TERRITORIAL WATERS IN THE ARCTIC: THE SOVIET POSITION

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP08C01297R000500010009-9
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
61
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 16, 2012
Sequence Number: 
9
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
July 1, 1972
Content Type: 
REPORT
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP08C01297R000500010009-9.pdf2.83 MB
Body: 
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 ARPA ORDER NO.: 189-1 R-907-ARPA July 1972 Territorial Waters in the Arctic: The Soviet Position S. M. Olenicoff A Report prepared for ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY Rand SANTA MONICA, CA. 90406 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 This research is supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency under Contract No. DAHC15 67 C 0141. Views or conclusions contained in this study should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion or policy of Rand or of ARPA. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 ARPA ORDER NO.: 189-1 R-907-ARPA July 1972 Territorial Waters in the Arctic: The Soviet Position S. M. Olenicoff A Report prepared for ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY Rand SANTA MONICA, CA. 90406 Declassified and Approved'T(S.r" Release ..21512/10/18 : CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Bibliographies of Selected Rand Publications Rand maintains a number of special subject bibliographies containing abstracts of Rand publications in fields of wide current interest. The following bibliographies are available upon request: Aerodynamics ? Arms Control ? China ? Civil Defense Communication Satellites ? Communication Systems Computer Simulation ? Computing Technology Decisionma king ? Game Theory ? Maintenance ? Middle East Policy Sciences ? Probability ? Program Budgeting SIMSCRIPT and Its Applications ? Southeast Asia Space Technology and Planning ? Statistics ? Systems Analysis USSR/East Europe ? Weapon Systems Acquisition Weather Forecasting and Control To obtain copies of these bibliographies, and to receive information on how to obtain copies of individual publications, write to: Publications Department, Rand, 1700 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90406. Published by The Rand Corporation Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -iii= PREFACE This Report was prepared for ARPA's Office of Advanced Engineering as a part of the Rand project in Surface Effect Vehicles (SEVs) and Arctic Operations. It is intended as background material to assist in planning programs for advanced Arctic applied research in general and for advanced SEV technology in particular. This Report-should be of interest to defense agencies and others concerned with current and future applied research operations in the Arctic as well as to researchers in the international.legal aspects of that area of the world. The author is currently a consultant to The Rand Corporation. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -v- SUMMARY The Soviet Union has unilaterally taken the position that its territorial waters, including those in the Arctic, have an extent of 12 n mi from the coastline of the USSR. The United States, while adher- ing to the 3 n mi limit, has proposed moving toward international accep- tance of a 12 n mi maximum limit if such acceptance includes provisions for freedom of navigation through and over international straits. In the Arctic, the Soviet Government has in addition declared a "sector claim." First put forward in 1926, this claim asserts Soviet sovereignty over all lands and islands in the Arctic Basin sector from 32? 04' 35" E to 168? 49' 30"W. In subsequent writings on this 1926 decree, Soviet jurists have variously interpreted the sector principle to mean that the Soviet Union can claim not only the lands and islands within its sector, but also all or part of the following: (1) the open waters between the islands; (2) the waters between the islands and the mainland; (3) ice islands and the ice pack; (4) the remaining areas of the Arctic Basin within the "Soviet sector"; and (5) the air space above the entire sector. The Soviet Government has not followed up such interpretations with official decrees; but, at the same time, it has not repudiated them either, which implies tacit support. The present policy of the Soviet Union appears to be a realistic one which recognizes the "high seas" status of the Arctic Ocean and its airspace. Quasi-official Soviet writings, however, continue to reiterate the concept of a "Soviet sector" in the Arctic Basin, the reason being that the Soviet Government probably wants to keep its future options open. Over the years, the Soviet Union has also attempted to elicit acceptance of its claim that the Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian Seas, as well as the Saa of Okhotsk, should be considered as "closed seas" or internal waters of the USSR on historical and geographical grounds. The United States has rejected such quasi-official Soviet claims, but the American overt presence in these areas has been minimal. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -vi- Recently the Soviet Union has put renewed emphasis on the national character of the Northern Sea Route, referring to it as the "National Northern Sea Route and identifying it as an internal shipping lane. The Soviets back up this contention with historical and "exclusive- user" arguments, and also cite the 1951 ruling of the International Court of Justice in the Norwegian Fisheries Case which established that :Norway could validly claim .its Indreleia sea route to be national and internal waters. The. Soviets argue that their Northern SeaRoute, stretching from Murmansk to the Bering Strait and beyond, should have .the same status. Soviet- emphasis on this will probably continue, as will their proprietary attitude toward their "sector" of the Arctic. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -vii- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to express his appreciation to I. S. Blumen- thal, J. 0. Fletcher, A. L. Horelick, and T. F. Kirkwood for reviewing this report and offering valuable suggestions, and to Kathryn Salmi for her assistance in the researching and preparation of the manuscript. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved ForRelease2012/10/18 : CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -ix- CONTENTS PREFACE SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii Section I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. ARCTIC BASIN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS 2 III. SOVIET REACTIONS TO U.S. ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC . IV. THE CURRENT SOVIET POSITION ON ARCTIC WATERS 16 The "Soviet Sector" Claim 16 Territorial Waters in the Soviet Arctic 20 Internal Waters of the Soviet Arctic 24 Closed Seas 26 The Northern Sea Route 28 Appendix A. TERRITORIAL WATERS: U.N. DEFINITION AND INTERNATIONAL STATUS 30 B. TERRITORIAL WATERS: SOVIET DEFINITION 36 BIBLIOGRAPHY 44 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -1- I. INTRODUCTION The question of defining territorial waters in the Arctic Basin has often been debated, but still remains unresolved. This is due partly to the unique nature of the Arctic Ocean, which makes the defi- nition of "waters" difficult and partly to the severe Arctic environ- ment, which has kept man's presence there to a minimum. Consequently, there has not been a pressing need for a definitive resolution of what constitutes trespassing and what does not. In recent years, however, the importance of the Arctic Basin as an arena for scientific, economic, and military activities has been rapidly increasing. This has accentuated the need for an international agreement on Arctic waters or, at least, a clear mutual understanding of the individual positions taken by the various Arctic-exploiting nations. In this paper the author examines the evolution of the USSR's position on territorial waters in the Arctic Basin as expounded in official and quasi-official Soviet declarations, and as reflected in Soviet reactions to U.S. activities in the Arctic. For background, the U.N. and Soviet definitions of territorial waters are included as Appendixes A and B respectively. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved ForRelease2012/10/18 : CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -2- II. ARCTIC BASIN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS The Arctic Ocean is a vast and unique body of water, differing significantly from the rest of the World Ocean. In another context, the author has described it thus: Like the face of an alien planet, it stretches across the top of the world...its waters held captive by an ever- present mask of ice. It is the only ocean in the world that can be crossed on foot...but no man has ever dared to do so. Scores of ships have been mercilessly crushed by its guardian icefields...the same paradoxical masses of ice that benevolently provide island-size floating platforms for scientific research stations. Stirred slow- ly by storm winds and sea currents, this perpetually shift- ing jigsaw of drifting ice crumbles and merges, expands and contracts, like a restless, breathing beast.. .stealthily opening up to reveal the mysterious depths beneath it, then closing with grinding impacts that push up towering and jagged ice ridges in its wake.... It is this unusual nature of the Arctic Ocean that makes it diffi- cult to resolve questions of exactly where "Arctic waters" end and "Arctic territories" begin, and whether the concept of an "open sea" is applicable in the Arctic Basin. For instance, is Fletcher's Ice Island, on which a U.S. research settlement has flourished for nearly twenty years, to be considered as "Arctic Ocean waters" (of which, tech- nically, it is composed) or as an "Arctic Ocean territory" (which, for all practical purposes, it is)? Is it correct to refer to the peren- ially ice-covered Central Arctic as the "high seas," when no ship has ever passed through it? Submarines, however, can navigate under it, while at the same time airplanes can land on its ice fields and traaked land vehicles can travel for hundreds of miles along its surface. One can say, therefore, that the Arctic Ocean has the characteristics of both land and sea, and yet, is totally unlike both. Because of its inscrutable character, and the fact that until sev- eral decades ago it was an unexplored, blank spot on most maps, the first territorial aspirations in the Arctic Ocean took the form of "sec- tor claims." The precedent for'Sector claims was set by the early boundary treaties between states occupying Arctic territories. The Conventions Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -3- of 1824 and 1825 between Imperial Russia and England, for example, pro- vided for a line of demarcation between the Russian and British North American territories that would extend beyond their respective Arctic coasts and would continue "...in its prolongation as far as the Frozen "1 Ocean.... The same sort of wording was used in the boundary treaty between the United States and Russia in 1867, following the U.S. pur- chase of Alaska. The treaty declared that the demarcation line"...pro- ceeds due north, without limitations, into the same Frozen Ocean.?2 And so, there emerged the concept of sovereignty extending beyond the mainland and into the Arctic Basin. The countries benefiting most from such a "sector? concept are, naturally, those that have extensive coast- lines bordering the Arctic Ocean. It is thus not surprising that, to date, only Canada and the Soviet Union have made sector claims in the Arctic. Although these claims have not yet caused serious international disputes, they have cast an aura of uncertainty over territorial jurisdiction within the Arctic Basin. The "sector principle" on which the claims are based says, in effect, that all lands discovered or undiscovered, within a spherical triangle formed by the North Pole and the easterly and westerly limits of a country's Arctic Ocean coast, belong to the coastal state concerned or that this state should have at least a preferential right to acquisition. As early as 1916, the Imperial Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced in a note that all land between the Russian Arctic coast anil the North Pole would be regarded as Russian territory. In 1925, Canada put forward a sector claim that included all islands known or yet to be discovered within the longitudinal limits of 61?W . and 141?W and extending "right up to the Pole," In 1928, the Canadian Government forestalled possible Norwegian claims to certain areas with- in the Canadian sector by paying the Norwegian explorer Otto Sverdrup . $67,000 "for his services." Norway then recognized the claim of Canada to the areas in question, but specifically declined to recognize the sector principle. In 1955, when the Soviet ice-floe station drifted IT. A. Taracouzio, Soviets in the Arctic, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1938, p. 331. 2Ibid., p. 332. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -4- into the Canadian sector, there was much discussion in official Canadian circles about the meaning of the Canadian sector claim and as to whether the Soviets had "invaded" Canadian territory. In debates that followed, it was brought out that Canada does not claim sovereignty in any form ,over the "high seas" within its sector, but that Canada perhaps should exercise some sort of sovereignty over the ice cover within its sector inasmuch as the ice fields have some of the aspects and uses of land (when they are used as airfields, for instance). The recent oil activ- ity on the North Slope and the passage of the Manhattan through the North- west Passage have spurred a new debate within the Canadian Government on the question of Canadian control over all navigation in waters north of Canada (one of the main concerns being the fear of possible oil spills and pollution).3 Figure 1 shows the "Arctic sectors" claimed by Canada and the Soviet Union. The Soviet sector claim was first put forward in 1926. It asserts Soviet sovereignty over all lands and islands, discovered or to be dis- covered in the sector from 32? 