54 



I am not a lawyer and I would not like to make a definitive judgment 

 as to this but simply to say we have the feeling that there is a certain 

 ambiguity in the reach of the convention, and that this is a subject for 

 further international consideration in the light of the developing 

 interest in the deep ocean bed, as Congressman Rogers stated. 



Mr. Fascell. I realize your position. The thing that intrigues me 

 is why the United States, as a signatory, would raise the question of 

 the ambiguity. I have not noticed any nonsignatory nation raising the 

 question of the ambiguity or in any way contesting the convention. 

 It would seem to me any nonsignatory could contest the convention 

 on many grounds unless, by international law, the right of prescription 

 to a signer resulting from nonaction, nonclaim or nondefense of a 

 nonsigner establishes a prior right. Certainly for the United States 

 to raise a question with respect to an interpretation and putting its 

 own interpretation on it without any reason to do so seems to me 

 to be unnecessary and premature. 



Mr. Popper. We are not attempting at this time to make definitive 

 statements as to what the convention does or does not say. 



Mr. Fascell. All right. Therefore, there should be no intention 

 and no inference read into the remarks in your testimony that the 

 United States is intending to interpret the Law of the Sea Convention 

 on the Continental Shelf. 



Mr. Popper. This was not the intention, Mr. Chau^man. The 

 intention was to explain an existing situation and to explain why the 

 interest in this subject had been created and precisely the direction it 

 has taken. 



Mr. Fascell. I want to be explicit on the record now. I understand 

 that nothing that you have said should in any way be interpreted 

 as an official position or interpretation by the United States as to 

 the terms or rights of the convention. 



Mr. Popper. That is quite correct. 



Mr. Fascell. Because it seems to me there are important prece- 

 dents set forth here which should be extended. I am not talking about 

 jurisdictional rights now, but rights under this convention which al- 

 ready have been resolved. Obviously if there is consideration to be 

 given to another international agreement, thought must be given to 

 either rewriting the present convention or in some way modifying it. 

 I don't know whether the United States is prepared to take a position 

 on that yet. If the U.S. position is to hold open for a flexibility of 

 alternatives, then we certainly ought to do it with respect to this 

 convention as well as with regard to the Maltese proposal. 



Mr. Popper. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I didn't want to call into ques- 

 tion the existence or validity of this convention but sunply to point 

 out that despite the convention there are still problems not entu'ely 

 covered by it. 



Mr. Fascell. You have made that clear to me and I am delighted 

 to have that explanation on the record. 



Mr. Fraser? 



Mr. Fraser. I am sorry I have had such difficulty. I have a \'ery 

 short memory. 



What is the status of the moon? 



Mr. Popper. The outer space treaty states that outer space and 

 celestial bodies shaU be used for the benefit of aU and that there shall 



