1572 



levels of intensity of these social tensions? How can changes in these 

 levels (a) be brought about, and (b) measured? To what extent is it 

 feasible to attempt to ascertain the ideal level of tension— that which 

 would result in the best blend of harmony and accomplishment — for 

 any given regional enterprise? 



CASE FIVE: EXPLOITING THE RESOURCES OF THE SEABED"^ 



Statement oj the Case 



The matter of who owns the ocean floor came into prominence as 

 a consequence of technology. Historically, the seabed was an inter- 

 national commons of neghgible utility. International law afforded no 

 substantial provision for its governance or possession because there 

 was no need for it. Man's invasion of the ocean deeps came gradually, 

 beginning v,dth exploration by deep-submergence vehicles, mapping 

 expeditions using the military technolog}' of ultrasonics, systematic 

 collection of samples from the ocean floor, and ultimately core drilling 

 of the seabed at progressively deeper submergences. Offshore drilling 

 for oil by the United States,' begun during World War II, led to the 

 evolution of a large and complex technology that extended from its 

 early application in the Gulf of Mexico to Asiatic waters, and most 

 receiitly to the North Sea. Early discovery of manganese nodules, 

 occurring in great profusion on the deep ocean floor, received little 

 notice until world consumption of such materials as copper, nickel, 

 cobalt, as well as manganese, contained in these nodules began to 

 press on world capacity to extract them from sources on the continents. 

 As the winning of these resources, as well as petroleum, from the 

 seabed neared practicality, the question of who owns the ocean floor 

 came to international attention. 



Importance oj the Case 



Questions of national sovereignty traditionall}^ rank liigh among 

 the concerns of nations. Determination of seaward jurisdiction of 

 coastal States remains an unresolved question with proponents of 

 different interests adducing conflicting principles: major maritime 

 powers seeking boundaries close in, some smaller states reaching 

 out as far as possible, and some states pursuing a mixed strategy 

 based on the principle of submarine geography. 



The potential for conflict is inherent in a resource-rich region over 

 which no authority of law extends. As on land, the riches of the seabed 

 are unevenly distributed and the right of first capture can always be 

 challenged by a stronger power. States lacking the technological means 

 of exploiting the regime adopt the position that they should be able to 

 share the harvest of seabed wealth from the international commons. 

 Landlocked states contend that the accident of geography should not 

 deprive them of a share in the new source of mineral wealth. Poor 

 and less developed states base their claims for some preference in the 

 matter on the fact of their relatively greater need. 



The technology of extracting petroleum from the ocean floor is 

 already being applied, with eyer-increasing expertise. In the face of 

 the energy crisis growing out of the OPEC oil embargo and price 

 increases, seabed petroleum operations are growing in importance. 



6" U.S. C'onpross, House, Committee on Foreign Aff;iirs, Exploiting the Rcsourcs of the Seabed, in the 

 series Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy, prepared for the Subcommittee on National Security 

 Policy and Scientific Developments by George A. Doumani, Science Policy Research Division, Congres- 

 sional Kesearcli Service, Lil)raiy of Congress, I'.iTl. See vol. I, pp. i:{0-.i24. 



