390 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



out effect in respect of sovereigns not party to tlie agreement, or in respect of 

 their citizens. If it is desired to ctiange a basic part of international law there 

 must be general agreement amongst the nations. Even then the agreement is 

 not binding upon any sovereign (or its citizens) not a party to the agreement. 

 Amongst those sovereigns who have agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the 

 International Court of Justice recourse to that body may be had in case of con- 

 flict under recognized international law, but by no means all sovereigns have 

 accepted that jurisdiction. The U.S. Government is one sovereign which has 

 not fully accepted that court's jurisdiction. 



THE PROBLEM 



The primary problem with which we are here engaged, it appears to me, is not 

 a knowledge of the law of the sea, or a lack of the law of the sea, but a most 

 frustrating inability to quickly change the law of the sea to conform either to 

 our ideas of how it should be construed, or to keep it abreast of new demands 

 brought about by new sorts of uses capable of being made of the sea arising from 

 the application of advances in science and technology. The new problems aris- 

 ing out of the burgeoning increase in knowledge and understanding of the ocean, 

 and of new technologies capable of utilizing this new knowledge and under- 

 stading, are thrusting themselves at us in an intemperate and uncontrollable 

 rush ; at the same time we do not have several of the old problems yet resolved. 



In my view what is wanted is not just a study of the law of the sea. Many 

 fine studies of this nature are on the shelves of the Library of Congress. What 

 is wanted, instead, is an examination of what these new and old problems re- 

 specting the use of the sea are, and are likely to become ; how they impinge upon 

 the existing law of the sea ; and what should be the public policy of the United 

 States in respect of these problems, jointly and severally, which would best serve 

 the general and long-term interest of the United States. 



The term jointly and severally is used advisedly and not as a term of art. 

 Our experience over these past 20 years is that it is enormously difficult, if 

 indeed it is possible, to open up for modification one aspect of the law of the sea, 

 and get that attended to according to our satisfaction, without at the same time 

 having other sovereigns open up for modification other aspects of the law of the 

 sea whose adoption would adversely aftect our interests in a major manner. It 

 may be instructive to consider one example, that arising from new knowledge and 

 technologies making possible the harvesting of petroleum resources from beneath 

 the sea. 



PETEOLEUM EESOUECES 



During the last World War, and shortly before, it was discovered that large 

 resources of petroleum underlay the land under the sea bordering the continents 

 and technologies were developed which made it practical to harvest these newly 

 found resources under deeper and deeper water, farther and farther offshore. 



Much accumulated knowledge arising from harvesting such resources under 

 dry land indicated that there required to be a governing of the means of harvest 

 so that the individual and the public interest would be best served. Further- 

 more, the tax revenues that could be expected from such harvesting, as well as 

 the possible profits, were very large. U.S. law was not clear in all cases as to 

 whether these resources fell within the purview of the Federal Government 

 or of the several State governments. Great political and legal turmoil ensued 

 within the United States over these questions which was finally resolved by 

 judgments of the Supreme Court and new acts of the Congress. These aspects 

 of the problem were solely within the purview of the United States as long as 

 they were confined to area within the territorial limits of the United States 

 which were then, as now, considered to reach out seaward by 3 marine miles 

 from the dry land of the United States, with the possible exception of some areas 

 facing on the Gulf of Mexico. 



The trouble was that these petroleum resources extended out to sea more than 

 3 miles, and more than 12 miles in some instances, and were harvestable in 

 these more remote locations as well. Their harvesting in these more remote 

 areas of the Continental Shelf required governing just as it did elsewhere, and 

 for substantially the same reasons. But the resources on the Outer Continental 

 Shelf did not belong to the United States, or to any other single country, under 

 international law, and they were in the international domain. To clarify this 

 problem a change in international law was required. 



