189 



development of a coordinated national oceanographic program and 

 in developing positions with respect to related proposals and initia- 

 tives. Accordingly, the remarks made by Mr. Popper and Mr. Pollack, 

 in every essential respect, reflect our thinking on the matter. 



The primary rationale underlying our position is that we have, 

 at the present time, insufficient information regarding the extent of 

 underseas resources, the means of obtaining access to them, the con- 

 ditions for processing and marketing them, and the impact their ex- 

 traction and mining will have on the other uses of the sea. As Secre- 

 tary Frosch and Admiral Waters have testified, our knowledge of 

 these problems is very limited indeed. 



It is our firm conviction that this lack of knowledge renders pro- 

 posals to internationalize the deep ocean floor premature. Recognizing 

 that there are many complex and far-reaching issues involved in this 

 question, there are several compelling arguments which support the 

 validity of the conclusion reached in the proposed joint resolutions — 

 that any action at this time to vest control of deep ocean resources 

 in an international body would be premature and ill advised. 



Proposals which would place the seabed and subsoil of the deep 

 oceans under international ownership and control are appealing to 

 some. One reason that taking such a step right now is particularly 

 appealing to the advocates of this idea is because there are few, if 

 any, vested economic interests in the area at the present time. The 

 logic behind these proposals is that it is desirable to resolve problems 

 of conflicting uses before they arise, both on the seabed alone and 

 between exploitation of the seabed and other uses on the surface. 



The problem of solving conflicting use problems is not new to the 

 high seas. As specific problems have arisen, specific solutions under 

 international law were devised to provide for a reasonable accommo- 

 dation of interests. A classic example of these are the International 

 Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, which lay down the 

 "rules of the road" for high seas traffic. Lying behind these specific 

 rules is the general rule of customary international law — codified by 

 the High Seas Convention — that one use may not unreasonably inter- 

 fere with other lawful uses. 



A new element was introduced into the problem of conflicting 

 use by the emergence on the high seas of fixed installations resting 

 on the continental shelf and extending above the surface. Wliile all 

 the conflicting uses contemplated by the rules of the road are transi- 

 tory, here a more or less permanent occupation of a given area by one 

 user is involved. 



The general rule governing this new situation is that exploration of 

 the shelf and exploitation of its resources must not result in any 

 "unjustifiable interference" with navigation, fishing, or conservation. 

 This rule is codified in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental 

 Shelf by permitting the establishment of a 500-meter safety zone 

 around shelf installations which all ships must respect; by requiring 

 notice of construction and permanent means for warning of the 

 presence of shelf installations; and by prohibiting the establishment 

 of shelf installations or safety zones "where interference may be 

 caused to the use of recognized sealanes essential to international 

 navigation." 



