Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

There has been a great deal of conflict in federal systems between central and peripheral governments regarding jurisdiction over the continental shelf, both within and outside of the territorial sea. The focus of this conflict has been control over valuable offshore petroleum resources. This conflict, which is known as the Seaweed Rebellion,' has occurred in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

The Seaweed Rebellion has taken place in both the political and judicial arenas. The first battle of the rebellion, known as the tidelands controversy,' dealt with whether the federal or state/provincial governments had jurisdiction over continental shelf lands. When political negotiations failed to resolve the controversies, litigation ensued. Courts in the United States, Canada, and Australia, citing each other's precedents with approval, chose to view the conflict from an international law perspective. These courts have determined that state/provincial jurisdiction ends at the low-water mark. The federal governments, as external sovereigns, established federal jurisdiction over the continental shelf when such jurisdiction became recognized under international law.

The decisions resulting from the tidelands controversy set the stage for subsequent battles in the Seaweed Rebellion. The states/provinces returned to the political arena to mitigate the adverse effects of the judicial decisions. The states/provinces were more successful in the political arena. Nevertheless, subsequent political settlements, except in Canada, did not end the Rebellion: New judicial and political challenges occurred in the United States and Australia regarding control over and revenues derived from offshore energy development. Federalstate conflicts will continue until the states are given greater administrative control over, and a share of the revenues derived from, offshore energy development.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS