and bracketed texts reflecting the views held by various nations on 

 these issues. Although there were no formal negotiations to combine 

 these texts, their preparation highlighted issues on which there 

 appeared to be common ground and identified those issues where 

 there appeared to be fundamental differences. 



For its part, the U.S. elaborated its belief that there should be 

 timely international agreement on an effective international regime 

 to permit the orderly development of deep seabed resources, 

 including the creation of the stable investment climate needed to 

 encourage development, and provision for adequate protection of the 

 marine environment. The U.S. approach provides that a portion of 

 the revenues from deep seabed mining be devoted to international 

 community purposes, in particular, assistance to developing 

 countries. U.S. representatives stressed that the efficient 

 development of seabed mineral resources would be best served by an 

 international legal order which insures nondiscriminatory access for 

 all states to the resources of the area under reasonable conditions 

 that will facilitate investment. Such an order would also provide 

 that machinery established to administer the system would have a 

 carefully defined mandate and would reflect a realistic and balanced 

 system of rule and decision making. 



At the March-April 1973 session ofthe Seabed Committee the U.S. 

 proposed that those portions of a Law of the Sea Treaty affecting 

 deep seabed mining should go into effect on a provisional basis 

 immediately following signature. This would assure that seabed 

 mining, when it begins, will immediately be subject to an 

 internationally agreed regime. A number of delegations have 

 expressed serious interest in the U.S. proposal. 



During 1973, Sub-Committee II entertained a number of proposals 

 regarding the territorial sea and straits, fisheries, and coastal state 

 jurisdiction over the non-living resources ofthe adjacent continental 

 margin. With regard to the breadth of the territorial sea, the U.S. 

 reiterated its preparedness to accept a 12-mile limit in the context of 

 an overall satisfactory Law of the Sea settlement provided that 

 recognition of such a limit is coupled with agreement on a right of 

 unimpeded passage through, over and under straits used for 

 international navigation. U.S. willingness to recognize the 

 legitimate safety and pollution concerns of states was also made 

 clear in Sub-Committee II discussions. The importance of 

 unimpeded transit of international straits, for both military and 

 commercial vessels, was emphasized as a basic element of U.S. 

 policy. 



At the July-August session, the United States placed before Sub- 

 Committee II draft articles on the rights and duties of States with 

 regard to the seabed resources off their coasts. The articles propose 

 that the coastal state have the exclusive right to explore and exploit 



