74 



Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 



Washington, D.C., September 14, 1967. 

 Hon. Dean Rusk, 

 Secretary of Stale, 



Department of State, Washington, D.C. 

 My Dear Mr. Secretary: 



The Geneva World Peace Through Law Conference, on July 13, 1967, recom- 

 mended that the United Nations i^roclaim that the nonfishery resources of the 

 high seas, outside the territorial waters of any State, and the bed of the sea 

 bej^ond the continental shelf, be subject to the jurisdiction and control of the 

 United Nations. Recent reports indicate that the United States Department of 

 State is encouraging General Assembly consideration of this resolution in late 

 September. We are told that the United States delegation will support the 

 resolution. 



The National Chamber strongly urges the United States delegation to oppose 

 this resolution because it is ill-timed. 



At the present time no practical purpose would be served by the United 

 Nations' resolution. This is not the time for considering United Nations' takeover 

 of marine resources. We are at least five, possibly ten, years away from attaining 

 the knowledge and technology essential to develop and begin to harness the 

 resources of the sea. We cannot now predict the international situation that will 

 exist at the time this knowledge is gained. Until the whole issue is analyzed inten- 

 sively on a national basis, it would be premature to confer title upon the United 

 Nations or any other group. 



Proponents of the resolution argue that giving the United Nations the "jurisdic- 

 tion and control" over marine resources would avert a possible major international 

 issue — submarine colonialism — and that management of marine resources would 

 supply the United Nations with an independent source of income. 



I doubt that these arguments will ever be valid, and certainly there is nothing 

 to substantiate them at the present time. 



The submarine colonialism issue has been minimized by recent actions which 

 express the desire of individual nations to settle, among themselves, differences 

 regarding the high seas. Examples of this attitude include the North Sea Agree- 

 ment, the Bering Strait Agreement, and the numerous international fishing 

 agreements. 



Further, since the development and exploitation of marine resources is years 

 away, so is the use of these as a source of income for the United Nations. 



The Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf (1958), to which the United 

 States is a party, clearly establishes that the rights to marine resources rest with 

 individual nations. This Convention, in Article I, defines the "continental shelf." 

 If there is reason to change this definition, as the proposed United Nations' 

 resolution would do, it would seem that the way to make the change is to amend 

 the Convention rather than to go outside the signatories and make the change 

 through the General Assembly of the United Nations. 



In effect, by changing the 1958 Convention's definition of the "continental 

 shelf," the United Nations' proposal could make the entire Convention void. 

 This is because the Convention does not include a protective clause that permits 

 the changing of any article without voiding all the other parts of the Convention. 

 Therefore, the United Nations' resolution is indeed a serious step that could 

 completely abrogate an important international convention regarding the seas. 



Still another reason to oppose the United Nations' proposal at this time is the 

 Marine Resources Council and Commission. This group has been instructed to 

 prepare a report which will include United States policy with respect to marine 

 resources. The Commission has been assigned the task of formulating national 

 policy on this important subject. Certainly, the United States should want to 

 obtain and evaluate the report of this Commission before supporting any United 

 Nations' resolution. 



There is little to be gained by action now, and much to lose — the resources of 

 the ocean. The National Chamber urges restraint on any action that would 

 confer title to some of this nation's resources upon an international body. Such 

 action should be deferred until sufficient knowledge exists upon which to base 

 a decision, and until the need for such a decision is evident. 

 Sincerely, 



Allan Shivers, President. 



