The United States brought this action against the 13 States that
border the Atlantic Ocean to determine whether the United States
had exclusive rights to the seabed and subsoil underlying the ocean
beyond three geographical miles from each State's coastline. In due
course, this Court concluded that the States held interests in the
seabeds only to a distance of three geographical miles from their
respective coastlines, but did not fix the precise coastline of any
of the States. After the United States filed a motion for
supplementary proceedings to determine the exact coastline of Rhode
Island, a Special Master was appointed, and he subsequently
permitted New York to participate in those proceedings. The purpose
of these supplemental proceedings is to determine the legal
coastline of the United States in the area of Block Island Sound
and the eastern portion of Long Island Sound. This determination
turns on whether the Sounds constitute, in whole or in part, a
juridical bay under Article 7(6) of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, since to the extent the
Sounds constitute a juridical bay, the waters of that bay are then
internal waters subject to the adjacent States' jurisdiction, and
the line that closes the bay is coastline for the purpose of fixing
the seaward boundaries of the States. The Special Master filed a
Report in which he concluded (a) that the Sounds in part constitute
a juridical bay under Article 7(6), Long Island being an extension
of the mainland and the southern headland of the bay, and (b) that
the bay closed at the line drawn from Montauk Point at the eastern
tip of Long Island to Watch Hill Point on the Rhode Island shore,
the waters of the bay west of the closing line being internal state
waters, and the waters of Block Island Sound east of that line
being territorial waters and high seas. The United States, Rhode
Island, and New York each filed exceptions to the Report.
Held: The exceptions are overruled, and the Special
Master's Report is confirmed. Pp.
469 U. S.
512-527.
(a) As a general, rule islands may not normally be considered
extensions of the mainland for purposes of creating headlands of
juridical bays, but may be so considered if they
"are so integrally related to the mainland that they are
realistically parts of the 'coast' within the meaning of the
Convention."
United States v. Louisiana, 394 U. S.
11,
394 U. S. 66.
Here,
Page 469 U. S. 505
Long Island presents the exceptional case of an island that
should be treated as an extension of the mainland. Pp.
469 U. S.
512-520.
(b) Block Island is too far seaward of the bay to affect the
bay's closing line. The bay therefore does not have multiple
mouths, but closes at the line drawn from Montauk Point, Long
Island, to Watch Hill Point, Rhode Island. Pp.
469 U. S.
520-526.
Exceptions to Special Master's Report overruled, and Report
confirmed.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
These supplemental proceedings in this wide-ranging litigation
are to determine the legal coastline of the United States in the
area of Block Island Sound and the eastern portion of Long Island
Sound. That determination turns on whether Long Island Sound and
Block Island Sound constitute, in whole or in part, a juridical bay
under the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone (the Convention). [
Footnote 1] To the extent the Sounds constitute a
juridical bay, the waters of that bay, under the Convention,
Page 469 U. S. 506
are then internal waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
adjacent States, and the line that closes the bay is coastline for
the purpose of fixing the seaward boundaries of the States.
The Special Master concluded (a) that the Sounds in part do
constitute a juridical bay, and (b) that the bay closes at the line
drawn from Montauk Point, at the eastern tip of Long Island, to
Watch Hill Point on the Rhode Island shore. We have independently
reviewed the voluminous record, as we must,
see Mississippi v.
Arkansas, 415 U. S. 289,
415 U. S.
291-292, 294 (1974);
Colorado v. New Mexico,
467 U. S. 310,
467 U. S. 317
(1984), and find ourselves in agreement with the Special Master. We
therefore adopt the Master's findings, confirm his conclusions, and
overrule the respective exceptions filed by the United States, the
State of New York, and the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations.
I
This action, invoking the Court's original jurisdiction under
U.S.Const., Art. III, § 2, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(2), was
instituted in 1969,
see 395 U.S. 955, with the filing of a
complaint by the United States against the 13 States that border
the Atlantic Ocean. [
Footnote
2] The purpose of the suit was to determine whether the United
States had exclusive rights to the seabed and subsoil underlying
the ocean beyond three geographical miles from each State's
coastline.
See Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 67 Stat. 29,
43 U.S.C. § 1301
et seq. In due course, after the filing
of answers, the appointment of a Special Master, 398 U.S. 947
(1970), the submission of the Master's Report, the filing of
exceptions thereto, and oral argument, [
Footnote 3] this Court delivered its opinion,
Page 469 U. S. 507
420 U. S. 420 U.S.
515 (1975), and entered a general decree,
423 U. S. 423 U.S. 1
(1975). The Court there determined that the States held interests
in the seabeds only to a distance of three geographical miles from
their respective coastlines. The Court did not then fix the precise
coastline of any of the defendant States; instead, jurisdiction was
reserved
"to entertain such further proceedings, including proceedings to
determine the coastline of any defendant State, to enter such
orders, and to issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed
necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this
decree."
