passage. Beyond that limit, the U.S. regulations would be binding on foreign citizens only to the extent consistent with international law." Section 922.13 provides that "The designation of a marine sanctuary will not infringe upon the normal rights of innocent passage in territorial waters, the rights of navigation through international straits, or the freedoms of the high seas, including freedom of navigation." The new regulations also include sections dealing with nomination of marine areas for consideration as a designated marine sanctuary, analysis of the nominations, public participation and the consultation process within State and Federal agencies, designation, operation, revision, certification of other activities, and enforcement provisions.

For the full text of the regulations, see the Fed. Reg., Vol. 39, No. 125, June 27, 1974, pp. 23254-23257.

U.S.-Canada

Bilateral Agreements

On June 19, 1974, the United States and Canada signed an agreement on contingency plans for spills of oil and other noxious substances (TIAS 7861; 25 UST 1280; entered into force June 19, 1974). Under the agreement the joint Canada-United States Marine Contingency Plan for spills of oil and other noxious substances is to be promulgated and administered by the Canadian Ministry of Transport and by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Plan, which was published separately, is to be maintained in force, as amended from time to time, to coordinate responses to significant pollution threats to the waters covered by the provisions of the Plan.

The agreement provides that maintenance of the Plan and actions. thereunder will be "without prejudice to the positions of the Governments of the United States and of Canada, with respect to coastal state jurisdiction over pollution, and without prejudice to any other positions of the two governments regarding the extent of territorial or maritime jurisdiction."

The purpose of the Plan, which covers certain waters of the Great Lakes, the Atlantic Coast, and the Pacific Coast, is to "provide for coordinated and integrated response to pollution incidents by Federal, State, provincial and regional plans of both Parties." The objectives are "(a) to develop the appropriate measures of preparedness and systems for the discovery and reporting of a pollution incident within the areas covered by the various Annexes to the Plan; (b) to institute prompt measures to restrict the further spread of oil or other noxious substance; and (c) to provide adequate resources to respond to a pollution incident." A pollution incident is defined by the Plan as "a spill or the threat of an imminent spill of oil or any other noxious substance of such magnitude or significance as to require an immediate response to contain, clean up and/or dispose

of the substance in order to remove the threat to or to minimize the adverse effect on the public health or welfare."

The Plan provides for "On-Scene Commanders" and deputies to coordinate activities to control a spill and for "Joint Response Teams" to provide advice and assistance to the On-Scene Commanders. The Plan establishes alerting and notification procedures, command structure, post-clean-up requirements and arrangements for financing the operations. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Marine Transportation Administration are the "lead agencies" and are to be assisted by other national agencies as appropriate and when required. The two agencies are empowered to amend jointly the Plan as necessary subject to the proviso that any amendment is to be consistent with the purpose and objectives as agreed to by both Parties in Annex 8 of the 1972 Canada-United States Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality (TIAS 7312; 23 UST 301 ; entered into force Apr. 15, 1972). For the full text of the Plan, see Dept. of State File L/T.

On March 14, 1974, John Norton Moore, Chairman of the NSC Interagency Task Force on the Law of the Sea and Deputy Special Representative of the President for the Law of the Sea Conference, reviewed the United States position in the Law of the Sea negotiations before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law. With respect to marine scientific research, Mr. Moore said, in part:

Marine research has benefited all mankind and will become even more important in the years ahead as we seek greater information needed for adequate protection and rational use of the marine environment. While international law generally recognizes freedom of research beyond the territorial sea, the existing Continental Shelf Convention subjects research concerning the continental shelf and undertaken there to the consent of the coastal state. The Shelf Convention, though, also creates an obligation normally not to withhold consent if the request is submitted by a qualified institution with a view to purely scientific research into the physical or biological characteristics of the continental shelf. There is a further proviso that the coastal state shall have the right if it so desires, to participate or to be represented in the research and that in any event the results shall be published.

Unfortunately, the experience with the Shelf Convention regime for scientific research has not been good. Some states have arbitrarily denied consent. Others have imposed burdensome conditions on research or simply not replied to the request for permission. On the basis of this experience we feel that it is preferable to meet the legitimate concerns of coastal nations by creating a series of obligations binding on the researching nations, rather than by giving coastal nations the right to withhold consent. Accordingly, we have

proposed that a nation planning a research voyage in areas where the coastal state has resource jurisdiction should be required to provide the concerned coastal nations with reasonable advance notification of its intent to engage in research off their shores. Researching states would certify that the research will be conducted in accordance with the treaty by a qualified institution with a view to purely scientific research.

They would also ensure that the coastal state had all appropriate opportunities to participate or be represented in the research project directly or through an appropriate international institution; that all data and samples were shared with the coastal state; that significant research results were suitably published; that the coastal state was assisted in assessing the data and results and that there was compliance with all applicable international environmental standards. We believe this approach achieves a better balance between the interests of coastal nations and the international community than a consent regime. Similarly, we are convinced that this approach is in the common interest of all nations in better promoting a free flow of scientific knowledge about the earth we share in common.

