@article{oai:ir.kagoshima-u.ac.jp:00005032,
 author = {今田, 清二},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {鹿児島大学水産学部紀要=Memoirs of Faculty of Fisheries Kagoshima University},
 month = {2016-10-28},
 note = {With the advance of modern technology, the freedom of the sea cannot be anymore
a limitless freedom. Only when the freedom of the sea is limited in accordance with a
universal rule, such freedom enjoyed by respective states can be consistent with one
another. The freedom so limited is the same as the limitless freedom in that it is a
freedom. But being limited, it is not the same as the limitless freedom. The freedom
of the sea evolves dialectically, with the advance of technology, from the limitless
freedom to the limited freedom., One of the universal rules to limit the freedom of the sea is the rule of maximum sustained catch. There is a biological reason that all states have to observe this rule. It is not easy, of course, to bring this rule into practice, so that some conventions have been concluded to the end for carrying out scientific investigations to find the definite quantities of maximum sustained catch of certain stocks of fish. The Tripartite Fisheries Convention of 1952 provided the rule of abstention. The abstention seems to be reasonable with respect to certain fishery on the North Pacific Ocean. But the procedure of abstention must be distinguished from the rule of abstention as provided in the above Convention, and not to be linked each other. The procedure of abstention is not reasoned by the abave rule of abstention which cannot be a universal rule, because of its lack of biological ground and its nature of nearly denying the freedom of the sea., Here is a proposal for the rule of minimum universal restraint, which would furnish the abstention with its ground in order to prevent or resolve international disputes arising from economic causes. The limitations of freedom of the sea must be of the minimum, so far as the freedom is the basic rule. And also, such limitations must be of a universal nature, based on reasons that all states have to observe. The items, methods and extents of the minimum universal restraint to be applied to fisheries differ case by case with the difference of the conditions of fishery, e.g. the property of living resources, the level of fishing technology, the traditional practices, and economic situations, etc. It is an urgent need to carry out investigations on the basis of international agreement for finding the exact item, method and extent of the minimum universal restraint to be applied to the respective fisheries on the North Pacific, the Indo-Pacific, as well as the Atlantic Ocean.},
 pages = {1--6},
 title = {海洋の自由の弁証法的進化をもたらす諸法則},
 volume = {12},
 year = {}
}