Id. at
423 U. S. 2.
[
Footnote 4]
Meanwhile, in an unrelated federal action, pilots licensed by
Connecticut challenged a Rhode Island statute which requires every
foreign vessel and every American vessel under register for foreign
trade that traverses Block Island Sound to take on a pilot licensed
by the Rhode Island Pilotage Commission. The District Court in that
suit ruled that Rhode Island possessed the authority so to regulate
pilotage in the Sound. Its theory was that the State had that
authority under 46 U.S.C. § 211, a statute which gives the States
power to regulate pilots in "bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and
ports of the United States." In so ruling, the court determined
that Block Island Sound was a bay under the Convention, and
therefore qualified as internal waters within Rhode Island's
coastline.
Warner v. Replinger, 397 F.
Supp. 350, 355-356 (RI 1975). The United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that judgment.
Warner v.
Dunlap, 532 F.2d 767 (1976),
cert. pending sub nom. Ball
v. Dunlap, No. 75-6990.
In December, 1976, obviously in response to the ruling in the
Rhode Island Pilotage Commission suit, and apparently
Page 469 U. S. 508
in the thought that coastline determinations would best be made
in this then-existing original action, the United States filed a
motion for supplemental proceedings to determine the exact legal
coastlines of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This Court entered an
order appointing the Honorable Walter E. Hoffman as Special Master,
with the customary authority to request further pleadings, to
summon witnesses, to take evidence, and to submit such reports as
he might deem appropriate. 433 U.S. 917 (1977). The Massachusetts
component of the litigation was separated from the Rhode Island
component when it became clear that each concerned different
issues.
See n 4,
supra. Subsequently, the Master granted New York's motion
to participate in the Rhode Island proceedings.
The basic position of the United States is set forth in the
following allegations of its second amended complaint:
"The coastline of Rhode Island is the line of ordinary low water
along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the
open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland
waters."
"
* * * *"
". . . [T]he coast of the the State of Rhode Island, except as
to Block Island, is the ordinary low water line along the mainland
beginning at the Massachusetts border to a point off Sakonnet
Point, then a straight closing line across Narragansett Bay to
Point Judith, then the ordinary low water line along the mainland
to the Connecticut border. As to Block Island, the coast of the
State of Rhode Island is the ordinary low water line around Block
Island. . . ."
Rhode Island's basic position is asserted in its
counterclaim:
"[T]he Rhode Island coast is the ordinary low water line along
the mainland beginning at the Massachusetts border to a point off
Sakonnet Point, then a straight closing
Page 469 U. S. 509
line from Sakonnet Point west to Point Judith, then a straight
closing line south to Sandy Point on Block Island, then the
ordinary low water line along the Block Island shore clockwise, to
a point along a straight closing line to Montauk Point on Long
Island, State of New York."
The status of Long Island Sound as internal waters over which
the States have jurisdiction is no longer at issue, for the parties
agree, as the Master had found, that Long Island Sound is a
historic bay under Article 7(6) of the Convention. We, too, agree
with that determination. Its waters therefore are internal waters
regardless of whether it also is in part a juridical bay. [
Footnote 5]
In his Report, the Special Master concluded that Long Island
Sound and Block Island Sound constitute a juridical bay under the
Convention, especially as interpreted by this Court's decision in
United States v. Louisiana (Louisiana Boundary Case),
394 U. S. 11
(1969). The Master so found after concluding that Long Island is to
be viewed as an extension of the mainland and as constituting the
southern headland of the bay. The Master went on to conclude, as
noted above, that the bay closes at the line drawn from Montauk
Point, at the eastern tip of Long Island, to Watch Hill Point on
the Rhode Island shore.
The Special Master's Report, when received here, was ordered
filed, and exceptions thereto, and replies, were authorized. 465
U.S. 1018 (1984). In response, the United States, the State of
Rhode Island, and the State of New York each filed exceptions.
These were set for oral argument. 468 U.S. 1213 (1984). The case is
now before us on the
Page 469 U. S. 510
Report, the exceptions, and the briefs and arguments of the
parties.
II
In this Court, the United States argues that it
"quarrel[s] only with the Special Master's recommendation that
Long Island be deemed a part of the mainland, and the consequences
that necessarily flow from that ruling."
Exception of United States 5. It states that, if Long Island is
considered an island, rather than an extension of the mainland, it
cannot form a juridical bay. It expresses concern about "the
principle involved and the precedent created,"
id. at 6,
if its not-part-of-the-mainland argument is rejected, because of
the effect of that decision on other States and its international
implications. The United States argues that current social and
economic ties between Long Island and the mainland cannot overcome
the geographical separateness of the Island. It states that any
emphasis on the "bay-like" appearance and usage of the waters
sheltered by Long Island is "reasoning backwards."
Id. at
8. The Court should affirm, or really reaffirm, that a
"geographical island is an island in the eye of the law except only
in very rare and truly unusual circumstances."
Id. at 9.
It finds support in
Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S.
1 (1906), and in the
Louisiana Boundary Case,
supra, and it points out that Long Island Sound indeed has
been referred to, even by this Court, as "an insular formation."
See 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 72, n.
95.
