Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T23:27:35.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kenneth Bailey Memorial Lecture the Seabed in Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Victor Windeyer
Victor Windeyer*
Affiliation:
High Court of Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sir Victor examines the basic problems being encountered in the development of the international law of the seabed. An historical analysis reveals that the definitions used to effect the current allocation of rights in the seabed are not based on irresistible logical extensions of the concept of territorial sovereignty. On the contrary, legal definitions such as the definition of “continental shelf” represent and facilitate the political reality of competitive nationalism. Sir Victor then considers the constitutional relationship of the States and the Commonwealth in regard to the seabed. He argues that, historically, the States have no claim to sovereignty over their adjacent territorial seas as the colonies never exercised dominium there. The territorial seas remained in British Imperial jurisdiction until federation, when the Commonwealth acquired sovereignty over them as an attribute of nationhood.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1974 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1951-1952) 25 A.L.J. 314.

2 (1960-1962) 1 Adel.L.Rev. 1. Reprinted in O'Connell, (ed.), International Law in Australia (1965)Google Scholar.

3 In re Piracy lure Gentium [1934) A.C. 586, 593.

4 Political Thought in England, from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day (1915) 247.

5 [1938] A.C. 485, 497.

6 The Tolten [1946] P. 135, 147; for references to general principles of the embodiment of international rules into municipal law, Chow Hung Ching v. The King (1948) 77 C.L.R. 449, 462 per Latham C.J., 477 per Dixon J. Also Sawer in O'Connell op. cit. 507.

7 [1938] A.C. 485, 502.

8 Stone, Legal Control of International Conflict (1954) 56.

9 “The Path of the Law” (1896-1897) 10 Harvard L.R. 457, 475.

10 (1970) 122 C.L.R. 177, 233.

11 (1970) 44 A.L.J. 192, 199.

12 Commentaries i, 110.

13 Co. Litt. 260.

14 E.g. The Mecca [1895] P. 95, 106; The Tolten[1946] P. 135, 156.

15 Chambers Encyclopedia (1950) vii, 658, 660.

16 Bowett, The Law of the Sea (1967) 35.

17 O'Connell, op. cit.

18 [1968] 2 Q.B. 740, 753. This was referred to by Gibbs J. in Cantley v.Queensland (1973) 44 A.L.J.R. 538, 539.

19 Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968; which repealed the Pearl Fisheries Act (No. 2) 1953 which contained a different definition; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967-1968; Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973.

20 (1968-1969) 3 F.L.Rev. 202.

21 Hart, “Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence” (1954) 70 L.Q.R. 44Google Scholar.

22 Co. Litt. 260.

23 De Jure Maris Ch. 4.

24 Commentaries i, 110.

25 25 (1876) 2 Ex,D, 63,

26 Id. 197.

27 Halsbury (1st ed.) xxviii, 360; (2nd ed.) xxxiii, 520; (3rd ed.) xxxix, 556.

28 O'Connell, op. cit.

29 (1861) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 387.

30 (1865) 11 H.L.C. 191.

31 Id. 213.

32 Id. 216-217.

33 Id. 208.

34 [1900] A.C. 48, 66.

35 The Putbus [1969] P. 136, 155.

36 (1960-1962) 1 Adel.L.Rev. 8.

37 37 (1970) 122 C.L.R. 177, 221-222.

38 [1941] St.R.Qd. 218, 228.

39 Lumb, “Territorial Changes in the States and Territories of the Commonwealth” (1963-1964) 37 A.L.J. 172Google Scholar.

40 (1967) 65 D.L.R. (2d) 353.

41 (1970) 122 C.L.R. 177, 180-198.

42 339 U.S. 707, 719. Also U.S. v. Louisiana 339 U.S. 699, 705-706.

43 The Economic Record; quoted by Birch, Federalism, Finance and Social Legislation in Canada, Australia and The United States (1957).

44 Airlines of N.S.W. Pty Ltd v. N.S.W. (No. 2) (1965) 113 C.L.R. 54, 152.

45 Huddart Parker & Co. Pty Ltd v. Moorehead (1900) 8 C.L.R. 330, 415.

46 Lord Advocate v. W emyss[1900] A.C. 48, 66.

47 H.R.Deb. 2005; S.Deb. 1773.