,878


FOREIGN RELATIONS, 19 5 0 VOLUME I


acceptance for a Convention prescribing the three-mile limit for ter-
ritorial waters. Gidel goes on to say that these Powers made a capital
mistake in not doing so, particularly having regard to the fact that
in the past practice both of the United States Government and the
,British Government there was ample authority for the view that the
proposals relating to the contiguous zone did not go beyond existing
international law.
  7. The British Government have since 1930 protested against claims
by other States to exercise jurisdiction in the contiguous zone. They
have, in consequence, found themselves in conflict with .certain States
about actionis wihich they would not have had to challenge if the con-
tiguous zone theory h.ad been admitted. All these protests have been
ineffective. Moreover, so far as we can see at present, .there is no prac-
tical objection to the admission of the contiguous zone provided that
its extent and what can be done there is carefully limited.
   8. For all .these reasons His Majesty's Government have under
consideration the possibility of a change in their policy, namely the
acceptance for the future of the contiguous zone as a means of
strengthening the case for the three-mile limit. It can be demonstrated
that a three-mile limit is not sufficient for the customs protection of
a large number of countries; if, however, the contiguous zone is ad-
mitted, this objection to the three-mile limit falls.
   9. If the British Government should decide to change their policy
 in this way, the question will arise -as to the manner in which they
 should try to implement their decision. Our thoughts on this aspect
 are naturally not yet-very far ,advanced but I think you should know
 that we do not -think that it would be helpful to call 'another -Confer-
 ence on trritorial waters.
   '10. Before pursuing -the matter further, the Foreign Office would
 very much welcome the opportunity of 'a confidential exchange of
 views with American officials, particularly in view of ,the keen interest
 which they have expressed in the Norwegian Fisheries case. We have,
 therefore, been asked to 'ascertain whether the United States Govern-
 ment would like to engage in entirely unofficial 'and private discus-
 sions on this matter. If this suggestion should commend itself to you
 the Foreign 'Office would be prepared to consider sending someone
 over to Washington from the United Kingdom, like Sir Eric Beckett
 or Professor Waldock who .are perhaps more conversant with this
 question than 'anybody else on our side. The idea would be that they
 should meet and exchange ideas with one or two United States ex-
 perts. 'I should like to emphasize that the conversations would be
 entirely unofficial. Nevertheless, we think that they might be of con-
 siderable benefit to both sides.