04' 35" E to 168? 49' 30"W, except for lands acknowledged to be foreign territory (such as Spitzbergen). In the late 1920s, Norway protested the Soviet sector claim because it neg- ated the Norwegian claim to Franz Josef Land. The protest, however, was not advanced vigorously and Norway's claim to Franz Josef Land has since been abandoned. In addition to their own sector, the Soviets acknowl sectors belonging to Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, c, four other and the United States (Alaska). As for the North Pole, located at the tip of all the sectors, V. L. Lakhtin, a noted Soviet authority on polar matters, writes:4 As to the ownership of the North Pole, it should be remarked that the Pole is an intersection of meridian lines of the said five sectors. Neither legally nor in fact does it be- long to any one. It might be represented as an hexahedral frontier post on the sides of which might be painted the national colors of the State of the corresponding sector. 3D Newman, "Government Faces Challenge on Arctic Sovereignty," The Toronto Globe and Mail, January 20, 1970. 4V. L. Lakhtin,'"Rights Over the Arctic," The American Journal of International Lap, Vol. 26, 1930, pp. 703-717. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 /cella. at lell - 0 RANGEL ISLAND SECTOR CLAIMS Canada 4.4 (to ./we erh. U.S., Downark (Greenland), and Norway lwarr oo roctrio soctor claims.) TERRITORIAL- SEA CLAIMS 12 nautical miles Li.und.?,. 4 nautical miles. "4.""?::/?- 3 nautical milast which s smeciiis dein *pellet Sea opporearty claimed wholly or in port by USSR. at internal waters; how claims har- monise with 12-ndle territorial two doh,, hot not been emsticirly mated. ? 'colones A-rerle territeriel see is swolstr...**d Err ? rowletswely Jeanne era/osier fishing sorsa el it ed. elisions' oil's. t Syntled Amodio. ,33rn4e territorial see hes net ker., plotted rho inner roan al the Carosolion Arche pampa diltangh, in sorter4 the 3-rnde limit entrails in thew worsors. 7 04. 3 - " - ,-3 RCTIC 4,4 s N.? It.. 4f--???,',. -,, , /. ..-- ' /: 2),--?s--;;;;;?;-'4? ???,:,..-;?:?--;;; **** :.?,-, / ,,,,y,t-?-?-', . ******** -'-,. r,,, ' 7 ?,,????? ::;?--;??? ;?7,% letz4,vb ;?,; \ - SEVERN/4Y ZEMLY POLE :;?tlArr AlAyEN (r/Orway Arctic - !?:7:TRANZ JOSEFI LAND S , '.? ? ? . ?. ?? ? , ? es 01P) ? 14`.? 4%* Os.'" ?, ) ???=4, . 1) , omit , \ , Fig .1 ?Territorial sea and sPapt claims 1.nNhe Arctic - \ _ Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -6- In subsequent writings on the decree of 1926, Soviet jurists have /interpreted the sector principle to mean that the Soviet Union can ! claim not only the lands and islands within its sector, but also: (1) the open waters between the islands; (2) the waters between the islands and the mainland; (3) ice islands and the ice pack; (4) the remaining areas of the Arctic Basin within the sector; and (5) the air space above s. the entire sector. Claims of this nature can be found in the writings of V. L. Lakhtin,5 S. A. Bergavinov,6 E. A. Korovin,7 L. Breitfus,8 and S. V. Sigrist.9 Although the claims put forward by these writers have the apparent support of the Soviet Government, the official USSR position on Arctic sectors is unclear. The United States, Denmark, and Norway have not made Arctic sector claims and do not recognize such claims or the sector principle. Non- Soviet jurists have sharply criticized Arctic sector claims, pointing out that the sector principle has no basis in international law. Pro- ponents of the sector principle, however, claim among other things that their theory is merely a variation of a common theme in the evolution of boundaries. The question of Arctic sectors and territorial waters may be af- fected by the unprecedented 1951 ruling of the International Court of Justice in the Norwegian Fisheries Case. The Court's decision held that the extensive chain of islands off the Norwegian coast could be 5V. L. Lakhtin, "Prava Soyuza S.S.R. V Arktike" (The Rights of the USSR in the Arctic), Rabochiy Sud, 1928, p. 1135; idem, Prava Na. Severnyye Polyarnyye Prostranstva (Rights to the North Polar Territories Moscow, 1928. 6S. A. Bergavinov, "Flag Sovetov Nad Polyusom" (The Flag of the Soviets Over the Pole), Sovetskaya Arktika, No. 6, 1937, p. 26. 7E. A. Korovin, "Problema Vozdushnoy Okkupatsiyi V Svyazi S Pravom Na Polyarniye Prostranstva" (The Problem of Aerial Occupation in Con- nection with Claims to Polar Territories), Voprosy Vozdushnogo Prava, Vol. I., 1926, p. 104. 8 L. Breitfus, "0 Razgranicheniyi Severnoy Polyarnoy Oblasti" (On the Demarcation of the North Polar Region), Morskoy Sbornik, No. 1, 1927, p. 3. 9S. V. Sigrist, "Sovetskoye ,Pravo V Polyarnykh Prostranstvakh" (Soviet Law in the Polar Territories), Rabochiy Sud, 1928, p. 986. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -7- considered a geological extension of the mainland, and therefore the fiord waters, extending 40 n mi out from the mainland in some cases, could be claimed as national or internal waters, with the zone of ter- ritorial waters starting at the outer rocks and shoals of the island chain and extending out to sea. It is difficult to say whether this ruling is applicable to island holdings in the Arctic Basin. Inter- esting to note, however, is the fact that the Norwegian Fisheries Case has evoked considerable interest on the part of the Soviets.10 The significance of the Soviet interest is discussed in the section on "The Northern Sea Route." Apart from the lack of international agreement on the width of territorial waters, the delineation of such waters in the Arctic poses additional problems. In many regions of the Arctic Basin, ice makes it difficult to fix the location of the shoreline, thus compounding the uncertainty for those attempting to define territorial waters and for navigators attempting to observe limits that have been defined. In general, international legal practice has accepted the principle of ignoring "temporary" ice coverage in delimiting territorial waters, but of taking cognizance of "permanent" ice formations such as shelf ice or tongues of glaciers that project into the sea, treating such projections as land. The permanent ice category, however, presents numerous prob- lems such as determining whether the ice in question is indeed permanent, and dealing with "coastline" changes resulting from the waxing and waning of ice. Theories as to how territorial seas should be delimited in re- gions of permanent shore ice have had few tests because, in areas where such ice occurs, the need for pinpoint definition of territorial sea limits has been negligible. The ,Convention ,on the .Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone adopted by the 1958 Law of the Sea onference makes no provision for ice, either permanent or temporary. 10A. N. Nikplayev, Problema TerritoriaZ'nykh Vod V Mezhdunarodnom Prave (The Problm of Territorial Waters in International Law), Moscow, 1954, pp. 119-132; see also P. D. Milovskiy and G. A. Glazunov, "Pret- voreniye V Zhizn' Leninskogo Plana Osvoyeniya Sovetskoy Arktiki" (The Realization of Lanin's Plan for the Development of the Arctic), Morskoy Sbornik, No. 6, 1970, pp. 83-88. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -8- The question of the legal status of installations on ice floes and ice islands is also clouded and uncertain. . International law, in- sofar as it has addressed itself to the problem, seems to regard in- stallations on drifting ice as similar in status to ships on the high seas. Numerous U.S. and Soviet drifting stations have been abandoned in the Arctic Basin during the last two decades. Some of these stations have been subsequently found and visited. On one occasion, a disabled airplane abandoned by Americans on an ice floe was found by Soviet pilots from the drifting station North Pole-3, who promptly repaired it, and flew off with it. Whether legal title to vehicles, supplies, and equipment is retained after drifting stations are abandoned or left unattended is still an open question. On the broader question of whether the occupation of ice floes or ice islands conveys any sort of permanent sovereignty, a German legal authority, D. Bohmert, is quoted as stating: "In that case [use of an ice floe as an air base or scientific station], sovereignty over such 'a floe would exist as long as the state authority was actually exercised. If the base were given up, the territory would thereby be ,11 relinquished. When the question of sovereignty over ice fields first emerged as an international topic of discussion, the views of Soviet spokesmen were mixed. Professor E. A. Korovin, commenting on Soviet sector rights, states:12 Must the rights of the USSR be viewed as limited only to the few islands, and that the rest of the Arctic with its floating and fast ice-fields, inland lakes, straits, etc., is left by the Soviet Government for unlimited exploitation by any of the capitalist plunderers...? Obviously not, for such a conclusion would be in conflict with the whole idea of the Decree.13 Hence this Decree must be understood to 11H. B. Smith, The Use of Polar Ice in Inter-Hemispheric Air Operations, unpublished M.A. thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., June 1956. 12E. A. Korovin, "SSSR i Polyarnyye Zemli" (The USSR and Polar Lands), Sovetskoye Pravo, No. 3, 1926, p. 43. 13Korovin is referring to thAThgcree of 1926 in which the Soviet Union put forward its sector claim [Author]. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -9- include in the conception of 'lands and islands,' as expressed by Soviet legislators, also ice formations .and the seas surrounding them, for Otherwise the polar sector adjacent to the USSR would have to be considered as an open sea with all the consequences resulting from such an interpretation. Another Soviet authority, . V. Sigrist, gives a similar interpre- tation to the 1926 Decree:14 Interpreting this decree from the standpoint of the un- derlying idea, and not literally, we must admit that to the USSR belong not only 'lands and islands already dis- covered and those which may be discovered in the future' but also the areas among them irrespective whether there be there immobile or floating ice, or permanently frozen lands still unknown to us, for otherwise foreigners might think that between these islands there was 'open sea,' free for exploitation by every nation. In the spirit of the Decree we must maintain that the whole region from the Soviet mainland to the Pole is Soviet possession, even if it is just as difficult to go there as to climb the summits of the Caucasian, Ural, Altaian or other moun- tains the Soviet ownership of which has never been dis- puted. A contrary point of view is expressed by V. L. Lakhtin:15 We are of the opinion that floating ice should be assimi- lated legally to open polar seas, while ice formations that are more or less immovable should enjoy a legal status equivalent to polar territory. A similar stand is taken by T. W. Balch, who also expressed the opinion that sovereignty cannot be declared over the Arctic ice:16 ...it might be urged that men might permanently occupy the ice cover of the Polar Sea. But the ice at the North Pole is never at rest. It is in continual motion... 14S. V. Sigrist, op. cit., Rabochiy Sud, p. 984. 15V. L. Lakhtin, Prava Na Severnyye PoZyarnyye Prostranstva (Rights to the North Polar Territories), Moscow, 1928, p. 33. 16T. W. Balch, "The Arctic and Antarctic Regions and the Law of Nations," The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 4, 1910, p. 266. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -10- and such possible occupation would be too precarious and shifting to and fro to give anyone a good title. And so the rules of.. .the freedom of the high seas would seem to apply. One can generally say that a clash of basic conceptions underlies many of the uncertainties regarding sovereign rights in the Arctic. According to the long-standing view of international law, the Arctic Ocean outside a "reasonable" territorial-sea belt has high-seas status, regardless of its ice mantle. Opposed to this is the view that the Arctic is a unique region having characteristics of both land and sea, and so different from any other area on the earth's surface that it requires special adaptation of laws to deal adequately with its prob- lems. The U.S., Norway, and Denmark adhere to the first point of view, as also does Canada (but with some leanings toward the second concept). The second point of view has been put forward in the quasi-official writings of Soviet authorities on polar law. The Soviet Government has not followed up these writings with official decrees; but, at the same time, it has not repudiated them, either. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -11- III. SOVIET REACTIONS TO U.S. ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC Over the years, the Soviets have exhibited a markedly proprietary attitude toward the Arctic in general, and especially toward the regions bordering the USSR. This stems to a large extent from the fact that the Soviet Union is very exposed and vulnerable along its northern border. It views the Arctic as an unfenced backyard and has always been wary of trespassers. Furthermore, the Arctic has been an almost exclusive Soviet preserve for so long, that the Soviets naturally feel a sense of ownership toward it and regard any non-Soviet presence there as a be- lated intrusion into an area that Russians have pioneered and "staked a claim" to. This attitude is well reflected in the Soviet reactions to U.S. activities along their northern border. American-Soviet incidents in the Arctic go back as far as 1924. In December of that year, Chicherin, the Soviet People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, sent a note to Wash- ington that protested the fact that the U.S. Coast Geodetic Survey Service had set up a magnetic observation station on the Chukchi Penin- sula in the vicinity of the Bay of Emma (situated across the Bering Strait from Alaska). Furthermore, almost as if to add insult to injury, the Americans erected a sign next to the station which read: Magnetic Observation Station of the Coast Geodetic Survey Service of the U.S.A. Penalty for removal of this sign--- $250 or imprisonment. The Soviet protest on the "Bay of Emma Incident," delivered to U.S. Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes, read in part:17 ...emphasizing, first of all, the fact that a United States man-of-war has several times visited the territorial waters of the USSR without any due consent of the latter, which is contrary to international law, I must call attention to the fact that ele erection of such a station...is -a gross vio- lation of tie sovereignty of the Soviet Republics. Protes:ing categorically to the Government of the USA against such illegal acts of its officials, who make no 17T. A. Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1935, p.55. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -12- distinction where the territory of their country ends and the territory of other sovereign states begins, I must em- phasize the fact that such violation of the legal rights of the USSR will be suppressed by the Soviet Government by every available means. There were no major incidents during the 1930s, and in the 1940s, the cooperative U.S.-Soviet effort against Germany and Japan precluded any Arctic confrontations during the war and the years immediately following it. In the course of the Allied wartime effort, the northern waters were a busy place, as vast amounts of military supplies were shipped by Arctic routes to Murmansk and other Soviet ports. Soviet Arctic airfields were used by American planes in shuttle-bombing oper- ations and served as entry points for the delivery of lend-lease air- craft from U.S. bases. Also, a number of U.S. icebreakers were turned over to the Russians to aid in the navigation operations in Arctic waters. After the war, the Soviets were very reluctant to return these icebreakers, but finally did so after considerable U.S. pressure. With the advent of the Cold War and the emergence of the Arctic as a strategic U.S.-Soviet arena, a tense and hostile atmosphere began to prevail in the northern regions. In 1955, a U.S. Navy "Neptune" patrol plane was shot down by the Soviets near St. Lawrence Island, southwest of the Bering Strait. The incident reportedly occurred on the U.S.- Russia Convention line of 1867, but was 20 to 30 miles from the nearest Soviet land. Although the Convention line was drawn merely to divide between America and Russia various scattered islands, islets, and rocks in seas not well known in 1867, the ,USSR seems to have treated the line as if it marked the seaward limit of Soviet territorial waters and air space. America protested the "Neptune incident" strongly, claiming that the plane had at no time violated Soviet air space. The USSR, in reply, claimed such a violation but tacitly admitted to error by expressing regret and offering to pay half the damages, an offer that was eventually accepted. A number of other incidents in the same area were reported in the Soviet press during the early 1950s.18 In every case, the Russian 18Pravda3 April 12, 1950; November 30, 1951; July 17, 1952; March 24, 1953. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -13- accounts stated that "a U.S. military aircraft" intruded "into the air- space of the USSR," but "was driven off by vigilant Soviet interceptors." Following the fatal Neptune incident, another U.S. plane was shot down, this time over the Barents Sea. The downed Air Force reconnais- sance plane was reportedly at least 60 miles from the Arctic coast of the Soviet Union, but the Soviets claimed that it had "violated their air space .111 In the summer of 1965, the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker, Northwind, sailed from Norway into the north Eurasian seas on a data-gathering ex- pedition. Part of the mission was to study currents, water temperatures and densities, plant life, and the geology of the ocean floor. Further- more, the Northwind was under orders to traverse the Northeast Passage across the top of the Soviet Union. It was continuously shadowed, first by an eavesdropping trawler, then by a destroyer, and was occasionally harrassed by low-flying Soviet Badgers. Eventually it got as far as Severnaya Zemlya, but was then ordered by Washington to turn back, ap- parently due to strong Soviet diplomatic pressure. In 1967, determined to try again, the United States sent two ice- breakers, the Edisto and the Eastwind, on a similar mission. The ships started in the Barents Sea and again reached the vicinity of Severnaya Zemlya. This time, however, they were turned back by heavy ice condi- tions around the northern tip of Severnaya Zemlya. They could have passed easily through Viltkitskiy Strait between Severnaya Zemlya and the Taimyr Peninsula, but the Soviets refused them passage, just as they had in 1965. The Soviet contention was that the 22 n mi wide straits were territorial waters since the USSR claims a 12 n mi terri- torial limit. America argued that, under maritime law, the right of innocent passage through straits connecting international waters is guaranteed. Although disagreeing with the Soviet position, the United States decided not to challenge it. The two U.S. icebreakers, denied passage through the Vil'kitskiy Strait, had no choice but to turn back. Additional details on the two traverse attempts by U.S. icebreakers Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -14- are contained in a number of more complete accounts.19 In an account of the Edisto and Eastwind cruise, author R. D. Wells writes:20 While the two ships were working in the Arctic the Soviets were not idle. The American ships were kept entertained by a never-ending stream of Soviet Badger and Bear recon- naissance aircraft. These planes, flying sometimes in vir- tually zero-zero flying weather, never failed to develop an audience as they passed overhead. Flying over in clear weather at 500 to 1,000 feet, in poor visibility they would decrease their altitude a little at a time until they could make a visual sighting of the two ships. One of the giant Bears, lowering gradually step-by-step through the fog in the course of six passes, finally got a visual by passing between the icebreakers at a height of not more than 200 feet on his seventh pass. Toward the end of the same article, the author makes this con- cluding comment: The question of territorial limits, of course, will not be quickly resolved. The scope of last year's disagreement over Vil'kitskiy Strait has been reflected already in the headlines across the country. It seems a bit strange that we should have Soviet elec- tronics vessels ?three miles off Cape Canaveral and sailing the waters of Long Island Sound while the Soviet Government says 'nyet' to our transit and innocent passage inside of 12 miles. Since 1967, no further U.S. attempts have been made to traverse the Arctic Basin's Northeast Passage. This is primarily due to the fact that the United States does not have the icebreaker capability to accomplish the task boldly. (Since the Soviets have denied Vil'kit- skiy Strait to U.S. ships, the most difficult leg of a Northeast Pas- sage traverse would be forcing the heavy ice north of Severnaya Zemlya.) 19J. Y. Smith, "Coast Guard Ships Foiled in Arctic Passage," Washington Post, September 1, 1970; "Arctic Trip Frozen Out," Science News, Vol. 92, September 16, 1967, pp. 273-275; R. Petrow, Across the Top of Russia, David McKay Co., Inc., New York, 1967. (A condensed, identically titled version was published in the February 1968 issue of Popular Mechanics); and R. D. Wells, "Surveying the Eurasian Arc- tic," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 92, No. 764, October 1966, pp. 79-85. 20R. 4. 'Wells, "The Icy 'Nyet'!" U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 94, No,. 782, April 1968, pp.. 73-79. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -15- If an American icebreaker were to get stuck in heavy ice during such a traverse Attempt, the_VAlted States would be in the embarrassing position of having alMost no choice but to ask the Soviets to free it. Of the few icebreakers that the U.S. Coast Guard now has, all but one are over 20 years old and under 10,000 hp. By contrast, the Soviet Union has over a dozen more powerful icebreakers, including the 44,000 hp nuclear-powered Lenin, among its total of more than 80 icebreakers. In addition, the Soviets have begun work on several 66,000 hp ice- breakers and a giant 80,000 hp icebreaker. This will further strengthen Soviet capabilities in the Arctic, while U.S. capabilities remain in- adequate. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -16- IV. THE CURRENT SOVIET POSITION ON ARCTIC WATERS There has been much confusion generated by the numerous Soviet declarations (few of them official, some of them contradictory, and many of them ambiguous) concerning territorial sovereignty in the Arc- tic Basin. What then can be said about current Soviet attitudes on Arctic waters? Outlined below is what appears to be the present posi- tion of the Soviet Union, based on its operational policy during the last two decades and on a survey of the most recent Soviet literature. In addition to summarizing the current Soviet position on Arctic waters, this Section attempts to distinguish the direction in which Soviet policy may be evolving. THE "SOVIET SECTOR" CLAIM Soviet spokesmen have frequently reiterated the sector claim of the USSR to all lands and islands in the Arctic Basin north of the Soviet mainland. For example, Capt. P. D. Milovskiy and Justice-Col. G. A. Glazunov, writing in the June 1970 issue of Morskoy Sbornik, the of journal of the Soviet Navy, state:21 The most important declaration of rights by the Soviet Government in regard to arctic territories is the Decree of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR dated 15 April 1926, which established the geo- graphical boundaries of the Soviet sector of the Arctic as being between the meridians of 32? 4' 35" E. and 168? 49' 30" W. Within the limits of this sector, the Soviet Union exercises full sovereignty over all lands and is- lands situated in the Arctic Ocean to the north of the USSR coast and as far as the North Pole. ? Commenting on the present attitude of other Arctic nations toward sector claims, the Encyclopedia Britannica states:22 Most countries interested in the arctic seem to have accepted the sector principle with respect to land 21Op. cit., p. 86. 2252cyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 2, 1968 revision, p. 346. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -17- (that is, the arctic islands and territorial waters sur- rounding them), although the United States has at times maintained a noncommittal attitude. Consequently, it is unlikely that nations having sector claims would accept claims of any other state based on discovery or occupation; and conversely, nations making such discoveries are not likely to assert claims to lands or islands found in sec- tors of other states. Today, with the Arctic Basin fully explored, this has become an academic issue since all Arctic islands have been discovered and claimed. As it has turned out, the territory of the USSR encompasses all the islands in what is claimed as the "Soviet sector," and no other country is disputing Soviet claims to these islands. The USSR, by the same token, is not claiming any territories in other sectors of the Arctic Basin. .It can be said, therefore, that the Soviet and Canadian sector claims, the only two put forward at a time when the Arctic Basin .was largely unexplored, are now synonymous with the status quo. Why then do the Soviets continue to emphasize their 1926 sector 'claim? No one is disputing their sovereignty over all the lands and islands in their sector, and there are no.unknown'islands remaining to be discovered within it. The reason behind the Soviet policy is prob- ably a desire to keep alive the concept of a "Soviet sector,' By stress- ing this concept of a sector exclusively containing Soviet lands and islands, the Soviets are keeping open. the option of possibly going a step further and declaring that the Arctic waters containing these Sov- iet lands and islands must be considered as Soviet waters. A-number. , of Soviet jurists and Arctic authorities have already made such claims.23 Although the Soviet Government has not officially made claims of this nature, it would seem to prefer to keep this option open through un- official emphasis on the concept of the Soviet sector. In the course of its extensive research and continuous work in the Arctic Basin, the Soviet Union has not treated the "sectors" of other countries as inviolate. Manned Soviet drifting stations have meandered over the entire Arctic Basin, and Flying Laboratory aircraft have made hundreds of landings on ice fields north of Greenland, between the 23 V. L. Lakhtin, S. A. Bergavinov, and E. A. Korovin'. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -18- Canadian Archipelago and the North Pole, and north of Alaska in the Beaufort Sea.24 And, conversely, the USSR made no official reaction when U.S. ice stations drifted into the Soviet sector. 25 Airspace over the high seas in Arctic sectors has also remained open. Soviet jurists have declared in their writings that the Soviet Union has sovereignty over the airspace above its sector.26 The Soviet Government, however, has never officially made such a claim and probably will not do so in the future. During recent years, international air- lines have been flying an increasing number of regular passenger routes over the Central Arctic. With the advent of the SST (and its incompati- bility with populated areas), there will undoubtedly be many more flights over the Arctic Basin in the future. In the course of their Arctic operations, the Soviets have flown all over the Arctic Basin and have made hundreds of landings in all the sectors.27 Similarly, U.S. military aircraft in transit or performing some function in the Arctic Basin (conducting ice reconnaissance or supplying drifting stations), have frequently flown through the Soviet sector without incident. The Soviet Government, however, on a number of occasions has protested Arctic flights by nuclear-armed B-52s. In April 1958, for instance, the Soviet Union submitted a note to the U.N. Security Council calling for "urgent measures to put an end to flights 24J. 0. Fletcher, Origin and Early Utilization of Aircraft- Supported Drifting Stations, P-3395, The Rand Corporation, Santa Mon- ica, California, 1966. 