135 



Mr. Bascom. Can we keep that out of the record ? 



Mr. Fraser. I am just making the point that national governments 

 aren't always traveling on a single track, either. 



Mr. Bascom. I appreciate that. 



Mr. Eraser. I can appreciate your position. 



I was trying to explore this. There are all kinds of choices open to 

 us. One of them is to extend national claims into the high seas and 

 the other is not to do that, but tiy to find some other answer which 

 either involves international conventions, mternational law, an inter- 

 national body that may play a role. 



Mr. Bascom. I think there may be somebody who can straighten it 

 out, but don't divide it up in lines. 



Mr. Eraser. That is what some people argue that the 1958 Conven- 

 tion already provides. As the technology extends the continental shelf 

 out and out, soon every place in the world — like that map shows — is 

 owned by some nation. That seems to me to be a ridiculous result be- 

 cause it means that Bermuda takes up a good chunk of the Atlantic 

 Ocean and has these rights that accrue to it. 



I have drawn you from the technological side of it, but I wanted 

 you to at least understand some of the problems that we can have. 



Mr. Eascell. I think Mr. Eraser's questions are directed to the prob- 

 lem that is before us, before private industry, and before the govern- 

 ments. We did, in prior discussions, get to the specific question of the 

 present international Convention on the Contmental Shelf and exactly 

 what it means. 



It is obvious already that you have tremendous differences of opin- 

 ion — legally, technologically, geologically, and otherwise, as to the 

 meaning of that one paragraph in the international Convention on the 

 Continental Shelf. 



One of our colleagues in the House of Kepresentatives has inter- 

 preted it to mean that a nation's claim can reach the midline of 

 an ocean or the midline between two continental shelves. There is 

 a pretty strong basis for that, because such an arrangement already 

 exists in the North Sea. I don't know whether that is good, but at least 

 there is an arrangement. 



Then a great many questions could arise, as Mr. Eraser has brought 

 out, about resolving conflicts. You have raised one yourself on the 

 question of protection from piracy. 



Actually, you have presented us here with a point of view which is, 

 I would say, a mid-point between two basic concepts. Yet it would 

 appear to have a lot in it in favor of some internationalization of 

 the problem. In other words, it is entirely possible, as Mr. Fraser 

 points out, to have an option whereby you could maintain the concept 

 of international water and yet have some international agreement or 

 agency to resolve the conflicts which the international Convention on 

 the Continental Shelf, itself, attempted to do. 



It might very well be, therefore, that the Maltese proposal would 

 bring about an inquiry with respect to the resolution of the differences 

 of opinion that exist on the persent international convention. If there 

 is a difference of opinion, and there obviously is, it seems to me it 

 ought to be resolved as rapidly as possible, even though it might take 

 10, 15, or 20 years to do anythmg with respect to the actual extraction 

 of resources from the oceanic bed. 



