17 



fleets, and here again they are more interested in a philosophy of the 

 openness of the sea. 



When you then come down to those who are only contiguous to the 

 sea you will see that they are of the larger number when taken with 

 the landlocked nations and those in the two top categories of the naval 

 powers which also include the maritime powers. 



It seems to me that it is important to realize that these are the 

 largest and richest nations in the world and therefore have the capital 

 that is required to make the exploitation of the sea in the first instance. 

 They are the ones that have the money to do this. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are we talking about the contiguous nations 

 or the naval powers or the maritime powers? 



Mr. Hanna. If you take the naval powers and the maritime powers, 

 and all the naval powers are maritime powers so these two categories 

 come together, these are the nations that have the money to do the 

 exploiting in the sea. The rest of the nations do not have and they are 

 the majority of the nations. They do not have the money. 



Mr. Fraser. On the matter of exploitation you mean fishing rights? 



Mr. Hanna. I am thinking more, if I might make this distinction 

 because it is important, in terms of developing the technologies that 

 will allow the exploitation of the seabeds. I think you would have to 

 distinguish in this dialog not only the distinction between the nations 

 that would make up the determination if you put it in the U.N. but 

 also a distinction in what part of the sea you are talking about— the 

 surface of the sea, the body of the sea, or the bed and subsoil of the 

 sea. These are three very definite distinctions. 



Mr. Fascell. You will have other criteria, also. That includes the 

 resources themselves. 



Mr. Hanna. Exactly. It depends upon what the technology within 

 given resources are because oil technology is moving ahead of, say, 

 mining technology in the sea. 



In each of these instances I think it is important to realize that 

 nothing will happen out there without a large capital outlay in term 

 of moving ahead in actual accomplishment of exploitation in the sea. 



One of my major concerns is that it would not be good for any 

 nation if we made a decision that would put a damper on the utiliza- 

 tion of your resources to exploit the sea. 



This is very clearly indicated in one of the documents you referred to, 

 Mr. Chairman, and that is in the recent determinations on the conti- 

 nental shelf, in the international convention which was held relative 

 to the continental shelf, because they define the continental shelf as 

 that seabed adjacent to a national shoreline 200 meters in depth or 

 exploitable under the existing technology; so that the 200-meter depth 

 was only one of the criteria, and the other was as to the reality of 

 exploitability so that if there was a demonstrated abihty to exploit — 

 and you will have in your records this statement of the Convention on 

 the Continental Shelf — -it will indicate to you clearly that both of these 

 things were in their definition. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen. Whose definition is this? *Who adopted it? 



Mr. Hanna. This was adopted 



Mr. Fascell. If the gentleman will yield, it is the Law of the Sea: 

 Convention on the Continental Shelf; between the United States of 

 America and other governments done at Geneva, April 29, 1958. It 

 went into effect on June 10, 1964.^ 



' For text, see appendix, p. 217. 



