46 



that the rules and regulations cannot be changed in ways that 

 reduce that reassurance. 



This has been accomplished first by getting agreement in the 

 final clauses, article 308, I think it is, on a provision under which 

 the rules and regulations drafted by the Preparatory Commission 

 will become the rules and regulations that take effect on day one 

 when the International Seabed Authority comes into existence. 



After that the rules and regulations cannot be changed over the 

 objection of the United States. So what we would be presenting to 

 the Congress, then, is a package containing the treaty language 

 plus details which we would have had a large role in working out. 



Mr. Leach. I would like to ask a little different type question. 

 Without a treaty, we will have problems with regard to interna- 

 tional laws on the straits, with regard to conflicts involving mining 

 companies whose attempts to mine the sea are challenged in one 

 forum or another, et cetera. 



Do you think those problems would enhance the likelihood of 

 conflict in the world, and is a reduction in potentialities of conflict 

 a very serious rationale for this treaty? 



Mr. Richardson. Yes, it is. This prompts me to call attention to 

 one of the points made in the passage from the American Heritage 

 Foundation publication read by Mr. Dornan. 



It referred at one point to what could be accomplished by U.N. 

 General Assembly resolutions. 



This treaty is a legislative document. The U.N. General Assem- 

 bly resolutions do not have the force of law and they are not 

 backed up by any dispute settlement machinery. This treaty takes 

 effect as internal law as well as international law in all the coun- 

 tries that ratify it. 



That means, then, that they accept the obligation to submit 

 disputes to binding settlement. They have the option of agreeing to 

 submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice or to the 

 Law of the Sea tribunal that would be established under the treaty. 



If they cannot agree on either of those alternatives they must 

 accept binding arbitration. That means they have the obligation to 

 submit the issue to arbitration and they are bound by the result. 



There are some exceptions where the obligation is only to submit 

 the issue to conciliation, but, broadly speaking, the dispute settle- 

 ment machinery is binding both as to the obligation to submit the 

 issue and as to the acceptance of the result. 



That means, therefore, that you do have a major gain in conflict 

 avoidance and prevention by this means but a major contribution 

 also for the reason I touched on earlier, namely, the universality of 

 the rules. 



The very fact that the world community has agreed — I men- 

 tioned this in the context of science and also in the context of 

 navigation, seabed resource exploitation — on the definition of areas 

 and boundaries has contributed to conflict prevention. 



Take, for example, oil and gas. Oil and gas, of course, are vastly 

 more important economically than manganese nodules. This total 

 world market for nickel today is only about $2 billion annually. So 

 you are talking about a seabed mining industry which at its peak 

 20 years from now might be generating no more than an annual 

 volume of $2 billion in current dollar amounts. 



