...........................................APPLICATION FOR PROMPT RELEASE
......................................................... THE CAMOUCO CASE

.................................................................(Panama v. France)
................................................................Judgment of 7 February 2000 (Tribunal Case No. 5)
.......................................<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/itlos_new/Case5_Camouco/Jud-Camouco.htm>
.......................................................................Reprinted in 39 Int'l Legal Mat'ls 666 (2000)
............................................Made available by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea,
................................................................Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, New York.
Author's Note:  Panama instituted proceedings against France in the UN's maritime tribunal in Hamburg, Germany. A French frigate seized The Panamanian vessel Camouco in September 1999. The vessel was allegedly fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Crozet (French islands territory in the Antarctic region).
.....The vessel and its Master were detained by French authorities in French territory's EEZ. Panama sought: (1) the prompt release of the Camouco and its captain, so that he could travel to Hamburg to testify in the case; (2) a declaration that France failed to comply with the Law of the Sea treaty, because it failed to notify Panama of the arrest of the vessel and crew; (3) that France unlawfully detained the Captain; (4) an order specifying the bond amount (treaty-based security for release of a seized vessel), payable by Panama, if any bond were required under the facts of this case; and (5) that France bear the costs of the entire proceedings.
.....Reading the French laws below, which implement the coastal State's power to regulate activities within the EEZ (para. 37-40), will give you a sense of what nation States are doing today to control an area up to 200 nautical miles from their land masses and distant island territories. The UN Tribunal was thus able to examine them for the purpose of determining whether they were a satisfactory expression of the sovereignty intended to be conveyed via the Law of the Sea treaty which entered into force in 1994, when it examined the treaty for the purpose of determining its jurisdiction to hear this matter (para. 43-48).
.....The numbered paragraphs are those of the Tribunal. Italics have been added by the textbook author.

Court's Opinion:

Factual background
25. The Camouco is a fishing vessel flying the flag of Panama. Its owner is “Merce-Pesca (S.A.)”, a company registered in Panama.
................................................................ .......... . . .
27. On 16 September 1999, the Camouco left the port of Walvis Bay (Namibia) to engage in longline fishing in the Southern seas. Its Master was Mr. José Ramón Hombre Sobrido, a Spanish national.

28. On 28 September 1999, at 15:29 hours, the Camouco was boarded by the French surveillance frigate Floréal in the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands, 160 nautical miles from the northern boundary of the zone.

29. According to the procès-verbal of violation (procès-verbal d’infraction) No.1/99, drawn up on 28 September 1999 by the Captain and two other officers of the Floréal, the Camouco was observed, on 28 September 1999 at 13:28 hours, paying out a longline within the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands by the Commander of the helicopter carried on board the Floréal. The procès-verbal of violation further recorded that the Camouco did not reply to calls from the Floréal and the helicopter, and moved away from the Floréal while members of the Camouco’s crew were engaged in jettisoning 48 bags and documents, before stopping at 14:31 hours, and that one of those bags was later retrieved and found to contain 34 kilograms of fresh toothfish. The procès-verbal of violation also stated that six tonnes of frozen toothfish were found in the holds of the Camouco and that the Master of the Camouco was in breach of law on account of:

..........(a) unlawful fishing in the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands under French jurisdiction;
..........(b) failure to declare entry into the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands, while having six
................tonnes of frozen Patagonian toothfish on board the vessel;
..........(c) concealment of vessel’s markings, while flying a foreign flag; and
..........(d) attempted flight to avoid verification by the maritime authority.

The procès-verbal of violation recorded that the Master of the Camouco refused to sign it.

