18
S. Sakamoto
the notion of territorial sea, to which Japan replied indicating that it had adopted the
three nautical miles limit as the breadth of its territorial sea.
The 1930 Hague Conference attempted to reach agreement on the breadth of
the territorial sea, but failed.
4 During this Conference, Japan asserted three nautical
miles as the limit of the territorial sea.
5 At the same time, this Conference took up the
issue of the contiguous zone adjacent to the territorial sea, where the coastal State
can exercise control to prevent the infringement of its customs and sanitary laws, or
national defence.
6 Japan, as well as the UK, the United States, and Germany, opposed
the inclusion of national defence as an object of jurisdiction in the contiguous zone.
Japan asserted that the contiguous zone could not extend to 12 nautical miles from
the baselines of coastal States.
The background of Japan’s persistence to the three nautical miles limit of the
territorial sea is routed in its intention to defend its national interest as a distantwater fishing nation. Since the enactment of the Encouragement of Distant Water
Fishing Law in 1902, the number of Japanese trawlers has dramatically increased,
resulting in Japan soon becoming one of the leading distant-water fishing nations.
This continued to also be the case after the World War II. The First United Nations
(UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted four conventions, namely, the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the
High Seas, the Convention on the Continental Shelf, and, lastly, the Convention on
Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas in 1958.
7 During
that conference, Japan asserted a narrow territorial sea to defend its fishery interests.
The First Conference could not reach agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea.
The Second UN Conference, held in 1960 to mainly consider the breadth of the
territorial sea, was marked by polarisation involving, on the one hand, countries with
a 6 nautical mile claim and, on the other, those with a 12 nautical mile claim. During
discussions, Japan was consistent in advocating a 3 nautical mile territorial sea limit.
The proposal, under which the United States and Canada were allowed to set a 6
nautical mile territorial limit, while other coastal States were free to set their fishery
zone at 12 nautical miles, was jointly submitted by the United States and Canada.
Japan abstained from voting on this proposal, which resulted in its rejection by 1
vote. The Director-General of the Treaties Bureau of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, announced the Japanese Government’s official position on the extent of the
territorial waters and the fishing zone in his statement of 10 February 1964 in the
House of Representatives, as follows:
4 Ibid., p. 79.
5 Sakutaro Yachi (1930).
6 The claim as to the continuous zone first appeared in the Harvard Law School Draft on Territorial
Waters. O’Connell (1982).
7 Japan had no objection in principle to participating in the first two conventions, but had to examine
carefully the implications of the fourth convention, as its scope contained multiple normative innovations going well beyond the mere codification of existing customary norms. Oda and Owada
(1982).
S. Sakamoto
the notion of territorial sea, to which Japan replied indicating that it had adopted the
three nautical miles limit as the breadth of its territorial sea.
The 1930 Hague Conference attempted to reach agreement on the breadth of
the territorial sea, but failed.
4 During this Conference, Japan asserted three nautical
miles as the limit of the territorial sea.
5 At the same time, this Conference took up the
issue of the contiguous zone adjacent to the territorial sea, where the coastal State
can exercise control to prevent the infringement of its customs and sanitary laws, or
national defence.
6 Japan, as well as the UK, the United States, and Germany, opposed
the inclusion of national defence as an object of jurisdiction in the contiguous zone.
Japan asserted that the contiguous zone could not extend to 12 nautical miles from
the baselines of coastal States.
The background of Japan’s persistence to the three nautical miles limit of the
territorial sea is routed in its intention to defend its national interest as a distantwater fishing nation. Since the enactment of the Encouragement of Distant Water
Fishing Law in 1902, the number of Japanese trawlers has dramatically increased,
resulting in Japan soon becoming one of the leading distant-water fishing nations.
This continued to also be the case after the World War II. The First United Nations
(UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted four conventions, namely, the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the
High Seas, the Convention on the Continental Shelf, and, lastly, the Convention on
Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas in 1958.
7 During
that conference, Japan asserted a narrow territorial sea to defend its fishery interests.
The First Conference could not reach agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea.
The Second UN Conference, held in 1960 to mainly consider the breadth of the
territorial sea, was marked by polarisation involving, on the one hand, countries with
a 6 nautical mile claim and, on the other, those with a 12 nautical mile claim. During
discussions, Japan was consistent in advocating a 3 nautical mile territorial sea limit.
The proposal, under which the United States and Canada were allowed to set a 6
nautical mile territorial limit, while other coastal States were free to set their fishery
zone at 12 nautical miles, was jointly submitted by the United States and Canada.
Japan abstained from voting on this proposal, which resulted in its rejection by 1
vote. The Director-General of the Treaties Bureau of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, announced the Japanese Government’s official position on the extent of the
territorial waters and the fishing zone in his statement of 10 February 1964 in the
House of Representatives, as follows:
4 Ibid., p. 79.
5 Sakutaro Yachi (1930).
6 The claim as to the continuous zone first appeared in the Harvard Law School Draft on Territorial
Waters. O’Connell (1982).
7 Japan had no objection in principle to participating in the first two conventions, but had to examine
carefully the implications of the fourth convention, as its scope contained multiple normative innovations going well beyond the mere codification of existing customary norms. Oda and Owada
(1982).