278 



More important than the opinion of jurists, however, and however distin- 

 guished they may be, is the action taken by Governments; and such action 

 appears to be increasingly based on an interpretation of the 1958 Geneva Con- 

 vention even more far-reaching than that of Professor Oda. For instance, the 

 United States has already leased tracts of land situated under water several 

 hundred fathoms deep and well beyond its territorial waters, basing itself 

 on a Department of Interior legal memorandum which holds that the leasing 

 authority of the United States under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

 "extends as far seaward as technological ability can cope with the water depth, 

 this is in accord with the Convention of the Sea adopted at Geneva". This practice 

 is spreading. 



Thus, for instance, following the phenomental discoveries of natural gas to 

 which we have already referred, the bed of the North Sea was distributed among 

 the littoral States in 19tJ4 in accordance with the rules contained in article 6 

 of the Geneva Convention, but with little regard either to the geophysical features 

 of the sea-bed — for instance, the deep trench clearly separating the geological 

 continental shelf of Norway from that of the other States — or to the principles 

 of adjacency and depth of water stressed by the first school of thought that we 

 mentioned. Vast deposits of natural gas have been discovered in the Baltic, and 

 no doubt we shall soon be informed that the bed of this shallow sea has also 

 been parcelled out among the riparian States. 



In citing the action taken by States, I intend no criticism ; there is little 

 doubt that the sea-bed of the Baltic and of most of the North Sea can come 

 within a reasonable geophysical definition of the continental shelf. I would 

 stress, however, that much more far-reaching action to appropriate the sea-beds 

 can clearly be foreseen at the present time. When this action is taken it will 

 be irreversible by the international community and will entail not only immense 

 prejudice to all land-locked countries but also to most of the coastal States that 

 do not have the requisite technical competence to exploit the ocean floor. Under- 

 developed States fronting on an ocean might believe that a division of the ocean 

 floor of the world would be advantageous to them. This is a complete — and I 

 should like to reinforce this — and utter illusion. Is it credible that technologically 

 advanced countries would be deterred from exploiting rich mineral resources 

 on the ocean floor situated at some distance from the nearest coast of another 

 country for the sole reason that these deposits happened to be under the theo- 

 retical jurisdiction of a State unable to exploit them? Indeed voices are already 

 being raised interpreting article 1 of the 1958 Geneva Convention as giving 

 licence to a coastal State facing the ocean to extend its jurisdiction over the 

 ocean floor as far as its technology permits exploitation ; in the words of Franklin 

 "the only limitation to exploitation will be that of technology". 



It is even less credible that technologically advanced coimtries, encouraged by 

 the terminology of the juridical masterpiece produced by the International Law 

 Commission, would agree to adopt a restrictive interpretation of their rights 

 under the Geneva Convention when their defence needs are directly involved. 

 Only recently U.S. Neivs and World Report of 16 October 1967 — a few days ago — ■ 

 revealed that certain quarters were considering the possibility of sinking nuclear 

 missiles in capsules under the sea "off potential enemy coasts with a remote con- 

 trolled mechanism for firing". "Off potential enemy coasts . . ." of course, outside 

 territorial waters, but there is no longer any question here of respecting theoreti- 

 cal median lines between States whose coasts are opposite each other. 



Even the traditional freedom of the high seas, one of the few things explicitly 

 safeguarded in the 1958 Geneva Convention, is gravely endangered, should a mili- 

 tarization of the ocean floor be allowed to take place. The legal argument that 

 could be developed in this connexion might read as follows : It is a traditional 

 principle of international law that a State exercising sovereignty over land also 

 exercises jurisdiction over the superjacent atmosphere up to the still undefined 

 limits of outer space, but the sea is the atmosphere of the ocean floor, hence a 

 State exercising sovereignty over an area of the ocean floor also has a claim to 

 jurisdiction over the superjacent sea despite the wording of article 3 of the 

 1958 Geneva Convention. Any legal argument of this nature would, of course, be 

 very strongly controverted by the many members of the interna tionnl community, 

 but the issue will not be decided by legal arguments but by the vital need to con- 

 trol transit in the vicinity of any military installations that may be establi.'jhed 

 on the ocean floor. This is not the fruit of my imagination : it is not an invention 

 of the Government of Malta. I am reproducing here, perhaps crudely but not 

 unfaithfully, views held by military experts of more than one country. For in- 



