DRAFT

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea presents its compliments to the Secretary General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the draft articles on the continental shelf and related subjects prepared by the United Nations International Law Commission at its fifth session in 1953.
The Korean government would like to pay a tribute to the International Law Commission for its efforts in preparing the draft articles on the new and controversial subjects which have not as yet been treated in an exhaustive manner nor, as a result, led to the development of pertinent international rules.
Attaching great importance to the formulation of new international rules to establish order in the high seas in step with the progress of times, the Korean government has carefully studied the draft articles and feels obliged to make thereon the following comments:

I Continental Shelf

There is no reason for making a sharp distinction between the rules for the resources of the continental shelf, including sedentary fishery resources thereon, and those for the fishery resources contained in its superjecent waters.
If the exercice of sovereign rights by the coastal state over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources is reasonable and just, there seems no reason why it should not be so with the fishery resources in the superjecent waters. Indeed, the continental shelf may be regarded as an extension of the land-mass of the coastal state and thus naturally appurtenant to it. So it may be no less with the fishery resources over it because the sources of the nourishment of the wildlife in the superjacent waters come in no small measure from the coastal state and the continental shelf, and thus the living resources therein may he regarded as the extension of the natural resources of the coastal state.
If self-protection comples the coastal state to keep close watch over activities off its shores which are of the nature necessary for utilization of the resources of the continental shelf, it is all the more so in case of alien activities off its shores necessary for the exploitation of fishery resources.
It is, therefore, suggested that the draft article 2 be amended to read, "The coastal state exercises over the continental shelf and the superjacent waters sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources."
Accordingly the Article 3 and Article 6 paragraph I should read as follows respectively:
Article 3. "The rights of the coastal state over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters as high seas in relation to navigation."
Article 6, Paragraph 1. "The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation."

II Fisheries

The fishery problem is one of the most urgent problems requiring a new international solution. The present international rule on fishery utterly fails to cope with new requirements arising from the changed conditions of the problem.
The old rule of the freedom of fishery in the high seas can be reasonable only on the premise that fishery resources are inexhaustible.
This was relatively the case when the fishing methods were rather primitive and the fruits of scientific progress were not utilized in fishing yet. However, as is well-known, fishery resources are rapidly depleting due to the scientific development in fishery machines on the one hand and to the abuse of fishing rights by nations thus far accorded by the international law on the other.
The seas are no longer vast and beyond effective control. They have been controlled and utilized by maritime powers mainly to their own interests. Apart from the freedom of navigation, the principle of freedom of high seas, it can be said, has served only major maritime powers. Thus, the sharp discrepancies between the facts and rule and the inequity of the rule resulted in a legitimate and forceful movement by a number of nations toward the formulation of a new rule which found its expression in numerous unilateral acts and proclamations on the subject.
In formulating a rule on the problem, one must take a farsighted perception that the new rule may provide the mankind with a long lasting solution, taking full account of the direction towards which the times are moving. At the same tine, a universal international rule must give equitable shares to the smaller nations of its benefits. It is overdue that the principle of high seas on fishery should be revised in this light.
The only answer equitable as well as reasonable is to recognize for the coastal state an exclusive fishing and hunting zone extending not more than 100 miles from its territorial waters. This idea has its expression in negative form in the draft article 2, when it provides that in any area situated within 100 miles from the territorial waters, the coastal state or states are entitled to take part on an equal footing in any system of regulations, even though their nationals do not carry on fishing in the area. However, this provision fails to go far enough. It is a compromise with the present vested interests.
The reasons for a positive expression of the basic idea as suggested above are given below in addition to the equally applicable reasons set forth for the case of the superjacent waters of the continental shelf:
1. The maritime resources in the adjacent waters constitute actually one of the most important natural resources of the coastal state and have special importance to it.
2. In practice, nationals of the states other than the coastal state are liable to abusive exploitation. Moreover, the depletion of marine resources outside the territorial waters has direct adverse effects on the fishery of the coastal state in its territorial waters, and thus amounts to compromising the sovereign rights of the coastal state.
As the world knows, during the 40 years of Japanese occupation of
Korea, Japan monopolized fishing rights in what is properly Korean waters and recklessly exploited the marine resources therein, consequently stunting the development of Korean fishing industry. The Korean Government, driven by the dire need of safeguarding its marine resources from further despoliation by such aggressive neighbour as Japan and with the considerations stated above, proclaimed on January 18, 1952, in accordance with a number of precedents the Presidential Proclamation setting forth boundary line around the adjacent seas of Korea within which the Republic of Korea would have a sole jurisdiction and control for fishery purposes. The proclamation makes it clear, it is to be noted, that it does not interfere with the rights of free navigation on the high seas.
A copy of the Presidential Proclamation is enclosed herewith for your reference.
As regards the provision of draft article 3 it ray be reasonably applied to the areas of high seas outside of the fishing and hunting do not carry on fishing in the area. However, this provision fails to go far enough. It is a compromise with the present vested interests.
The reasons for a positive expression of the basic idea as suggested above are given below in addition to the equally applicable reasons set forth for the case of the superjacent waters of the continental shelf:
1. The maritime resources in the adjacent waters constitute actually one of the most important natural resources of the coastal state and have special importance to it.
2. In practice, nationals of the states other than the coastal state are liable to abusive exploitation. Moreover, the depletion of marine resources outside the territorial waters has direct adverse effects on the fishery of the coastal state in its territorial waters, and thus amounts to compromising the sovereign rights of the coastal state.
As the world knows, the Korean government, driven by the dire need of safegarding its marine resources from despoliation by reckless neighbouring nations and with the considerations stated above, proclaimed on January 18, 1952, in accordance with a number of precedents the Presidential Proclamation setting forth boundary line around the adjacent seas of Korea within which the Republic of Korea would have a sole jurisdiction and control for fishery purposes. The proclamation. makes it clear, it is to be noted, that it does not interfere with the rights of free navigation on the high seas.
A copy of the Presidential Proclamation is enclosed herewith for your reference.
As regards the provision of draft article 3 it may be reasonably applied to the areas of high seas outside of the fishing and hunting zones thus established.

III Contiguous Zone

Safegarding of national security is a paramount requirement of a nation in modern times. It is therefore suggested that the national security is added in the enumeration of the reasons for the recognition of the contiguous zone. As to the width of the contiguous zone, the Korean Government reserves its position.
The Korean Government would appreciate it if the Secretary-General of the United Nations would be good enough to transmit the above-mentioned views of the Korean Government to the United Nations International Law Commission that they may he given due consideration.
Enclosure: A copy of the Presidential Proclamation over Adjacent Seas.
March 24, 1955
Seoul, Korea