18 



Mr. Hanna. I think you should very carefully read this because 

 this indicates that already an international body has determined what 

 the jurisdiction of any nation would be that has contiguity to the sea. 

 In one interpretation of what they said it goes out as far as they are 

 able to exploit. If you take out of it what they mean when they say 

 "adjacent," which is a term that can be defined in a number of 

 different ways, then the exploitability wovdd mean that in any body 

 of water you would exploit out until you met somebody coming your 

 way who w&s exploiting from another shore, and at that point I 

 suppose you would have determined who cindd exploit M'hat. 



It seems to me tliis indicates that there is a concern of moving out 

 into the sea in a pace with what is feasible in terms of exploitation. 

 This particular convention may not be the last stop, and I certainly 

 don't expect it to be, but it indicates to us that there has been some 

 thinking about tieing together our consideration of the law of the sea 

 with what is really the feasible exploitation potential of the sea. 



If you make the great leap forward and determine in an abstract 

 way what you are going to do about something which you don't know 

 whether is exploitable or not you \\i\\ put a damper on tlie exploitation 

 itself, and this will not be helpful to anybody because the resources 

 \nll be meaningful to the inventory of mankind only if they are 

 extracted. The fact they are out there means nothing. It is only when 

 they are extractable that they then become part of the inventory of 

 mankind, so I suggest a decision should not be made which would put 

 a damper upon their being extracted. 



It seems to me that if we move the alternative I would suggest, 

 gentlemen, and I think you must have an alternative here, it is that 

 we encourage cooperation. We certainly support the United Nations 

 studies in these fields, and maybe the setup of a committee such as we 

 have in space to assist in the cooperation. Until we have a better 

 picture as to what the exploitative feasibility is within a developed 

 technology that we not start talking about turning over sovereignty. 



Myself, I am firmly convinced that up to now the United Nations 

 has demonstrated that it is only an institution that can practically 

 carry negotiations and resolutions of disputes. This is a far cry from 

 having those ingredients which are required when you attempt to wield 

 sovereignty. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen. This Convention on the Continental Shelf 

 was under U.N. auspices. You are not arguing against a role for the 

 U.N. in future developments in this area? It is a question of timeliness, 

 and the relationship of what has been done to what might be done? 



Mr. Hanna. In fact, what I am suggesting is that the U.N. continue 

 in this manner in which it brings together the nations which are really 

 involved. You will find the nations who signed this convention are the 

 nations that are in this clutch, which I talked about, which have the 

 resources which can be applied to the extraction of the resources of the 

 sea, and they are moving ahead. 



The cooperation between these nations should be maintained. I 

 think our attitude toward the law of the sea should continue to be 

 that of offering prescriptive rights to those who can get out and show 

 that they can actually develop an extracting potential and then take 

 to a mediation point how you are going to resolve the possible frictions 

 between the states. 



