53 



In the light of these considerations, I would suggest that it may 

 not be necessary to proceed with House Joint Resolution 816 and 

 similar resolutions, as these are now framed. We stand at the begin- 

 ning of a rather lengthy process of international discussion on this 

 subject. As that discussion is carried forward, we shall consult fully 

 with the Congress with respect to any proposals the United States 

 contemplates making in this field. 



Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Popper. 



I appreciate having on the record your explicit statement with 

 respect to the position of this Government. It seems to address itself 

 to all the questions which have been raised here by the resolutions 

 and by those who have testified prior to your testimony. 



Ha\ang said that I agree throughly with the position of the Govern- 

 ment, I find some, shall I say, inconsistencies in your statement. 

 You said on the one hand that we are dealing "with areas beyond 

 the jurisdiction of national states as conceived in the past." But you 

 also said that "there seems to me no doubt that various plans in 

 this field reflect the relative absence of international law Vv'ith respect 

 to the use of the deep ocean floor." 



If you had said "title," I might question that. You said "use of" 

 and that is entirely different from "title." Presumably, the Con\-en- 

 tion on the Continental Shelf covered that subject. But it didn't 

 completely. That raises a whole series of questions in my m.ind with- 

 out getting into the philosophy of what is international law and how 

 it is made. 



Going back first to that convention, obviously any country that 

 is not signatory to this convention cannot be bound by it. Is that 

 correct? 



Mr. Popper. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Fascell. Therefore it is doubtful that the coastal state which 

 is a signatory to the convention can give itself anything. They might 

 try to pro^^de for the settlement of any conflicting claims that might 

 exist between them. These are resolved theoretically in this convention, 

 are they not? They cannot be resolved by someone not signat(n-y to 

 the convention? 



Mr. Popper. Mr. Chairman, might I make a short comment in 

 responding to the thrust of your inquiry? The Convention on the Con- 

 tinental Shelf is, of course, governing with respect to those, as you say, 

 who have ratified it. I think there are 37 at this time. This is for the 

 area it covers and in the way stated in the convention itself. 



Mr. Fascell. That is pretty explicit, by the way, since you quoted 

 it exactly in your testimony. 



Mr. Popper. I think the problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the con- 

 vention does not appear to intend that the continental shelf could be 

 extended by exploitation indefinitely out into the ocean. 



I call your attention to the words "adjacent to the coast," and so on. 



Mr. Fascell. I thought it said "to where the depth of the super- 

 jacent waters admits of the exploitation." I don't notice any limita- 

 tion in that language at all. 



Mr. Popper. If you look at article I of the convention, Mr. Chair- 

 man, you see the words "adjacent to the coast" at an earlier portion 

 of the same sentence. 



