191 



the sponsorship of the United Nations. It came into effect for the 

 United States in 1962. It provides that freedom of the seas shall in- 

 clude freedom of navigation, freedom of fishing, freedom to lay sub- 

 marine cables and pipelines, freedom to fly over the high seas, and such 

 other freedoms as are generally recognized in international law, but 

 it further provides that these uses shall be reasonable with respect to 

 the rights of other people to use the high seas for similar purposes. 



Mr. Fascell. So that if, for example, a question arises — as I under- 

 stand your testimony — and the question has not yet arisen — relative to 

 a deep seabed fixed installation, mider the rules as now codified, that 

 installation would not or should not interfere with miderwater naviga- 

 tion in a recognized sealane? 



Admiral Heakn. That is correct. Adopting the principle that was 

 adopted in tlie Continental Shelf Convention, that is right, sir. You 

 have the right to extend rigs above the sea which would be a hazard 

 to navigation, but they must not unreasonably interfere with navi- 

 gation. 



In other words, you have a right to use the seas in a reasonable 

 fasliion vis-a-vis the rights of other people to do the same. 



Mr. Fascell. Are there any known seabed installations, and I use 

 "bed" to signify shelf, slope, or deep ocean, which now interfere with 

 underwater navigations ? 



Admiral Hearn. Wlierever they are there is an interference. 



Mr. Fascell. In the sense that regardless of whether it is inside 

 or outside a recognized sealane. 



Is there such a thing as a recognized sealane for underwater 

 navigation ? 



Admiral Hearn. I think there are recognized sealanes, particularly 

 on our continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico where there are many, 

 many installations of this character, which must be respected by those 

 who are exploiting the continental shelf. I am not aware that there is 

 any distinction between miderwater and surface navigation. The right 

 to navigate includes both. 



Mr. Frosch. I think the case that one would be concerned with 

 would be one where navigation is restricted to a channel or to a narrow 

 strait by natural topography and where someone engaged in exploita- 

 tion might want to build his installation in such a way as to block or 

 interfere with a major part of the channel or strait. 



I think that is the kind of case that Admiral Hearn has been dis- 

 cussing and the one that is in fact treated by the convention. I think 

 the convention would make it clear that one would have to find a 

 means of exploitation in that region that did not block a recognized 

 route of navigation or make it dangerous. 



With regard to submerged navigation in the deep ocean, the ocean 

 is deep enough and large enough so that unless some structure was 

 truly gigantic and extended as a blockage for literally hundreds of 

 miles, it would hardly be a major hazard to navigation unless it were 

 in a place which was deep but was a narrow strait or something of 

 that nature. 



I think the cases that one would worry about are fairly well defined 

 special cases and I know of no stru(?ture that now exists as an inter- 

 ference to navigation. 



