133 



Mr. Fraser. I raised that question with one of our witnesses the 

 last time, the 



Mr. Fascell. Mr. Danzio;. 



Mr. Fraser (continuing;). Because this has been my impression, too. 



As your technology becomes better developed, under the definition 

 of "continental shelf," that would automatically lead to an extension 

 of the area over which there was national control. 



He denied it. 



He said people who are professionally concerned as lawyers or 

 people dealing with the legal side of this would not accept that view. 

 He took the position that it was the technology generally existing at 

 the time the Convention was entered into, that was controlling. 



Mr. Bascom. I didn't understand it that way. I think that Con- 

 vention is 1962 



Mr. Fascell. 1958. 



Mr. Fraser. Let me read what he said. I will just read this state- 

 ment. I said : 



That's assuming that under the '58 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. 



The way the Convention reads, if you have conflicting claims you 

 take a series of midpoints, and that defines the lines. 



"'Mr. Danzig. I would disagree with that position emphatically. I would say 

 that the Convention on the Continental Shelf was limited to what was contem- 

 plated by the convenenting 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 cir- 

 cumstances in which the language was drawn and, in my humble opinion, there 

 is no international authority who would support 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 shelf. 



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



I wanted to indicate that is the kind of opinion we have been 

 hearing. 



Mr. Bascom. I didn't mean to disagree with that. His legal opinion is 

 probably correct. 



I am disturbed at lawyers trying to describe what our existing tech- 

 nology is. It is not very good, and what there is is widely spread. There 

 are not many people clear on what technology is doing. 



I am talking within economic bounds. If you have enough money 

 you can do anything, but if you are going to be in the mining business 

 you don't have enough money. 



Mr. Fraser. This is liypofhetical, but these things turn into realities 

 sometimes. 



Supposing you acquired the capability, both economic as well as 

 technological, to go out into deep oceans and extract oil, and that you 

 proceeded to move, say, within 25 miles of the Fnglish coastline and 

 began to do this. This, it would seem to me, would present the kind of 

 conflict which one would then want to find a way to resolve. 



Let me try to put this question this wa}' : You said you like the 

 principle of the high seas. 