Before this Court, Rhode Island has directed its exceptions to
the fixing of a line that closes what it claims is a juridical bay
consisting of Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound. Although it
agrees with the other parties that Montauk Point is the bay's
southern headland, Rhode Island argues that Watch Hill Point cannot
be the northern headland, if for no other reason than that a point
east of Watch Hill Point (near Quonochontaug Pond) is a preferred
choice, for it, too, would satisfy all required conditions and
would enclose more water area. But Rhode Island further notes that
Block Island lies
Page 469 U. S. 511
at the opening of the long and deep indentation formed by the
two Sounds. It is said that, although Block Island lies seaward of
a direct line from Montauk Point to Point Judith, it nevertheless
influences Block Island Sound in a number of significant ways:
coastal traffic routinely passes outside Block Island; commercial
vessels rarely go between Montauk Point and Block Island because of
the hazardous underwater conditions there; Block Island provides
shelter in rough weather; the salinity of the water in Block Island
Sound is less than that of water of the open sea; the island has an
effect upon the currents of Block Island Sound; and these factors
together link Block Island to the indentation, rather than to the
open sea.
New York, in its turn, argues here that the applicable criteria
for determining the existence of a bay apply also to the portion of
Block Island Sound east of the line between Montauk Point and Watch
Hill Point. The passage between Block Island and Point Judith is
the primary entrance to the indentation formed by the two Sounds.
This places the northern headland at Point Judith. The shallow
depth and underwater obstacles between Montauk Point and Block
Island have an effect on the surface of the water in storm
conditions, for they are part of the terminal moraine that formed
Long Island. The waters of the Sound are sheltered by Block Island
and the underwater obstructions. Commercial ships use the entrance
to Block Island Sound which lies between Block Island and Point
Judith. Thus, the artificial line between Montauk Point and Watch
Hill Point in reality would not divide waters having the
characteristics of a bay from those having the characteristics of
the open sea. The waters of Block Island Sound do not constitute a
route of international passage. They are closely related to the
mainland by the intensity of their use for fishing and recreational
boating. It is clear from the evidence, it is said, that the
purposes and characteristics of a bay that are found in Long Island
Sound are present, too, in Block Island Sound. Those
Page 469 U. S. 512
waters are also landlocked, for they satisfy the objective test
described by Rhode Island's witness Jeremy C. E. White (land
visible for at least 180 degrees upon entrance to a bay). The Rhode
Island coast to the north provides closure and protection, and
Block Island provides additional closure and protection sufficient
for the waters of the Sound to be landlocked. Thus, New York says,
the Master should have utilized Block Island in closing the
Bay.
In its reply brief, the United States notes that, if it prevails
against the mainland extension argument, the case is at an end. In
the light of the possibility that it might not prevail in that
argument, the United States turns to the closing line issue.
Accepting,
arguendo, "that Long Island, juridically, is a
peninsula," Reply Brief for United States 2, the Government
endorses the Special Master's resolution, namely, that the bay is
closed by the line from Montauk Point to Watch Hill Point.
Satisfaction of the semicircle and the 24-mile tests is not enough.
Under the Convention, a well-marked indentation which is more than
a mere curvature of the coast and the presence of landlocked waters
are requirements that also must be satisfied. The natural companion
for Montauk Point is Watch Hill Point, almost due north, and not
Point Judith, 18 miles to the east. Watch Hill Point is the nearest
point on the opposite shore. It was recognized and approved as a
closing point by at least two expert witnesses. It is the first
prominent point on the Rhode Island coast. The bay thus closed is
surrounded by land on all sides but one, and it provides useful
shelter and isolation from the sea. The enclosed waters clearly are
landlocked. This cannot be said of the waters east of the line,
which are open on two sides, unless one assumes a closure because
of underwater conditions between Montauk Point and Block
Island.
III
Under § 4 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1312, a
coastal State's boundary is measured from its legal coastline. The
coastline is defined as
"the line of ordinary low
Page 469 U. S. 513
water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact
with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland
waters."
§ 1301(c). A State's seaward boundary generally is set as a line
three geographical miles distant from its coastline. § 1312. Waters
landward of the coastline therefore are internal waters of the
State, while waters up to three miles seaward of the coastline are
also within a State's boundary as part of the 3-mile ring referred
to as the marginal sea. [
Footnote
6] This Court previously has observed that Congress by the
Submerged Lands Act left to the Court the task of defining the
boundaries of the States' internal waters, and the Court under that
Act has adopted the definitions contained in the Convention in
determining the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters of
the States.
See Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 16,
394 U. S. 35;
United States v. California, 381 U.
S. 139,
381 U. S.
165-167 (1965). [
Footnote 7]
Article 7 of the Convention establishes special criteria for
drawing the baseline of a juridical bay. Article 7(2) defines a
juridical bay:
Page 469 U. S. 514
"For the purposes of these articles, a bay is a well-marked
indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of
its mouth as to contain landlocked waters and constitute more than
a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however,
be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger
than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across
the mouth of that indentation."
Article 7(4) states that waters in a bay with a mouth that does
not exceed 24 miles are internal waters. As has been indicated, in
the United States, such waters are within the jurisdiction of the
adjacent States pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act. If a body of
water is found to be a juridical bay, then, the closing line of the
bay becomes part of the coastline, and a State's boundary generally
extends three miles beyond that closing line.
IV
Addressing first the question whether Long Island Sound and
Block Island Sound together constitute a juridical bay, we repeat
the Convention's criteria for determining whether such a bay
exists: there must be a "well-marked indentation" into the coast
and it must "constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast."