25In October of 1967, the author was on U.S. ice station T-3 (Fletcher's Ice Island) when it drifted into the Soviet-claimed Arctic sector at a point north of the Chukchi Sea. A rare overflight by Sov- iet aircraft took place on that day. Two Soviet ice-reconnaissance planes approached from the west, flew over the stations, then circled around and flew back in the direction from which they came. This may have been a symbolic gesture, but, more than likely, it was just an accidental coincidence -- considering the fact that the Soviets always make it a point to stay clear of U.S. stations and expect the same in return. 26See Section II, p. 6 and Appendix B, p. 41. 27Maps showing the extent and numerousness of the Soviet landings in the Arctic Basin are contained in footnote 24. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -19- by United States military aircraft armed with atomic and hydrogen bombs in the direction of the frontiers of the USSR." In replying to this charge, the United States proposed an Arctic inspection zone, but this was immediately rejected by the Soviets. In February 1968, when a U.S. B-52 bomber with four hydrogen bombs on board crashed near Greenland while on airborne alert over the Arctic, the Soviet Union again issued a sharp protest against such U.S. flights.28a As a rule, U.S. airborne-alert flights have prudently avoided the "Soviet sector" of the Arctic Basin. United States nuclear submarines, however, have not shied away from the Soviet sector, and Russian sub- marines, in turn, cruise the waters of other sectors.28b It appears, therefore that the present policy of the Soviet Union is a realistic one which recognizes the high-seas status of the Arctic Ocean and its airspace. This means that the oft-reiterated Soviet sec- tor claim pertains only to the lands and islands within the sector, which all belong to the Soviet Union anyway. Although presently irrele- vant, the Soviet sector claim could become a significant factor at some future time. For example, suppose some day it became techno- logically feasible to securely ground an ice island on the continental _ _ _ , shelf, or to permanently restrict its movement to a small area.29 The Soviets could declare that such an artifically created and permanent platform in their "sector" becomes part of the sector's "land and is- lands," and is thus subject to Soviet sovereignty. Another possibility associated with the Soviet sector claim could be that the Soviets may intend to permit only "innocent passage" and 28a1,H-Bomb Hunt in the Arctic Night," Life, February 9, 1968; see also, "Missing: Four H-Bombs," Newsweek, February 5, 1968. 28bW. Lyon, "The Submarine and the Arctic Ocean," The Polar Record, September 1963, Vol. 11, No. 75, pp. 699-705. 29In the spring of 1960, Fletcher's Ice Island (T-3) was drifting westward in the Beaufort Sea. It passed within 19 miles of Barrow and, shortly afterwards, ran aground northwest of the Point. There it came to a total halt 80 miles offshore and in about 25 fathoms of water. The ice island remained immobile and at that same spot (71? 43' N, 1610 14' W) for almost two years, until a series of violent storms during JEnuary 1962 dislodged it and pushed it back into the current. This incident serves to show that the concept of a grounded ice island is nct at all farfetched. See also "Ice Islands May Be Used As Ship PiErs," Los Angeles Times, October 22, 1970. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -20- "innocent overflight" in their sector. This possible Soviet intent has never been tested, since the United States has so far conducted only , minimal surface and aerial activities in the Soviet sector of the Arctic Basin. Past Soviet reactions to U.S. military activities in the Arctic have been strong, even when such activities were far re- moved from the Soviet sector. If activities that the Soviet Union con- sidered hostile were to take place inside the Soviet sector, the reac- tion of the Soviet Government would probably be much stronger, possibly to the extent that it would declare the "Soviet sector" of the Arctic Basin closed to all activities which it does not consider "innocent." Still another possibility is that the Soviets may use their sector claim to make their side of the Arctic Basin completely "off limits" to the United States at some future time. This could be for reasons of "national security," or to counter U.S. activities, either in the Arctic or in some other part of the world. For example, if the United States should put tough restrictions on Soviet activity in and around Cuba (where the United States is strong and can enforce restrictions), the Soviet Union could counter by restricting U.S. activity in the Arctic (where the Russians hold the stronger hand). TERRITORIAL WATERS IN THE SOVIET ARCTIC Soviet doctrine has always asserted the right of a nation to uni- laterally set the limit of the territorial waters along its coastline, according to that nation's own needs and interests.30 The Soviet Union has declared the width of its own territorial waters, including those in the Arctic, to be 12 n mi. The Soviets have strenuously resisted all international efforts to set a lesser norm for all nations to ad- here to. However, in negotiations for a 1973 United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, the Soviets are actively seeking multilateral agreement on a maximum breadth of 12 miles for the territorial sea. The Soviets initially argued for the right of nations to unilater- ally set their own territorial water limits in order to buttress the USSR's early 12 mi claim. Later, as more and more nations declared 30See Appendix B, which discusses the Soviet stand on territorial waters in more detail. f; Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -21- 12 mi limits for their territorial seas, such justification was no longer necessary. But, the Soviets continued to maintain their posi- tion in regard to unilateral determinations, due partly to the fact that it was a positive factor in their relations with developing nations and also because extended territorial sea claims tended to hamper West- ern naval activities more than their own. Furthermore, such extended claims created frictions between Western nations and developing states. In recent years, however, the Soviet Union's emergence as a major naval power has led to qualification of its position. Starting in the mid-1960s the Soviets, though continuing to main- tain that coastal states have a right to unilaterally determine the width of their territorial waters, qualified their statements by indi- cating that such choices should range between the limits of 3 and 12 miles. In recent years, the Soviet Union has also shown an increased in- tolerance toward claims exceeding 12 mi, labeling such extended claims as "excessive," "unrealistic," and "illegal."31 On the question of passage through their territorial waters, both in the Arctic and elsewhere, the present Soviet position appears to be as follows: 1. Commercial vessels have the right of "innocent passage," but are subject to Soviet regulations and surveillance. In addition, they must stay out of restricted areas and Soviet internal waters. At present, the only commercial ships that pass through the Arctic Basin are Soviet. This situation could, however, change in the future with the advent of Surface Effect Vehicles (SEVs) and submarine transports. 2. Foreign warships (a designation that covers all foreign naval vessels, including submarines) do not have the right of "innocent passage" without prior permission. Such permission must be requested through diplomatic channels "at least 30 days prior to the intended passage.?32 The Soviets include U.S. icebreakers in this category and 31O. Bozrikov and K. Bekyashev, "Pravovoy Rezhim Prilezhashchikh Morskikh Zon" (Law Regime of Contiguous Sea Zones), Morskoy not, Issue 1, 1970, p. 55. 32G. S. Gorshkov, "Mezhdunarodno-Pravovoy Rezhim Tikhogo Okeyanna" (International Law Regime of the Pacific Ocean), Morskoy Sbornik, No. 7, July 1970, p. 94. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -22- list them as "naval vessels." All U.S. icebreakers are now operated by the Coast Guard. Prior to 1966, the icebreakers were operated by the U.S. Navy. When the Eastwind and the Edisto sailed into the waters of the "Soviet sector" with the dual purpose of gathering scientific data and traversing the Northeast Passage, the Soviets referred to the U.S. icebreakers as "warships." Although the icebreakers are certainly not warships as such, each does carry twin-mounted five-inch guns on its bow, and standard Coast Guard armament.33 3. The Soviet Union does not permit research activities in its territorial waters without prior permission. This apparently means that research vessels (which can gather data at anytime and in a continuous fashion) do not have the right of "innocent passage" without requesting and receiving permission beforehand (similar to the regula- tion pertaining to warships). As research activities multiply in the Arctic regions, the question of passage will be of importance to oceanographic vessels and weather ships, especially since the greater part of the Arctic Ocean is unnavigable and the research vessels would probably have to operate close to the coastlines. 4. Although the Soviets claim to adhere to Article 16.4 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone,34 which grants the right of innocent passage through "international straits," they have apparently taken the position that the straits along the Soviet Arctic coastline cannot be construed as "international straits." The straits in question are Karskiye Vorota Strait (between Novaya Zemlya and Vaygach Island), Vilekitskiy Strait (between Severnaya Zemlya and the Taimyr Peninsula) through which the U.S. icebreakers were refused passage, Sannikov Strait (separating the Novosibirsk Islands), and Dimitri Laptev Strait (between the Novosibirsk Islands and the Soviet mainland). The Soviet contention is that these straits are not, in the language of the Article, "used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas." This 33J. Y. Smith, op. cit. 34 Article 16.4 is quoted in Appendix A. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -23- presently stands as a true statement. Its truth is due partly to the inability of international shipping to operate in the Arctic environ- ment and partly to the fact that the Soviets have pot allowed foreign vessels to pass through the straits. Thus, the Soviet contention emerges, as valid by default. These straits connect seas which are presently being navigated only by the Soviet Union, and it certainly cannot be said that they are used for "international navigation." The U.S. icebreaker cruises that ventured into these areae were really nothing more than experimental probes. If, at some time in the future, cargo-carrying SEVs and submarines become a reality, the Soviet Arctic straits may emerge as important passageways for international naviga- tion, in which case international law would require that they be un- conditionally open to all ships. At present, however,.since,there is no international traffic dependent on these straits, the Soviet Union Is keeping them national by invoking its territorial-waters limit acniss them. 5. The Soviets do not permit foreign aircraft to fly over their territorial waters. Since the entire Arctic coastline of the Soviet Union is a defense zone speckled with military installations, the Soviets have been especially touchy about foreign (especially American) aircraft operating close to their northern borders. (As was mentioned in Section III, this is where most of the U.S.-Soviet incidents have taken place.) One can be sure that the stringent Soviet attitude toward foreign aircraft near their Arctic borders will continue. Strong Soviet reactions can be expected not only in the event of intrusions into the airspace over their territorial waters, but also as a result of foreign aircraft even coming within 50 to 100 miles of Soviet territorial waters. Following the incident .on October 21, 1970, when three U.S. Army officers in a light plane blundered across the Turkish border and were forced to land inSoviet Armenia, the. Soviet Government vigorously pro- tested what it called "frequent U.S. violations of Soviet air space,' and scoffed at American claims that most U.S. violations have been accidental strayings by pilots on innocent missions. A Tass:news Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -24- agency release commenting on the incident reflects Soviet sensitivity about their borders,- especially in theArctic:35 The4imericanb-ases situated close to the Soviet Union are being widely used for eapionage and other hostile activ- ities...American propaganda is trying to picture this border violation and past violations as small accidental incidents not worthy of serious attention. Washington officials say, for example, that at least half of all these violations in the past three years were done by hunters for polar bears... But the main question is why in general these U.S. military planes find themselves along Soviet borders--were they looking for polar bears on the borders of Soviet Armenia? INTERNAL WATERS OF THE SOVIET ARCTIC The Russian term "Vnutrenniye vody" frequently appears incorrectly translated in the U.S. literature as "inland waters." The correct translation for this term is "internal waters." The term "inland waters" usually refers to water features of the landscape, such as lakes, rivers, and canals. "Internal waters," on the other hand, refers to water areas along a coast, such as bays, inlets, ports, mouths of rivers, estuaries, etc. According to international law, a coastal state has the same complete sovereignty over its internal waters that is has over its land areas, and "innocent passage" is not permitted through such waters. At times, there has been disagreement ? as to whit-constitutes "internal waters" and there are no universally accepted international criteria for making this determination. The Soviets have defined the "internal waters of the USSR," both in the Arctic and elsewhere as follows:36 1. The waters of ports, bounded on the seaward side by a line con- necting the outermost points of the hydrotechnical or other port struc- tures; 35"Russians Scoff at U.S. Claims of Pilot Error," Los Angeles Times, Sec. A, p. 9, November 1, 1970. 