84 



STATEMENT OF AARON L. DANZIG, CHAIRMAN, UNITED NATIONS 

 CHARTER COMMITTEE, WORLD PEACE THROUGH LAW CENTER, 

 NEW YORK, N.Y. 



Mr. Danzig. Mr. Chairman, my primary purpose in testifying be- 

 fore the committee today is to make clear the action taken by the 

 World Peace Through Law Conference on July 13, 1967, and the 

 implications involved in that action. 



That was a conference of some 2,500 lawyers and jurists from more 

 than 100 countries of the world. 



Now, I want to make it clear, first, however, what the action of the 

 conference did not imply, and in this connection I will address myself 

 specifically to one of the questions the chairman propounded . 



First of all, it is not contemplated that individual initiative in ex- 

 ploiting the resources of the sea will be limited or taken away. There 

 is a great distinction between orderly supervision for the benefit of 

 all and a chaotic individual race to seize all available riches unsuper- 

 vised by any supranational authority. 



Wliat is contemplated would be a system similar to that employed 

 by the United States in connection with the exploitation of its own 

 continental shelf. This has already resulted in millions of dollars of 

 income to the United States not at the price of limiting or discouraging 

 individual initiative, but, to the contrary, encouraging and expanding 

 it. This approach is achieved simply by leases and royalty agreements 

 on the continental shelf. 



Secondly, the proposal will not affect the national defense of any 

 country. The sovereignty of the United States, so far as its defense is 

 concerned, extends only so far as our territorial waters, which under 

 U.S. interpretation extends a distance of 3 miles from shore. This pro- 

 posal does not in any way affect territorial waters, and that is one of the 

 questions that the chairman propounded. Nor, in fact, does it affect 

 any part of the continental shelf. In fact, it does not concern itself 

 in any way with military limitations or regulation, since it deals only 

 with the nonfishery resources of the high seas beyond the continental 

 shelf. 



Third, the proposal does not seek in any way to interfere with or 

 change any of the laws or regulations or, in fact, to change any of the 

 present-day practices with reference to the fisheries of the world. These 

 are specifically excluded from the proposal and are covered by inter- 

 national law as embodied in the 1958 Convention on Fisheries. These 

 are specifically excluded from the proposal and are covered specifically 

 by international law. 



Fourth, the proposal does not take anvthing away from the United 

 States that the United States presently owns or occupies. It is directed 

 toward the five-sevenths of the earth which is the common heritage of 

 all mankind and designed only to protect it for the benefit of all man- 

 kind — and I refer to the resources of the sea beyond the continental 

 shelf. 



Now, in order to place this entire problem in proper legal perspec- 

 tive, let us take a geological and legalistic trip starting with the shore- 

 line of any country and proceeding to the depths of the ocean. 



As we start out from shore, we see a gently sloping area known as 

 the continental shelf. If we were to take this journey a hundred years 