The indentation must enclose an area "as large as, or larger than,
that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the
mouth of the indentation." The indentation must "contain landlocked
waters." And the mouth of a bay must not exceed 24 miles.
A mere glance at a map of the region under consideration reveals
that, unless Long Island is considered to be part of the mainland
and provides one of the headlands, neither Long Island Sound nor
Block Island Sound satisfies Article 7's requirements for a bay.
Though the coast to the north of Long Island curves somewhat, it
was the nearly unanimous conclusion of the testifying experts that,
in the absence of
Page 469 U. S. 515
Long Island, the curvature of the coast is no more than a "mere
curvature," and is not an "indentation." And, absent Long Island,
the waters of the Sounds would not be sufficiently surrounded by
land so as to be landlocked; neither would they satisfy the
semicircle test.
On the other hand, if Long Island is to be viewed as a
continuation or part of the mainland, it is evident that a bay is
formed and that the requirements of Article 7 are satisfied. All
the expert witnesses reached this conclusion. The surface area of
the water enclosed by the deep indentation is substantially larger
than the area of a semicircle whose diameter is that of the line
across the mouth of the indentation, regardless of where that mouth
is located. The question whether Long Island Sound and Block Island
Sound constitute a juridical bay therefore depends entirely upon
whether Long Island may be treated as an extension of the mainland
for the application of Article 7.
There is nothing in the Convention or in the Submerged Lands Act
that indicates whether islands may or may not be treated as
extensions of the mainland for the purpose of forming a headland of
a juridical bay. [
Footnote 8]
This Court, however, previously has held that, in some
circumstances, islands under Article 7 may be treated as headlands
of a juridical bay.
In the
Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 60-66,
the Court held that small islands off the coast of Louisiana in the
Mississippi River Delta constitute headlands of bays on that coast,
because the shoreline there consists of a number of small deltaic
islands. On the other hand, the Court determined that "Article 7
does not encompass bays formed in part by islands which cannot
realistically be considered part of the mainland."
Id. at
394 U. S. 67.
The Court reasoned as follows:
Page 469 U. S. 516
"No language in Article 7 or elsewhere positively excludes all
islands from the meaning of the 'natural entrance points' to a bay.
Waters within an indentation which are 'landlocked' despite the
bay's wide entrance surely would not lose that characteristic on
account of an additional narrow opening to the sea. That the area
of a bay is delimited by the 'low water mark around the shore' does
not necessarily mean that the low water mark must be
continuous."
"Moreover, there is nothing in the history of the Convention or
of the international law of bays which establishes that a piece of
land which is technically an island can never be the headland of a
bay. Of course, the general understanding has been -- and under the
Convention certainly remains -- that bays are indentions in the
mainland, and that islands off the shore are not
headlands, but, at the most, create multiple mouths to the bay. In
most instances and on most coasts, it is no doubt true that islands
would play only that restricted role in the delimitation of bays. .
. ."
"
* * * *"
". . . While there is little objective guidance on this question
to be found in international law, the question whether a particular
island is to be treated as part of the mainland would depend on
such factors as its size, its distance from the mainland, the depth
and utility of the intervening waters, the shape of the island, and
its relationship to the configuration or curvature of the
coast."
Id. at
394 U. S. 61-63,
66 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in original). The Court also stated
that an island's "origin . . . and resultant connection with the
shore" is another factor to be considered.
Id. at
394 U. S. 65, n.
84.
The Court reached this conclusion after surveying such case law
as there was and the scholarly discussion of the question.
See
id. at
394 U. S. 64-66,
nn. 84 and 8. That survey
Page 469 U. S. 517
suggested that there was a consensus that islands may be
assimilated to the mainland, and that a common-sense approach was
to be used to determine when islands may be so treated.
See
id. at
394 U. S. 64; 1
A. Shalowitz, Shore and Sea Boundaries 162 (1962) (hereinafter
Shalowitz). We see no reason to depart from those principles, and
we conclude, once again, that an island or group of islands may be
considered part of the mainland if they "are so integrally related
to the mainland that they are realistically parts of the
coast'
within the meaning of the Convention." Louisiana Boundary
Case, 394 U.S. at 394 U. S. 66.
See also Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. at
202 U. S. 45-46.
We continue to find the illustrative list of factors quoted above
to be useful in determining when an island or group of islands may
be so assimilated.
The United States argues, however, that the language in the
Louisiana Boundary Case should be restrictedly interpreted
so as to allow islands to be treated as headlands only in a few
narrow situations: when the island is separated from the mainland
by a genuine "river"; when the island is connected to the mainland
by a causeway; when the island is connected to the mainland by a
low-tide elevation; or when, as in the
Louisiana Boundary
Case, the shoreline is deltaic in nature. We discern no such
limits. Given the variety of possible geographic configurations, we
feel that the proper approach is to consider each case individually
in determining whether an island should be assimilated to the
mainland. [
Footnote 9]
Applying the "realistic approach,"
see the
Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 63, we
agree with the Special Master that Long Island, which indeed is
unusual, presents the exceptional case of an island which should be
treated as an extension of the mainland. In particular, its shape
and its
Page 469 U. S. 518
relation to the corresponding coast leads us to this conclusion.
