101 



His response to me was that I didn't know Texas; that they shot 

 their cannon with the wind when the;^ tried to reach out 10 miles. This 

 was the explanation of the 10-mile limit off Texas. 



Mr. Danzig. I only learned the other day that this 3-mile limit was 

 generated by the fact that at the time it was established, and I think 

 this was something between Sweden and an adjacent country, this was 

 the distance that a cannon could shoot a camion ball at that time and 

 that's how that limit got started. 



Mr. Gross. Yes, so in order to reach out 10 miles, they had to shoot 

 them with the wind. 



Mr. Danzig. Yes, a Texas wind. 



Mr. Gross. A Texas wind. [Laughter.] 



On a more serious side, Mr. Danzig, you spoke of the common herit- 

 age of the deep sea. What is the common heritage of the deep sea? Do 

 we have a common heritage in outer space as well, and what is the ap- 

 plication of a common heritage ? 



Mr. Danzig. You ask a very telling question, a very intelligent one 

 as Avell. It is easy to use phrases of that kind and when it comes to 

 delineating them, it is not as easy. I suppose we could say that in the 

 beginning the earth belonged to us all and that when God created it He 

 didn't say it would belong to a specific man or a specific nation, and if 

 we say that there is still five-sevenths of what God created which no 

 man has yet taken to himself, or no nation, to that extent I mean 

 that that five-sevenths is still the common heritage of mankind and 

 should be so preserved. 



Mr, Gross. Thank you, Mr. Danzig, for your explanation. 



Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearances this morning and thank 

 you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Gross. 



Gentlemen, I am troubled by the apparent effort to fill a vacuum 

 in international law because I am not sure that there is a vacuum. 

 I keep coming back to this all the time. I may sound like a broken rec- 

 ord, but it seems to me that Malta's effort may amount to an attempt 

 to forestall a certain interpretation of the recent Convention on the 

 Continental Shelf. It may really involve an attempt to keep the lan- 

 guage of the convention from being interpreted in such a way that it 

 would give to the coastal states jurisdictional rights, or operating 

 rights, or territorial rights over the seas to where the depth of the 

 superjacent waters admits of the exploration of natural resources. 



It seems to me that here is the crux of the matter. That means that 

 what is under consideration is a modification of some existing conven- 

 tions. That, in turn, would seem to raise the question whether the 

 coastal states had "the right" to do what they did, and whether their 

 product is indeed international law. 



Obviously, the nonsignatories to the convention could be out in the 

 cold if the interpretation of this language were to be stretched along 

 the lines I have mentioned. 



That raises some other questions. For example, INlr. Christy, would 

 you please explain what are these lines on that map ? Wliere do they 

 come from? Are they based on a concept contained in the Convention 

 on the Continental Shelf ? 



Mr. Christy. Yes, this is ignoring the principle of adjacency and 

 ignoring the provision that the adjacent coastal states will negotiate 