30. On 29 September 1999, at 13:05 hours, the Camouco was re-routed and escorted under the supervision of the French navy to Port-des-Galets, Réunion [Island], where it arrived on 5 October 1999.
......................................................................... . . .
32. According to the Application [by Panama], the Master of the Camouco stated that he was intending merely to cross the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands in a South-North direction without fishing there; that his fishing license expressly prohibited him from fishing outside international waters; that he had forgotten to declare the entry of the Camouco into the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands to the Crozet authorities; that, however, the entry was declared to the district head of Crozet at 14:17 hours on 28 September 1999; that the six tonnes of toothfish were caught outside the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands and that there was no fresh toothfish on board the Camouco. He disputed the claim that the bag of fish, which was claimed to have been retrieved by the French authorities, had been jettisoned by the crew of the Camouco and stated that the bags [which were] jettisoned by the crew of the Camouco had contained only garbage.
........................................................................ . . .
34. On 7 October 1999, the Master was charged and placed under court supervision (contrôle judiciaire) by the examining magistrate (juge d’instruction) of the tribunal de grande instance at Saint-Denis. His passport was taken away from him by the French authorities. The rest of the crew, except four members who remained on board to see to the maintenance of the Camouco, left Réunion on 13 October 1999.
........................................................................ . . .
36. In its order of 8 October 1999, the [French] court of first instance at Saint-Paul, having regard to the facts of the case and the alleged breaches of law . . . and “in particular in the light of the value of the vessel and the penalties incurred”, confirmed the arrest of the Camouco and ordered that the release of the arrested vessel would be subject to the condition that prior payment be made of a bond in the amount of 20,000,000 FF in cash, certified cheque or bank draft, to be paid into the [local French] Deposits and Consignments Office.

37. In support of its order, the Court relied upon the following:
...........(a) Article 3 of Law No. 83-582 of 5 July 1983, as amended, concerning the regime of seizure and supplementing the list of agents authorized to establish offences in matters of sea fishing;
..........((b) Articles 2 and 4 of Law No. 66-400 of 18 June 1966, as amended by the Law of 18 November 1997, on sea fishing and the exploitation of marine products in the French Southern and.Antarctic Territories;
...........(c) Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

38. Article 3 of Law No. 83-582 of 5 July 1983, as amended, reads as follows:

...........................................................[[Translation from French]
...........The competent authority may seize the vessel or boat that has been used to fish in contravention of laws and regulations, regardless of the manner in which the violation is established.
...........The competent authority shall conduct or arrange for the conducting of the vessel or boat to a port designated by that authority; it shall prepare a procès-verbal of seizure and the vessel or boat shall be handed over to the Maritime Affairs Department.
...........Within a time-limit not exceeding seventy-two hours after the seizure, the competent authority shall submit to the judge of first instance [trial court] of the place of the seizure an application accompanied by the procès-verbal of seizure in order for the judge to confirm, in an order made within seventy-two hours, the seizure of the vessel or boat or to decide on its release.
............Whatever the circumstances, the order shall be made within six days of the arrest referred to in article 7 or of the seizure.
............The release of the vessel or boat shall be decided by the judge of first instance of the place of the seizure.upon the posting of a bond, the amount and arrangements for payment of which he shall decide in accordance with the provisions of article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

39. Articles 2 and 4 of Law No. 66-400 of 18 June 1966, as amended, read as follows:

......................................................... [Translation from French]
.....................................................................Article 2
.......No one may fish and hunt marine animals, or engage in the exploitation of marine products, whether on land or from vessels, without having first obtained authorization.
.......Any vessel entering the exclusive economic zone of the French Southern and Antarctic Territories shall be obliged to give notification of its presence and to declare the tonnage of fish held on board to the chief district administrator of the nearest archipelago.
.................................................................... Article 4
.......Any person who fishes, hunts marine animals or exploits marine products on land or on board a vessel, without having first obtained the authorization required under article 2, or fails to give notification of entering the economic zone, or to declare the tonnage of fish held on board, shall be punished with a fine of 1,000,000 francs and six months' imprisonment, or with one only of these two penalties.
.......Anyone fishing, in prohibited zones or during prohibited periods, in contravention of the provisions of the orders provided for under article 3, shall be subject to the same penalties.
.......However, the statutory maximum provided for in the first paragraph shall be increased by 500,000 francs for every tonne caught over and above two tonnes without the authorization provided for under article 2 or in breach of the regulations concerning prohibited zones and periods issued pursuant to article 3.
.......Concealment, within the meaning of article 321-1 of the Penal Code, of products caught without the authorization provided for in article 2 or in breach of the regulations concerning prohibited zones and periods issued pursuant to article 3 shall be subject to the same penalties.

40. Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

.......................................................[Translation from French]
......When the accused is required to furnish security, such security guarantees:

......1. the appearance of the accused, whether under charges or not, at all stages of the proceedings and for the execution of judgment, as well as, where appropriate, the execution of other obligations which have been imposed upon him;
......2. payment in the following order of:
......... a) reparation of damages caused by the offence and restitution, as well as alimony debts when the defendant is being prosecuted for failure to pay this debt;
..........b) fines.

.......The decision which compels the defendant to furnish security shall determine the sums assigned to each of the two parts of the security.
......................................................................... . . .

41. On 22 October 1999, [vessel owner] Merce-Pesca and the Master of the Camouco filed a summons for urgent proceedings before the court of first instance at Saint-Paul, in order to secure prompt release of items seized . . . and to seek a reduction of the amount of the bond. In the summons a complaint was, inter alia, made that the obligation to fix a “reasonable” bond, as required by articles 73, paragraph 2, and 292 of the Convention, was not complied with.

42. On 14 December 1999, the court of first instance at Saint-Paul made an order rejecting the request. The Court stated: "... it is for the judge [of this court] before whom the case is heard to set the bond in application of the rules laid down in article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and ... he is not required to give an account of the considerations on which he based himself both to secure payment of penalties incurred and to secure the appearance of the accused in legal proceedings, having regard to the nature of the facts." An appeal is pending against this order before the court of appeal (cour d’appel) at Saint-Denis.

Jurisdiction
43. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not complied with the provisions of the Convention for the prompt release of a vessel or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security. The Respondent denies the allegation.

44. The Tribunal will, at the outset, examine the question whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application. Article 292 of the Convention sets out the requirements to be satisfied to found the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It reads as follows:

....................................................................Article 292
................................................Prompt release of vessels and crews
.......1. Where the authorities of a State Party have detained a vessel flying the flag of another State Party and it is alleged that the detaining State has not complied with the provisions of this Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security, the question of release from detention may be submitted to any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or, failing such agreement within 10 days from the time of detention, to a court or tribunal accepted by the detaining State under article 287 or to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, unless the parties otherwise agree.
......2. The application for release may be made only by or on behalf of the flag State of the vessel.
......3. The court or tribunal shall deal without delay with the application for release and shall deal only with the question of release, without prejudice to the merits of any case before the appropriate domestic forum against the vessel, its owner or its crew. The authorities of the detaining State remain competent to release the vessel or its crew at any time.
.......4. Upon the posting of the bond or other financial security determined by the court or tribunal, the authorities of the detaining State shall comply promptly with the decision of the court or tribunal concerning the release of the vessel or its crew.

45. Panama and France are both States Parties to the Convention. Panama ratified the Convention on 1 July 1996 and the Convention entered into force for Panama on 31 July 1996. France ratified the Convention on 11 April 1996 and the Convention entered into force for France on 11 May 1996.

46. The status of Panama as the flag State of the Camouco, both at the time of the incident in question and now, is not disputed. The parties did not agree to submit the question of release from detention to any other court or tribunal within 10 days from the time of detention. [Thus, submission to the local French court did not trump the UN Tribunal's power to hear this case.] The Tribunal notes that the Application has been duly made on behalf of the Applicant in accordance with article 292, paragraph 2, of the Convention . ...

47. The Tribunal notes further that the Respondent does not contest the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

48. For the aforesaid reasons, the Tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application.

Objections to admissibility [If Panama has properly stated a prima facia claim, it is entitled to treaty remedies so that the ship can leave port, the Tribunal can determine if the amount of the security bond ordered by the French court is not excessive, without regard to whether the plaintiff nation fails to ultimately prove its case. Quick resolutions of such issues by the UN court in Germany is designed to facilitate ships' movements throughout the world's oceans, and to promote international commerce--which would otherwise be impeded because of the long delays with national court adjudication of such cases.]