The island's north shore roughly follows the south shore of the
opposite mainland, with the island's shore, however, curving
slightly seaward and then back, while the mainland has a concave
shape. As a result, the large pocket of water in Long Island Sound
is almost completely enclosed by surrounding land.
The western end of Long Island helps form an integral part of
the familiar outline of New York Harbor. It would be just as
unrealistic to exclude Brooklyn on Long Island from New York's
coastline as it would be to exclude the islands of the Mississippi
Delta from Louisiana's. There is no acceptable sense in which, for
example, the East Side of Manhattan Island, or Hunt's Point in the
Bronx, could be said to be locations on the Atlantic coast.
[
Footnote 10]
At Throgs Neck, Long Island is about one-half mile from the
mainland. The East River, which separates Long Island from the
mainland and from Manhattan Island, at one time was as shallow as
15-to-18 feet, with a rapid current that made navigation from Long
Island Sound extremely hazardous. [
Footnote 11] When we contrast this narrow and shallow
opening to
Page 469 U. S. 519
the 118-mile length of Long Island and to the extensive surface
area of the bay it helps to form, we reach the conclusion that the
existence of one narrow opening to the sea does not make Long
Island Sound or Block Island Sound any less a bay than it otherwise
would be. Both the proximity of Long Island to the mainland, the
shallowness and inutility of the intervening waters as they were
constituted originally, and the fact that the East River is not an
opening to the sea, suggest that Long Island be treated as an
extension of the mainland. Long Island and the adjacent shore also
share a common geological history, formed by deposits of sediment
and rocks brought from the mainland by ice sheets that retreated
approximately 25,000 years ago.
Our conclusion that this area should be considered a bay is
buttressed by the fact that, as a result of the geographic
configuration of Long Island, the enclosed water is used as one
would expect a bay to be used. Ships do not pass through Block
Island Sound and then Long Island Sound unless they are bound for
points on Long Island or on the opposite coast or for New York
Harbor. Long Island Sound is not a route of international passage,
and ships headed for points south of New York do not use Long
Island Sound. They pass, instead, seaward of Long Island.
The ultimate justification for treating a bay as internal
waters, under the Convention and under international law, is that,
due to its geographic configuration, its waters implicate the
interests of the territorial sovereign to a more intimate and
important extent than do the waters beyond an open coast.
See
generally M. McDougal & W. Burke, The Public Order of the
Oceans 64, 305-309, 330-332 (1962). Our realistic approach to the
question whether Long Island and Block Island Sounds constitute a
bay does no more than recognize that, due to its geographic
configuration, such interests are implicated here.
We reaffirm our understanding that the general rule is that
islands may not normally be considered extensions of the mainland
for purposes of creating the headlands of juridical
Page 469 U. S. 520
bays. Consideration of the relevant factors in this factually
specific inquiry, however, leads us to agree with the Special
Master that, in this case, Long Island functions as an extension of
the mainland forming the southern headland of a juridical bay.
V
Having concluded that Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound
constitute a juridical bay, there remains the question as to where
the bay ends or closes. The sections of Article 7 of the Convention
having to do with the closing lines of bays, and pertinent here,
are the following:
"3. For the purpose of measurement, the area of an indentation
is that lying between the low-water mark around the shore of the
indentation and a line joining the low-water marks of its natural
entrance points. Where, because of the presence of islands, an
indentation has more than one mouth, the semi-circle shall be drawn
on a line as long as the sum total of the lengths of the lines
across the different mouths. Islands within an indentation shall be
included as if they were part of the water areas of the
indentation."
"4. If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural
entrance points of a bay does not exceed twenty-four miles, a
closing line may be drawn between these two low-water marks, and
the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal
waters."
"5. Where the distance between the low-water marks of the
natural entrance points of a bay exceeds twenty-four miles, a
straight baseline of twenty-four miles shall be drawn within the
bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that
is possible with a line of that length."
Article 7(2) specifies other less mathematical restrictions to
be considered when determining the closing line. As previously
noted, the waters in a bay must be "landlocked," and a bay must be
a "well-marked indentation," which is more
Page 469 U. S. 521
than a "mere curvature of the coast." The Convention, thus,
directs that the closing line be a line no more than 24 miles long
connecting the natural entrance points to a well-marked
indentation, and the line must enclose within the indentation
landlocked waters. The closing lines may include islands if the
islands cause the bay to have multiple mouths.
The Special Master agreed with the United States' present
secondary position that the bay should close at the line from
Montauk Point north to Watch Hill Point. The States assert that all
of Block Island Sound should be within the juridical bay. They
propose that the closing line be drawn from Montauk Point to a
point near Southwest Point on Block Island, and from Sandy Point on
Block Island to Point Judith in Rhode Island. Either proposed
closing line satisfies both the 24-mile rule of Article 7 and the
Article 7(2) requirement that the area enclosed be greater than
that of a semicircle whose diameter is the closing line. [
Footnote 12] The issue therefore
comes down to the proper application of the more subjective
requirements of Article 7.
