resources and wealth”.
51 The Chilean and Peruvian claims were unisonous in stating
that both declarations did not affect freedom of navigation on the high seas.
Following those proclamations, it was Costa Rica’s turn to assert “the protection
and control of the state” over a 200-nm zone offshore.
52 Similarly, the El Salvadorian Constitution of 1950, Art. 7, prescribes the country’s territory as including “the
adjacent sea within a distance of 200 marine miles measured from the line of lowest
tide, and it embraces the air space above, the subsoil, and the corresponding
continental shelf”.
53 Those were individual actions taken without open consultation
with neighboring states.
The first concerted effort at the international level was headed by Chile, Ecuador
and Peru, and resulted in the 1952 Declarations of Santiago.
54 In the first Declaration
on fishing issues in the South Pacific, all parties showed consternation with the “lack
of protection which endangers the conservation of fishing resources” and the “serious threat of exhaustion” of those resources offshore. By acknowledging an urge to
exercise prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction relating to the conservation of
fisheries, the parties to the Declaration set off to “ensure a better yield for the benefit
of national food supplies and economics”.
55 Impressively, that was an inchoate
attempt to exercise exclusive economic jurisdiction over a marine resource sited in
a blurred zone, both within and beyond national jurisdiction, which is the case of
migratory fish stocks, supported by arguments of an environmental background.
The Second Declaration, this time on the maritime zone, expressly deemed the
traditional length of territorial seas and contiguous zones inadequate for the purposes of “conservation, development and exploitation” of marine natural resources,
due to both geographical and biological factors.
56 As a consequence, all parties
proclaimed that each possess “exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea
along the coasts of their respective countries to a minimum distance of 200 nautical
miles from these coasts”. Such exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction were not
limited to the water column, but encompassed the seabed and subsoil thereof.
57
The Santiago Declarations represent an outstanding effort of international cooperation with the objective to safeguard fisheries and subsoil minerals for the peoples
and interests of the mobilized countries. They have reverberated in the region and
enthused waves of territorial seas declarations that aimed at re-balancing rights and
duties in a new phase of the law of the sea. That does not mean, however, that those
51 Peruvian Supreme Decree no 781, 11 August 1947.
52 Costa Rican Decree-Law no 116, 27 July 1954.
53 Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, Art. 7, 1950.
54 Joint Declaration Concerning Fishing Problems in the South Pacific, Santiago, 18 August 1952,
UNTS 1006, 318–319.
55 Id.
56 A geographical motive would be the proximity of the traditional limits to the littoral of coastal
states, whereas a biological one was the migratory nature of several fish species. See Declaration on
the Maritime Zone, Santiago, 18 August 1952, UNTS 1006, 326–327.
57 Id. item III.
152
6 Creeping Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Threat to Navigational Freedoms or. . .
51 The Chilean and Peruvian claims were unisonous in stating
that both declarations did not affect freedom of navigation on the high seas.
Following those proclamations, it was Costa Rica’s turn to assert “the protection
and control of the state” over a 200-nm zone offshore.
52 Similarly, the El Salvadorian Constitution of 1950, Art. 7, prescribes the country’s territory as including “the
adjacent sea within a distance of 200 marine miles measured from the line of lowest
tide, and it embraces the air space above, the subsoil, and the corresponding
continental shelf”.
53 Those were individual actions taken without open consultation
with neighboring states.
The first concerted effort at the international level was headed by Chile, Ecuador
and Peru, and resulted in the 1952 Declarations of Santiago.
54 In the first Declaration
on fishing issues in the South Pacific, all parties showed consternation with the “lack
of protection which endangers the conservation of fishing resources” and the “serious threat of exhaustion” of those resources offshore. By acknowledging an urge to
exercise prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction relating to the conservation of
fisheries, the parties to the Declaration set off to “ensure a better yield for the benefit
of national food supplies and economics”.
55 Impressively, that was an inchoate
attempt to exercise exclusive economic jurisdiction over a marine resource sited in
a blurred zone, both within and beyond national jurisdiction, which is the case of
migratory fish stocks, supported by arguments of an environmental background.
The Second Declaration, this time on the maritime zone, expressly deemed the
traditional length of territorial seas and contiguous zones inadequate for the purposes of “conservation, development and exploitation” of marine natural resources,
due to both geographical and biological factors.
56 As a consequence, all parties
proclaimed that each possess “exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea
along the coasts of their respective countries to a minimum distance of 200 nautical
miles from these coasts”. Such exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction were not
limited to the water column, but encompassed the seabed and subsoil thereof.
57
The Santiago Declarations represent an outstanding effort of international cooperation with the objective to safeguard fisheries and subsoil minerals for the peoples
and interests of the mobilized countries. They have reverberated in the region and
enthused waves of territorial seas declarations that aimed at re-balancing rights and
duties in a new phase of the law of the sea. That does not mean, however, that those
51 Peruvian Supreme Decree no 781, 11 August 1947.
52 Costa Rican Decree-Law no 116, 27 July 1954.
53 Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, Art. 7, 1950.
54 Joint Declaration Concerning Fishing Problems in the South Pacific, Santiago, 18 August 1952,
UNTS 1006, 318–319.
55 Id.
56 A geographical motive would be the proximity of the traditional limits to the littoral of coastal
states, whereas a biological one was the migratory nature of several fish species. See Declaration on
the Maritime Zone, Santiago, 18 August 1952, UNTS 1006, 326–327.
57 Id. item III.
152
6 Creeping Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Threat to Navigational Freedoms or. . .