« ÎnapoiContinuă »
appear to permit enforcement against violations occurring in the contiguous zone, but merely to permit the prevention of violations within the territory or territorial sea. However, [by] applying a reading of article 24 in conjunction with article 23 of the Convention on the High Seas and an analysis of the history of the adoption of those articles, it [has been] the opinion of the Coast Guard that the following basic principles of hot pursuit for a coastal State were established:
(a) That hot pursuit may be undertaken only if there is good reason to believe that the vessel has violated the laws and regulations of the coastal State.
(b) That hot pursuit may be undertaken for a violation within internal waters or the territorial sea of any law or regulation enacted pursuant to the sovereign authority of the coastal State. (c) That hot pursuit may be undertaken for a violation occurring within the contiguous zone only when such violation concerns the rights for the protection of which the zone was established, namely, these laws and regulations appertaining to customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary matters.
Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard Law Bulletin No. 414, June 1976, pp. 31-35. Scientific Research
U.N. Conference on Law of the Sea
Secretary of State Kissinger announced on April 8, 1976, a U.S. proposal to be made to the Law of the Sea Conference, on marine scientific research, including U.S. agreement to coastal state control of scientific research in the economic zone. The proposal was one of several put forth by Secretary Kissinger in an address to the Foreign Policy Association, the U.S. Council of the International Chamber of Commerce, and the U.N. Association at New York. The Secretary's statement relative to the marine scientific research proposal follows:
The health, the safety, and the progress of the world's people may vitally depend upon the extent of marine scientific research; it must be fostered and not impeded. To further marine scientific research the United States is prepared to agree to a reasonable balance between coastal state and international interests in marine scientific research in the economic zone. We will agree to coastal state control of scientific research which is directly related to the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the economic zone. But we shall also insist that other marine scientific research not be hampered.
We recognize that this distinction is bound to raise difficult questions in practice. This is why we believe that its determination cannot be left either to the coastal state or to the state seeking to do scientific research; it must ultimately be decided by an impartial body.
For our part, the United States is prepared to guarantee that coastal states will receive advance notice of scientific research in
the economic zone, will have the right to participate in that research, and will receive data and results of such research as well as assistance in interpreting the significance of those results.
This proposal would help resolve the differences between those who desire complete coastal state control over all marine scientific research and those who seek to maintain complete freedom for such research in the proposed economic zone.
For the full text of Secretary Kissinger's address, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1922, Apr. 26, 1976, pp. 537-538.
The revised single negotiating text (RSNT) under consideration at the fifth session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, August-September 1976, requires consent of the coastal state for all scientific research in the economic zone, but provides that the coastal state may withhold its consent only for certain specified scientific research activities. The U.S. Delegation Report for the session summarized the U.S. position and the negotiations on the subject as follows:
The U.S. position is that there should not be an overall consent requirement, but consent should be required only for specified marine scientific research activities; other scientific research activities should be conducted upon compliance with specified criteria designed to protect coastal state interests. These criteria include advance notification to the coastal state, their participating in the research project, and sharing of data and samples. In addition, the United States has also sought to ensure that practical protections for researching and coastal states are improved. These protections include an effective tacit consent procedure and application of binding dispute settlement procedures to all disputes concerning scientific research.
Most developing coastal countries supported a consent regime of some type for scientific research. Only one or two countries continued to argue for a total, unqualified discretionary consent regime. Most urged, as a compromise, an overall consent requirement with a specific list of criteria for denying consent. In particular, there was a general willingness to remove from the criteria research projects which interfere with economic activities, provided that a clear treaty obligation on researching states not to interfere was included.
On the question of tacit consent, there were only a few reservations with most delegations indicating that this was not an issue of principle.
Secretary Kissinger met with a number of delegates to discuss scientific research in an effort to find an acceptable compromise. He underscored the importance of the issue to the United States and the strong opposition to ratification of the treaty by the American scientific community which could result if the present text is not changed.
U.S. Delegation Report, 3d U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, 5th Sess., Aug. 2-Sept. 17, 1976, pp. 14-15, Dept. of State File D/LOS. For the RSNT produced at the 4th Sess., Mar. 15-May 7, 1976, see U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev. 1/Part III, May 6, 1976, pp. 24-31.
Sea Grant Program
Section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-461; 90 Stat. 1969; 33 U.S.C. 1124a), approved October 8, 1976, provides for international cooperation assistance in research and development of ocean and coastal resources, and authorizes for the purpose up to $3 million for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977, to remain available until expended. Subsections (a) and (b) of section 3 are set out below:
(a) In General.-The Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this section referred to as the "Secretary") may enter into contracts and make grants under this section to
(1) enhance the research and development capability of developing foreign nations with respect to ocean and coastal resources, as such term is defined in section 203 of the national Sea Grant Program Act; and
(2) promote the international exchange of information and data with respect to the assessment, development, utilization, and conservation of such resources. (b) Eligibility and Procedure. Any sea grant college and sea grant regional consortium (as defined in section 203 of the National Sea Grant Program Act) and any institution of higher education, laboratory, or institute (if such institution, laboratory, or institute is located within any State (as defined in such section 203) may apply for and receive financial assistance under this section. Each grant or contract under this section shall be made pursuant to such requirements as the Secretary shall, after consultation with the Secretary of State, by regulation prescribe. Application shall be made in such form, and with such content and other submissions, as may be so required. Before approving any application for a grant or contract under this section, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of State. Any grant made, or contract entered into, under this section shall be subject to the limitations and provisions set forth in section 205 (d) (2) and (4) of the National Sea Grant Program Act and to such other terms, conditions, and requirements as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate.