Were it not for the presence of Block Island, the 14-mile line
from Montauk Point to Watch Hill Point clearly would be the closing
line of the bay. All the parties agree that Montauk Point is one of
the natural entrance points, and thus one of the end points of the
bay's closing line. Watch Hill Point is nearly due north of Montauk
Point. The waters west of this line are within a well-marked
indentation and are landlocked under any definition of that word.
They are surrounded by land on all but one side, and are sheltered
and isolated from the sea. The coast from Watch Hill Point eastward
to Point Judith lacks any pronounced feature that might qualify as
a headland. Point Judith itself is more than 24
Page 469 U. S. 522
miles from Montauk Point, so a straight line between those two
Points cannot be considered a closing line. [
Footnote 13]
he Montauk-Watch Hill closing line also satisfies the relevant
objective tests that have been adopted to determine the natural
entrance points to a bay. [
Footnote 14] It is for that reason that the Law of the
Sea Task Force Committee on the Delineation of the Coastline
determined that, if Long Island Sound were considered a juridical
bay, the Montauk-Watch Hill line would be its closing line.
[
Footnote 15]
Page 469 U. S. 523
The States insist, however, that the presence of Block Island
gives the indentation more than one mouth, as allowed by Article
7(3) of the Convention, and therefore alters the outward limits of
the bay. They note that the International Law Commission's
commentary on Article 7(2) of the Convention states that "the
presence of islands at the mouth of an indentation tends to link it
more closely to the mainland." 2 Yearbook of the International Law
Commission, 1956, p. 269. The States say that this implies that,
where a choice of lines exists due to the presence of islands near
the mouth of a bay, the line that encloses the greater area of
inland water should be selected. There is support for this
proposition in Article 7(5) of the Convention, which calls for a
24-mile closing line to be drawn that encloses the maximum area of
water whenever the natural closing line exceeds 24 miles. There is
also support for this position among the text writers. [
Footnote 16]
Page 469 U. S. 524
It is the view of the United States that no island like Block
Island lying outside an indentation can form multiple mouths of a
bay. It claims that, unless Block Island is intersected by a line
which would otherwise close the bay, it cannot be used to form
multiple mouths. [
Footnote
17]
This case presents no opportunity to resolve that dispute, for
under any reasonable interpretation of the Convention, Block Island
is too removed from what would otherwise be the closing line of the
bay to affect that line. Block Island is nearly 12 miles from
Montauk Point and 6 miles from the nearest land. At no point is it
closer than 11 miles from the 14-mile line between Montauk Point
and Watch Hill Point. It is an island far removed from the
headlands of the juridical bay formed by Long Island.
The States appear to be arguing not that an island near the
mouth of a bay creates multiple mouths, but that an island well
beyond what would otherwise be the mouth of the bay can cause the
bay to have an entirely different mouth. Because of the presence of
Block Island, it is said, the waters landward of the island take on
the appearance and uses of a bay's waters. To support their
argument, they note that ships entering Block Island Sound come
between Block Island and Point Judith. The presence of Block
Island, therefore, has the effect of making Point Judith one of the
natural entrance points of the bay. And once the closing line is
drawn from Montauk Point to Point Judith, Block Island is near
enough to that closing line that it ought to be included as an
island creating multiple mouths to the bay.
Such a treatment of islands beyond the natural entrance points
of an indentation finds no support in the Convention
Page 469 U. S. 525
or in any of the scholarly treatises. Nowhere has it been
suggested that, because ocean traffic headed into a bay happens to
pass landward of an island in open sea in order to enter that bay,
the island therefore marks an entrance point to the bay. Nor is
such a theory a fair extrapolation of Articles 7(2) and (5) of the
Convention.
There are also a number of substantial difficulties with that
approach, not the least of which is that the line from Montauk
Point to Point Judith exceeds the 24-mile limit imposed by the
Convention. And, most significantly, some of the waters enclosed by
the suggested closing line are not landlocked, as required by the
Convention. The Convention does not define "landlocked," and this
Court has not yet felt it appropriate to offer a comprehensive
definition of the term. [
Footnote 18] Scholars interpreting the Convention have
given the term a subjective and common-sense meaning. We agree with
the general proposition that the term "landlocked"
"implies both that there shall be land in all but one direction,
and also that it should be close enough at all points to provide [a
seaman] with shelter from all but that one direction."
P. Beasley, Maritime Limits and Baselines: A Guide to Their
Delineation, The Hydrographic Society, Special Publication No. 2,
p. 13 (1978). [
Footnote
19]
Page 469 U. S. 526
As the Special Master and the members of the Baseline Committee
concluded, the waters in the outer reaches of Block Island Sound,
in any practical sense, are not usefully sheltered and isolated
from the sea so as to constitute a bay or bay-like formation. It
was the credited testimony of witnesses that ships passing landward
of Block Island, as a result, are not in the sheltered confines of
what the Convention is willing to recognize as a bay. The waters
eastward of the Montauk-Watch Hill line are exposed to the open sea
on two sides, and are not predominantly surrounded by land or
sheltered from the sea. At the very least, therefore, the States'
proposed closing line is defective because it includes open sea in
the indentation in violation of the mandates of the Convention.
