* bok * cj * tiff * gem * tin * 2
"6. The coastal State must clearly indicate straight baselines on charts, to which duepublicity must be given."
“The Inland Water Line” Resolution
Congress Regulations on Maritime navigation
It started with the Act of April 29, 1864, which promulgated rules applicable to allvessels of domestic registry on any waters. These rules were patterned on emerginginternational standards, and when most other maritime nations subsequently changedtheir rules, the United States Congress in 1885 enacted conforming "RevisedInternational Rules and Regulations" to govern American ships "upon the high seasand in all coast waters of the United States, except such as are otherwise providedfor." The 1864 Act was therefore repealed except as to navigation "within the harbors,lakes, and inland waters of the United States." In 1889 the International MaritimeConference drafted new International Rules, which were promptly adopted byCongress. Article 30 of those rules provided that "nothing in these rules shall interferewith the operation of a special rule, duly made by local authority, relative to thenavigation of any harbor, river, or inland waters." The 1969 Act which vested authorityto determine dividing lines for inland waters to the Secretary of the Treasury has sincebeen transferred several times to various federal officials and now resides with theCommandant of the Coast Guard. When the Submerged Lands Act was passed in1953, such lines had been drawn in the Gulf only along some segments of theLouisiana shore, but in that year the Commandant of the Coast Guard drew new linesapplicable to all the waters off the Louisiana coast. In 1954 the Louisiana Legislaturedeclared that it "accepted and approved" this demarcation, which it now calls the"Inland Water Line," as its boundary. Louisiana now argues that this line enclosesinland waters and is therefore "the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters," andthus its "coastline" within the meaning of the Submerged Lands Act.5.
Louisiana’s 1st Argument: The definition of Inland Waters must be consistentacross all Statutes, from the 1864 Act to the Submerged Lands Act – Court saidLouisiana was wrong since Congress in the 1953 Act had no intention to tie it tothe 1864 definition.
While the Submerged Lands Act established boundaries between the lands of theStates and the Nation, Congress' only concern in the 1895 Act was with the problem of navigation in waters close to this Nation's shores. There is no evidence in thelegislative history that it was the purpose of Congress in 1953 to tie the meaning of thephrase "inland waters" to the 1895 statute. Court looked into an exchange on theInland Water Line which took place between Senator Anderson and the AssistantAttorney General of Louisiana wherein the Senator said “We went through all that inthe hearing a couple of years ago, and found that was of no value to us whatsoever”.Court concluded, as it did in the California case, that Congress deliberately "chose toleave the definition of inland waters where it found it - in the Court's hands”6.
Argument: the ICTS was not intended either to be the exclusivedeterminant of inland or territorial waters or to divest a nation of waters which ithad long considered subject to its sole jurisdiction. By the long-standing,continuous, and unopposed exercise of jurisdiction to regulate navigation onwaters within the "Inland Water Line," the United States is said to haveestablished them as its inland waters under traditional principles of internationallaw. In the alternative, Louisiana ran the “Historic Bays” argument – Court saidLouisiana was wrong again since the State never treated the IWL as a territorialboundary
Nothing in either the enactment of the 1895 Act or its administration indicates that theUnited States has ever treated the IWL as a territorial boundary. ,For at least the last25 years, during which time Congress has twice re-enacted both the International andInland Rules, the responsible officials have consistently disclaimed any butnavigational significance to the "Inland Water Line." When the line was for the first timecompleted off the entire Louisiana shore, the Commandant of the Coast Guarddeclared:"The establishment of descriptive lines of demarcation is solely for purposes connectedwith navigation and shipping. These lines are not for the purpose of defining Federal or State boundaries, nor do they define or describe Federal or State jurisdiction over navigable waters." As early as 1943 the Coast Guard had differentiated the "InlandWater Line" from other boundaries with territorial significance. Quite obviously, thisartificial line does not truly separate the high seas from the inland waters of the UnitedStates. It simply marks the area within which the Inland Rules apply, and outside of which the International Rules control. There is no indication that in enacting thenavigation rules and authorizing the designation of an "Inland Water Line" Congressbelieved it was also determining the Nation's territorial boundaries. Indeed, it seemsunlikely that Congress, if it had intended that result, would have delegated suchauthority to the Secretary of the Treasury, to be exercised in his discretion "from time totime" and by reference to navigational aids rather than in accordance with prevailingprinciples of international law7.
3 Zones of Navigable Seas under General Principles of IL*
distinguished by the nature of the control which the contiguous nation can exerciseover themNearest to the nation's shores are its
inland, or internal waters.
These are subject tothe complete sovereignty of the nation, as much as if they were a part of its landterritory, and the coastal nation has the privilege even to exclude foreign vesselsaltogether. Beyond the inland waters, and measured from their seaward edge, is a beltknown as the
marginal, or territorial, sea
. Within it the coastal nation may exerciseextensive control but cannot deny the right of innocent passage to foreign nations.Outside the territorial sea are the
, which are international waters not subjectto the dominion of any single nation.8.
Historical Title – mere reasonable regulation insufficient, a coastal nationsmust exercise dominion with the acquiescence of other nations.
Rule: Whether particular waters are inland has depended on historical as well asgeographical factors but as we said in United States v. California, it is generally agreedthat historic title can be claimed only when the "coastal nation has traditionally assertedand maintained dominion with the acquiescence of foreign nations." It is universallyagreed that the reasonable regulation of navigation is not alone a sufficient exercise of dominion to constitute a claim to historic inland waters. On the contrary, control of navigation has long been recognized as an incident of the coastal nation's jurisdictionover the territorial sea. Article 17 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and theContiguous Zone embodies this principle in its declaration that "[foreign shipsexercising the right of innocent passage [in the territorial sea] shall comply with thelaws and regulations enacted by the coastal State . . . and, in particular, with such lawsand regulations relating to transport and navigation." Because it is an acceptedregulation of the territorial sea itself, enforcement of navigation rules by the coastalnation could not constitute a claim to inland waters from whose seaward border the
Always will B