The extent of a nation’s power over its coastal ecosystems and the natural resources in its coastal waters has been defined by two international law doctrines: 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 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 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 restrictions.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 applied on the “open seas”，there were few jursdictional conflicts between nations.
The lack of standards is traceable to popular perceptions held before the middle of this century.By and large, marine pollution was not perceived as a significant problem, in part because the adverse 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 doctrine of freedom of the seas that no maritime 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 preclude such efforts.And two recent developments may actually lead to future international rules providing for ecosystem 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.Thus it will become more likely that international standards and policies for broader regulation of human activities that affect ocean ecosystems will be adopted and implemented.
1.Until the mid-twentieth century there were few jurisdictional disputes over international waters because（ ）.
2.The author suggests in the third paragraph that, before the mid-twentieth century, most nations’ actions with respect to territorial and international waters indicated that（ ） .
3.Before the mid-twentieth century，nations failed to establish rules protecting their territorial waters because（ ）.
4.From the last paragraph we learn that the extension of fishery zones may be a
good thing in that（ ）.
5.The passage as a whole can best be described as（ ）.
问题1选项
A.the ocean areas were used for only innocent purposes
B.broad authority over international waters was shared equally among all nations
C.the nearest coastal nation regulated activities
D.few controls or restrictions applied to ocean areas
问题2选项
A.a nation’s authority over its citizenry ended at territorial lines
B.nations considered it their responsibility to protect territorial but not international waters
C.managing ecosystems in either territorial or international waters was given low priority
D.unlimited resources in international waters resulted in little interest in territorial waters
问题3选项
A.the size of the area that would be subject to such rules was insignificant
B.the technology needed for pollution control and resource management did notexist
C.the waters appeared to be unpolluted and to contain unlimited resources
D.the fishing industry would be adversely affected by such rules
问题4选项
A.individual nations will make fuller use of ocean resources to benefit themselves
B.individual nations may in time take on greater responsibility for ocean protection
C.fish populations within coastal waters will increase as a result
D.the international community will begin to formulate laws to regulate human activities there
问题5选项
A.a historical analysis of a problem that requires international attention
B.a chronology of the events that have led up to a present-day crisis
C.a legal inquiry into the abuse of existing laws and the likelihood of reform
D.a political analysis of the problems inherent in directing national attention to an international issue
第1题:D
第2题:C
第3题:A
第4题:B
第5题:A
1.【选项释义】
1. Until the mid-twentieth century there were few jurisdictional disputes over international waters because ______. 1. 直到20世纪中叶，国际水域几乎没有管辖权争端，因为______。
A. the ocean areas were used for only innocent purposes A. 海洋区域仅用于无害目的
B. broad authority over international waters was shared equally among all nations B. 所有国家平等地分享对国际水域的广泛权力
C. the nearest coastal nation regulated activities C. 最近的沿海国家管制活动
D. few controls or restrictions applied to ocean areas D. 几乎没有对海洋区域的控制或限制
【答案】D
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据第一段最后一句“由于这一领域的领土主权是有限的，大多数国家没有建立管理或保护其领海的规则”和第二段最后一句“由于在‘公海’上几乎没有适用的行为标准，因此各国之间也很少有法律上的冲突”可推知，各国之间也很少有法律上的冲突是因为在海洋区域管理上，并没有适应的规则和行为标准，D项“几乎没有对海洋区域的控制或限制”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A项“海洋区域仅用于无害目的”没有提及，无中生有；
