and many other maritime nations as three geographical miles and within it the sovereignty of the coastal nation is now recognized as supreme, subject to the right of innocent passage by peaceful foreign vessels.

10. Except for the extravagant claims of the Stuart kings to ownership of the entire seabed of the English seas, claims which died with the end of their dynasty, the law of England prior to 1783, in conformity with international law, recognized claims, to the ownership of the seabed only on the basis of prescription or actual occupation by the claimant.

11. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ownership of the bed of the territorial sea came to be generally recognized without regard to prescription or actual occupation.

12. The charters given to the companies and individuals who were the proprietors and founders of the Colonies which later became the defendant States granted territory on the mainland bounded by the Atlantic Ocean but did not graut maritime sovereignty or dominion over a territorial sea, a concept then unknown, or property rights in the seabed or its resources.

13. The colonial activities in their marginal seas prior to 1776 were almost entirely limited to fishing in waters close to shore involving the use of shorebased facilities and to the regulation of these and other activities as carried on by the colonists therein. They did not involve any claim to ownership of the seabed.

14. The admiralty jurisdiction exercised by colonial admiralty courts prior to 1696 and by royal courts of admiralty sitting in the Colonies after that date was not territorial in nature.

15. Colonial law and practice prior to 1776 do not support the claim that property rights to the seabed of the marginal sea seaward for 100 miles or any lesser distance had been granted to the Colonies or that such rights were exercised by them except in a few cases where portions of the seabed within the three-mile limit were actually occupied.

16. When in 1776 the American Colonies achieved independence and when in 1783 the Treaty of Peace was concluded neither the Crown nor the Colonies individually had any right of ownership of the seabed of the sea adjacent to the American coast, except for those limited areas, if any, which they had actually occupied.

17. From and after July 4, 1776, the date of independence, the United States of America, under the Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation and under the Constitution, constituted a Union of internally independent States with a national government to which were delegated certain powers including the powers associated with external sovereignty such as the conduct of foreign relations, of defense and of foreign commerce.

18. If the English Crown in 1776 had any remaining rights to sovereignty of the marginal seas and ownership of the seabed off the coasts of the Colonies, which I do not find that it did have, those rights would have passed at independence and under the Treaty of Peace of 1783 to the National Government as the holder of the external sovereignty of the United States and not to the several States.

19. If the States in 1789 had any rights to sovereignty of the marginal sea and ownership of the seabed off their coasts which they had received in any manner, which I do not find that they did have, those rights would have been lost to the National Government upon their ratification of the Constitution.

20. Sovereign jurisdiction of the three-mile belt of territorial sea and ownership of its seabed became vested in the United States, rather than in the States, when, after 1776, the concept of the territorial sea was recognized and its extent defined by the National Government.

21. The preponderance of the evidence in the present proceeding confirms the accuracy of the following statements of historical fact made by this Court in United States v. California, 1947, 332 U.S. 19, 31-33:

"It would unduly prolong our opinion to discuss in detail the multitude of references to which the able briefs of the parties have cited us with reference to the evolution of powers over marginal seas exercised by adjacent countries. From all the wealth of material supplied, however, we cannot say that the Thirteen Original Colonies separately acquired ownership to the three-mile belt or the soil under it, even if they did acquire elements of the sovereignty

of the English Crown by their revolution against it. Cf. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 316.

"At the time this country won its independence from England there was no settled international custom or understanding among nations that each nation owned a three-mile water belt along its borders. Some countries, notably England, Spain, and Portugal, had, from time to time, made sweeping claims to a right of dominion over wide expanses of ocean. And controversies had arisen among nations about rights to fish in prescribed areas. But when this Nation was formed, the idea of a three-mile belt over which a littoral nation could exercise rights of ownership was but a nebulous suggestion. Neither the English charters granted to this Nation's settlers, nor the Treaty of Peace with England, nor any other document to which we have been referred, showed a purpose to set apart a three-mile ocean belt for colonial or State ownership. Those who settled this country were interested in lands upon which to live, and waters upon which to fish and sail. There is no substantial support in history for the idea that they wanted or claimed a right to block off the ocean's bottom for private ownership and use in the extraction of its wealth.

