Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: The Coast Guard means business Message-ID: <7094@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 3 Jun 89 04:52:43 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Lines: 67 Approved: military@att.att.com From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Admiral Chekov's second question, about territorial sea, and by implication USCG jurisdiction, is fundamentally different from the weaponry, so two submissions. The United States claims a 3 nautical mile territorial sea, a 12 nautical mile contiguous zone, a 200 nautical mile fisheries conservation zone, a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and title to benthic resources 'to the edge of the continental shelf'. Additionally, the United States claims jurisdiction over US citizens everywhere. We are inhibited from exerciseing that jurisdiction within the territory (including territorial seas) of other nations (with a few exceptions, mostly bilateral agreements with Canada). Adequately confusing? Moral: don't get into a search law, 4th Amendment, or jurisdictional argument with a Coast Guardsman. We play with this stuff every day. The 3 mile territorial sea dates from Revolutionary War days when that was the generally accepted maximum range of warship guns. Most countries have accepted a 12 mile TW in accordance with the Law of the Sea convention (UNCLOS). The 12 mile contiguous zone dates from rum war days where Congress enacted enabling legislation to allow application of US law to vessels on rum row (NJ coast mostly) and back these guys out 9 more miles. While the Volstead Act itself was repealed, the customs legislation was not and we've used it ever since in fisheries law enforcement. Fisheries Conservation & Management Act muddied the waters somewhat. This established a 200 mile fisheries conservation zone where the United States claims a stewardship role for certain species of fish. Tuna, because they are highly migratory, were excepted (although generally not by other countries adopting similar legislation -- we've had tuna wars with Canada in particular over this issue). Note that FCMA did NOT say the fish were ours; it said we claim management jurisdiction over the fish and US fishermen get first crack at the available quotas -- excess is then allocated to foreign customers. The Presidential proclamation of a 200 mile EEZ changed this a bit -- we now say the fish are ours, as are other economic resources in the water column. The continental shelf resources legislation mostly dates from the Truman administration where offshore oil drilling started in earnest. The edge of the continental shelf has always been a fishy (sorry) definition -- somewhere to seaward of the deepest drill rig. This has often led to interesting fisheries law enforcement cases -- prior to FCMA, it was illegal for a Japanese longliner to keep benthic catch -- crab -- caught on the US continental shelf... such as Gulf of Alaska. On the other hand, we couldn't go aboard and check unless we already had pretty damn convincing evidence anyway. Unless an injured crewman forces him into Sitka. (There's only one moorage in Sitka suitable for a vessel of this size -- the USCGC Clover pier. When you moor outboard of Clover, you can expect a boarding party! 3 crab in the galley == $150K.) There, of course, is more, such as stateless vessels, flag state delegation of jurisdiction, etc etc, but I'll call a halt here. Rex Buddenberg