49. The parties disagree on whether the Application is admissible and it is, therefore, to that question that the Tribunal must now turn its attention. Article 292, paragraph 1, of the Convention provides for the making of an application for release based on an allegation that the detaining State has not complied with the provisions of the Convention for the prompt release of a vessel or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security. Pursuant to article 113, paragraph 2, of the [UN Tribunal's] Rules, if the Tribunal decides that the allegation is "well-founded” it will order the release of the vessel and its crew upon the posting of the bond or other financial security as determined by the Tribunal.

55. The other objection to admissibility pleaded by the Respondent [France] is that domestic legal proceedings are currently pending before the [French] court of appeal of Saint-Denis involving an appeal against an order of the court of first instance at Saint Paul, whose purpose is to achieve precisely the same result as that sought by the present proceedings under article 292 of the Convention. The Respondent, therefore, argues that the Applicant [Panama] is incompetent to invoke the procedure laid down in article 292 as “a second remedy” against a decision of a national court and that the Application clearly points to a “situation of lis pendens [supposed cloud on any judgment by the UN Tribunal] which casts doubt on its admissibility”. The Respondent draws attention in this regard to article 295 of the Convention on exhaustion of local remedies, while observing at the same time that “strict compliance with the rule of the exhaustion of local remedies, set out in article 295 of the Convention, is not considered a necessary prerequisite of the institution of proceedings under article 292”.
........................................................................... . . .
56. The Applicant rejects the argument of the Respondent and maintains that its taking recourse to local courts in no way prejudices its right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under article 292 of the Convention.

57. In the view of the Tribunal, it is not logical to read the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies or any other analogous rule into article 292. Article 292 of the Convention is designed to free a ship and its crew from prolonged detention on account of the imposition of unreasonable bonds in municipal jurisdictions, or the failure of local law to provide for release on posting of a reasonable bond, inflicting thereby avoidable loss on a ship owner or other persons affected by such detention. Equally, it safeguards the interests of the coastal State by providing for release only upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security determined by a court or tribunal referred to in article 292, without prejudice to the merits of the case in the domestic forum against the vessel, its owner or its crew.

58. Article 292 provides for an independent remedy and not an appeal against a decision of a national court. No limitation should be read into article 292 that would have the effect of defeating its very object and purpose. Indeed, article 292 permits the making of an application within a short period from the date of detention and it is not normally the case that local remedies could be exhausted in such a short period.
......................................................................... . . .
Non-compliance with article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention
61. The Tribunal will now deal with the allegation that the detaining State has not complied with the provisions of the Convention for the prompt release of the vessel and its Master upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security. For the application for release to succeed, the allegation that the detaining State has not complied with the provisions of the Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond should be well-founded. In the present case, the Master of the Camouco has been accused of violating the French laws concerning fishery resources in the exclusive economic zone of France and it is not disputed that article 73 of the Convention is thereby attracted.

62. The Respondent maintains that, under article 73, paragraph 2, the posting of a bond or other security is a necessary condition to be satisfied before an arrested vessel and its crew can be released, that the Applicant has not posted any bond so far, which it is required to do promptly and immediately after the arrest of the Camouco and its Master, and that, consequently, the Application deserves to be dismissed as the allegation contained therein is not well-founded. In reply, the Applicant states that the posting of a bond is not a condition precedent for the submission of an application under article 292.

64. The Tribunal wishes to clarify that the posting of a bond or other security is not necessarily a condition precedent to filing an application under article 292 of the Convention. It is pertinent to recall here the Judgment of 4 December 1997 in the M/V “SAIGA” case, wherein the Tribunal held [in its first judgment since the treaty entered into force three years earlier]:

..........64. According to article 292 of the Convention, the posting of the bond or security is a requirement
..........of the provisions of the Convention whose infringement makes the procedure of article 292 .........applicable, and not a requirement for such applicability. In other words, in order to invoke article
..........292, the posting of the bond or other security may not have been effected in fact ... .

..........There may be an infringement of article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention even when no bond
...........has been posted. The requirement of promptness has a value in itself and may prevail when the ..........posting of the bond has not been possible, has been rejected or is not provided for in the coastal ..........State’s laws or when it is alleged that the required bond is unreasonable.

