The tenth session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea met in New York from March 9 to April 24, 1981 and resumed in Geneva from August 3 to August 28, 1981. The Drafting Committee and its organs also met from January 12 to February 27 in New York and from June 29 to July 31 in Geneva.

The coming into force for the United States and other nations of a law of the sea treaty may affect fishery management in the United States under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) in a number of different ways. This discussion examines some possible ways and focuses particularly upon possible incompatible provisions in terms of the objectives of fishery management, subsidiary standards for management, conservation and allocation measures, the species within United States authority, the allocation of fishery management authority between state and federal governments, transboundary stocks and high seas/fishery zone stocks, enforcement authority and activity, and lastly, the amendment of regulations adopted under the FCMA to conform to the LOS treaty.

The orbit/spectrum resource is one of the world’s most important reservoirs of value. This resource has a dual “orbit/spectrum” nature because its value can only be realized through the simultaneous exploitation of both the geostationary orbit and the electromagnetic spectrum. The geostationary orbit, a ring of space six earth radii above the equator, is where a communications satellite must be placed in order to assume a fixed position in the sky. These fixed or “geostationary” positions are extremely desirable because they allow the satellite to serve as a dependable relay platform for messages sent between large numbers of geographically isolated communicators.

International law needs to respond to the dual pressures for change brought on by rapid technological development and the promulgation of the “New International Economic Order.” While a number of major international negotiations have been mounted in recent years to respond to these pressures, all of them have failed to meet expectations. The value of international law in shaping and stabilizing international behavior will certainly diminish unless the performance of these international negotiations is improved or other methods for effectuating change are found. It is the purpose of this article to explore some of the procedures that the international community has used to respond to these pressures and to suggest areas for improvement or further exploration.