232 



. . . under no circumstances, we believe, must we ever allow the prospects 

 of rich harvest and mineral wealth to create a new form of colonial com- 

 petition among the maritime nations. We must be careful to avoid a race to 

 grab and to hold the lands under the high seas. We must ensure that the 

 deep seas and the ocean bottoms are, and remain, the legacy of all human 

 beings. 



Our generation will therefore make the most fundamental decision.s about 

 rights in and uses of the lands beneath the sea. The pressures to make the deci- 

 sions soon are mounting. 



The United Nations Institute on Training and Research is pressing for clarifi- 

 cation of the legal status governing the exploitation of mineral resources of the 

 deep seabeds. 



The United Nations Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution on 

 March 7, 196G, requesting that the Secretary General make a survey of the pres- 

 ent state of knowledge of resources of the sea beyond the continental shelves, 

 and of the techniques to exploit them. 



The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on December 6, 

 1966, requesting that the Secretary General make a comprehensive survey of 

 activities in marine science and technology, looking toward proposals for (a) 

 ensuring the most effective arrangements for an expanded program of interna- 

 tional cooperation and (b) strengthening marine education and training pro- 

 grams. 



The Soviet Union proposed, at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Oceano- 

 graphic Commission in Monaco in January 1967, the creation of a working group 

 to prepare a draft convention on ways of using mineral resources of the open 

 seas. The proposal was circulated to IOC members for comment and considera- 

 tion at the next session of the IOC in Paris in October 1967. 



In this country the Commission to Study the Organization of the Peace is 

 pressing for clarification of legal and policy issues relating to exploitation of 

 mineral resources of the seabeds. The Commission has proposed United Nations 

 ownership and licensing for exploitation of sea floor minerals, with the income 

 to flow to the United Nations. 



The House of Delegates of the American Bar Association adopted a resolution 

 on August 6, 1966, urging the Government to formulate leagal principles relat- 

 ing to sea resources in consultation with representatives of the American Bar 

 Association and others. 



And on February 15, 1967, Senator Frank Church proposed that title to mineral 

 resources on the ocean floor beyond the continental shelves be conft^rred on the 

 United Nations, under an international agreement regulating their development, 

 and also providing the United Nations with a source of revenue. 



It therefore behooves us to give the most serious study now to proposals for 

 international agreement on exploitation of ocean floor minerals — a task to which 

 this Conference is largely devoted. 



Let me suggest some of the considerations for that inquiry. 



First, it must be recognized that only a few nations have substantial oceano- 

 graphic capabilities, but many nations have substantial coastlines. Any proposal 

 which would preempt the future of mineral exploitation for the few leaders is 

 likely to be considered imfair by a majority of coastal nations, and unlikely to 

 win their concurrence. Were it adopted without their concurrence, its standing as 

 internatitonal law would be tenuous indeed. 



Second, few nations, large or small, will view with equanimity any proposal 

 which would have the effect of allowing emplacement of foreign controlled struc- 

 tures near their coasts. Many coastal nations would be required to yield rights 

 already asserted. Some South American nations, for example, claim the seabed 

 for 200 miles from their coast. And the United States has taken action consistent 

 with a claim of sovereign rights to the seabed and subfloor some distance from 

 its coasts, by the granting of a phosphate lease some 40 miles from the California 

 coast in the Forty-Mile Bank area in 240 to 4,000 feet of water; by the granting 

 of oil and gas leases some 30 miles off the Oregon coast in about 1.500 feet of 

 water; and in the threatened litigation against creation of a new island by priv- 

 ate parties on Cortez Bank, about 50 miles from San Clemente Island off the 

 coast of California, or about 100 miles from the mainland. Each of the California 

 areas is separated from the coast by troughs as much as 4,000 to 5.000 feet deep. 

 The Department of the Interior has published OCS Leasing Maps indicating an 

 intent to assume jurisdiction over the ocean bottom as far as 100 miles off the 

 Southern California coast in water depths as great as 6,000 feet. 