64[sic]. In its Application, the Applicant contends that the bond of 20,000,000 FF fixed by the French court is not “reasonable”. In its final submissions, the Applicant stated that the amount of a reasonable bond should be fixed at 1,300,000 FF, from which the value of the cargo seized (350,000 FF) should be deducted. The Respondent stated that the maximum total amount of fines which could be imposed on the Master of the Camouco and on the owners of Merce-Pesca could be more than 30 million francs and that this figure alone suffices to show the reasonableness of the amount of the bond required by the French court.

65. It is, accordingly, necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the bond imposed by the French court of 20 million FF is reasonable for the purposes of these proceedings.
......................................................................... . . .
66. In the M/V “SAIGA” case, the Tribunal stated that “the criterion of reasonableness encompasses the
amount, the nature and the form of the bond or financial security. The overall balance of the amount, form and nature of the bond or financial security must be reasonable.” (Judgment of 4 December 1997, paragraph 82).

67. The Tribunal considers that a number of factors are relevant in an assessment of the reasonableness of bonds or other financial security. They include the gravity of the alleged offences, the penalties imposed or impassible under the laws of the detaining State, the value of the detained vessel and of the cargo seized, the amount of the bond imposed by the detaining State and its form.
......................................................................... . . .
68. In the present case, the Tribunal has taken note of the gravity of the alleged offences and also the range of penalties which, under French law, could be imposed for the offences charged. The Agent of France indicated that the maximum penalty which can be imposed on the Master of the Camouco is a fine of 5 million FF. The Tribunal notes the statement by the Agent of France that, in conformity with article 73, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Master of the Camouco is not subject to imprisonment. According to the Agent of France, under French law, the company which owns the Camouco can also be held criminally liable, as a legal person, for the offences committed by the Master of the Camouco acting on its behalf to a fine up to five times that imposed on the Master. The Tribunal, however, notes that no charge has yet been made against the company.

69. Regarding the value of the Camouco, article 111, paragraph 2(b), of the Rules requires that the application for the release of a vessel or its crew from detention contain, where appropriate, data relevant to the determination of the value of the vessel. However, the value of the vessel alone may not be the controlling factor in the determination of the amount of the bond or other financial security. In the present case, the parties differ on the value of the Camouco. During the oral proceedings, expert testimony was offered by the Applicant and not challenged by the Respondent to the effect that the replacement value of the Camouco was 3,717,571 FF. On the other hand, the value assessed by the French authorities for the purposes of the domestic proceedings is 20 million FF but there is no evidence on record to substantiate this assessment. Attention is drawn to court orders referred to in paragraphs 36 and 42. The Tribunal also notes that the catch on board the Camouco, which according to the Respondent is valued at 380,000 FF, has been confiscated and sold by the French authorities.

70. On the basis of the above considerations, and keeping in view the overall circumstances of this case, the Tribunal considers that the bond of 20 million FF imposed by the French court is not “reasonable”.

71. That the Camouco has been in detention is not disputed. However, the parties are in disagreement whether the Master of the Camouco is also in detention. It is admitted that the Master is presently under court supervision, that his passport has also been taken away from him by the French authorities, and that, consequently, he is not in a position to leave Réunion. The Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to order the release of the Master in accordance with article 292, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

73. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Application is admissible, that the allegation made by the Applicant is well-founded for the purposes of these proceedings and that, consequently, France must release promptly the Camouco and its Master upon the posting of a bond or other financial security as determined in paragraph 74.

Form and amount of the bond or other financial security
......................................................................... . . .
74 [sic]. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Tribunal is of the view that a bond or other security should be in the amount of 8 million FF and that, unless the parties otherwise agree, it should be in the form of a bank guarantee.
......................................................................... . . .
.....Done in English and in French, both texts being authoritative, in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, this seventh day of February, two thousand, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Tribunal and the others transmitted to the Government of the Republic of Panama and the Government of the French Republic, respectively.

......................................................................P. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO,
........................................................................................President.

