I refer to your memorandum dated 26th May, 1948, concerning a suggestion that Australia might take action similar to that taken by the United States of America and certain other countries to claim certain rights in relation to the continental shelf.

(2)  This subject has received increasing attention in the last few years and valuable material dealing with the continental shelf is to be found in the American Journal of International Law, Volume 40 pages 53 and 173, Volume 42 page 849 and Volume 43 page 790. I have had the advantage also of reading the United Nations document A./CN.4/17, being a report to the International Law Commission on the subject of the High Seas by J.P.A. Francois.

(3)  It is interesting to note that the conclusion of the American authors is that the conception of the three mile territorial limit is antiquated and that the continental shelf presents both a realistic and convenient method of dealing with the limits of the national sovereignty of littoral States. Since the end of the war, rights in relation to the continental shelf and adjacent waters have been claimed by the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Nicaragua, Chile, Peru, Costa Rica, Cuba, United Kingdom (in relation to Jamaica and the Bahamas) Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the other Persian Sheikdoms.

(4)  The rights claimed are various and include rights relating to—

(a)  The resources of the sub-soil;

(b)  The sea-bed, sedentary fisheries, pearl shell, etc;

(c)  Mobile fisheries; and

(d)  Sovereignty.

Most of the claims have been so expressed as to concede the right of free navigation on the high seas covering the continental shelf. The United States Proclamation relating to fisheries distinguishes between fisheries exclusively exploited by United States nationals where a right of control is claimed, and fisheries exploited by United States in common with other nationals where rights are claimed in accordance with bi-lateral arrangements yet to be made.

(5)  An associated problem arises from the claims of long standing by various States to exercise control in a zone contiguous to the 3-mile territorial sea in relation to customs, health and security.

(6)  In the various instruments claiming the rights mentioned above, the sea areas over which the rights are claimed are variously described. The variations seem to depend upon the geographical relation of particular States to other States. Some select an arbitrary zone measured from low water mark seaward; others refer expressly to the ‘continental shelf’. The term ‘continental shelf’ would appear to have no precise meaning but is generally regarded as that area of the sea where the depth is less than 100 fathoms.

(7)  On the assumption that the boundary of the continental shelf coincides with the 100 fathoms line, problems in relation to any Australian claim are posed by the common continental shelf shared with Dutch New Guinea and the extreme narrowness of the continental shelf on the east coast of Australia. In this connexion, reference should be made to the attached map which has been copied from the ‘Times’ Atlas (published 1922). The area shown in lightest shading on this map represents the area in which the depth of water is less than 100 fathoms.

(8)  It appears to me that the long-term interests of Australia might well make it desirable that some rights in relation to the continental shelf should be claimed by Australia. I have in mind particularly—

1.  Sedentary fisheries;

2.  Mobile fisheries;

3.  Security; and

4.  The possibility of deposits of oil or minerals existing in the large area of the continental shelf adjacent to the northern and northwest coasts.

(9)  I consider, therefore, that the whole question of claiming rights in the continental shelf requires the most thorough study by an inter-departmental committee as a pre-requisite to consideration by Cabinet as to what action, if any, should be taken by Australia. At this stage, therefore, further general observations on the legal position are perhaps unnecessary. A study of the legal aspects will however be put in hand for consideration if the suggestion for an inter-departmental committee is adopted.

(10)  I am sending a copy of this memorandum to the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Agriculture, who has raised with me the question of the continental shelf in relation to fisheries. As discussed with Mr. Glasheen, I am also sending a copy to the Secretary, Prime Minister’s Department.

[Vol. 39, p. 300]