Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T19:30:52.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civil Aeronautics Board v. Island Airlines, Inc. 235 F. Supp. 990

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

John R. Stevenson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , July 1965 , pp. 635 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Excerpted text of opinion; certain footnotes are also omitted and the others renumbered.

2 Shalowitz, Shore and Sea Boundaries, pp. 22et seq. See also testimony of E. T. Tingling, Asst. Legal Adviser in the TJ. S. Dept. of State, U. S. delegate to the 1958, 1960 Geneva Conferences on the Law of the Sea, Tr. pp. 140-146; Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1956, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1956, Vol. II, commentary to the Articles of the Law of the Sea, Part I, Territorial Sea, p. 265.

3 Island argued that straight base lines should run completely around the eastern perimeter of the Hawaiian archipelago from island headland to island headland and on the western perimeter should run straight from Niihau's Kawaihoa Point to Hawaii's Ka Lae, thus including within its boundaries all of the open ocean between “the cord of the bow and the bow itself,” but not even Kamehameha III ever made any such grandiose claim, and a similar type of claim put forth by California was rejected in United States v. California, 332 U. 8. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947)… .

4 “Definition of the high seas, Article 26. ” 1 . The term ‘high seas’ means all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial.sea … or in waters of a State. “2. Waters within the baseline of the territorial sea are considered ‘internal waters.’ “ (Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly of the United Nations, Document A/3159, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1956, Vol. II, p. 259.)

5 United States v. California, 332 U. S. at p. 35, 61 S.Ct. 1658, at p. 1666, 91 L.Ed. 1889.

6 United Nations Secretariat, Memorandum on “Historic Bays” (A/Conf. 13/1, p. 18-20).

7 International Court of Justice, Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Fisheries Case, Vol. II, p. 302.

8 Ibid., Vol. III , pp. 461-462.

9 Juridical regime of historic waters, including historic hays” prepared by the Secretariat, United Nations, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1962, Vol. II, pp. 13-15.

10 Ibid., p. 15.

11 Supra note 7, Vol. I, p. 566; Vol. II, pp. 645-646.

12 Alexander, History of the Later Years of the Hawaiian Monarchy and Revolution of 1893, (1896) pp. 17-19.