10 



How do you assess that possibility? What do you expect might be 

 some of the repercussions on the part of other states at the August 

 session? 



Mr. Malone. We are, of course, aware that such statements have 

 been made, that such concerns have been raised. We believe that it 

 is probably considered by most countries to be in their interest to 

 have the United States as a signatory to this treaty; and that they 

 perceive the significance of the review in that relation. And al- 

 though I think undoubtedly we will hear different expressions of 

 concern, I would think that they would probably be from a minor- 

 ity. 



We do feel that it is absolutely essential, as I have stressed, that 

 we have at the time that we return to active substantive negotia- 

 tions a completely developed position. We must go through this 

 review process in a comprehensive way to achieve that. 



Chairman Zablocki. Let me ask a final question with a com- 

 ment. 



We have stated that this committee has had several hearings on 

 the Law of the Sea Treaty. I do not recall right now whether some 

 of the security-related matters that are contained in the provisions 

 of the draft convention which you list on pages 5, 6, and 7, for 

 example, concerning the participation of national liberation move- 

 ments have been raised. 



But, it is my understanding that certain criteria have been devel- 

 oped in the Conference which would exclude the participation of 

 national liberation movements. Isn't it true, that there are certain 

 criteria specifying that entities with a legal personality, including 

 authority to enter into treaties would exclude participation of such 

 organizations. 



Many oppose the national liberation movements. Many nations 

 that oppose national liberation movements pointed out that there 

 was not a single legal precedent for allowing national liberation 

 movements to become a party to a multilateral treaty. 



Now, you very flatly state that the PLO could become a member, 

 a participant. My understanding is that they could not. 



Mr. Malone. At the present time it is my understanding, Mr. 

 Chairman, this question has indeed not been resolved. 



Chairman Zablocki. But you do raise it as if it is already in the 

 proposed text of the treaty. 



Mr. Malone. I meant to raise it as a concern that we are looking 

 at. We must address this question because there is contained in the 

 draft text, specifically in articles 140 and 162, provisions giving rise 

 to the possibility of participation of peoples who have not attained 

 full independence or other self-governing status in seabed mining 

 revenue-sharing arrangements. 



At the present time, the question of nonstate participation as 

 signatories to the treaty is an open question. The United States 

 opposes signature by national liberation groups. 



Chairman Zablocki. But there are criteria in the draft? 



Mr. Malone. Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. Any group that is recog- 

 nized in a U.N. General Assembly resolution would be eligible to 

 receive revenues. To that extent there are criteria, but of course, 

 this would not exclude the possible participation by such national 

 liberation groups as the PLO. However, the criteria also might 



