinel., 1939-01-06
GOVERNMENTS HAVE RIGHT
EXTEND COAST JURISDICTION

The opinion that established in
ternational law denies the right Of.
governments to extend their juris-
dfctfon for specific purposes for
more than three miles from their
coast, and SO prevents the control
of fisheries beyond this distanceI
does not accord with any sound
view of state practice or of the ma
ture of international law says Jo=I
seph Walter Bingham, professor Of
law at Stanford University in his
recently released Report on the In
ternational Law of Pacific Coastal
Fisheries.
Professor Bingham traces the his
torical development of the three
mile doctrine pointing out that it is
a policy developed and persistently
advocated by the British to further
their commercial, naval, and fish
ing interests. The United States has
also supported this rule when local
interests have deemed it adYanta-
geous. Japan and Germany also have
used it to their own advantage, but
smaller nations have very generally
opposed this rule,
Pointing up his theses that no
multilateral traties are necessary to
extend United States jurisdiction
over the fishery OF Bristol Bay or
other coastal regions. and that the
declaration of a national policy in
this area can be made effective, Pro-
lessor Bingham says:
TO an unprejudieed student OF
history and of present world af-
fairs. it is abundantly apparent Ia
that there never has been and Is
not today any general agreement on
the extent of territorial waters, tb)
that no state ever has applied con
sistently a uniform limit for all
purposes to the zone of its coastal
sea jurisdiction, (e) that it always
has been the opinion of realistic ex-
perts that if definite limits are set
to marginal seas jurisdiction those
limits should be different for differ
ent purposes, and that there is no
legality of control over coastal
fisheries beyond a three-mile zone
of marginal sea or other conceded
territorial area"
He points out that the Bristol
Bay situation gives our government,
particularly in cooperation with
Canada, a remarkable opportunity
for the development of adequate
principles of law regarding valuable
natural resources which may be
wasted by unrestrained exploitation.
He suggests that a just policy IN
such circumstances is one which
would give justice to particular
claims, promote peace and order,
and provide beneficial use and con-
servation. Obviously, the three mile
doctrine does not do any of these
things in the Bristol Bay salmon
situation.
After tracing the history of the
three mile limit doctrine, and
, pointing out many instances in
which it has not been regarded as
fast rule even by the British gov
eminent when the interests of that
rule, Professor Bingham declares
| that the three mile limit is not a
matter of legal obligation, but mere
ly one of policy. He states that our
government may modify this doc
trine when it becomes important in
furthering our interests to do SO.
"'If the exercise of governmental
power beyond the three mile limit
is necessary to protect those fish
cries against damage, the exercise
of that power should be legitimate,
/ just as a similar exercise of power
in protection of the revenue laws
or defense of its neutral coast
against belligerent activities or I'M
lawful depredations of other sorts is
legitimate" he declares.
mo state ever has abandoned a
claim as important and strong as
the American claim to control of
the Bristol Bay salmon fishery ex-
cept under pressure of superior
force"