275 



Mobile near bottom nuclear missile systems can be conceived which, while 

 immune from any presently conceivable form of detection, would provide im- 

 mense offensive capability. 



Establishment of fixed military installations on the ocean floor might also be 

 found useful for many purposes. 



A high degree of self-sufficiency could be obtained for the various military 

 installations hypothetically envisaged by the construction of nuclear power 

 plants providing oxygen by the electrolysis of sea-water while sufficient nutrients 

 exist in the sea to provide ample supplies of food. 



Thus the advantages of proceeding to utilize the deep seas and the ocean floor 

 for military purposes might at first sight appear compelling to the country or 

 countries possessing the requisite technology. Yet there are disadvantages to 

 such course of action. 



Since more than one country is able to utilize the deep seas and the ocean 

 floor for military purposes, we can expect an immediate and rapid escalation 

 of the arms race in the seas, if any of the hypothetical developments that I 

 have mentioned were Ivnown to have taken place beyond the limits of the geo- 

 physical continental shelf. There would certainly be a race to occupy accessible 

 strategic areas on the ocean floor without much regard to the claims that other 

 nations, not having the capability to occupy these areas, might put forward. 

 Military installations on or near the ocean floor require protection against spying 

 or harassment, this would almost inevitably lead to unilaterally proclaimed juris- 

 diction over large areas of the surrounding and superjacent sea; and the conse- 

 quent curtailment of lawful traditional activities on the high seas would be 

 bitterly resented by many countries. We can only speculate also on what counter- 

 measures would be taken against any specific action to militarize any area of 

 the deep seas or of the ocean floor beyond the continental shelf. It is certain 

 that effective counter-measures are possible : thus the effectiveness of acoustic 

 detection and surveillance devices installed in the ocean could be destroyed by 

 insonifying parts of the oceans themselves. This would be effective militarily 

 but it would also render near bottom navigation for all purposes, including 

 scientific purposes, extremely hazardous and would render fishing sonar virtually 

 unusable. 



In conclusion I would submit that the utilization for military purposes of 

 the deep seas and of the accessible ocean floor, while perhaps attractive at first 

 sight, might provoke political, military and economic complications of such 

 magnitude as to compel very careful assessment of the probable consequences 

 by the Powers concerned. I would respectfully urge upon the major Powers the 

 utter futility of attempting to obtain a temporary military advantage by using 

 the ocean floor, beyond the geophysical continental shelf for military purpose. 

 Legitimate defence needs and the balance of terror as well as the interests of 

 all countries, can far better be safeguarded by developing within an international 

 framework credible assurances that the sea-bed and the ocean floor will be used 

 exclusively for peaceful purposes. This has already been done with respect to 

 outer space. We trust it will also be possible to do so with respect to the 

 ocean floor. 



Unfortunately the present juridical framework clearly encourages, subject to 

 certain limitations, the appropriations for national purposes of the sea-bed be- 

 yond the geophysical continental shelf. 



As I have already had occasion to mention, the sea-bed and the ocean floor 

 are land. There are five generally recognized modes of acquiring land in inter- 

 national law : cession, subjugation, accretion, prescription and occupation. In 

 the interests of brevity, I shall deal only with the latter. 



Occupation is a mode of acquisition recognized by international law involving 

 the intentional appropriation by a State or territory not already under the 

 sovereignity of another State. Generally recognized principles of international 

 law with regard to occupation may be summarized as follows. Effective occupa- 

 tion is required : possession and administration are two prerequisites to effective 

 occupation. The extent of occupation required to establish title depends in prac- 

 tice upon the nature of the territory involved : the more remote or inaccessible 

 the territory the less is the degree of control required by traditional international 

 law to acquire title. Thus in the nineteenth century occupation of strips of coast 

 in Africa was deemed to confer rights, the exact nature and extent of which was 

 disputed among the Great Powers, on the hinterland, also vaguely defined, over 

 which in effect little control was exercised by the Power occupying the coast. 

 In the 1933 East Greenland case the Permanent Court of International Justice 

 84-771—67 20 