36B. M. Klimenko, pravo Prokhoda Cherez Inostrannuyu Territoriyu (The Right of Passage Through Foreign Territory), Foreign Affairs Publishing House, Moscow, 1967, p. 48. fc__\ ( Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -25- 2. The waters of gulfs, bays, inlets,' and estuaries, the shores of which belong entirely to the USSR, bounded on the outside by a straight line extended from shore to shore at a point where, on the seaward side, one or several sea lanes become possible; 3. The waters of gulfs, bays, inlets, and estuaries, as well as seas and straits, which have historically been possessions of the USSR. K. G. Tsimanovich, writing in a geographic periodical, elaborates a little further:37 From this it follows that all gulfs, inlets and bays whose width on the seaward side is less than 24 miles, re- gardless of a greater width further inland, are entirely the property of the Soviet Union. In the case of gulfs whose width is greater than 24 miles on the seaward side, only a portion of the water can be regarded as belonging to the USSR. In some cases, gulfs, inlets and bays whose width on the seaward side is considerably greater than 24 nautical miles are also considered inland waters; these are the so- called "historical" gulfs which for an extended period were known to Russian navigators, and which at the present time are functioning as internal waters of our state. Included among them are the Gulf of Riga, the Cheshsk and Chaun Inlets, Peter the Great Gulf, and the White and Azov Seas. In the Arctic, the Soviet Union has designated numerous coastal water areas as its "internal waters," based on both geographic and hlstorical criteria. The water areas apparently so claimed, going from west to east, are the following: the White Sea, the Mezen' Inlet, the Cheshsk Inlet, the Pechora Sea, the Pechora Inlet, the Khaypudyr Inlet, the Baydaratak ,Inlet, the Ob' Inlet, the_Gyda Inlet, the Gulf of Yehisey, the Gulf of Pyasin, the Gulf of Tollya, the Gulf of Faddeya, the Gulf of Khatahga, the Gulf of Anabarak, the Gulf of Olenek, the Buorkhaya Inlet, the Gulf of Yansk the Selyakh Inlet, the Ebelyakh Inlet, the Gusinaya Inlet, the Chaun Inlet, the Kolyuchin Inlet, the Gulf of Mechigmensk, the Gulf of Krasta?the Gulf of Anadyr. _ . 37K. G. Tsimanovich, "Gosudarstvennaya Granitsa SSSR" (The State Boundary of the USSR), Geograf4a V Mole, No. 6, November-December 1967, p. 13. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -26- the Gulf of Karaga, the Gulf of Kamchatka, the Gulf of Kronotsk, the Penshina Inlet, the Gizhiga Inlet, and the Gulf ofShelikhov. CLOSED SEAS In numerous places in the Soviet literature, claims have been made that the Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian Seas are actually "land- locked seas" (mare clausum)38 or that they "are in fact broad, shallow bays" which historically should be considered as part of the internal waters of the Soviet Union.39 A "closed sea" regime, by definition, "provides for the unrestricted passage of all vessels of the coastal states, but excludes any transit of warships of any non-coastal state..., and any sea, regardless of expanse, may be rendered closed by the concurrence of all the coastal states which border the sea...."40 The Soviets define closed seas as "seas which essentially constitute routes leading to the ports and shores of coastal states and are con- nected to the high seas through a series of straits."41 This defini- tion agrees with that of U.S. sources. In view of this definition a case could indeed be made that the Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian Seas are "closed," if the Arctic ice cover is defined as a "land-like" entity -- which in many respects it is. If, however, the Central Arctic is considered to be "high seas," then the case for "closed" Soviet Arctic seas is a much weaker one. The Sea of Okhotsk is another body of water which the Soviets have defined in their literature as a closed sea. A Soviet military jurist, G. S. Gorshkov, is quoted from Morskoy Shornik, the official journal 38T. A. Taracouzio, Soviets in the Arctic, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1938, pp. 353-355. 39E. A. Korovin, ed., Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (International Law), Moscow., 1951, p. 296; see also J. F. Meade. 40j. F. Meade, "The Great Territorial Sea Squabble," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 95, No. 794, April 1969, p. 49. 41Justice-Col. A. S. Bakhov (ed.), Voyenno-Morskoy Mezhdunarodno- Pravovoy Spravochnik (Military-Naval Handbook on International Law), Ministry of Defense of the USSR, Moscow, 1956, pp. 81-83. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -27- of the Soviet Navy, as follows:42 "...legal arguments confirm the correctness of fixing the status of the sea of Okhotsk as both a closed and internal sea coming under the international law concept of historical waters." Another quote by Gorshkov is also taken from the same journal: The United States is also giving particular "attention" to the Sea of Okhotsk, an area of great economic and defen- sive importance to the Soviet Union. This sea penetrates deep into the territory of the U.S.S.R., and its configura- tion is greatly different from other far eastern seas. No international waters or air lanes pass through or over it; no American territory adjoins it. Nevertheless, U.S. mili- tary ships and aircraft have turned up here time after time for intelligence purposes, violating the security of the Soviet state.... D. W. Given, commenting on the Soviet position regarding the Sea of Okhotsk, writes:44 43 The first step toward establishing the Sea of Okhosk as a closed sea was taken during the 1951 San Francisco! Peace Conference when Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei GrOmyko proposed that the straits around the Japanese islands be closed to foreign military navigation and that the Seas 'of Japan and Okhotsk be declared closed. The U.S. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, and the other allied representatives refused to consider Gromykois proposals. Accordingly, the Soviet Union was not a signatory of the peace treaty with Japan. Although Soviet jurists have asserted repeatedly that the Sea of Okhotsk should be regarded as a closed or terri- torial sea, Moscow has expediently avoided an official de- claration. The United States, therefore, has never specif- ically recognized or denied any Soviet claim over this water. Should an official declaration be made, the United States would be obliged to protest its validity or accept the consequences of inaction. AB the situation stands at present, the Soviet Union has not of designated the Sea of Okhotsk, nor the Kara, Laptev, and East 42D. W. Given, "The Sea of Okhotsk: USSR's Great Lake?" U.S. Naval Inatitute Proceedings, Vol. 96, No. 811, September 1970, p. 49. 43Ibid., p. 48. 44Ibid., p. 51. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -28- Siberian Seas in the Arctic Basin as "closed seas." As to-what it might do in the'future,.the Soviet Union may take a position similar to that regarding its "sector" claim.45 THE NORTHERN SEA ROUTE The Soviets have recently put renewed emphasis on the national character of the Northern Sea Route. It is referred to as the "Na- tional Northern Sea Route" and identified as an internal shipping lane. P. D. Milovskiy and G. A. Glazunov, writing in the June 1970 issue of MOrskoy Sbornik, state that:46 ...the path of the Northern Sea Route is situated close to the coast of the Soviet Union. It represents a vital na- tional communication line of the USSR, whith-Iftmbeen used and is being used only by Soviet eSoviet-piloted)vessels. The route passes, in part, through Soviet.territnfial waters.. .and is closed to military ships of foreign na- tions....It should be added that the Northern Sea Route passes through vast Siberian seas--the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas which, by their configuration, represent large shallow bays surrounded by the coastlines of the Soviet Union. Their bottoms are part of the con- tinental shelf of the USSR....From Murmansk and Archangelsk to the Chukchi Peninsula extends our national Northern Sea Route. Its exploration, conquest, development and main- tenance...is the result not only of collossal expenditures of the Soviet Government's means and labor, but represents also the great efforts expended by the Russian people over a period of centuries.... The authors conclude their article by stating that: ...the Northern Sea Route is a Russian national route, in many ways identical to Norway's Indreleia sea route. This latter point is especially interesting in that it refers to the Norwegian Fisheries Case mentioned earlier in this paper.47 The 1951 ruling in that case extended Norway's territorial waters beyond the fringe of its outer coastal islands, and designated the area be- See Section Section IV, p. 17. 46Op. cit., p. 87. 47See p. 6. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -29- tween these islands and the mainland (including the Indreleia shipping lane) as internal waters. It is obvious that the Soviets feel their Northern Sea Route should have the same status, and they will probably continue to stress this in the future. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -30- Appendix A TERRITORIAL WATERS: U.N. DEFINITION AND INTERNATIONAL STATUS "Territorial waters," or "territorial sea," is the designation given to a zone of water off the coast of a state, over which the coastal state maintains complete jurisdiction. A zone of territorial waters may vary in width from 3 to 12 or more nautical miles, depend- ing on the national policy of the coastal state. At present, there is considerable disagreement among coastal nations about the extent of territorial waters. Several full-scale international conferences on this question have been held under the auspices of the United Nations, but the issue has still not been re- solved. The primary basis for recognizing any given width of terri- torial waters as an international norm is contained in the guidelines provided by the International Law Commission of the U.N. General Assembly) The The guidelines presented in the International Law Commis- sion's report, however, are ambiguously worded and have been differently interpreted by individual states to support their own national politics and aspirations. These guidelines, contained in Article 3 of the Com- mission's report, read as follows: ? The Commission recognizes that the international practice is not uniform as regards the delimitation of the territorial sea. ? The Commission considers that international law does not permit an extension of the territorial sea beyond twelve miles. ? The Commission, without taking any decision as to the breadth of the territorial sea up to that limit, notes on the one hand, that many States have fixed a breadth greater than three miles and on the other hand, that many States do not recognize such a breadth when that of their awn territorial sea is less. ? The Commission considers that the breadth of the territorial sea should be fixed by international conference. Report of the International Law Commission, General Assembly, Official Records: 11th Bess., Supplement No. 9 (A/3159), United Nations, New York, 1956. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -31- By stating that "...many states have fixed a breadth greater than three miles...." the Article seems to imply that 3 miles is the conven- tional width of territorial waters.2 On the other hand, by stating that "...international law does not permit an extension of the terri- torial sea beyond twelve miles...," the Article implies that an exten- sion of territorial waters up to 12 n mi is legal. Today, most nations still adhere to the 3 n mi limit. In recent years, however, more and more states have unilaterally extended their territorial waters, usually to the 12 n mi limit. (There are now over 44 nations claiming a 12 n mi limit, as contrasted to only 6 such na- tions in 1954.) There are, in addition, many nations which claim territorial waters of varying widths falling between the 3 and 12 n mi limits. Still other states (Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama, Sierra Leone, Brazil, and Peru) have claimed sovereignty over waters up to 200 n mi from their shores. Among the Arctic countries, Canada claims a 12 n mi territorial sea and a 100-mi "pollution prevention zone" north of Latitude 60o N; the United States claims a 3 n mi zone of territorial waters, Norway and Denmark, a 4 n mi zone; Iceland, a 4 n mi zone and after September 1, 1972 an exclusive fishing zone 50 n mi wide; and the Soviet Union, a 12 n mi zone. In 1958 and again in 1960, special U.N. conferences were held for the purpose of codifying the law of the sea. Although the question of the width of territorial waters was a major issue at both conferences, no international agreement was reached. The conferences did, however, produce four conventions relating to: (1) fisheries; (2) high seas; (3) the continental shelf; and (4) the territorial sea and contiguous zone. The four conventions were signed and have all become effective. Article 1 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone affirms the existence of territorial waters, but skirts the issue of their extent: "The sovereignty of a state extends beyond the limits of its land territory and internal waters, encompassing also a sea zone lying adjacent to its coast and known as the territorial sea." The ?contiguous zone" is defined as a band of water outside, or beyond, *Three nautical miles corresponds to one league, a unit of meas- urement formerly used by mariners. