FOREIGN RELATIONS, 195-0- VOLUME I


exercise jurisdiction overits nationals on the, high seas has long been
acknowledged as an attribute of the sovereign power of a state over
its citizens or subjects. President Truman's fisheries Proclamation
merely constitutes an exercise of that right in'so ;far as fishing opera.
tions by united States citizens in contiguous high seas are concerned,
Therefore, instead of representing a new principle of international
law, the Proclamation merely declares the intention of the. United
States to regulate the fishing activities of its citizens on contiguous
high seas where such regulation is found necessary in order to con-
serve and protect fishery resources. Admittedly, the United States may
not legally require compliance with its conservation regulations by
fishermen of olther states in international waters. Where a particular
fishery is exploited solely by United States fishermen a problem in
that respect does not arise. However, it is recognized that in many
instances other states will also be operating on the same fishery, in
which case, in order to make the conservation measures fully effective,
there must be full cooperation by all parties involved. The only prac-
tical way in which the necessary cooperation can be achieved in such
cases is through agreement, with the other states concerned, which
states shall, of course, also have a voice in the forrmulation-of appro-
priate regulations. The fisheries Proclamation contemplates such
,agreements between the United 'States ,and other states where there is
-a joint interest inthe fishery to be regulated.
  It will be observed, therefore, that prior to the issuance of this
Proclamation the United States had the right to regulate the fishing
activities of its citizens on the high seas, but not the fishing operations
in such waters of nationals of other states without the consent of
those states. This situation still prevails, the Proclamation not having
affected pre-existing rights of any state under international law.
  2. The term "contiguous" as used in the Proclamation to describe
the area of the high seas covered by it is not capable of precise defi-
nition. Contiguous waters are not defined in terms of miles or depth
and are not coextensive with the continental shelf. 'It would, however,
be correct to say that the outer limit of waters contiguous to the coasts
of the United States could not logically be so located as to embrace
a broad expanse of seas far distant from the coast, as, for example,
to the territorial limits of the Philippines.
  3. The question pertaining to the adequacy of the three-mile prin-
ciple for the protection of fisheries is not fully understood. For a great
many years the three-mile marginal belt has been far removed from
many of -the principal fishing grounds. If sovereignty over the fishing
grounds were essential to the protection of the fish stocks then the
three-mile rule is wholly inadequate. However, the development of
fishery.conservation in this century has not justified or necessitated


894


I