Appendix 6 



Alternative Regimes for the Minerals of the Sea Floor, by 

 Francis T. Christy, Jr., Resources for the Future, Inc., for 

 American Bar Association National Institute on Marine 

 Resources 



June S, 1967. 

 This paper discusses some of the pros and cons of alternative solutions to the 

 problems raised by the possible exploitation of minerals on the floor of the deep 

 sea. It begins by presenting some background information on the status of the 

 law of the sea and on the economics of a potential sea mining operation. Cer- 

 tain criteria for the selection among alternative regimes are suggested. And 

 finally, it examines some of the major elements of the possible regimes — the 

 jurisdictions and rules — that may be adopted to govern the exploitation of deep 

 sea minerals. 



THE LAW OF THE SEA 



The possible exploitation of manganese nodules raises two questions that are 

 not answerable within the framework of existing law. There is no clear cut 

 limit to the extent of the rights of the coastal state to the resources of the sea 

 itottoiu. And there is no jurisdiction to govern tbe interest of the world com- 

 munity in the resources that lie beyond the limits of the coastal states, however 

 those limits are defined. 



The Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf states that the limits of the 

 exclusive rights of a coastal state extend "to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond 

 that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploita- 

 tion of the natural resources . . ." Thus the only limit is that which is measured 

 by the criterion of exploitability. 



This openendedness resulted from the inability of the Convention delegates 

 to anticipate the possibilities of deep water exploitation and from the apparent 

 inequities of a geologically determined boundary. These inequities arise because 

 of the lack of uniformity in the width of the continental shelf, which may be only 

 a few miles wide off the coast of one state, and several hundred miles wide off 

 another. The Geneva Convention, in avoiding the demarcation of a clear-cut limit, 

 simply postponed the day of decision. 



Most authorities feel that some limit is necessary at some point short of 

 mid-ocean, and that beyond that limit, the sea bottom is international in char- 

 acter. However, there is no jurisdiction or set of rules to govern exploitation in 

 this international area. Indeed, there are not even any widely held principles 

 upon which such a jurisdiction could be built. The seas' bottom might be con- 

 sidered as res nuUius — no one's property — and therefore subject to appropria- 

 tion. Or it might be considered (as is accepted for the fish in the superjacent 

 waters) as res communes — the property of the world community — and therefore 

 not subject to unilateral appropriation. If the former view holds, then the sea 

 bottom is up for grabs — to be appropriated by the first party to make its 

 <!laim and defend it successfully. Under the latter view, rights to the sea bottom 

 would have to be constrained by some concept of the public interest. Argu- 

 ments pro and con both views can be developed extensively, but they will not 

 obviate the need for the establishment of some jurisdiction and some set of 

 rules to govern the exploitation of the bottom of the sea. 



THE ECONOMICS OF MANGANESE NODULES 



Much of what can be said about the economics of the mining of manganese 

 nodules must be speculative in nature. But there is enough information to indi- 

 cate some of the outstanding characteristics of such an enterprise.^ 



^ See John L. Mero. The Mineral Resources of the Sea (New York: Elsevier Publishing 

 Co., 1965) and David B. Brooks, Low-Orade and Nonconventional Sources of Manganese 

 i^r,V^^^^^^^°^ '• Resources for the Future, Inc., distributed by The Johns Hopkins Press, 

 lOCo) . 



(235) 

 84-771—67 17 



