88a 



Roger Revelle, Papers 1929-1980, MC6, Box 2, f. 38, "Correspondence: April -June 

 1997," SIO Archives, UCSD. 



JUN 11377 



DEPARTMENT OF STATE 



AMBASSADOR AT LARGE 



WASHINGTON 



May 18, 1977 

 Dr. Roger Revelle 

 Richard Saltonstall Professor 



of Population Policy 

 Director of the Center for 



Population Studies 

 22 Plympton 

 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 



Dear Dr. Revelle: 



Thank you for you letter of April 27 and the stimulating 

 ideas on the negotiation on marine scientific research. 

 I apologize for not responding sooner but, as you know, 

 your letter was given to me while I was traveling and 

 I returned to Washington only a fev; days ago. 



We raised the problems with the revised single 

 negotiating text on scientific research at each of the 

 stops on the trip to make it clear that the United 

 States was not satisfied with the RSNT provisions. We 

 had a lengthy discussion in Moscow which "did not produce 

 any immediate movement but which at least holds some 

 promise for movement in the future. 



I appreciate the concern you express regarding Article 

 60 and hope that we can achieve changes. The points 

 that you suggest on limiting the regime for islands or 

 for cutting off consent at the 200 meter isobath of the 

 continental shelf may not hold much promise. The 

 decisions regarding jurisdiction off islands and the 

 extent of coastal State jurisdiction over the continental 

 shelf will be made on resource grounds and it seems 

 highly unlikely that we would be able to differentiate 

 between the resource regime and the scientific research 

 regime, at least in terms of the area of applicability. 



On the other hand, I am optimistic that we will achieve 

 a meaningful series of obligations on compulsory 

 settlement of disputes arising over marine scientific 

 research. The latest text on Part IV clearly includes 

 scientific research as a subject for binding third party 

 settlement (Article 17-1-c) and we expect to be able 

 to eliminate any possible ambiguity from Article 76 of 

 Part III on this point. Also, we might find that, 

 subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty, a further 



