289. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State’s Special Assistant
(Sanders) to Robert
L. Burns of the Executive Secretariat1
Washington, November 1,
1957.
SUBJECT
- Conference on the Law of the Sea
As agreed over the telephone I enclose summaries of the discussions at the
meeting with the Under Secretary on Monday, October 28, 1957.2 The summaries have
been prepared by the persons participating in the discussions. I also attach
a rough suggested outline indicating the sequence of the discussion.3 I do not suggest
that all the material offered by the participants be included in your
summary.
[Here follows a suggested distribution list.]
[Annex A]
Outline for Memorandum of Discussion Prepared by the Under Secretary
of State’s Special Assistant (Sanders)
The Under Secretary explained to the representatives of the Departments
of Defense and Interior that the meeting had been called to consider two
questions of policy concerning the positions to be taken at the
Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Law of the Sea. These issues
related to the procedure of arbitration [abstention?] and the possibility of the acceptance of a
limited contiguous zone for
[Page 582]
fisheries, as an alternative to wide-spread claims to an extension of
the territorial sea.
Disagreement within the Department of State had been provisionally
resolved on these two questions as follows:
- (1)
- that with reference to abstention, pre-Conference negotiations
be undertaken as a preliminary step in determining the final
position of the Government at the Conference;
- (2)
- that on the question of contiguous zones for fisheries,
guarded inquiries be undertaken to ascertain the attitude of key
governments towards such a measure as a preliminary step in
determining the final position of the US.
Abstention
With regard to abstention, Interior agreed ….4 (insert paragraphs 2, 3
and 4 of Interior’s memorandum of October 30).
Representatives of the Department of Defense were of the view that
abstention …. (first paragraph of Defense’s memorandum).
Mr. Herrington explained that ….
(insert first paragraph of summary of Mr. Herrington’s remarks).
The Undersecretary was not sure just how abstention could be incorporated
in the agreements of the Conference in the form of a rule of
international law but he saw the advantages of the proposed diplomatic
discussions as a practical step in determining the position the US
should take on the matter.
Contiguous Zones for
Fisheries
With regard to the re-examination of the US position on contiguous zones
for fisheries, Interior pointed out …. (insert final two paragraphs of
Interior’s summary of views).
The Defense representative stated that it was a claim to sovereignty ….
(insert last paragraphs (two) of Defense summary).
Mr. Herrington said that Defense
had expressed …. (insert final paragraph of summary of Mr. Herrington’s remarks).
The Under Secretary summarized the discussions and stated his
understanding that there was no disagreement on the recommendations that
pre-Conference diplomatic discussions be undertaken on these two
questions. He proposed that the group meet again at the end of 1957 to
review the results of the diplomatic discussions.
[Page 583]
[Annex C]
Defense’s Summary
At the meeting on the question of abstention which was held in the Office
of Under Secretary Christian
Herter, on 28 October 1957, and attended by
representatives of State, Interior and Defense, Rear Admiral Chester
Ward made the following comments.
That abstention was not a recognized principle of international law.
Under the circumstances, it would be helpful to contact friendly nations
and learn whether they would support such a principle before deciding
whether it should be made a part of the U.S. position on the Law of the
Sea.
He also stated that it was the claim to sovereignty over broad belts of
the high seas that constituted a major threat to our national security
interests and hence of concern to the Department of Defense. That it
would be well, under the circumstances, to consider other means of
meeting the demands of coastal states concerning fishing in coastal
waters, such as the contiguous zone concept which has been suggested by
the Canadians.
In connection with Interior’s desire that the security disadvantages of
an extension of the territorial sea be weighed against the disadvantages
to the fishing industry of the establishment of the 12 mile contiguous
zone for fisheries, he was unable to see how such a weighing of
disparate matters could be accomplished. The security interests of the
US must outweigh all other considerations.
[Annex D]
Summary by Mr. Herrington—U/FW
With reference to abstention, Mr. Herrington explained that the procedure evolved from the
rapid development of long range fishing operations which made high seas
fisheries accessible to an increasing number of states. He indicated
that the concept is a novel and somewhat complex procedure in the
conservation field; that its presentation as a proposed general rule
must be accompanied by a good deal of educational work with other
countries both prior to and during the 1958 Conference before
international support for the concept can be appraised.
Defense had expressed concern that “abstention” would impinge upon
freedom of fishing, one of the freedoms of the seas, and might therefore
open the door to limitations on freedom of navigation with
[Page 584]
detrimental effect on the
security interests of the United States. Mr. Herrington pointed out that “abstention” had reference
to stocks of fish and not to areas of the seas and said that he found it
difficult to see how the concept offered any greater opportunity for the
appropriation of high seas than the proposition of a contiguous zone for
fisheries which Defense apparently was willing to support as a means of
lessening pressures for extended territorial waters.