U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters
Richard D. Vine, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Canadian Affairs, wrote to the Secretary of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, on July 14, 1976, in response to a letter from the Commission regarding "the constructive possibilities in the use of prior notification and consultation with
respect to projects along the common frontier that might lead to serious changes in water uses, water quality, and air quality." Mr. Vine's letter stated:
Both the United States and Canada have accepted the desirability of prior notification and consultation in our bilateral relations. In a notable speech before the Canadian Institute for International Affairs on January 23, 1975, at Winnipeg, Secretary of State for External Affairs Allan MacEachen made specific reference to this principle, emphasizing the importance of advance consultation, and noting its tendency to diminish misunderstandings on both sides of the international boundary. Mr. MacEachen likewise stressed that such consultations are an important element in maintaining healthy bilateral relations, and he has continued to reiterate these points since.
The U.S. Government shares this position fully. In his initial speech as U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Ambassador Thomas O. Enders fully endorsed this principle. A specific case in point in which this principle has been applied involved the St. Mary's ice boom. Formal notification was given by the U.S. Government to the Government of Canada with respect to the project, and the Canadian Government in turn requested consultations. These measures helped assure that sound technical expertise could be brought to bear in advance of implementation to ensure that decisions of both Governments were based on fact and sound judgment.
In addition to the use of the Commission mechanism over the past half century, bilateral agreements also reflect the importance both Governments place on the principle of institutionalizing prior notification and consultation. A recent example is article IX(2) of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement [TIAS 7312; 23 UST 301] which provides that "When a party becomes aware of a special pollution problem that is of joint concern and requires an immediate response, it shall notify and consult the other party forthwith about appropriate remedial action." Similarly, the 1975 agreement relating to the exchange of information on weather modification [TIAS 8056; 26 UST 540] provides in article IV that "Each party agrees to notify and to fully inform the other concerning any weather modification activities of mutual interest ... every effort shall be made to provide such notice as far in advance of such activities as may be possible. . . ." Article V of the same agreement provides in pertinent part that "The parties agree to consult, at the request of either party, regarding particular weather modification activities of mutual interest. Such consultations shall be initiated promptly on the request of a party, and in cases of urgency may be undertaken through telephonic or other rapid means of communication."
Both the United States and Canadian Governments have also strongly supported the principle of advance notification and consultation in international fora. In this regard, and in addition to the Stockholm principles and recommendations for action men
tioned in your letter, both nations were strong supporters of Title E, Principle of Information and Consultation, which was accepted by the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] in 1974. The Principle reads in relevant part:
Countries should refrain from carrying out projects or activities which might create a significant risk of transfrontier pollution without first informing the countries which are or may be affected and, except in cases of extreme urgency, providing a reasonable amount of time in the light of circumstances for diligent consultation.
Likewise, at a January meeting of the UNEP [United Nations Environment Program] Working Group on Shared Natural Resources in Nairobi, representatives of both Governments supported a draft principle of conduct concerning timely notification and consultation.
On the bilateral level, representatives of the two Governments, mindful of the importance of not creating duplicative or excessively burdensome new procedures or regulations, have met and discussed potential measures for enhancing prior notification and consultation. As the Commission is aware, both Federal governments must take into account constitutional and legal questions insofar as any such measures might affect actions by States, provinces, other local governments or actions by private parties. While discussions between governments have focused on the utility of more formal mechanisms to help ensure prior notification and coordination of environmental assessments on projects of the Federal governments, or projects involving Federal licensing, regulation or funding, the Commission should be aware that on May 18 Environmental Protection Agency Administrator [Russell] Train and then Environment Minister Marchand agreed on the need for more regular exchanges of information on projects with potential transboundary impacts. As the Commission will appreciate, the complexities of developing more formal mechanisms are many, and serious questions remain to be answered as to the practicability of any given system.
In this regard, the U.S. Government wishes to note the useful role the International Joint Commission has played in calling to the attention of governments potential problems along the common boundary which could call into question the mutual commitments of governments under the Boundary Waters Treaty [TS 548; 36 Stat. 2448; 12 Bevans 319]. Indeed, the Commission would be remiss in its duties if it were not to draw to the attention of governments matters of potential interest to governments which come to the attention of the Commission in the course of its normal activities. It is clearly in the long term interest of both Governments to address potential problems at an early date, and to call upon the Commission for assistance on appropriate occasions.
Dept of State File No. P77 0019-1803.
On July 26, 1976, Deputy Assistant Secretary Vine wrote a letter to the Secretary of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, taking issue with the Commission's