International Practice Regarding Traditional Fishing Privileges of Foreign Fishermen in Zones of Extended Maritime Jurisdiction

1969 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 490-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Windley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Coastal Waters ◽  
The United States ◽  
Revolutionary War ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
The North ◽  
Basic Purpose ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Phase Out ◽  
Traditional Fishing

In recent years, many nations have made claims of extended maritime jurisdiction or exclusive control for various purposes, and sometimes have claimed sovereignty over areas of sea far beyond the three-mile territorial sea traditionally claimed by many nations. A primary objective of many of these claims has been control over fishing in coastal waters, with the purpose of reserving for the exclusive use of fishermen of the coastal state the fish resources in the waters claimed, or of controlling the activities of foreign fishermen and possibly exacting fees for the privilege of continued fishing. The nature of most claims of authority to regulate the taking of fish in coastal waters is such as to exclude foreign fishermen, such claims having as their basic purpose unconditional right of exclusion. What rights exist for displaced fishermen exist as a matter of comity, i.e., friendship between friendly nations, and as such form no basis for claims of legal right to recompense (although the governments of fishermen who are expelled without a phase-out period may justifiably respond in like unfriendly manner, enacting restrictive tariffs or similar economic handicaps). Several countries have made provision in their own laws for recognition of “traditional” or “historic” fishing for foreign fishermen on a basis of reciprocity, i.e., their fishermen would have similar rights in the exclusive fisheries zone of the foreign nation whose fishermen were permitted to continue fishing. Most such laws have been very recent. The problem is not new, however. Problems of access to the North Atlantic fisheries embroiled the United States and Great Britain immediately after the Revolutionary War, and were not resolved until 1910 by action of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Pelagic sealing inflamed relations between the United States and other nations in the late 19th century, requiring arbitration for settlement.

scholarly journals The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration

1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Lansing
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
The Past ◽  
The North ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The North Atlantic ◽  
Constant Source

The Arbitral Tribunal of the Permanent Court at The Hague, by its award of the 7th of last September, in the case of the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries, brought to a close a controversy which in its various phases has been an almost constant source of vexatious dispute between the United States and Great Britain for the past seventy years.A treaty, granting exceptional rights, such as that which this Tribunal was called upon to consider, is peculiarly susceptible to different interpretations as the course of time brings new conditions not contemplated by its negotiators. The relations of the parties are changed. A liberty which at the date of the treaty was considered indispensable may become worthless, while one which was deemed insignificant may in years assume a place of vital importance to the beneficiaries under the grant. This change of conditions and of the value of rights has been especially true of the liberties acquired by the United States for its inhabitants under the first article of the Treaty of October 20, 1818.

North Atlantic Council

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-520
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Equipment ◽  
The North ◽  
Primary Object ◽  
Official Statement ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The North Atlantic ◽  
The Military

Defense CommiteeA week of conferences on strategic plans for meeting the threat of communist aggression preceded the meeting of the Defense Committee on the North Atlantic Treaty organization on April 1at the Hague. The North Atlantic Military Production and Supply Board met for one day on March 24 at the Hague under the chairmanship of Hubert K. Howard, head of the United States delegation. The primary object of this meeting was to consider certain proposals for an integrated and coordinated production of military equipment and supplies by members of the pact. An official statement made at the end of the meeting announced that “encouraging” progress had been made in laying the groundwork for effective operation of production and supply activity. Thestanding group of the Military Committee, composed of military representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, on March 25 resolved final, minor differences in an all inclusive program evolved from plans of the five regional military groups in the pact.

The Final Outcome of the Fisheries Arbitration

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandler P. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Final Outcome ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
The North ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The North Atlantic

On the 15th of November, 1912, the United States and Great Britain formally ratified and put into effect an agreement which, in consequence of diplomatic negotiations covering nearly two years, had been signed by their plenipotentiaries on the 20th of July, 1912, adopting with certain modifications the rules and method of procedure embodied in the award of the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration Tribunal, rendered at The Hague on September 7, 1910, under which all questions hereafter arising in regard to the exercise of American fishing liberties under the treaty of 1818 may be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the award. This agreement constitutes the final step which was necessary to complete and perfect the arbitration award and give it practical application; and the award and this agreement together establish for all time the extent of the rights and obligations of the inhabitants of the United States in the exercise of thenfishing liberties under the treaty of 1818.

Mafias on the Move

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Varese
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
Market Expansion ◽  
The North ◽  
Economic Transformations ◽  
At Will

Organized crime is spreading like a global virus as mobs take advantage of open borders to establish local franchises at will. That at least is the fear, inspired by stories of Russian mobsters in New York, Chinese triads in London, and Italian mafias throughout the West. As this book explains, the truth is more complicated. The author has spent years researching mafia groups in Italy, Russia, the United States, and China, and argues that mafiosi often find themselves abroad against their will, rather than through a strategic plan to colonize new territories. Once there, they do not always succeed in establishing themselves. The book spells out the conditions that lead to their long-term success, namely sudden market expansion that is neither exploited by local rivals nor blocked by authorities. Ultimately the inability of the state to govern economic transformations gives mafias their opportunity. In a series of matched comparisons, the book charts the attempts of the Calabrese 'Ndrangheta to move to the north of Italy, and shows how the Sicilian mafia expanded to early twentieth-century New York, but failed around the same time to find a niche in Argentina. The book explains why the Russian mafia failed to penetrate Rome but succeeded in Hungary. A pioneering chapter on China examines the challenges that triads from Taiwan and Hong Kong find in branching out to the mainland. This book is both a compelling read and a sober assessment of the risks posed by globalization and immigration for the spread of mafias.

Metam Sodium Combined with Chloropicrin as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide Fumigation for Tomato

HortScience ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 525b-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.J. Locascio ◽  
D.W. Dickson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lycopersicon Esculentum ◽  
Pest Control ◽  
Methyl Bromide ◽  
Soil Fungi ◽  
Good Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Metam Sodium ◽  
Additional Water ◽  
Phase Out

In past work, dichloropropene + 17% Pic (1,3-D + Pic) at 327 L·ha–1 plus pebulate provided good control of nematode, soil fungi, and nutsedge in mulched tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and is considered the best alternative for methyl bromide (MBr) + chloropicrin (Pic), which is scheduled for phase-out in the United States by Jan. 2001. Metam-sodium did not provide acceptable pest control. In the present study, metam-Na (295 L·ha–1 combined with Pic (168 kg·ha–1) + 4.5 kg·ha–1 pebulate, and 1,3-D + 35% Pic at 168 and 225 L·ha–1 + pebulate were compared to MBr-Pic (98-2% at 345 kg·ha–1 and 67-33% at 505 kg·ha–1). Fumigants were injected into the bed except metam-Na and pebulate were surface-applied and incorporated and drip tubing and mulch were applied. Marketable yields with MBr-Pic, 225 L·ha–1 1,3-D + Pic, and metam-Na + Pic were higher than with the check. Yields with metam-Na alone or with additional water before transplanting were similar to the check. Nutsedge was controlled with MBr-Pic and all treatments with pebulate. Nematode root-gall ratings were high on tomato grown without fumigants (8.9 rating on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 = no galling), low with MBr-Pic (0.33), and intermediate with all other treatments (2.2 to 5.5) except with 168 L·ha–1 1-3-D + Pic (8.3). This study indicates that metam-Na + Pic + pebulate also is a possible alternative to MBr-Pic for tomato.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document