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -32- the territorial sea, in which the coastal state may exercise controls such as thoae over customs and sanitation. The contiguous zone is , measured from the same baseline as the territorial sea and may extend no more than 12 n mi seaward from it. For nations that claim a 12 n mi territorial sea, the contiguous zone coincides with the zone of territorial waters and is absorbed by them. Thus, by definition, a "contiguous zone" exists only for coastal' states that claim territorial waters of less than 12 n mi. The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone also contains a number of articles dealing with the right of passage through territorial waters: ? Article 14.1 states that "...ships of all states, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent page through the territorial sea." ? Article 14.2 defines innocent passage as follows: "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or 'security of the coastal state." ? Article 16.3: "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the coastal state may, without discrimination amongst foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its terri- torial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such sus- pension is essential for the protection of its security." ? Article 16.4: "There shall be no suspension of innocent pas- sage of foreign ships through straits which are used for in- ternational navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign state." ? Article 17: "Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage shall comply with the laws and regulations enacted by the coastal state in conformity with these articles and other rules of international law and, in particular, with such laws and regulations relating to transport and navigation." ? Article 23: "If any warship does not comply with the regula- tions of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance which is made to it, the coastal state may require the warship to leave this territorial sea." Article 2 of the same document (Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Convention) states that a coastal nation maintains complete Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -33- sovereignty of the air space over its territorial waters and that no "right of innocent passage" exists through the air over such waters. This air law concept has evolved as customary law from the Paris con- vention of 1919 and was confirmed by the Chicago Convention on Inter- national Civil Aviation of 1944. The Soviets have voiced reservations to Article 23 of the Conven- tion of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which permits the removal of warships from territorial waters if they do not obeyregula- tions. The position taken by the Soviet Government is somewhat stronger, as reflected in the following quote from a Russian text:3 A littoral state which exercises sovereignty over terri- torial waters naturally has the right, in the interests of its own security and defense, completely to close its terri- torial waters to foreign men-of-war. When a state consents to the passage of foreign ships through its territorial waters, it can make this passage subject to the observance of special regulations. ? In an attempt to reach some sort Of international compromise on the width of territorial waters, a joint U.S.-Canadian proposal was put forward at the 1960 United Nations Law of the The proposal called for a 6 n mi territorial sea, with an additional 6 n mi cOntiguous zone in which the coastal State would have exclusive fish- ing rights. The proposal narrowly missed getting the two-thirds majority vote required for its adoption. So adamant is the Russian position on the 12 n mi territorial sea limit that, when it appeared that the U.S.-Canadian 6-plus-6 proposal might be adopted by the 1960 Conference, the Soviet Government declared that it would not be bound by it. The issue of territorial waters is further complicated by national claims to "internal waters" and "historic waters." The Soviet Union has, on occasion, claimed internal-water status for seas along its Arctic coast. This claim seems to be based in part on a "historic waters" argument. 3G. E. Carlisle, "Three Mile Limit: Obsolete Concept?" U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 93, No. 768, February 1967. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Designation as "internal waters" refers to all waters landward of the territorial sea baseline which is measured as provided in Article 5 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Intentional law gives nations complete sovereignty over their internal waters and innocent passage" is not permitted through such waters. "Historic waters" is a concept somewhat harder to define, but it generally involves sovereignty claims based on national and historical use. Historic waters have the same status as internal waters, and foreign vessels do not have the right of "innocent passage" through them. England's Bristol Channel, Canada's Hudson Strait and Hudson Bay, Chesapeake Bay of the United States, and the Soviet Union's White Sea, Gulf of Riga, and Sea of Azov are among the water areas considered to be "historic waters." The U.N. Law of the Sea Conferences discussed the subject of "historic waters" but were unable to reach agreement on criteria. Partly because of the failure of the numerous attempts to reach international agreement on territorial sea limits and other questions pertaining to coastal waters, most nations have adopted unilateral positions reflecting their own interests. An increasing number of countries, the Soviet Union among them, has declared a 12 n mi extent of territorial waters. It has been estimated that if all countries were to extend their territorial waters to the 12 n mi limit, some 3,000,000 sq mi of ocean would be lost to the regime of the high seas.4 Furthermore, many strategic straits and channels along con- tinental margins and between archipelago islands would lose their high- seas status and become territorial waters.5 The United States has steadfastly adhered to the 3 n mi limit. Arthur H. Dean, head of the U.S. delegation to the Law of the Sea 4Sovereignty of the telligence and Research, 5Straits that would Gibraltar, the Strait of Persian Gulf), entrances and passages through the Sea, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of In- Geographic Bulletin No. 3, April 1965. undergo such a change include the Strait of Dover, the Strait of Hormuz (at entrance to to the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland, chain of the Indonesian islands. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -35- Conference, reiterated the official U.S. position on territorial waters as follows: "...[three miles] is the sole breadth of territorial sea on which there had ever been anything like common agreement," and claims in excess thereof "are not sanctioned by international law," and "conflict with the universally accepted principle of the freedom of the sea....Furthermore, we have made it clear that in our view there is no obligation on the part of states adhering to the 3 mile rule to recognize claims on the part of other states to a greater breadth of territorial sea. And on that we stand.?6 Despite this official posi- tion, U.S. officials have in recent years proposed moving toward inter- national acceptance of a 12 n mi maximum limit if such acceptance in- cludes provisions for freedom of navigation through and over interna- 7 ? tional straits. 6. E. Carlisle, op cit. 7J: R. Stevenson, "International Law and the Oceans," Department of State Bulletin, March 16, 1970, pp. 339-343. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -36- Appendix B TERRITORIAL WATERS: SOVIET DEFINITION HISTORICAL VIEWS Prior to 1917, Tsarist Russia generally adhered to the 3 n mi territorial sea limit. F. F. Martens, a well known Russian jurist at the turn of the century, defines territorial waters as "that part of the sea which adjoins the territory of a coastal state," and "is con- sidered to be an extension of the land territory of the coastal state, which therefore has full sovereignty over such waters."1 A number of other Russian jurists and law scholars of the same period also sup- ported this position, i.e., that territorial waters were a legitimate extension of a nation's coastline, and that a nation had the same full jurisdiction over territorial waters as it had over its land territory. Among those expounding this view were V. A. Nezabitovskiy, L. A. Kamarovskiy, and V. A. Ulyanitskiy.2 Two other Russian scholars, V. Seevers and P. Kazanskiy, writing in 1902, defined territorial waters as having a dual nature.3 They felt that, in addition to being the sovereign offshore territory of a coastal state, territorial waters were also an integral part of the "open sea" and should be open to innocent passage by foreign vessels. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, the new Soviet Government de- clared a 12 n mi territorial sea limit and stressed that the U.S.S.R. would maintain full and unconditional sovereignty over this zone of 1F. F. Martens, Sovremennoye Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo Tsivilizovanykh Narodov (Present Day International Law of Civilized Peoples), Vol. 1, 5th ed., St. Petersburg, 1904, pp. 386-387 (tr. Olenicoff). 2V. A. Nezabitovskiy, Sobraniye Sochineniy (Collected Works), Kiev, 1884; L. A. Kamarovskiy and V. A. Ulyanitskiy, Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (International Law), Moscow, 1908. 3V. Seevers, Glavneyshiye Svedeniya Po Morskomy Mezhdunarodnomy PPavy (Main Principles of International Sea Law), St. Petersburg, 1902; P. Kazanskiy, Uchebnik Mezdunarodnogo Prava (Textbook on Inter- national Law), Odessa, 1902. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -37- coastal waters. This latter point is reiterated.in,the writings of Soviet specialists on international law, among them F. I. Kozhevnikov, A. M. Ladyzhenskiy, T. B. Cherepakhina, V.-N. Durdeneyskiy, and . A. N. Nikolayev.4 Professor V. N. Durdenevekiy states that: "Territorial waters (also known as 'territorial sea' or 'coastal waters') are 4 strip of sea of determined width along the coast of a state and under its sov- ereignty... Territorial waters are an integral and sovereign part of a coastal statee's territory.1!.5 T. B. Cherepakhina, in her writing, states essentially the same thing: "...'by territorial waters is meant that strip' of sea which ex- tends along a nation's coastline and the outer edge of its national or internal waters...with the coastal state having full sovereignty over such territorial waters, since they constitute a seaward extension of that government's territory."6 Two other Soviet law specialists, P. P. Orlenko and V. A. Belli, expounded the somewhat different and more international view that ter- ritorial waters remain part of the open sea and should not be consider- e&as totally restricted national areas.7 It is interesting to note that the views of Orlenko and Belli have been criticized, rejected, 4F. I. Kozhevnikov, Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (The Soviet Government and International Law), Moscow, 1948; A. M. Ladyzhenskiy, "Yuridicheskaya Priroda Territoriallnogo Verk- hovenstva" (Jurisdictional Nature of Territorial Sovereignty), Bulle- tin of the Moscow State University, No. 10, Moscow, 1948; T. B. Cherepakhina, Bor'ba "Dvoukh Lagerey" V Voprose 0 Mezhdunarodno- Pravovom Rezhime TerritoriaZ'nogo Morya (Battle of the "Two Camps" on the Question of the International Law Regime Governing Territorial Seas), Sverdlovsk, 1950 (tr. Olenicoff); E. A. Korovin, ed., Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (International Law), Moscow, 1951 (tr. Oleni- coff), hereinafter referred to as Korovin, Int. Law; A. N. Nikolayev, Problema TerritoriaZ'nykh Vod V Mezhdunarodnom Prave (The Problem of Territorial Waters in International Law), Moscow, 1954. 5V. N. Durdenevskiy, in Korovin, Int. Law, op. cit., pp. 300-301. 6T. B. Cherepakhina, op. cit., p.4. 7P. P. Orlenko, Voyenno-Morskoye Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (Natral' International Law), Leningrad, 1948; V. A. Belli, Voyenno-Morskoy Mezhdunarodnyy Spravochnik (International Naval Handbook), Leningrad, 1939. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -38- and labeled as "confused" by Soviet party-line jurists, and their writings have been relegated to a second-rate standing.8 The Military-Naval Handbook on International Law, issued to all Soviet naval units and border forces, elaborates on the matter of ter- ritorial waters as follows:9 The territorial waters of the Soviet Union are understood to be a coastal strip of sea, which comprises an offshore ex- tension of the territorial holdings of the USSR, lies under its sovereignty, and is an integral part of its national territory. The sovereignty of the USSR extends along the entire depth of its territorial waters, including the bottom and its resources, and also encompasses the air space over these waters. On the basis of the customary international-law position giving coastal states the right to assert their sovereignty by individually determining the width and regime of their territorial waters, the Soviet Government, through a series of legislative acts, has set up a twelve mile limit and regime of territorial waters along the coasts of its con- tinent and islands.... ...The twelve mile width of the territorial waters of the Soviet Union serves to safeguard its economic needs and the security of its sea borders.... A few paragraphs later, the Handbook provides this rather signif- icant statement on the Soviet position:10 The sea boundary of Soviet territorial waters constitutes the state border of the Soviet Union at sea. It is the sacred responsibility of the Military-Naval Fleet of the USSR to provide for the security and defense of this sea border along its entire extent. An important role in the fulfillment of this task is played by the established regime for the territorial waters of the USSR, which has been set up through a series of special normative acts. 8A. N. Nikolayev, op. cit., p. 13. 