1 The Geneva session of the LOS Conference, which ended in May 1975, produced an Informal Single Negotiating Text which binds no delegation and contains some provisions which reflect the negotiations and others which do not. The Text does not identify which is which. IV Official Records, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 137–81 (1975). (Hereinafter cited as Official Records).
Editor's note: The RSNT, Part II produced some minor but no major changes in the provisions of the SNT concerning passage through archipelagic waters, the territorial sea and straits. This is congruent with the wide agreement which exists on these issues. On the other hand, while the provisions of the RSNT concerning the status of the economic zone remain the same as in the SNT, the level of conflict on this issue has increased significantly. The problem has been dealt with in the Introductory Note of the Chairman of Committee II to the RSNT, Part II (Document #A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.l/Part II) and in the article by Miles in this journal.
2 For a more detailed discussion of these issues and others affecting navigation interests see Burke, , Contemporary Law of the Sea: Transportation, Communication and Flight, Yale Studies in World Public Order, 184 (1976).
The present discussion considers only the allocation of regulatory authority affecting navigation. For discussion of enforcement authority relating to navigation see the article in Yale Studies in World Public Order; see also Burke, W., Legatski, R., and Woodhead, W., National and International Law Enforcement in the Ocean (1975)
.
3 For observations on this in relation to Indonesia and the United States, see Osgood, et al. , Toward a National Ocean Policy: 1976 and Beyond 46 (1975)
; see also Das, and Pradhan, , Oil Discovery and Technical Change in Southeast Asia-Some International Law Problems Regarding the Straits of Malacca (Field Report Series No. 5, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1972).
4 UN Doc. A/Conf.62/C.2/L.49, III Official Records 226.
5 SUN Doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.44, UNGA Official Records, III Report of the Committee on Peaceful Uses of the Seabed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, 28th Sess., Supp. No. 2, 99 (A/9021) (1973).
6 Committee II Text, Articles 117–31, IV Official Records 168–70.
7 Article 124(12), ibid., at 170.
9 As of December 1975, the US State Department counted 128 independent coastal states. Including three states classified as “modified archipelago,” the Department reports that 80 of these coastal states claim a territorial sea of at least 12 miles, with 57 claiming that limit. See US State Department, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Office of the Geographer, Limits in the Seas, National Claims to Maritime Jurisdictions 3rd Revision, December 1975. The trend toward 12 miles has been underway for at least a decade. It hardly seems plausible anymore to contend that two-thirds of coastal states are claiming a boundary in excess of that permitted by international law.
If the LOS Conference does not establish a 12-mile territorial sea by explicit agreement, it can be expected that states will begin to establish wider limits.
10 These differences are discussed in some detail in Burke, supra note 2.
11 The effects mentioned in Article 21 might be achieved by, for example, choosing sea-lanes of insufficient depth for safe passage. Any requirement which in practical application made passage hazardous or unduly difficult or severely inconvenient would seem proscribed by Article 21.
12 The Main Trends were a series of working papers produced by Committee II in the Caracas session which sought to bring some order to the proliferation of alternatives on every issue. III Official Records 107–42.
13 Provision 136, ibid., at 130.
14 For detailed description and comparison of the numerous proposals on this problem see Burke, Legatski, and Woodhead, supra note 2, at 54–63, 73–81.
15 V Official Records, 176.
16 Article 30 (3), V Official Records 178.
20 Article 43, V Official Records 180.
