## Facts

- After the United States acquired Alaska, fur seals that bred on U.S. islands in the Bering Sea became the focus of conservation and commercial conflict.
- The United States enacted legislation aimed at protecting the fur-seal herd associated with those Alaskan breeding grounds.
- Acting under that legislation, U.S. authorities seized vessels owned by Great Britain (operated by British subjects) that the United States believed had been killing seals far offshore—about 60 miles from the coast, beyond the ordinary three-mile territorial sea.
- The United States argued that because the seals’ “homes” were on U.S. territory, the United States had an ownership-like or trustee-like interest in the seals even when they swam on the high seas.
- The United States relied on an analogy to municipal law concepts governing wild animals, contending that similar reasoning should apply between states under international law.
- Great Britain denied that the United States could claim any property right in wild animals outside the territorial sea or exercise exclusive jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas.
- To resolve the dispute, the states agreed by treaty to submit the controversy to an international arbitral tribunal, including questions of jurisdiction, property/protection interests in the seals, and measures necessary for preservation of the species.

## Issues

1. Did the United States have exclusive jurisdiction in the Bering Sea beyond the ordinary three-mile territorial limit, including through succession to any claimed Russian rights?
2. Did the United States have a right of property or protection in fur seals when the animals were outside U.S. territorial waters because they habitually resorted to U.S. islands?
3. If the United States lacked such jurisdiction or property/protection rights, could the tribunal nonetheless prescribe binding rules to limit pelagic sealing for conservation purposes?

## Decision

- The tribunal held that the United States had no exclusive jurisdiction in the Bering Sea beyond the ordinary three-mile territorial limit.
- The tribunal rejected the claim that any broader Russian jurisdiction or exclusive sealing rights had been accepted by Great Britain such that they could pass to the United States and be asserted against British subjects.
- The tribunal held that the United States had no right of property or protection in fur seals when the seals were outside U.S. territorial waters, despite their breeding on U.S. islands.
- Even while rejecting unilateral U.S. authority on the high seas, the tribunal set and annexed conservation regulations governing pelagic sealing between the parties (including seasonal and geographic restrictions and limits on methods), applying beyond ordinary territorial waters.

## Legal Principles

- International law does not allow a state to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas absent a recognized basis; waters beyond the territorial sea remain open to all states.
- A successor state cannot obtain, through cession, exclusive maritime rights against another state when the predecessor’s claimed rights were never accepted as valid by that other state.
- Wild animals found outside a state’s territorial waters are not subject to that state’s ownership or trusteeship theory as a basis for controlling foreign conduct on the high seas.
- Conservation concerns, standing alone, do not create unilateral enforcement powers on the high seas; binding limits can be created through agreement or an arbitral award within the parties’ submission.

## Conclusion

The Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration held that the United States could not extend its jurisdiction beyond the three-mile territorial sea and could not claim an ownership-like interest in fur seals while they were on the high seas, even though the seals bred on U.S. islands. At the same time, recognizing the depletion risk, the tribunal imposed a set of binding conservation rules to restrain pelagic sealing between the United States and Great Britain without granting the United States unilateral high-seas enforcement authority.


Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration (Great Britain v. United States), 1 Moore’s Int’l Arb. Awards 755 (1893)