"It did happen that shortly after we became a Nation our statesmen became interested in establishing national dominion over a definite marginal zone to protect our neutrality. Largely as a result of their efforts, the idea of a definite three-mile belt in which an adjacent nation can, if it chooses, exercise broad, if not complete deminion, has apparently at last been generally accepted throughout the world, although as late as 1876 there was still considerable doubt in England about its scope and even its existence. See The Queen v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63. . . .”

22. Prior to the Proclamation of September 28, 1945, by President Truman, 59 Stat. 884, rights to the resources of the seabed beyond territorial waters could be obtained only on the basis of prescription or actual occupation and neither the United States nor the defendant States had made any such claim. 23. The Truman Proclamation of 1945 for the first time claimed for the United States jurisdiction and control over the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf beyond the three-mile limit of the territorial sea off the coasts of the United States. The Proclamation initiated a new rule of international law in this regard.

24. This claim was validly made by and on behalf of the United States under its powers of external sovereignty and did not inure to the individual benefit of any of the Atlantic Coastal States.

25. By the Submerged Lands Act of May 22, 1953, 67 Stat. 29, the United States confirmed to and vested in the defendant States the seabed and the resources of the territorial sea within three geographical miles of their respective coastlines. The right to the resources of the seabed in these areas being now vested in the defendant States, claims with respect thereto are not involved in this proceeding.

26. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 validly limited to a width of three geographical miles the marginal band of sea the seabed of which it confirmed and vested in the defendant States, even though the Act granted to the States situated on the Gulf of Mexico seabed rights within their recognized historic boundaries out to three marine leagues.

27. Under the Truman Proclamation, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, and the Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1964, the United States has the right, as against the defendant States, to the resources of the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf beyond the three-mile limit of territorial sea off the Atlantic coast.

28. The States of Rhode Island and North Carolina were not wholly independent nations and did not have external sovereignty during the period between the operative date of the Federal Government under the Constitution and the subsequent dates when they, respectively, ratified the Constitution. 29. The State of Georgia did not acquire the resources of the seabed under its boundary settlement of 1802 with the United States.

30. Since it does not appear that any exploration or exploitation of the bed of the continental shelf has been carried on by the licensee of the State of

Maine or that any payments have been made by it to that State, an accounting by that State to the United States in that regard is not now required.

31. The United States is entitled to judgment in this proceeding.

32. The costs of suit, including the expenses of the special master, should be borne by the twelve defendant States in equal shares. (at pp. 75-81)

The United States draft articles on the economic zone and the continental shelf, introduced on August 8, 1974, at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at Caracas, include draft articles 11-21 on fisheries, as follows:

PART II. FISHERIES

Article 11. General

The coastal state exercises exclusive rights for the purpose of regulating fishing within the economic zone, subject to the provisions of these articles.

Article 12. Conservation

1. The coastal state shall ensure the conservation of renewable resources within the economic zone.

2. For this purpose, the coastal state shall apply the following principles:

(a) allowable catch and other conservation measures shall be established which are designed, on the best evidence available to the coastal state, to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, taking into account relevant environmental and economic factors, and any generally agreed global and regional minimum standards;

(b) such measures shall take into account effects on species associated with or dependent upon harvested species and at a minimum, shall be designed to maintain or restore populations of such associated or dependent species above levels at which they may become threatened with extinction;

(c) for this purpose, scientific information, catch and fishing effort statistics, and other relevant data shall be contributed and exchanged on a regular basis;

(d) conservation measures and their implementation shall not discriminate in form or fact against any fisherman. Conservation measures shall remain in force pending the settlement, in accordance with the provisions of chapter. of any disagreement as to their validity.

