97 



Mr. Fraser. Looking at your map, it would be generally said that an 

 island is in relatively good position under the interpretation reflei^^ted 

 on the map to make an assertion to the rights over quite a wide area, so 

 that without reference to the specific geographical location, Malta 

 surely is not gaining anything through the sponsorship of this resolu- 

 tion, I would assume ? 



Mr. Christy. It might be a question of whether or not she interprets 

 the great seas, and the Mediterranean particularly, as coming within 

 the treaty under the study. 



Mr. Danzig. Excuse me. Congressman, but I wonder if we could cor- 

 rect one thing that I think is a misunderstanding. Mr. Christy, in 

 addressing the question to you, the Congressman stated that these lines 

 that you have drawn were the prevailing rule. 



Mr. Christy. That's true. 



Mr. Fraser. That's assuming that under the 1958 convention the 

 technology will exist that will permit the countries to assert the claims 

 out as far as the convention would permit, which as I understand, 

 turns out to be limited by median lines. 



Mr. Danzig. I would disagree with that point emphatically. 



Mr. Fraser. Wliat would you say ? 



Mr. Danzig. I would say that the Convention on the Continental 

 Shelf was limited to what was contemplated by the covenanting parties 

 in 1958 and at the same time the exploitation of the continental shelf 

 was not seen as very practicable beyond the 200-meter limit. 



Mr. Fraser. But by the language of the convention 



Mr. Danzig. Yes, I am aware of the language, but I am also aware 

 of the circumstances in which the language was drawn and, in my 

 humble opinion, there is no international authority who would sup- 

 port the position that under the present Convention on the Continental 

 Shelf that the right to exploit the resources of the ocean go out to the 

 midpoint between any continental shelf and the opposite continental 

 shelf. 



I do not accept these lines as the rule of law at the present time. 



Mr. Fraser. Well, I'm only pointing to the fact that, as I recall it, 

 the convention defined the continental shelf as out to a depth of 200 

 meters plus, in effect, such further dis^tance as technology may permit 

 exploitation. I am assuming there is an enlargement of our techno- 

 logical capabilities, but what you are saying is that this goes far be- 

 yond the context in which the convention was drawn, so there is, in 

 fact, this vacuum that you described in your statement. 



Mr. Danzig. Yes. 



Mr. Christy. I think there is another operative word and that is the 

 word "adjacent." This produced the principle of adjacency, so I agree 

 with Mr. Danzig that the convention should not be interpreted to 

 permit division at midocean. My map has been drawn as if the cri- 

 terion of adjacency were abandoned. 



Mr._ Fraser. I would assume "adjacent" would mean contiguous, 

 anything that starts from your shoreline or from the territorial waters. 

 In any event, I was trying to get to the point I am bothered with, that 

 there has to be suspicion attached to any nation that tries to provide 

 any leadership in the international field that they are out for something 

 for their own pockets. It seems to me this is the kind of thing that 



