Opinion ID: 1418766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: general legal setting

Text: It has long been held that for most purposes, the nation's territorial limits are set at a point three miles distant from the low water line on the coast. [8] Although the United States and international law have historically recognized some limited exercise of sovereign authority beyond this point (e.g., for control of smuggling), the three-mile territorial boundary has enjoyed continued and general favor for a great many years. For the United States, the first significant departure from this policy came in 1945, when President Truman issued a proclamation stating that the United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control. [9] This proclamation explicitly referred only to the mineral resources of the continental shelf. At the same time, the President issued a separate proclamation [10] expressing this nation's concern with inadequate management of the fisheries resources near our coasts, and announcing that the Government of the United States regards it as proper to establish conservation zones in those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coasts of the United States wherein fishing activities have been or in the future may be developed and maintained on a substantial scale. This proclamation merely announced this principle, however, and did not establish any such fisheries conservation zones. It was not until 1966 that any step of this sort was taken. In that year Congress passed the Contiguous Fisheries Zone Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1091-94, which established a 12-mile zone within which the United States exercises the same exclusive rights in respect to fisheries in the zone as it has in its territorial sea... . [11] Except as modified by treaty, the United States' jurisdiction over fisheries remains at this point today, [12] despite increasing calls for establishment of a 200-mile fisheries zone. Meanwhile, before 1947, there had been a general assumption that the seaward boundaries of the coastal states extended to the outer edges of the three-mile limit. In 1947, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. California (First California), [13] reversed this assumption by ruling that the states' authority ends at the low-water mark, and that from that point to the three-mile limit the territorial sea was an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction. (The dispute in that case centered upon the issue of the proprietary exploitation of undersea oil reserves, but the court's opinion was essentially premised upon a recognition of the need for a unified national authority in an area so inextricably subject to defense and international relations considerations; it was concluded that the United States' paramount responsibilities thereto gave rise to its paramount authority in the area.) The result of the First California case was reversed by Congress in 1953 when it passed the Submerged Lands Act (SLA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-15. [14] This act confirmed proprietary title in each state to the lands and resources, including fish, beneath and within the navigable waters of the state, and placed the outer boundaries of the coastal states at the seaward edge of the three-mile limit. In the same session, Congress also passed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-43, which began as an amendment to the Submerged Lands Act but was ultimately separated from it before its passage as a separate act. For purposes of this appeal, the heart of the OCSLA is § 1332, which reads: (a) It is declared to be the policy of the United States that the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf appertain to the United States and are subject to its jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition as provided in this subchapter. (b) This subchapter shall be construed in such manner that the character as high seas of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the right to navigation and fishing therein shall not be affected. Just exactly what the phrase subsoil and seabed includes is a major question in this case. The Submerged Lands Act uses the phrase lands beneath navigable waters ... and the natural resources within such lands and waters (43 U.S.C. § 1311(a)), and the term natural resources is defined to include fish and crabs (43 U.S.C. § 1301(e)). The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, however, does not refer to organic resources, nor does it define clearly its scope with respect to such resources. Also of relevance in this case are the numerous treaties regarding North Pacific fisheries. We take note of the fact that there are now eleven such treaties, affecting species which account for 96 per cent of the value of the manufactured products of Alaska's commercial fisheries. [15] The two treaties which are most relevant here are the United States  U.S.S.R. King Crab Agreement and the United States Japan Coniguous Fishery Zone Agreement. Both of these regulate crabbing by Japan and the Soviet Union in that portion of the Bering Sea east of the United States  Russia Convention Line of 1867. Although the Russians are not now exercising their rights to a limited crab season under the agreement, the Japanese apparently do. Although a number of bills have been introduced in Congress to create a comprehensive fisheries management scheme for the Outer Continental Shelf, none has passed to date.