Such is the nearly inevitable result, it seems to us, of a theory
that would treat islands well beyond the natural entrance points of
an indentation as creating multiple mouths to that indentation.
VI
In summary, we agree with the Special Master, and hold that Long
Island Sound and Block Island Sound west of the line between
Montauk Point on Long Island and Watch Hill Point in Rhode Island
are a juridical bay under Article 7 of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. This juridical bay is
closed by that line connecting Montauk Point and Watch Hill Point.
The waters of the bay west of the closing line are internal state
waters, and the waters of Block Island Sound east of that line are
territorial waters and high seas.
The respective exceptions filed by the United States, the State
of Rhode Island, and the State of New York are overruled. The
recommendations of the Special Master are adopted, and his Report
is confirmed. The parties are directed promptly to submit to the
Special Master a proposed appropriate decree for this Court's
consideration; if the parties are unable to agree upon the form of
the decree, each shall submit its proposal to the Master for his
consideration
Page 469 U. S. 527
and recommendation. Each party shall bear its own costs; the
actual expenses of the Special Master shall be borne half by the
United States and half by Rhode Island and New York.
The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further
proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time
to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to effectuate and
supplement the decree and the rights of the respective parties.
It is so ordered.
[
Footnote 1]
[1964] 15 U.S.T. (pt. 2) 1607, T.I.A.S. No. 5639.
See United
States v. Louisiana (Louisiana Boundary Case), 394 U. S.
11,
394 U. S. 16, n.
7 (1969).
[
Footnote 2]
The State of Connecticut was not named as a defendant. This
apparently was because the State borders only on a part of Long
Island Sound deemed to be inland waters, rather than open sea.
See United States v. Maine, 420 U.
S. 515,
420 U. S. 517,
n. 1 (1975).
[
Footnote 3]
See also 400 U.S. 914 (1970); 403 U.S. 949 (1971); 404
U.S. 954 (1971); 408 U.S. 917(1972); 412 U.S. 936 (1973);4 19 U.S.
814 (1974); 419 U.S. 1087 (1974); 419 U.S. 1102 (1975); 420 U.S.
904 (1975); and 420 U.S. 918 (1975).
[
Footnote 4]
Subsequently, the coastline of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
was determined in part by a supplemental decree issued by this
Court.
See United States v. Maine (Massachusetts Boundary
Case), 452 U. S. 429
(1981).
[
Footnote 5]
New York and Rhode Island initially asserted that Block Island
Sound also constituted a historic bay under the Convention. The
Master found that Block Island Sound was not a historic bay. Report
8-19, 61. No exception has been filed to that part of the Master's
Report.
[
Footnote 6]
Under § 3(a) of the Submerged Lands Act, the States have title
to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within their
boundaries. 43 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The location of a State's boundary
also may be relevant in determining the State's right to regulate
navigation. Congress, of course, has the right under the Commerce
Clause to regulate all navigation, but, since the time of the First
Congress, it has given the States the right to regulate pilotage
"in the bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and ports of the United
States." Act of Aug. 7, 1789, § 4, 1 Stat. 54, 46 U.S.C. § 211.
[
Footnote 7]
The Convention and the Submerged Lands Act adopt similar
approaches for establishing boundaries to jurisdiction over the
sea. The Convention refers to the coastline as the "baseline," and,
as in the Submerged Lands Act, it defines the baseline as the
low-water line along the portion of the coast which is in direct
contact with the open sea, and the line marking the seaward limit
of inland waters.
See Articles 3 and 7(3). Article 7(4)
states that waters in a juridical bay are a nation's internal
waters; this is consonant with the Act's definition of "coast line"
as the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters. Much as in
the Act a State's boundary is set by a 3-mile ring around the
coastline, a nation-state's boundary under the Convention extends
beyond the baseline. The Convention refers to this ring as the
"territorial sea." Articles 3 and 5.
[
Footnote 8]
The Convention addresses the problems created by islands located
at the mouth of a bay,
see Article 7(3), but does not
address the analytically different problem whether islands may be
treated as part of the mainland to form an indentation.
[
Footnote 9]
In the
Louisiana Boundary Case itself, the Court felt
free to consider whether the Isles Dernieres, large coastal islands
off Caillou Bay, which fall into none of the Government's proposed
narrow exceptions, could form the headlands of a bay. 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 66-67,
and nn. 87, 88.
[
Footnote 10]
See Pearcy, Geographical Aspects of the Law of the Sea,
49 Annals of Assn. of American Geographers 9 (1959) (islands may
form headlands when they are "separated from the mainland by so
little water that, for all practical purposes, the coast of the
island is identified as that of the mainland").
[
Footnote 11]
The Army Corps of Engineers in the 19th century deepened the
East River to 34 feet and made it more easily navigable.
The East River is unusual. Technically, it is not a river;
neither can it be regarded as simply a tidal strait, connecting the
Atlantic Ocean to Long Island Sound. Rather, it is part of the
complex Hudson River estuary system, affected by both tidal action
and the fresh water flowing from the Hudson River.
