The extent of a nation's power over its coastal¹ ecosystems³ and the natural resources in its coastal waters has been defined by two international law doctrines⁵： freedom of the seas and adjacent state sovereignty. Until the mid-twentieth century, most nations favored application of broad open-seas freedoms and limited sovereign rights over coastal waters. A nation had the right to include within its territorial⁶ dominion⁷ only a very narrow band of coastal waters. A nation had the right to include within its territorial dominion only a very narrow band of coastal waters （generally extending three miles from the shoreline）, within which it had the authority but not the responsibility, to regulate all activities, But because this area of territorial dominion was so limited, most nations did not establish rules for management or protection of their territorial waters.

　　Regardless of whether or not nations enforced regulations in their territorial waters. Large ocean areas remained free of controls or restrictions⁸. The citizens of all nations had the right to use these unrestricted ocean areas for any innocent purpose including navigation and fishing. Except for controls over its own citizens, no nation had the responsibility, let alone the unilateral authority, to control such activities in international waters. And, since there were few standards of conduct that applied⁹ on the "open seas", there were few jurisdictional¹⁰ conflicts between nations.

　　The lack of standards is traceable to popular perceptions held before the middle of this century. By and large, marine¹¹ pollution was not perceived as a significant problem. in part because the adverse¹² effect of coastal activities on ocean ecosystems was not widely recognized, and pollution caused by human activities was generally believed to be limited to that caused by navigation. Moreover, the freedom to fish. or over fish, was an essential element of the traditional legal doctrine⁴ of freedom of the seas that no maritime¹³ country wished to see limited. And finally, the technology that later allowed exploitation of other ocean resources, such as oil, did not yet exist.

　　To date, controlling pollution and regulating ocean resources have still not been comprehensively addressed by law, but international law——established through the customs and practices of nations —— does not preclude¹⁴ such efforts. And two recent developments may actually lead to future, international rules providing for ecosystem² management. First, the establishment of extensive fishery zones extending territorial authority as far as 200 miles out from a country's coast, has provided the opportunity for nations individually to manage larger ecosystems. This opportunity, combined with national self-interest in maintaining fish populations could lead nations to reevaluate policies for management of their fisheries and to address the problem of pollution in territorial waters. Second, the international community is beginning to understand the importance of preserving the resources and ecology of international waters and to show signs of accepting responsibility for doing so. As an international waters and to show signs of accepting responsibility for doing so. As an international consensus¹⁵ regarding the need for comprehensive management of ocean resources. develops, it will become more likely that international standards and policies for broader regulation of human activities that affect ocean ecosystems will be adopted and implemented¹⁶.

　　1. According to the passage, until the mid-twentieth century there were few jurisdictional disputes over international waters because.

　　（A） the nearest coastal nation regulated activities

　　（B） few controls or restrictions applied to ocean areas

　　（C） the ocean areas were used for only innocent purposes

　　（D） the freedom of the seas doctrine settled all claims concerning navigation and fishing

　　（E） broad authority over international waters was shared equally among all nations

　　2. According to the international law doctrines applicable before the mid-twentieth century, if commercial activity within a particular nations territorial waters threatened all marine life in those waters, the nation would have been

　　（A） formally censured¹⁷ by an international organization for not properly regulating marine activities

　　（B） called upon by other nations to establish rules to protect its territorial waters

　　（C） able but not required to place legal limits on such commercial activities

　　（D） allowed to resolve the problem at it own discretion¹⁸ providing it could contain the threat to its own territorial waters

　　（E） permitted to hold the commercial offenders¹⁹ liable only if they were citizens of that particular nation

　　3. The author suggests that, before the mid-twentieth century, most nations' actions with respect to territorial and international waters indicated that

　　（A） managing ecosystems in either territorial or international waters was given low priority

　　（B） unlimited²⁰ resources in international waters resulted in little interest in territorial waters

　　（C） nations considered it their responsibility to protect territorial but not international waters

　　（D） a nation's authority over its citizenry ended at territorial lines

　　（E） although nations could extend their territorial dominion beyond three miles from their shoreline. most chose not to do so.

　　4. The author cities which one of the following as an effect of the extension of territorial waters beyond the three-mile limit？

　　（A） increased political pressure on individual nations to establish comprehensive laws regulating ocean resources

　　（B） a greater number of jurisdictional disputes among nations over the regulation of fishing on the open seas

　　（C） the opportunity for some nations to manage large ocean ecosystems

　　（D） a new awareness²¹ of the need to minimize pollution caused by navigation

　　（E） a political incentive²² for smaller nations to solve the problems of pollution in their coastal waters

　　5. According to the passage, before the middle of the twentieth century, nations failed to establish rules protecting their territorial waters because

　　（A） the waters appeared to be unpolluted and to contain unlimited resources

　　（B） the fishing industry would be adversely²³ affected²⁴ by such rules

　　（C） the size of the area that would be subject to such rules was insignificant²⁵

　　（D） the technology needed for pollution control and resource management did not exist

　　（E） there were few jurisdictional conflicts over nations' territorial waters

　　6. The passage as a whole can best be described as

　　（A） a chronology of the events that have led up to present-day crisis

　　（B） a legal inquiry²⁶ into the abuse of existing laws and the likelihood of reform.

　　（C） a political analysis of the problems inherent in directing national attention to an international issue

　　（D） a historical analysis of a problem that requires international attention

　　（E） a proposal for adopting and implementing international standards to solve an ecological problem

上一篇：LSAT模拟试题：LSAT模拟试题TEST2阅读1d 下一篇：LSAT模拟试题：LSAT模拟试题TEST2阅读3