58 



Mr. President, we believe that the General Assembly has met with considerable 

 success over the years in its consideration of the peaceful uses of outer space, 

 and, indeed, one of the great achievements of the last Assembly was the consum- 

 mation of the Outer Space Treaty. While recognizing a number of differences 

 between these two harsh environments, at the same time we see certain useful 

 similarities. We have here an item, like outer space, of which some aspects might 

 well have been considered within the context of the Sixth Committee, other 

 aspects in the Second Committee, concerned as it is with the subject of resources. 

 We also noted that the delegation of Malta made a strong plea for the reservation 

 of the ocean bed exclusively for peaceful purposes. In so doing the Maltese Dele- 

 gation raises a question related to the regulation of armaments, one which may 

 call for our most serious study. 



All things considered and taking into account the very explicit language of 

 Rule 101 which specifies the First Committee as the "political and security 

 committee (including the regulation of armaments)" my delegation will support 

 the allocation of this item to the First Committee. 



Rule 40 reminds us that this General Committee can address itself to the 

 question of what priority should be accorded to an item and my delegation will 

 likewise support the early consideration of this item in the First Committee. 



Mr. Popper. I brought the statement here for this purpose. We are 

 delighted to submit it for the record. The statement does in a broad 

 way frame the problem. It endorses the expanding interest of the 

 Assembly in this field. It points out that the organization is in a posi- 

 tion to assume leadership and enlist the cooperation of all nations in 

 developing the ocean floor. 



When v/e come to the substance of the matter the United States 

 will have certain proposals to advance. 



The statement then turns to questions of procedure within the 

 committee. It is certainly well to include the statement and at a sub- 

 sequent time future statements Vv^hich the Ambassador or his fellow 

 delegates might be making on this subject in the General Assembly 

 this year. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to discuss this convention 

 adopted in 1958 with respect to the continental shelf. You said it 

 M^as developed after extensive work by the U.N. International Law 

 Commission. 



Mr. Reinecke referred to a Soviet proposal submitted to UNESCO 

 for the development of a convention with respect to the deep sea 

 resources. 



How would a convention normally be developed, like the one 

 developed by the International Law Commission or the one IMr. 

 Reinecke referred to? What would be the normal procedure? 



Mr. Popper. The normal procedure is quite lengthy. 



What I think you would do, if there were general agreement that 

 a convention should be written, is to appoint a group of experts, 

 specialists — in the case of the conventions 10 years ago it was the 

 International Law Commission that did the spadework — you would 

 appoint such a group to produce a preliminary draft. Then you would 

 submit it either to a conference or to the General Assembly or to 

 some other body which could put it into final form so it could be opened 

 for signature and ratification by those nations which wished to adopt it. 



Congressman Reinecke had reference to the Intergovernmental 

 Oceanographic Commission (IOC). That body is a subordinate body of 

 UNESCO. It has 55 members. Hitherto it has been solely occupied 

 with oceanogra])hic problems in the scientific sense. 



The Soviets have proposed in that body that there should be a 



