24 



tainly I tbnnk that will probably be brought out very clearly in any 

 discussions on the resolution. I would hope so. 



Now, to answer the second part of the question as to whether or not 

 the studies authorized were of sufficient depth, my own feeling is — -I 

 express this with some lumiility in that I am not outstanding as an 

 expert, but to the degree that I understand the direction of those 

 studies — they are not of sufficient depth. I would think that one of the 

 possible motivations out of the discussions that might occur on 

 Malta is to add to the depth of these studies and give them more 

 particularized instructions and perhaps lengthen out the time in which 

 Uiey will be undertaken and have a continuing report to the U.N. 

 over a period of several years. I think that would be a more realistic 

 way to handle it. 



Mr. Fascell. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 



Mr. Frelinghuyken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should also 

 like to compUment Mr. Hanna for very interesting testimony today. 

 If the other witnesses are as good, we are going to have some interesting 

 discussions. 



[ would like to explore briefly with you^ — -I think it is important 

 that we hear from Mr. Popper to get the State Department's view 

 today on this whole question — the role of the United Nations. As I 

 understand it, you feel that the United Nations should serve as an 

 adviser in this field? It should provide a forum for the resolution or 

 discussion of differences between nations which are considering ex- 

 ploitation or are able to exploit the resources of the sea? 



Mr, Hanna. Yes. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen. As one reads the resolution, one could 

 detect — and I would suppose that was the intention of some of the 

 S[)oasors of the resolution — -one could detect what could be considered 

 an anti-United Nations feeling, that these kinds of resources under no 

 couditions at any time should be transferred to the United Nations. 



This is not your objection? Your objection is primarily to the timing 

 of a move now to determine where sovereignty lies, or a transfer of 

 sovereignty to the United Nations, is that right? 



Mr. Hanna. That is basically correct. I don't know what my 

 attitude would be when this matter is presented 2 years hence or 3 

 years hence or 4 years hence because I don't know whether the develop- 

 ments are going to unfold. At some time it would appear to me they 

 would definitely indicate a wider role for the U.N. It seems to me, 

 without question, that could be clearly predictable. At what point in 

 history that wider role would be assumed and just exactly to what 

 scope it should be broadened, I think we can best leave to the evolving 

 conditions. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen. Where, in your opinion, does sovereignty 

 of these seabeds now he? 



Mr. Hanna. It wouJd be determined, I suppose, on the basis of 

 your legalistic philosophy. To me the seabed now is in the realm of no 

 one. What in Latin we would call res nullium; that it is open to 

 appropriation and prescriptive rights by anyone. That would be, it 

 seems to me, entirely in accord with our "freedom of the seas" con- 

 cept. 



One could, however, challenge that by saying, "Wouldn't it be better 

 to turn it around and look at it as if it were the domain of everyone?" 