Article 13. Utilization

1. The coastal state shall ensure the full utilization of renewable resources within the economic zone.

2. For this purpose, the coastal state shall permit nationals of other states to fish for that portion of the allowable catch of the

renewable resources not fully utilized by its nationals, subject to the conservation measures adopted pursuant to article 12, and on the basis of the following priorities:

(a) States that have normally fished for a resource, subject to the conditions of paragraph 3;

(b) States in the region, particularly land-locked states and states with limited access to living resources off their coast; and

(c) all other states.

The coastal state may establish reasonable regulations and require the payment of reasonable fees for this purpose.

3. The priority under paragraph 2 (a) above shall be reasonably related to the extent of fishing by such state. Whenever necessary to reduce such fishing in order to accommodate an increase in the harvesting capacity of a coastal state, such reduction shall be without discrimination, and the coastal state shall enter into consultations for this purpose at the request of the state or states concerned with a view to minimizing adverse economic consequences of such reduction.

4. The coastal state may consider foreign nationals fishing pursuant to arrangements under articles 14 and 15 as nationals of the coastal state for purposes of paragraph 2 above.

Article 14. Neighboring Coastal States

Neighboring coastal states may allow each others' nationals the right to fish in a specified area of their respective economic zones on the basis of reciprocity, or long and mutually recognized usage, or economic dependence of a state or region thereof on exploitation of the resources of that area. The modalities of the exercise of this right shall be settled by agreement between the states concerned. Such right cannot be transferred to third parties.

Article 15. Land-locked States

Nationals of a land-locked state shall enjoy the privilege to fish in the neighboring area of the economic zone of the adjoining coastal state on the basis of equality with the nationals of that state. The modalities of the enjoyment of this privilege shall be settled by agreement between the parties concerned.

Article 16. International Cooperation Among States

1. States shall cooperate in the elaboration of global and regional standards and guidelines for the conservation, allocation, and rational management of living resources directly or within the framework of appropriate international and regional fisheries organizations.

2. Coastal states of a region shall, with respect to fishing for identical or associated species, agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and equitable allocation of such species.

3. Coastal states shall give to all affected states timely notice of any conservation, utilization and allocation regulations prior to their implementation, and shall consult with such states at their request.

Article 17. Assistance to Developing Countries

An international register of independent fisheries experts shall be established and maintained by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Any developing state party to the Convention desiring assistance may select an appropriate number of such experts to serve as fishery management advisers to that state.

Article 18. Anadromous Species

1. Fishing for anadromous species seaward of the territorial sea (both within and beyond the economic zone) is prohibited, except as authorized by the state of origin in accordance with articles 12 and 13.

2. States through whose internal waters or territorial sea anadromous species migrate shall cooperate with the state of origin in the conservation and utilization of such species.

Article 19. Highly Migratory Species

Fishing for highly migratory species shall be regulated in accordance with the following principles:

A. Management. Fishing for highly migratory species listed in Annex A within the economic zone shall be regulated by the coastal state, and beyond the economic zone by the state of nationality of the vessel, in accordance with regulations established by appropriate international or regional fishing organizations pursuant to this article.

(1) All coastal states in the region, and any other state whose flag vessels harvest a species subject to regulation by the organization, shall participate in the organization. If no such organization has been established, such states shall establish one.

(2) Regulations of the organization in accordance with this article shall apply to all vessels fishing the species regardless of their nationality.

B. Conservation. The organization shall, on the basis of the best scientific evidence available, establish allowable catch and other conservation measures in accordance with the principles of article 12.

C. Allocation. Allocation regulations of the organization shall be designed to ensure full utilization of the allowable catch and equitable sharing by member states.

(1) Allocations shall take into account the special interests of the coastal state within whose economic zone highly migratory species are caught, and shall for this purpose apply the following principles within and beyond the economic zone: [insert appropriate principles].

(2) Allocations shall be designed to minimize adverse economic consequences in a state or region thereof.

D. Fees. The coastal state shall receive reasonable fees for fish caught by foreign vessels in its economic zone, with a view to making an effective contribution to coastal state fisheries management and development programs. The organization shall establish rules