similar to those which would be established under H.R. 1198 have been and are the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court concerning domestic law questions governing Federal-State jurisdiction with implications for international law matters, the Department believes that a cautious and coordinated approach should be taken regarding this question. In this connection, we believe that certain changes could be made in the bill to make it more acceptable from our perspective, while not defeating the purpose of the bill.

Specifically, the Department would wish to see language throughout the bill which would relate the lines to their purpose, rather than using terms of art such as "high seas" that have international and domestic legal meaning and importance and which are not applicable to this situation. For instance, instead of using the phrase "lines of demarcation dividing the high seas and inland waters", a phrase such as "lines for the purpose of determining the applicability of special navigational rules in lieu of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" might be used.

A second change which we believe is necessary is that the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating should be required to have the concurrence of the Attorney General and Secretary of State before publishing any lines. Such a requirement would assure coordination in order to avoid prejudice to our international and domestic legal positions.

The Department also believes that it would be useful if there were a specific statement in the legislation to the effect that the lines established are not to be deemed determinative of questions of international law.

Dept. of State File No. P79 0090-0794.

§3

Coastal State Economic Jurisdiction

Legal Status of the Economic Zone

U.S. Maritime Boundaries-Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela On August 5, 1980, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported favorably without reservation and recommended Senate advice and consent to ratification of three bilateral maritime boundary agreements which President Carter had transmitted for advice and consent to ratification early in 1979: the Treaty on Maritime Boundaries between the United States and the United Mexican States, signed May 4, 1978 (S. Ex. F, 96th Cong., 1st sess. (1979)); the Maritime Boundary Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, signed December 16, 1977 (S. Ex. H., 96th Cong., 1st sess. (1979)); and the Maritime Boundary Treaty between the United States and Venezuela, signed March 28, 1978 (S. Ex. G, 96th Cong., 1st sess. (1979)).

The Committee's report summarized basic provisions common to all three treaties as follows:

That the sole purpose of the agreements is to establish maritime boundaries between the U.S. and the countries of Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela;

That the parties to the agreements will not claim or exercise for any purpose sovereign rights or jurisdiction over the waters or seabed or subsoil delimited to the other party;

That the maritime boundaries established shall not affect or prejudice in any manner the position of any Party with respect to

the extent of internal waters, of the territorial sea, of the high seas or of the sovereign rights or jurisdiction for any other purpose; That the maritime boundaries are geodetic lines which connect various points depicted in the treaty and that the coordinates are determined with reference to internationally accepted data and standards.

It noted, "in addition":

That, in the case of the treaty with Venezuela, disputes arising from the interpretation of the treaty will be resolved by negotiations between the two governments; and

That the treaties will enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification. In the case of Cuba, however, the treaty specifies that it will enter into force "provisionally" for two years beginning January 1, 1978, and will then enter into force permanently upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. As of January 1, 1980, the provisional agreement with Cuba was extended by executive agreement for an additional two-year period.

S. Ex. Rept. 96-49, 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980), p. 2.

Mark B. Feldman, Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State, had testified before the Committee on June 30, 1980, in support of the three treaties, which were the first treaties establishing continental shelf and 200-nautical-mile fisheries boundaries that were called for in part by section 202(d) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, approved April 13, 1976 (P.L. 94-254; 90 Stat. 331, 339; 16 U.S.C. 1801, 1822 (d); effective, Mar. 1, 1977). The major portion of his prepared statement follows:

These treaties are necessary to delimit the U.S. Continental Shelf in these areas and to resolve overlapping claims of jurisdiction arising out of the establishment of a 200-nautical mile fishery conservation zone off the coasts of the United States in accordance with the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and the establishment of 200-nautical-mile zones by neighboring countries.

The U.S. fishery conservation zone, created by act of Congress as of March 1, 1977, encompasses approximately 2.8 million square nautical miles of waters. Together with reciprocal actions by other states, this act created more than 30 new boundaries between areas of U.S. fisheries jurisdiction and those of other nations. Such boundary questions arise with neighboring states adjacent to the United States and with opposite states wherever the coasts of the two countries are less than 400 nautical miles apart.

Thus, the 200-mile zone off the coasts of the continental United States abuts that of Canada in the Atlantic Ocean, in the Beaufort Sea, and in two places on the Pacific coast. It abuts the 200-mile zone of the Soviet Union in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and the North Pacific Ocean, where the maritime boundary is determined by the 1867 convention with Russia in connection with the purchase of Alaska, and it borders the Mexican 200-mile zone in the Pacific

Ocean and in the Gulf of Mexico. It also borders on the 200-mile zone of Cuba and the Bahamas off the coasts of the southeastern United States.

Similar boundary situations arise in the Caribbean between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and a number of islands, including the British Virgin Islands. In the Pacific, our 200-mile zone off American Samoa, Guam, and other island territories creates maritime boundaries with Tonga, Western Samoa, the Cook Islands, the Trust Territory, and several other islands including the new country of Kiribati.

Most of these boundaries remain to be established by agreement. Although the United States has exercised sovereign rights over the resources of the Continental Shelf since the Truman proclamation of 1945, the need to define the boundaries of our Continental Shelf with other nations has only recently become a matter of practical concern as the technical ability to exploit the hydrocarbon resources of the Continental Shelf has developed.

The problem of maritime boundary delimitation became urgent, however, with the extension of fisheries jurisdiction out to 200 miles. Precise limits are needed for purposes of fisheries management and law enforcement, and that need forced the issue of international maritime boundaries to the fore.