9Justice-Col. A. S. Bakhov (ed.), Voyenno-Morskoy Mezhdunarodno- Pravovoy Spravochnik (Military-Naval Handbook on International Law), Ministry of Defense of the USSR, Moscow, 1956, pp. 81-83. 10 Ibid., p. 83 (this author's italics). Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -39- The "regime" for territorial waters refers to the established regu- lations governing activities in this zone, such as fishing, radio com- munications, surveillance, customs and sanitation operations, the passage of vessels, and overflights by aircraft. The Soviet position on the passage of ships and aircraft through the waters and airspace of the territorial sea zone appears to be the following, based on a survey of the previously referenced Soviet liter- ature. PASSAGE THROUGH WATERS AND AIRSPACE The Soviets class foreign vessels into three categories: (1) war- ships (this designation covers all foreign naval vessels, including fighting ships, troop carriers, surveillance ships, submarines, supply ships, and even rescue ships); (2) commercial ships (which includes merchant freighters, tankers, fishing vessels in transit, and passenger ships); (3) research vessels (which includes ships carrying out meteoro- logical, geophysical, hydrological, acoustical, archeological, and oceanographic investigations, as well as weather ships, satellite- tracking ships, research submersibles, and bottom-coring vessels). The Soviet Government has set up special territorial sea regulations for each of the three categories. Regulations Pertaining to Warships and Submarines Vessels in the warship category listed above may not enter Soviet territorial waters unless they request and receive permission before- hand from the Government of the USSR. Requests for permission must be made well ahead of time through diplomatic channels and should state the following information: (1) the number of warships intending to pass through Soviet territorial waters; (2) the name and designation of each warship; (3) the reason why the warship is entering Soviet waters; and, (4) the estimated duration of its stay. Upon entering Soviet territorial waters, a foreign warship must immediately radio Soviet authorities about its presence and inform them of iti course. If a foreign warship enters Soviet territorial waters because of. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -40- unusual or compelling -circumstances beyond its control, such as a storm or a disaster at sea, it must inform Soviet authorities of its presence and proceed directly to the nearest Soviet port which is open to foreign vessels. The outlined Warship regulations also apply to submarines which, the Soviets state, "must remain surfaced While passing through the territorial waters of the USSR."11 The Soviets further state that a submarine entering their territorial waters while submerged is commit- ting an "unlawful act," and units of the Military-Naval Fleet are in- structed to "take all the necessary measures to compel it to surface." If the foreign submarine does not surface when ordered to do so, "the Soviet Military-Naval Fleet units will have no choice but to resort to strongest defensive measures available to them, and the responsibility for this will be borne by those commanding the submarine and their government."12 At this point, it would be appropriate to quote from another Soviet source on the subject of pursuit: "The pursuit by our defense forces of foreign vessels, which have violated Soviet territorial waters, may go beyond the twelve mile limit and continue into the open sea. Pursuit is discontinued if and when the vessel in question enters the waters of a foreign state and, in the case of vessels fly- ing a foreign flag, pursuit is unquestionably terminated upon the entry of such vessels into a foreign port."13 Regulations Pertaining to Research Vessels The types of ships falling into this category were listed earlier. As early as 1932, Soviet authorities announced that "the right to per- form oceanographic and hydrological investigations in seas adjacent to the USSR, within the 12 mile zone of territorial waters, is granted 11Ibid., p. 85. 12Ibid. 13Nikolayev, op. cit., pp. 233-234. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -41- only to ships flying the flag of the USSR.u14 Since then, this restric- tion has been expanded to include all types of scientific and technical research. As it stands now, foreign research vessels can perform in- vestigations in Soviet territorial waters only with the -express per- mission of the Government of the USSR.15 Regulations Pertaining to Commercial Ships This category includes all types of freight-carrying ships, as well as tankers, fishing vessels in transit, and passenger ships. Soviet regulations pertaining to the passage of such vessels through territorial waters are stated thus: 1. Foreign commercial ships may pass through Soviet territorial waters if they are en route to or from an open Soviet port; 2. Foreign commercial ships may also pass through Soviet terri- torial waters if they are in transit along the shortest route (or a recommended route) between two foreign ports; 3. Foreign commercial ships can avail themselves of Soviet terri- torial waters if this is necessitated by a storm or disaster at sea, or by other unusual circumstances; 4. While passing through Soviet territorial waters, foreign com- mercial vessels are subject to surveillance by Soviet naval and border units; 5. Soviet naval vessels have the right to stop and search foreign commercial ships passing through Soviet territorial waters, and the foreign ship can continue its voyage only after the investigating Soviet ship has granted it permission; 6. Foreign commercial vessels may not load or unload goods or passengers in Soviet territqrial waters without the knowledge and permission of Soviet authorities; 14 Tsirkulyar Gidrograficheskogo Upravleniya (Circular of the Pydi.ographic Office), No. 85, 16 March 1932. 15Nikolayev, op. cit., p. 218; Bakhov, op. cit., p. 89. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -42- 7. Foreign commercial ships passing through Soviet territorial waters should follow recommended routes and must not enter (a) in- ternal waters; (b) restricted areas closed to navigation; (c) re- stricted defense zones or so-called "fortified zones." Generally speaking, the position taken by the Soviet Government in regard to foreign commercial vessels is in keeping with interna- tional laws permitting "innocent passage." Commercial ships under- taking innocent passage through Soviet territorial waters are, however, subject to numerous and stringent regulations. Regulations Pertaining to Aircraft The Soviet Government claims full sovereignty over the airspace of its territorial waters and does not permit "innocent passage" by foreign military or civil aircraft, a position in keeping with inter- national laws pertaining to airspace over territorial waters. In- structions issued to Soviet air units on border-defense duty are ex- plicit: "When foreign aircraft violate the airspace of the USSR [which by definition includes the airspace over territorial waters], pilots are instructed to intercept such aircraft and force their land- ing at a Soviet airfield. In the event of resistance, pilots are in- u16 structed to open fire. Another Soviet statement declares: "Pilots engaged in espionage or surveillance activity in Soviet airspace are subject to arrest, trial, conviction, and even the most severe degree of punishment, in accordance with our laws."17 16Bakhov, op. cit., p. 93. 17Declaration of the Delegate of the USSR to the Political Com- mittee of the United Nations on December 19, 1951, reported in Pravda, December 22, 1951. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -43- THE SOVIET STAND ON TERRITORIAL WATERS To summarize the Soviet position on territorial waters, a concise statement from,an authoritative Soviet source is presented below.18 An analysis of Soviet legislative acts, international agreements, diplomatic documents, and statements of USSR representatives to international bodies on the question of territorial waters shows that the Soviet point of view on this subject consists, first of all, of the recognition of the obvious fact that, due to the different historical economic, political, and military-strategic conditions characterizing each individual state, the width of terri- torial waters is different for different states. In view of this fact, there can be no general norms set up by in- ternational law establishing one common width for terri- torial waters. In the absence of special international agreements, the determination of the width of territorial waters is made by the states themselves. In determining the width of territorial waters, the legislative organs of the states must judiciously take into account both their own national interests, and the interests of inter- national navigation. The width of Soviet territorial waters was determined with due regard to the historical, economic, political, and military-strategic conditions characterizing the USSR-- a great sea power and the world's leading socialist state. This width equals 12 nautical miles, measured from the mean low-water line of both continent and islands. This width of Soviet territorial waters is, at the present time, in keeping with the economic and security interests of the USSR. At the same time, it in no way impedes the use of international sea routes. Soviet territorial waters com- prise an offshore extension of the territory of the USSR, the sovereignty of the USSR extends over them, and they constitute a State socialist possession of the USSR. Soviet jurisdiction prevails within the limits of the territorial waters of the USSR; and, the regulation of the regime of the territorial waters is performed exclusively by organs of the USSR. The Soviet Government rigorously guards its right of sovereignty in its territorial waters and will decisively block any and all attempts on the part of imperialist states to violate the regime of these waters. At the same time, the Soviet Government will respect the sovereign rights of other states in their territorial waters. 18B. M. Klimenko, Provo Prokhoda Cherez Inostrannuyu Territoriyu (The Right of Passage Through Foreign Territory), Foreign Affairs Publishing House, Moscow, 1967 (tr. Olenicoff). Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -44- BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, W. R., and C. Blair, Jr., Nautilus 900 North, World Publish- ing Company, Cleveland, 1959. Araldsoni O. P., "The Soviet Union and the Arctic," U.S. Naval Insti- tute Proceedings, Vol. 93, No. 772, June 1967. . "Arctic Trip Frozen Out," Science News, Vol. 92, September 16, 1967. Armstrong, T., The Northern Sea Route, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1952. Armstrong, T., The Russians in the Arctic, Essential Books Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1958. Avsov, Yu...A., Egorev, V. V., and A. D. Keilin, Morskoye Pravo SSSR (Maritime Law of the USSR), Moscow, 1932. Balch, T. W., "The Arctic and Antarctic Regions and the Law of Na- tions," The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 4, 1910. Barabol'a, P. D., Ivanashchenko, L. A., Kolesnik, D. N., Mezhdunarodno- Pravovoy Rezhim Vazhneyshikh Prolivov I Kanalov (International Law Regime of the Principal Straits and Canals), Moscow, 1965. Barabol'a, P. D., et al., Voyenno-Morskoy Mezhdunarodno-Pravovoy Spravochnik (Military-Naval International Law Handbook), Moscow, 1966. Barabol'a, P. Tarkhanov, I. E.., Ivchenko, V. I., Mikhalev, V. N., and G. S. Gorshkov, Mezhdunarodnoye Morskoye Pravo (International Maritime Law), Leningrad, 1969. Belli, V. A., Voyenno-Morskoy Mezhdunarodnyy Spravochnik (Interna- tional Naval Handbook), Leningrad, 1939. Bergavinov, S. A., "Flag Sovetov Nad Polyusom" (The Flag of the So- viets Over the Pole), Sovetskaya Arktika, No. 6, 1937. Borisov, S., "Mezhdunarodnyy Sud 0 Territorialnykh Vodakh" (The In- ternational Court on Territorial Waters), Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Pravo, No. 8, ,1952. Bouchez, L. J., The Regime of Bays in International Law, Sijthoff, Leyden, 1964. Bowett, D. W., The Law of the Sea, Oceana Publications, New York, 1967. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -45- Boyle, R., "Arctic Passages of North America," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 95, No. 791, January 1969. Bozrikoy, O., and K. Bekyashev, "Pravovoy Rezhim Prilezhashchikh Morskikh Zon" (Law Regime of Contiguous Sea Zones), Morskoy Flot, Issue 1, 1970, p. 55. Breitfus, L., "0 Razgranicheniyi Severnoy Polyarnoy Oblasti" (On the Demarcation of the North Polar Region), Morskoy Sbornik, 1927. Butler, W. E., "Soviet Concepts of Innocent Passage," Harvard Inter- national Law Journal, Vol'. 7, 1965, pp. 113-130. Butler, W. E., "Soviet Territorial Waters," World Affairs, Vol. 130, 1967, pp. 17-25. Butler, W. E., The Law of Soviet Territorial Waters, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1967. Carlisle, G. E., "Three Mile Limit: Obsolete Concept?," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 93, No. 768, February 1967. Cherepakhina, T. B., Bor'ba "Dvoukh Lagerey" V Voprose 0 Mezhdunarodno- Pravovom Rezhime Territorialinogo Morya (Battle of the "Two Camps" on the Question of the International Law Regime Governing Territo- rial Seas), Sverdlovsk, 1950. Colombos; C. J., The International Law of the Sea, Fifth Edition, Longmans, London, 1962. Cooper, D. A., The Air Code of the USSR, Michie, Charlottesville, 1966. Egorov, V. V., "Gaagskaya Konferentsiya Po Territorialtnym Vodam" (The Hague Conference on Territorial Waters), Morskoy Sbornik, No. 7, 1930. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968 Edition, Vol. 2, 346. Fletcher, J. O., Origin and Early Utilization of Aircraft-Supported Drifting Stations, P-3395, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, 1966. Gakkel', Ya. Ya., and L. S. Govorukha, Sovetskaya Arktika: Morya I Ostrova Severnogo Ledovitogo Okeyana (The Soviet Arctic: Seas and Islands of the Arctic Ocean), "Nauka" Publication, Moscow, 1970. Given, D. W., "The Sea of Okhotsk: USSR's Great Lake?," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 96, No. 811, September 1970. Glazer, E., "0 Roli Odnostoronnogo Akta Priberezhnogo Gosudarstva V Ustavovleniyi Shinny Territorial'nykh Vod" (On the Role of a Uni- lateral Act of a Coastal State in Establishing the Width of Terri- torial Waters), Problemy Mezhdunarodnogo Prava, Moscow, 1961. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -46- Golubev, A., "Mord Territorial'noye I Zakrytoye" (The Territorial and the Closed Sea), Torgovyy Flot, No. 1, 1926. Gorshkov, G. S. "Mezhdunarodno-Pravovoy Rezhim Tikhogo Okeyana" (International Law Regime of the Pacific Ocean), Morskoy Sbornik, No. 7, July 1970. Grzybowski, Kazimierz, "The Soviet Doctrine of Mare Clausum and Poli- cies in the Black and Baltic Seas," Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 14, 1955, pp. 339-353. Gvozdetskiy, N. A., Sovetskiye Geograficheskiye Issledovaniya I Otkrytiya (Soviet Geographic Explorations and Discoveries), "Mysl' Publication, Moscow, 1967. Harrigan, A., "The Frozen Frontier," Ordnance, Vol. 54, No. 298, January-February 1970. "H-Bomb Hunt in the Arctic Night," Life, February 9, 1968. "Ice Islands May Be Used As Ship Piers," Los Angeles Times, October 22, 1970. Imenitov, G. I., Sovetskoye Morskoye Rybalovnoye Pravo (Soviet Mari- time Fishing Law), Moscow, 1951. Ivanashchenko, L. A., "Mezhdunarodnaya Konferentsiya Po Morskomu Pravu" (International Conference on Maritime Law), Morskoy Sbornik, No. 5, 1959. Kalinkin, G. F., and Ya. A. Ostrovskiy, Morskoye Dno: Komu Ono Prinadlezhit? (The Seabed: To Whom Does It Belong?), "International Relations" Publishing House, Moscow, 1970. Kamarovskiy, L. A., and V. A. Ulyanitskiy, Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (In- ternational Law), Moscow, 1908. Kazanskiy, P., Uchebnik Mezdunarodnogo Prava (Textbook on Interna- tional Law). Odessa, 1902. Keilin, A. D., Sovetskoye Morskoye Pravo (Soviet Maritime Law), Moscow, 1954. Klimenko, B. M., Pravo Prokhoda Cherez Inostrannuyu Territoriyu (The Right of Passage Through Foreign Territory), "Foreign Affairs" Pub- lishing House, MOSCOW, 1967. Kolodkin, A. L? Pravovoy Rezhim Territorialenykh Vod I Otkrytogo Mord (Legal Regime of Territorial Waters and the Open Sea), Moscow, 1961. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -47- Koretskiy, V. M., and G. I. Tunkin (eds.), Ocherki Mezhdunarodnogo Morskogo Prava (Writings on International Maritime Law), Moscow, 1962. Korovin, E. A., "Problema Vozdushnoy Okkupatsiyi V Svyazi S Pravon Na Polyarniye Prostranstva" (The Problem of Aerial Occupation in Connection with Claims to Polar Territories), Voprosy Vozdushnogo Prava, Vol. I, 1926. Korovin, E. A., "SSSR i Polyarnyye Zemli" (The USSR and Polar Lands), Sovetskoye Pravo, No. 3, 1926. Korovin, E. A. (ed.), Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (International Law), Moscow, 1951. Kozhevnikov, F. I., Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (The Soviet Government and International Law), Moscow, 1948. Krypton, C., The Northern Sea Route and the Economy of the Soviet North, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1956. Ladyzhenskiy, A. M., "Yuridicheskaya Priroda Territoriallnogo Verkhovenstva" (Jurisdictional Nature of Territorial Sovereignty), Bulletin of the Moscow State University, No. 10, Moscow, 1948. LaForest, T. J., "Strategic Significance of the Northern Sea Route," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 93, No. 778, December 1967. Lakhtin, V. L., Prava Na Severnyye-Polyarnyye Prostranstva (Rights to the North Polar Territories), Moscow, 1928. Lakhtin, V. L., "Prava Soyuza S.S.R. V Arktike" (The Rights of the USSR in the Arctic), Rabochiy Sud, No. 15, 1928. Lakhtin, V. L., "Rights Over the Arctic" (Translated article), The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, 1930. Lashkevich, G., "K Voprosu 0 Territorialinom More" (On the Question of the Territorial Sea), Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn', Issue 1-2, 1923. Luehring, D., "The Never-Never Sea," U.S Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 95, No. 798, August 1969. Malinin, S. A., "K Voprosu 0 Pravovoy Klassifikatsiyi Vodnykh Prostranstv" (On the Question of the Legal Classification of Maritime Areas), Infotmatsionnyy SbOrnik, Issue 46, No. 8, Lenin- grad, 1960. Martens,- F. F., SovremennOye Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo Tsivilizovanykh NarodOv" (Present Day. International Law of Civilized Peoples), Vol. 1, Fifth Edition, St. Petersburg, 1904. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -48- Masterson, W. E., Jurisdiction In Marginal Seas; Macmillan, New York, 1929. Meade, J. F., "The Great Territorial Sea Squabble," U.S. Naval Insti- tute Proceedings, Vol. 95, No. 794, April 1969. Meshera, V. P%, "Problema Kodifikatslyi Sovetskogo Morskogo PraVa" (The Problem of the Codification of Soviet Maritime Law), UchenYye Zapiski, Issue 7, Leningrad, 1957. Meshera, V. F., Morskoye Pravo (Maritime Law), Vols. 1-3, Moscow, 1959. Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (International Law), Collection of Articles Edited by E. A. Korovina, Moscow, 1951. Milovskiy, P. D., and G. A. GlaZunov, "Pretvoreniye V Zhizn' Leninskogo Plana Osvoyeniya Sovetskoy Arktiki" (The Realization of Lenin's-Plan for the Development of the Arctic), Morskoy, - Sbornik, No. 6, 1970. Minin, V.?"Rashireniye Territorialenykh Vod Braziliyey Do 100 Mil" (Brazil's Extension Of Its Territorial Waters Tor 200 Miles), Morskoy Sbornik, No. 8, 1970. "Missing: Four H-Bombs," Newsweek, February 5, 1968 Mitchell, M., The Maritime History of Russia: 848-1948, Sidgwick and Jackson Limited, 'London, 1949. Molodtsov, Mezhdunarodno-Pravovoy Rezhim Otkrytogo Morya I Kontinental'nogo Shelfa (International Legal Regime of the High Seas and the Continental Shelf), Publication of the Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1960. Movchanovskiy, B. F., and V. A. Orlov, Ocherki Sovetskogo Morskogo Prava (Outlines of Soviet Maritime Law), Moscow, 1931. Newman, D., "Government Faces A Challenge On Arctic Sovereignty," The Toronto Globe and Mail, January 20, 1970. Newman, D., "Sharp Makes Claim To Arctic Waters," The Toronto Globe and Mail, February 20, 1970. Nezabitovskiy, V. A., Sobraniye Sochineniy (Collected Works), Kiev, 1884. Nikolayev, A. N., Problema Territorial'nykh Vod V Mezhdunarodnom Prave (The Problem of Territorial Waters in International Law), Moscow, 1954. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -49- Nikolayev, A. N., Obsuzhdeniye Voprosa Territorialtnykh Vod" cussion of the Question Of Territorial, 'Waters), MotskoY Flot, Issue 8, August 1958. Nikolayev, A. N., "0 Zalivd Petra Velikogo" (On the Bay of Peter the Great), Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, Issue 2, 1958. Olenicoff, S. M., Soviet Development and Use of Drifting Automatic- RadiometeorOlogical Stations for Arctic Research, RM-5624,, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif Ornia, 1968. Orlenko, P. P., Voyenno-Morskoye Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (Naval Inter- national Law), Leningrad, 1948. Orlenko, P. P., and L. A. IVanashchenko, Mezhdunarodnoye Marskaye Pravo (International Maritime Law), Moscow, 1955. Partridge, B., "The White Shelf: ' A Study of Arctic Ice jurisdic- tion," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 87, September 1961. Petri*, R., Across the Top of Russia,' David McKay co., Inc., New York, 1967. (A condensed, identically-titled version published in the February 1968 issue of Popular Mechanics.) Romanov, V., "Zaliv Petra Velikogo Vnutrenniye Vody Sovetskogo Soyuza" (Bay of Peter. the Great -- Internal Waters of the Soviet Union), Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Pravo, Issue 5, 1958. Ruben, I., and S. korozov, Flag Nad L dami (Flag Over the Ice), Leningrad, 1967. "Russians Scoff at U.S. Claims of Pilot Error," Los Angeles Times, Sec. A, p. 9, November 1, 1970. "Seabed: The Big Questions," War/Peace Report, Vol. 9, No. 8, Octo- ber 1969. Seevers, V., Glavneyshiye Svedeniya Po MorskomY Mezhdunarodnomy Pravy .(Main principles of International Sea Law), St. Petersburg, 1902. Sheptovitskiy, M. Ya., Morskoye Pravo (Maritime Law), Leningrad, 1936. Shilo, N. A., Sever Dal'nego VOstoka (The North of the Far East), "Nauka" Publication, Moscow, 1970. " shmigevskiy, q.,L., and V. A. Iasinovskiy, Osnovy Sovetskogg Morskogo Prava (Fundamentals of Soviet Maritime Law), 2nd Edition, Moscow, 1961. Sigrist, S. V., "Sovetskoye Pravo V Polyarnykh Prostranstvakh" (Soviet Law in the Polar Territories), Rabochiy Sud, No. 13, 1928. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -50- Siling, A. N., Narugheniya Imperialisticheskimi Gosudarstvami Svobodu Moreplavaniya I RybolOvstva V OtkrytOm More (Violations by Impe- rialist States of the Freedom of Navigation and Fishing on the High Seas), Moscow, 1963. Siling, A. N., Morskoye Pravo (Maritime Law), Moscow, 1964. Smith, H. B., The Use of Polar Ice in Inter-Hemispheric Air Operations, M. A. Thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, D. C., June 1956. Smith, J. Y., "Coast Guard Ships Foiled in Arctic Passage," Washington Post, September 1, 1970. Sorenson, M., "Law of the Sea," International Conciliation, No. 520, November 1958. Sovereignty of the Sea, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Intelli- gence and Research, Geographic Bulletin No. 3, April 1965. Spirin, V. G., "Problema Territorialtnykh Vod V Praktike Latino- Amerikanskikh Stran" (The Problem of Territorial Waters in the Prac- tice of Latin American Countries), Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Pravo, Issue 7, 1956. Stang, D. P., "The Walls Beneath the Sea," U.S. Naval Institute Pro- ceedings, Vol. 94, No. 781, March 1968. Stevenson, J. R., "International Law and the Oceans," Department of State Bulletin, March 16, 1970, pp. 339-343. Strohl, M. P., The International Law of Bays, Nijhoff Publishing House, The Hague, 1963. Sweitzer, H. B., "Sovereignty and the SLBM," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 92, No. 763, September 1966. Taracouzio, T. A., The Soviet Union and International Law, The Macmil- lan Company, New York, 1935. Taracouzio, T. A., Soviets in the Arctic, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1938. "The Approaching Crisis In Law Of The Sea," Ocean Industry, March 1970. Tokmakov, A. A., "Podvodnyye Transportnyye Suda" (Submarine Transport Ships), Sudostroyeniye, Leningrad, 1965. Tsimanovich, K. G., "Gosudarstvennaya Granitsa SSSR" (The State Boun- dary of the USSR), Geografiya V Shkole, No. 6, November-December 1967, Moscow, 1967. Tsirkulyar Gidrograficheskogo Upravleniya (Circular of the Hydrographic Office), No. 85, 16 March 1932. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 k;. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -51- Tunkin, G. I., "Zhenevskaya Konferentsiya Po Mezhdunarodnomu Morskomu Pravu" (The Geneva Conference on International Maritime Law), Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn', Issue 7, 1958. Ulyanitskiy, V. A., Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (International Law), Tomsk, 1911. Ustal, A. T., "Osnovnyye Voprosy Pravovogo Rezhima Territorialtnykh Vod" (Principal Questions Concerning the Legal Regime of Terri- torial Waters), Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Pravo, Issue 6, 1957. - Ustal, A. T., Mezhdunarodno-Pravovoy Rezhim Territorial'nykh Vod (International Legal Regime of Territorial Waters), Tartu, 1958. Ustal, A. T., "Iskhodnaya Liniya Territorialtnykh Vod" (The Baseline for Territdiial Waters), Uchenyye Zapiski Tartuskogo Universiteta, Issue 61, Tartu, 1959. Vereshchetin, V. S., Svoboda Sudokhodstva V Otkrytom Mor 6 (Freedom of Navigation on the High Seas), Moscow, 1958. Vereshchetin, V. S., "K Voprosu 0 Territorialtnykh Vodakh" (On the Question of Territorial Waters), Mirovaya Ekonomika I Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya, Issue 12, 1958. Voyenno-Morskoy Mezhdunarodno-Pravovoy Spravochnik (Military-Naval Handbook on International Law), Edited by Justice-Colonel A. S. Bakhov, Ministry of Defense of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, original edi- tion - 1956, subsequent editions in 1960 and 1966. Vyshnepollskiy, S. A., "K Probleme Pravovogo Rezhima Arkticheskoy Oblasti" (On the Problem of the Legal Regime of the Arctic Region), Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Pravo, Issue 7, 1952. Vyshnepol'skiy, S. A., Mirovyye Morskiye Puti I Sudokhodstvo (World Maritime Routes and Navigation), Moscow, 1953. Wells, R. D., "Surveying the Eurasian Arctic," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 92, No. 764, October 1966. Wells, R. D., "The Icy 'Nyet'!", U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 94, No. 782, April 1968. Woodward, D., The Russians At Sea, William Kimber and Co., London, 1965. Zhudro, A. K., "Zhenevskaya Konferentsiya OON Po Mezhdunarodnomu Morskomu Pravu" (The UN Geneva Conference on International Maritime Law), Informatsionnyy Sbornik, Issue 34, No. 4, Leningrad, 1958. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9 -52- Zhudro, A. K., et al., Morskoye Pravo (Maritime Law), Moscow, 1964. Zinger, M. E., Osnovnyye Zakony Po Kraynemu Severu: Pravo Na Polyarnyye Prostranstva I Organizatsiya Organov Upravleniya (Principal Laws Regarding the Far North: The Right to Polar Territories and the Organization of Administrative Agencies), Leningrad, 1935. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/10/18: CIA-RDP08001297R000500010009-9