Notes & Questions
.....1. To avoid jurisdictional overlaps, the UN generated an agreement regarding the respective jurisdictions of the International Court of Justice and the International Seabed Authority under UNCLOS. See Agreement Concerning the Relationship Between the United Nations and the International Seabed Authority, 36 Int'l.Legal Mat'ls 1492 (1997). A thoughtful analysis of the various UNCLOS dispute resolution mechanisms is available in J. Noyes, Compulsory Third-Party Adjudication and the 1982 United Nations.Convention on the Law of the Sea, 4.Connecticut J. Int'l L. 675 (1989).
.....2. The pleadings in this court's first case are available in International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ed.),.Pleadings, Minutes of Public Sittings and Documents, The M/V `SAIGA' (Saint Vincent and the.Grenadines v. Guinea) List of cases: No. 1 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001).
.....3. A British-owned ship carrying seventy-six tons of nuclear waste to Japan was finally allowed to pass through Argentina's 200-mile EEZ. Previously, it was not allowed to pass through any zone subject to Argentina's coastal jurisdiction. Argentina's courts said "no" to transit through any area subject to State control, but the executive branch ultimately allowed this vessel to pass through the EEZ. Source: Associated Press, Jan.12, 2001.
.....4. In Mayaguezanos Por La Salud y El Ambiente v. US, 198 F.3d 297 (1st Cir., 1999), a federal appeals court decided that a British-flag freighter, carrying nuclear waste passed between Puerto Rico and Hispaniola, while en.route to Japan from France, did not result in the US being legally required to regulate shipments of nuclear waste through its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Private litigants from Puerto Rico unsuccessfully brought this action, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to enjoin further transportation until the US filed an environmental impact statement. The plaintiffs alleged that the federal government's failure to regulate the passage of nuclear waste through its EEZ violated the NEPA, because US international agreements, and customary.international law, require the coastal State to control the transport of nuclear waste. Citing to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, the Court determined that the limited powers of the sovereign in the EEZ were.insufficient to give rise to a private cause of action by these plaintiffs. Thus, foreign vessels do not need US permission to pass through its EEZ. The court stated that "[w]hatever the scope of the United States' potential powers, either multilaterally or unilaterally, over the EEZ, it is clear that the [US] has not exercised any such powers with respect to the transport of nuclear waste." Id., at 305. (The US had signed, but not yet ratified the.UNCLOS.)
.....5. New cases:
In The Grand Prize (Belize v. France), Judgment, ITLOS No. 8 (2001), a ship owner filed an application for prompt release related to unlawful fishing in the EEZ off the French Kerguelen Islands.
Click here. A summary is available in B. Oxman & V. Bantz, "The Grand Prince," 96 Amer. J. Int'l L. 219 (2002).
In December 2002, the Tribunal commenced a hearing on the Application for the release of the "Volga" and members of its crew (Russian Federation v. Australia). The Russian flagged "Volga" was boarded on February 7, 2002 by Australian military personnel on the high seas in the Southern Ocean for "alleged illegal fishing in the Australian fishing zone." It has been detained during the interim period in the Australian port of Perth. For additional detail,
click here, then search "Volga."
A US court approved the seizure of king crab: (a) illegally taken in the Russian EEZ; (b) placed on a Russian transport ship; (c) transported out of the Russian EEZ to Vancouver, British Columbia; (d) imported into the US at Blaine, Washington; and (e) dtained by US customs officials. The US brought a forfeiture action in violation of US law prohibiting the importation of wild life ilegally taken in violation of foreign law. See U.S. v. 144,774 Pounds of Blue King Crab, 410 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2005).
.....6. Would the analyses by international decision makers, including the judges in this case, be simplified if the EEZ.were expressly characterized in the treaty as being either: (a) "an extension of the coastal State's Territorial Sea," or (b) "High Seas?" (See the current treaty regime depicted in Exhibit 6.1.) Or, this "simplification" yield more.questions than answers?
 Go To Chapter 6, Section 6.3, text p.274,
after Camouco Case reference to this web page.

..Last rev: 07/13/05
..Course Web Site