157 



But you see this other clause that says greater depths of technology 

 permits the exploitation. This is where it gets fuzzy. So far as the con- 

 tinental shelf continguous to a nation, the only problem is the normal 

 problem of a boundary line between two nations. I think that, without 

 having this issue become half surfaced, it would be a projection of the 

 existing boundary by some agreement between the two nations. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Fascell. Dr. Cain, Dr. Chapman, director of the Division of 

 Resources of Van Camp Sea Food Division of Ralston-Purina, and 

 who is chairman of the Panel on Law of the Sea of the National Acad- 

 emy of Sciences, in an article in "Oceanology International" of May- 

 June 1967, has recently asserted that policies followed by the United 

 States have led to a steady erosion of the 3-mile territorial limit toward 

 the 12-mile limit, and he claims this is precisely what our commercial, 

 diplomatic, and military interests are trying desperately to avoid. 



Do you have any comment on that ? 



We will insert that article in the record, if there is no objection. 



(The article referred to follows :) 



Who Owns The Sea? 



as our use of the sea and its resources increases, the legal problems multi- 

 ply and may soon get out of hand 



(By Dr. Wilbert McLeod Chapman, Director, Div. of Resources, Van Camp Sea 

 Food Div., Ralston-Purina Co.) 



In September 1945, President Harry S. Truman made two proclamations deal- 

 ing with the law of the sea. One was concerned with extending jurisdiction by 

 the United States over the resources of the continental shelf adjacent to its 

 coasts. The other dealt with the possibility of establishing zones on the high 

 seas off the coast that would aid in obtaining proper conservation of offshore 

 fishery resources. 



These two proclamations resulted in a considerable excitation of diplomatic 

 and legal activity. This led in many directions that U. S. policy did not want 

 to go. Other nations made much broader claims, basing their proclamations 

 on the action taken by the United States, and either blandly misinterpreting 

 what the U. S. had claimed, or simply contending that one sovereign had as 

 much right to stake a claim in the international domain as had another. 



Rather vigorous legal and diplomatic action ensued over these issues in 

 the Organization of American States and the United Nations, as well as between 

 and among nations, from 1945 to 1958. 



A Conference of Plenipotentiaries was convened by the UN in Geneva in 

 1958. This conference brought the controversies to a temporary pause by codify- 

 ing and extending the law of the sea in four conventions that were opened for 

 ratification : 



Convention on the High Seas. 



Convention on the Territorial Sea & Contiguous Zone. 



Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of the Living Resources of the 

 High Seas. 



Convention on the continental shelf. 



All four of the conventions have received the necessary number of ratifications 

 and now are in force. The United States is a party to all four. 



There were two main points upon which the 1958 conference could not reach 

 agreement — the breadth of the territorial sea and the jurisdiction by coastal 

 states over fisheries in the high seas off their coast. 



Another conference was convened by the UN, again in Geneva, in I960, solely 

 to resolve these two remaining problems. But, again, agreement was not reached. 



Legal ramifications 



The various conferences and activities resulted in different bodies of law 

 with which to deal with problems in the atmosphere above the ocean, the sea 

 floor, and the ocean itself. 



There was not, and is not, much controversy over the law applying to the 

 lower atmosphere. Essentially all nations have the right to overfly the high 



