San Diego Law Review

Library of Congress Authority File


Document Type



This Comment will demonstrate that the court was incorrect in its interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. The court's interpretation rested on two sources: the history of the Geneva Conventions and the perception of Congress concerning the compatibility of the Bartlett and the Contiguous Fisheries Zone Acts with the Conventions. This Comment will first examine the history of the treaty provisions in question to demonstrate that the parties to the Conventions intended Article 24 to be restrictive. The legislative history of the Bartlett Act and the Contiguous Fisheries Zone Act will then be examined to determine whether the court's holding is supported by congressional perception of compatibility between the Acts and the Conventions. Finally, the scope of the exception established in Cook v. United States will be explored to determine its applicability to F/V Taiyo Maru.