In anticipation of legislative action, the State Department established, in 1975, an interagency group to develop a U.S. maritime boundary position. I chaired that group for the Department's Legal Adviser, and it included representatives of other interested bureaus in the Department and representatives of the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Transportation (Coast Guard). This group's task was to identify in each situation the maritime boundary that would maximize U.S. resource and security interests consistent with international law and friendly relations with our neighbors.

Recognizing that it would not be possible to conclude boundary agreements with most of our neighbors before establishment of the fishery conservation zone on March 1, 1977, the United States published the provisional limits of that zone on March 7, 1977, 'pending the establishment of permanent maritime boundaries by mutual agreement."

Subsequently, we have pursued negotiations with several nations and have concluded the three treaties before the committee today; the treaty with Canada, submitting the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area to international adjudication, which the committee has under review; and a treaty with the Cook Islands which was signed on June 11 and which will be transmitted to the Senate in due course for advice and consent to ratification. Other boundary negotiations are being undertaken, and we intend to work to achieve agreements on all U.S. maritime boundaries as soon as possible.

With this background, I would like to turn to the three pending treaties with our Latin American neighbors. These are the first treaties establishing Continental Shelf and 200-nautical-mile fisheries boundaries to be signed by the United States and submitted to

the Senate. They are important treaties that demonstrate that the United States can reach peaceful agreements with our neighbors on sensitive issues of sovereign rights and jurisdiction. We hope this committee will report them favorably and that the Senate will advise and consent to their ratification at an early date. [The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported favorably on the three treaties on July 24, 1980.]

Mexico

I would like to consider, first, the Treaty on Maritime Boundaries Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed at Mexico City, May 4, 1978. The United States and Mexico first agreed upon maritime boundaries in 1970 in the Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the International Boundary Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States. The 1970 Treaty, in addition to dealing with the land frontier, established a maritime boundary in the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico to a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast. The establishment of 200-nautical-mile zones by our two countries made it necessary to reach agreement on the seaward extension of those boundaries out to 200 nautical miles. The two governments concluded an exchange of notes establishing provisional maritime boundaries on November 24, 1976, and that line was confirmed in the treaty signed on May 4, 1978.

The 200-mile zones established from the coasts of the United States and Mexico overlap in three areas: off the Pacific Coast and in the western Gulf of Mexico where the U.S. and Mexican coasts are adjacent and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico where Mexico's 200-mile zone developed from certain islands off the Yucatan Peninsula opposite the Louisiana coast overlaps the U.S. 200-mile

zone.

In the central Gulf of Mexico there is a reach of waters approximately 129 nautical miles in length where there is no fisheries boundary between the two countries. In this area the coasts of the two countries opposite each other are more than 400 nautical miles apart, so our fisheries zones do not overlap. We have not drawn a continental shelf boundary in this area for the time being because the limit of the outer edge of the continental margin is presently a matter under active negotiation at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Out of respect for this process and in view of the fact that water depths in this area do not readily admit of exploitation at the present time, it was decided that there is no immediate need to determine a boundary in this area. We intend to keep this matter under active review and, at such time as may be appropriate, establish a maritime boundary with Mexico in this

area.

I am aware that one scholar has questioned the use of islands as basepoints for the boundary line in the Gulf of Mexico. This practice follows the precedent of the 1970 treaty, but the argument is made that the agreement gives Mexico more area in the deep waters of the east central Gulf than should be the case. In considering this issue, the Committee should note that the use of islands as basepoints gives the United States substantial areas in the Pacific

off the coast of California. These Pacific areas have hydrocarbon potential and are also of considerable interest to U.S. fishermen. There may also be hydrocarbons in the seabed under the waters of the east central Gulf, but these areas are under deep waters and will not be exploited for some years. There are no significant fisheries in that area.

I can assure you that before making this agreement the Department of State solicited the best available expert advice including scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the U.S. fishing industry. We contacted interested Members of Congress at an early stage, and the agreement was and is supported by all interested agencies of the U.S. Government.

Moreover, the approach followed in the treaty with Mexico is consistent with the general U.S. interest in giving full effect to islands off the U.S. coast. The boundary agreement with Cuba, for example, gives full effect to the Florida Keys. The United States has other important island interests including the Alexander Archipelago in southeastern Alaska which affects the maritime boundary with Canada in and seaward of Dixon Entrance.

Finally, this agreement is a further example of the efforts of the United States and Mexico to work together as equals to solve problems on the basis of mutual interest. Ratification of the agreement will strengthen relations between the United States and Mexico by settling an issue which could become contentious if left unresolved.

Cuba

The Maritime Boundary Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba signed at Washington December 16, 1977, establishes the boundary in the Straits of Florida and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. It begins in the west at a point 200 nautical miles from each coast and continues through the eastern gulf and Straits of Florida to a potential trijunction point with the Bahamas. At its closest point the boundary is approximately 38 nautical miles from the U.S. coast.

In the spring of 1977 the United States resumed direct, formal discussions with the Cuban Government for the first time in many years. The maritime boundary agreement was one of the first items on the agenda for those talks because both countries recognized the need to avoid incidents over that issue. At that time discussions were held in New York and Havana, and on April 27, 1977, the parties concluded a modus vivendi establishing a line which served as the boundary for 1977. Following further negotiations in 1977, a boundary treaty was signed in Washington on December 16, 1977.

That agreement provided for provisional application of the boundary line for 2 years from January 1, 1978. When that period expired on January 1, 1980, the parties, by exchange of notes dated December 27 and 28, 1979, extended provisional application of the boundary line for another 24 months. The establishment of the boundary with Cuba proved to be a complex technical task due to the difference in charts utilized by the two countries and other technical issues, but the negotiations were conducted on a busi