Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
The seventh session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea has just ended after three months (28 March to 19 May, and 22 August to 15 September 1978). There seems to be general agreement that territorial waters should be extended from the traditional 3-mile limit out to 12 miles (19 kilometres) offshore, and that every coastal state is entitled to an economic zone reaching 200 miles. More than 40 countries have established, or are in the process of establishing, 200 miles (320 kilometres) offshore as a fishery zone, economic zone, or territorial sea. To many states, the 200-mile economic zone is already a fact of international law. But there is still some disagreement over how much control coastal states should exercise over the adjacent 200 miles of water.
1 The policy of closed seas, to which a single state asserted and enforced its own control, was first propounded by John Selden of Britain in his Mare Clausum of 1635.
2 Indonesia, Act No. 4 of 18 Feb. 1960.
3 Emergency (Territorial Waters) Ordinance, 1969, and Territorial Waters Act, 1971.
4 Leng, Lee Yong, “Malacca Strait, Kra Canal and International Navigation”, Pacific Viewpoint 19 (1978): 65–74.Google Scholar
5 U.N. A/CONF. 62/C. 2/L. 39.
6 General Statement by Mr. H.T. Chao, deputy leader of the Delegation of Singapore at Caracas, 9 July 1974.
7 Prescott, J.R.V., The Political Geography of the Oceans (London, 1975), p. 94.Google Scholar
8 U.N. A/CONF. 62/C. 2/L. 49.
9 Prescott, op. cit., p. 106.
10 Polomka, Peter, ASEAN and the Law of the Sea (Singapore, 1975), p. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 As quoted by Leifer, M. and Nelson, D., “Conflict of Interest in the Straits of Malacca”, International Affairs 49, 2 (1973): 191, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Beeby, C.D., “The U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea: A New Zealand View”, Pacific Viewpoint 16, 2 (1975): 113–42.Google Scholar
13 Árcher, A.A. and Beazley, P.B., “The geographical Implications of the Law of the Sea Conference”, Geographical Journal 141 (1975): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 About 40 countries have continental margins which extend beyond the 200-mile limit.
15 Siddayao, C.M., The Off-Shore Petroleum Resources of Southeast Asia (Kuala Lumpur, 1978), p. 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Far Eastern Economic Review, 3 Feb. 1978, p. 23.
17 Prescott, op. cit., pp. 191–92.
18 Far Eastern Economic Review, 10 Mar. 1978, p. 79
19 For details of claims, see Siddayao, op. cit., p. 84.
20 Far Eastern Economic Review, 2 Feb. 1978, p. 11.
