By Victoria M. Craft
While attending law school, Victoria participated in various public interest placements and internships, including the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and Attorney General’s Office. This paper was written for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime Seminar.
Congress enacted the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 to supersede the 1947 Supreme Court decision that the United States held all rights “in, and full dominion and power” over lands, minerals, and anything else within the three nautical miles “underlying the Pacific Ocean seaward of the coast.” United States v. California (1978), citing United States v. California (1947).
In its 1947 per curium decision, the Court did seem to allow states to seek, from the United States, title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters at the time of statehood, as well as the natural resources within three nautical miles of such lands, measured using the mean low-water mark. Block v. Board of School Lands (1983); United States v. California (1978). Lands owned on the “date of statehood” were within boundaries “as they existed at the time such state became a member of the Union.” United States v. Louisiana (1960); United States v. Louisiana (1967). This could be accomplished only via a quitclaim deed, without warranty, Block v. Board of School Lands, supra, effectively “leav[ing] it where [the United States] found it.” United States v. California (1978), supra.
This paper explores the relation between the domestic Submerged Lands Act and the International Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.
