U5 



exclusive authority over the natural resources 

 of immense subsea areas. In light of recent 

 history, it is shortsighted to assume that 

 U.S. private enterprise would be better off to 

 deal with these coastal nations for permits 

 to develop these resources in the absence of 

 any recognition of the interest of the inter- 

 national community in them. 



At the same time, the NPC proposal would 

 create the danger that some coastal nations 

 without important mineral deposits on or 

 under their continental slopes and rises will 

 feel justitied in claiming exclusive access to 

 the superjacent waters, the living resources 

 in them, and the air above them. 



The danger that rights of exclusive access 

 for one purpose may expand to claims of ter- 

 ritorial sovereignty or exclusive access for all 

 purposes materialized as an unforeseen and 

 undesirable consequence of the Truman 

 Proclamation of 1945. Reacting to this uni- 

 lateral U.S. claim to sovereign rights over 

 the natural resources of its geological conti- 

 nental shelf, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru each 

 proclaimed its "sole sovereignty and juris- 

 diction over the areas of the sea adjacent to 

 the coast of its own country and extending 

 not less than two hundred nautical miles 

 from the said coast." Earlier in this chapter, 

 we examined the consequences of this policy 

 for the U.S. distant water fishing fleet and 

 the general relations between the United 

 States and these Latin American countries. 

 Recently, too, Ecuador issued a decree that 

 appears to attach restrictions upon the right 

 of foreign naval vessels and aircraft to tran- 

 sit or fly over its claimed 200-mile territorial 

 sea. 



Such developments are obviously contrary 

 to traditional U.S. policy to limit national 

 claims to the sea in the interest of the maxi- 

 mum freedom essential to the multiple uses, 

 including military uses, which the United 

 States makes of the ocean.s. National securitv 



and world peace are best served by the nar- 

 rowest possible definition of the continental 

 shelf for purposes of mineral resources 

 development. 



The NPC proposal is also unfair to the 

 inland nations of the world which will not 

 comprehend why the rich mineral deposits 

 on and under the continental slopes and rises 

 should belong only to the coastal nations. 

 U.S. action to effectuate the NPC proposal 

 would be regarded as a "grab," even if all 

 the coastal nations followed suit. 



The Commission recommends that the 

 United States take the initiative to secure 

 international agreement on a redefinition 

 of the "continental shelf" for purposes of 

 the Convention on the Continental Shelf. 

 The seaward limit of each coastal nation's 

 "continental shelf" should be fixed at the 

 200-meter isobath, or 50 nautical miles 

 from the baseline for measuring the 

 breadth of its territorial sea, whichever 

 alternative gives it the greater area for 

 purposes of the Convention, 

 If the same continental shelf, as rede- 

 fined, is claimed by two or more nations 

 whose coasts are opposite each other or 

 by two or more adjacent nations, the 

 boundaries should be determined by ap- 

 plying the "median-line" principles set 

 forth in Article 6 of the Convention. 

 With the use of the best available bathy- 

 metric surveys, the recommended defini- 

 tion should be translated into geographi- 

 cal coordinates for each coastal nation 

 and not be subject to change because of 

 subsequent alterations in the coastline or 

 revelations of more detailed surveys. 



The redefined "continental shelf" would 

 be a "narrow" shelf with precise outer limits, 

 thus serving the interests of the United 

 States as previously delineated. Two hundred 