See
Panuzio, The Hudson River Model, Symposium on Hudson River Ecology
83, 89-91 (1966). The geography of New York Harbor and the lower
Hudson Valley, in its own way, is as unique as the geography of the
Mississippi River Delta. While it may be true, as the Government
suggests, that an island formed by the bank of a river is more
naturally considered part of the mainland than an island separated
from the mainland by something like a tidal strait, we find this
general observation of little use when evaluating the status of
Long Island.
[
Footnote 12]
The distance from Montauk Point to Watch Hill Point is 14 miles.
Lines connecting Montauk Point to Southwest Point, and Sandy Point
to Point Judith, add up to 22 miles. Because of the extensive area
of the waters enclosed by either closing line, that area is
substantially greater than that of a semicircle with a diameter of
either 14 or 22 miles.
[
Footnote 13]
In view of our ultimate disposition of this question, we express
no opinion as to whether the Point Judith Harbor Works, a man-made
construction lying just within 24 miles from Montauk Point, could
qualify as a headland.
[
Footnote 14]
A number of objective tests have been formulated to assist in
selecting the natural entrance points to a bay. The primary one is
the 45-degree test. It requires that two opposing mainland-headland
points be selected and a closing line be drawn between them.
Another line is then drawn from each selected headland to the next
landward headland on the same side. If the resulting angle between
the initially selected closing line and the line drawn to the
inland headland is less than 45 degrees, a new inner headland is
selected and the measurement is repeated until both mainland
headlands pass the test.
See P. Beasley, Maritime Limits
and Baselines: A Guide to Their Delineation, The Hydrographic
Society, Special Publication No. 2, pp. 16-17 (1977).
Witnesses before the Special Master indicated that it was
through application of this test that the Montauk Point-Watch Hill
Point closing line was adopted by the Baseline Committee.
See n 15. These
objective tests are helpful in large part because they assist in
defining what is finally a more subjective concept that has been
described as
"the apex of a salient of the coast; the point of maximum
extension of a portion of the land into the water; or a point on
the shore at which there is an appreciable change in direction of
the general trend of the coast."
1 Shalowitz 63-64.
See also R. Hodgson & L.
Alexander, Towards an Objective Analysis of Special Circumstances,
Law of the Sea Institute, Occasional Paper No. 13, p. 10 (1972)
(hereinafter Hodgson & Alexander) ("a point where the two
dimensional character of a
bay' . . . is replaced by that of
the `sea' or `ocean'"). This Court previously has recognized the
usefulness of objective tests in identifying entrance points.
See United States v. California, 382 U.
S. 448, 382 U. S. 451
(1966).
[
Footnote 15]
This Committee was an interagency committee of the Federal
Government, established after the Convention was adopted in 1964,
to determine the baseline around the United States and to draw
closing lines where needed in conformity with the requirements of
the Convention.
[
Footnote 16]
In 1 Shalowitz 225, and n. 38, for example, it is said that it
would be a reasonable extrapolation from Articles 7(3) and (5) of
the Convention to allow outlying islands to form part of the end
line of a bay. The author notes, however:
"The rule proposed would still leave unresolved the question of
how far seaward from the headland line islands could be in order to
be incorporated under the rule. The best solution would be to
consider each case on its merits and apply a rule of reason."
This Court faced a related problem in the
Louisiana Boundary
Case, 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 54-60,
where it rejected the argument that the existence of islands that
intersect the closing line of a bay, and thus form multiple mouths
of that bay, should in no event have the effect of pulling the
closing line inward. The Court noted that, much as seaward islands
tend to extend the contours of a bay, landward islands intersected
by a mainland-to-mainland closing line have the effect of narrowing
the contours of the bay if the islands create multiple mouths.
Id. at
394 U. S. 58.
The Court declined to address the question whether islands that are
completely landward of a mainland-to-mainland closing line can form
multiple mouths.
Id. at
394 U. S. 58-59,
and n. 79. An evaluation of the effect of landward islands is
complicated by that part of Article 7(3) which states: "Islands
within an indentation shall be included as if they were part of the
water areas of the indentation." The Convention has no similar
treatment of islands located outside an indentation.
[
Footnote 17]
The United States recognizes two other circumstances in which
islands may be utilized in drawing closing lines: when an island is
considered a headland to the bay and when an island or group of
islands "screen" the mouth of a bay so that they block more than
half the opening.
See Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 58.
Block Island is clearly not a screening island, nor is it argued
that it forms a headland of the bay.
[
Footnote 18]
In the
Louisiana Boundary Case, the Court recognized
that the term "landlocked" is not to be literally applied, for it
noted that an otherwise landlocked bay "surely would not lose that
characteristic on account of an additional narrow opening to the
sea." 394 U.S. at
394 U. S. 61.
Additionally, the Court suggested that a bay could be landlocked
even if it is bounded on one side by a body of internal waters.
See generally id. at
394 U. S. 48-53
(applying the semicircle test).
[
Footnote 19]
"The concept of landlocked is imprecise and, as a result, may
call for subjective judgments. . . . Basically, the character of
the bay must lead to its being perceived as part of the land,
rather than of the sea. Or, conversely, the bay, in a practical
sense, must be usefully sheltered and isolated from the sea.
Isolation or detachment from the sea must be considered the key
factor."
Hodgson & Alexander 6, 8.