B项“所有国家平等地分享对国际水域的广泛权力”和C项“最近的沿海国家管制活动”根据解题思路可知，这两项与原文相反，属于反向干扰。
2.【选项释义】
2. The author suggests in the third paragraph that, before the mid-twentieth century, most nations’ actions with respect to territorial and international waters indicated that ______. 2. 作者在第三段中指出，在二十世纪中叶以前，大多数国家在领海和国际水域的行动表明______。
A. a nation’s authority over its citizenry ended at territorial lines A. 一个国家对其公民的权威止于领土界限
B. nations considered it their responsibility to protect territorial but not international waters B. 各国认为他们有责任保护领海，而不是国际水域
C. managing ecosystems in either territorial or international waters was given low priority C. 管理领土或国际水域的生态系统没有得到优先考虑
D. unlimited resources in international waters resulted in little interest in territorial waters D. 国际水域的无限资源导致人们对领海的兴趣不大
【答案】C
【考查点】细节事实题。
【解题思路】根据第三段第二句“总的来说，海洋污染并没有被认为是一个重大的问题，部分原因是沿岸活动对海洋生态系统的不利影响没有得到广泛的认识，而且一般认为人类活动造成的污染只限于航行造成的污染”可知，在二十世纪中叶以前，管理区域或国际水域的生态系统没有被列为优先事项，C项“管理领土或国际水域的生态系统没有得到优先考虑”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A项“一个国家对其公民的权威止于领土界限”没有提及，无中生有；
B项“各国认为他们有责任保护领海，而不是国际水域”表述不准确，文中第二段提到的是各国没有权利管制国际水域，该项曲解原文；
D项“国际水域的无限资源导致人们对领海的兴趣不大”没有提及，无中生有。
3.【选项释义】
3. Before the mid-twentieth century, nations failed to establish rules protecting their territorial waters because ______. 3. 在20世纪中叶之前，各国未能制定保护领海的规则是因为______。
A. the size of the area that would be subject to such rules was insignificant A. 受这些规则约束的区域的大小是微不足道的
B. the technology needed for pollution control and resource management did not exist B. 控制污染和管理资源所需要的技术并不存在
C. the waters appeared to be unpolluted and to contain unlimited resources C. 这些水域似乎没有受到污染，蕴藏着无限的资源
D. the fishing industry would be adversely affected by such rules D. 渔业将受到这些规则的不利影响
【答案】A
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据第一段最后两句“一个国家有权在其领土管辖范围内只包括一个非常狭窄的沿海水域（通常从海岸线延伸3英里），在这一水域内，它有权力，但没有责任管理所有活动。但是，由于这一地区的领土主权是有限的，大多数国家没有建立管理或保护其领海的规则。”可知，各国能够管辖的海洋水域只有从海岸线延伸的3英里，并且各国没有责任管理所有的活动，所以推断各国未能制定保护领海的规则是因为他们管理的领海区域是微不足道的，A项“受这些规则约束的区域的大小是微不足道的”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
B项“控制污染和管理资源所需要的技术并不存在”根据第三段最后一句“最后，后来允许开采石油等其他海洋资源的技术还不存在”可知，文中提到的技术是指开采石油的技术，并不是控制污染的技术，该项属于张冠李戴；
C项“这些水域似乎没有受到污染，蕴藏着无限的资源”没有提到，属于无中生有；
D项“渔业将受到这些规则的不利影响”根据第二段第一句“无论各国是否在其领海实施管制，大片海域仍然不受控制或限制”可知，该项属于反向干扰。
4.【选项释义】
4. From the last paragraph we learn that the extension of fishery zones may be a good thing in that ______. 4. 从最后一段我们了解到，扩大渔业区可能是一件好事，因为______。
A. individual nations will make fuller use of ocean resources to benefit themselves A. 各个国家将更充分地利用海洋资源来为自己牟利
B. individual nations may in time take on greater responsibility for ocean protection B. 各个国家最终可能会在海洋保护方面承担更大的责任
C. fish populations within coastal waters will increase as a result C. 沿海水域内的鱼类数量将因此增加
D. the international community will begin to formulate laws to regulate human activities there D. 国际社会将开始制定法律来规范那里的人类活动
【答案】B
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据最后一段四五六句“首先，在距一个国家海岸200英里以外建立了广阔的渔业区，为各国单独管理更大的生态系统提供了机会。这一机会，加上各国在维持鱼类数量方面的自身利益，可能导致各国重新评估其渔业管理政策，并解决领海污染问题。第二，国际社会开始认识到保护国际水域资源和生态的重要性，并表现出承担责任的迹象。”可知，扩大渔业区会给各国管理更大的生态系统提供机会，从而重新评估渔业管理政策并解决污染问题，也就是说各个国家将承担更大的责任，所以B项“各个国家最终可能会在海洋保护方面承担更大的责任”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A项“各个国家将更充分地利用海洋资源来为自己牟利”，扩大渔业区，各国将会维持鱼群种类数量，所以该项反向干扰；
C项“沿海水域内的鱼类数量将因此增加”虽然是扩大渔业区带来的一件好事，但是最重要的是进行渔业管理后，会减轻海洋污染，该项本末倒置；
D项“国际社会将开始制定法律来规范那里的人类活动”根据解题思路可知，原文虽然提到国际社会会承担保护国际水域的责任，但并没有提到将制定法律，该项无中生有。
5.【选项释义】
5. The passage as a whole can best be described as ______. 5. 作为一个整体，这篇文章可以被描述为______。
A. a historical analysis of a problem that requires international attention A. 对一个需要国际关注的问题的历史分析
B. a chronology of the events that have led up to a present-day crisis B. 导致当今危机的事件的年表
C. a legal inquiry into the abuse of existing laws and the likelihood of reform C. 对现行法律滥用和改革可能性的法律调查
D. a political analysis of the problems inherent in directing national attention to an international issue D. 对引导国家注意一个国际问题所固有问题的政治分析
【答案】A
【考查点】主旨大意题。
【解题思路】根据最后一段第一句“迄今为止，控制污染和调节海洋资源还没有得到法律的全面解决”以及在文章的前部分，作者主要是从历史的角度来探讨为什么控制污染和调节海洋资源还没有得到法律的全面解决。由此可知，本文是对需要国际关注的问题进行历史分析。所以A项“对一个需要国际关注的问题的历史分析”最能概括全文。
【干扰项排除】
B项“导致当今危机的事件的年表”和D项“对引导国家注意一个国际问题所固有问题的政治分析”概括不全，属于以偏概全；
C项“对现行法律滥用和改革可能性的法律调查”没有提及，属于无中生有。