Hearings before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1974; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXX, No. 1816, Apr. 15, 1974, pp. 397-402. See also the 1973 Digest, Ch. 7, § 10, pp. 295–297. The 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf is at TIAS 5578; 15 UST 471 (entered into force for the United States June 10, 1964).

On July 19, 1974, Ambassador John R. Stevenson, Special Representative of the President, and U.S. Representative to the Law of the Sea Conference, made a statement on marine scientific research within an agreed economic zone to Committee III of the Conference. The following are excerpts:

We have previously indicated that the coastal state should have the right to authorize and regulate scientific research in the territorial sea. In the area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, the present right to conduct research should continue, as reflected in the Declaration of Principles adopted by the General Assembly in 1970. Similarly, it is clear that coastal states should have jurisdiction to control commercial exploration in the economic zone. The basic question is the regime for scientific research in the economic zone adjacent to the territorial sea.

If an economic zone is established at a distance of 200 miles from the coast, at least one-third of the ocean will be included in this zone of particular importance to scientists. This Conference has before it two fundamental questions regarding marine science. First, we must determine whether to foster the conduct of marine science; second, we must decide how other interests are to be accommodated with respect to the conduct of marine science.

many states have called for a coastal state right of consent for research in the zone. Few countries in the world have the long coastlines characteristic of the United States and some of its neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Frequently, valid and useful scientific research can be conducted off these lengthy coasts even though neighboring states may refuse to grant consent for research. This is not the case, however, for many countries in other parts of the world. For example, how could any research scientist undertake a meaningful study of the Guinea current in the Gulf of Guinea if only some of the coastal states gave consent? How can data from different areas of the world be compared in order to formulate new hypotheses about the unknown?

marine scientific research will not be fostered by a consent regime. In many cases, such a regime will simply preclude the research or undermine the validity of the scientific findings. In others, it will make the research more expensive, with the obvious consequence that less research will be conducted. As has been often stated, oceanic processes do not respect manmade jurisdictional boundaries. Scientific investigation of such oceanic phenomena as currents generally requires research off the coasts of many countries. If several states give their consent and others withhold consent, the research most likely will simply not be conducted. Non-consenting and consenting states alike will be denied knowledge that otherwise would have been obtained from this research.

we must ensure that scientific knowledge flows not only to the coastal state and the researching state but to all mankind. To do otherwise would remove essential building blocks of science and widen the gap between developing and developed countries.

.. Last summer, we set forth a draft treaty proposal for research in the economic zone. That proposal does not call for freedom of scientific research, nor does it deny the rights of the coastal state. Rather, our proposal sets forth a series of coastal state rights. These rights are expressed in the following obligations with which a researcher must comply if he wishes to conduct research in the zone:

-Advance notification of the proposed research, including a detailed description of the research project;

-A right of the coastal state to participate directly or through an international organization of its choice;

-Sharing of all data and samples with the coastal state;

-Assistance to the coastal state in interpreting the results of the research project in a manner that is relevant to the coastal state;

-Publication as soon as possible of the significant research results in an open, readily available scientific publication;

-Compliance with all applicable international environmental standards; and

-Flag state certification that the research will be conducted in accordance with the treaty by a qualified institution with a view to purely scientific research.

We have tried in the listing of obligations to meet the legitimate concerns of coastal states. We studied national laws of other states in compiling the list. Perhaps we have not been successful in phrasing or listing every obligation that should be included. If there are other obligations that some feel should be included, these obligations should be discussed, and, if found meritorious, included in the treaty.

*

To ensure protection of the environment of the economic zone, researchers would be required to comply with all applicable international environmental standards. In addition, we recognize that drilling into the continental margin for scientific purposes can create both an environmental threat and resource management problems. We, therefore, proposed before Sub-Committee II last summer, in articles on the the coastal seabed economic area, that coastal states have the exclusive right to authorize and regulate all forms of drilling, including scientific drilling.

We also believe that the requirement that the flag state certify that the research is conducted by a qualified institution with a view to purely scientific research is a meaningful protection. As evidenced by these negotiations, countries such as my own which conduct a large amount of research have a great interest in protecting the right to conduct marine scientific research, and we believe that all countries will exercise great caution in granting such certification.

Finally, our articles require that those "conducting scientific research shall respect the rights and interests of the coastal state in its exercise of jurisdiction" in the zone. Clearly, the researcher cannot unreasonably interfere with fishing or seabed exploitation activities conducted by the coastal state in the zone. Additional protection for the resource activities of the coastal state will be provided by the opportunity to participate in the research. Moreover, under the coastal seabed economic area articles tabled last summer in SubCommittee II, coastal states may establish safety zones around installations. Research vessels, of course, would be required to respect such safety zones.

... under our proposal if the researcher meets these obligations, he may conduct the research without coastal state consent. What happens, however, if there is a dispute as to whether they have in fact been met? Coastal states should not be without a remedy if they believe that all the prerequisites for the conduct of research have not been met. There should be an efficient mechanism available through compulsory dispute settlement procedures to the coastal state and the researching state for the rapid resolution of such disputes. We welcome views on ways that these interests can best be balanced.

Some have suggested that a coastal state right of consent could be used as a bargaining lever to obtain technology transfer. We do not believe that any useful technology transfer in marine