140 



this in my own mind, and on the record, by the way. My interpretation 

 is that there would be a useful purpose in bringing together countries 

 through some international arrangement or meeting to clarify any, 

 conflict or differences of opinion that may exist regarding the present 

 international Convention on the Continental Shelf and contmental 

 slope so as to prevent the kind of midocean line drawing as displayed 

 on the map which we put into the record the other day. Such division 

 of the areas into "natural lakes'' would be contrary to the concept of 

 freedom of the seas, internationalization of waters, and would ob- 

 viously inhibit any future exploration by private industry. Is that 

 correct ? 



Mr. Bascom. That is correct. I agree with what you have said. 



Mr. Fascell. Thank you very much. 



Are there any other questions by the members ? 



Mr. Fraser. Why would that approach obviously inhibit exploita- 

 tion? 



Mr. Bascom. Finding those lines out in the middle of the ocean 

 isn't too easy a job either. 



Mr. Fraser. No, if you were going to the edges you might have 

 trouble. Somebody can draw them on a map and you have latitude 

 and longitude and you can stay wdthin them. Why would that inhibit 

 them? 



Mr. Bascom. The first part of his statement was that there should 

 be some kind of body which should reexamine what has been written 

 and see if it is clear to everybody. There is no use to prejudge what 

 that group will come up with. So I am less enthusiastic about the lat- 

 ter part of the statement. I think it may come out as Mr. Fascell has 

 suggested. 



Mr. Fascell. We have suggested, if the gentleman will yield, that 

 there is the problem of this midline division of the oceanic beds. 

 Obviously this immediately modifies the concept of freedom of the 

 seas and international waters, and raises the question the minute you 

 exercise sovereign jurisdiction on the ocean bottom itself, as to the 

 sovereign jurisdiction of the water above it. 



In the international convention it is very clear that sovereign juris- 

 diction over the continental shelf does not in an}^ way modify the 

 concept of international waters pertaining to the waters above the shelf. 

 However, if this midline division is accepted and there is a rush by 

 comitries to take jurisdiction of the ocean bed on this basis, the whole 

 specter of tearing up international agreements with respect to freedom 

 of the seas arises, and particularly the question of claims to the waters. 

 As I see it, then, if they can be economically exploited for minerals, the 

 waters themselves may become a tremendous resource. 



Mr. Fraser. My problem with the drawing of the lines is that it 

 wouldn't facilitate exploitation. I think it might. 



The problem lies in the equity of the matter, that a tiny island like 

 Bermuda takes up a large share of the Atlantic Ocean contrasted to 

 an inland state in South America or Africa, which has no access to 

 those resources. If one agrees that this is inequitable and is an absurd 

 thing, then how do you make a division? 



An international arrangement seems to make the most sense in 

 order to work out rules that appeal to mankind as an equitable 

 approach. 



