142 



6. The previous Administration contended that details 

 governing the operation of the Seabed Authority could be 

 worked out after the Treaty text was agreed to, but before it 

 was ratified. Considering the significant interests at stake, 

 is it reasonable to leave such details to a Seabed Authority 

 Preparatory Commission instead of working them out before the 

 final text is agreed to? 



A. The answer to this question depends largely on one's 

 definition of the word "detail." It may not be possible for 

 the Conference, as currently constituted to create a highly 

 specific mining regime, with every contingency covered and 

 every rule and regulation laid out. 3ome sort of technically- 

 oriented body may be needed to do this work. On the other 

 hand, some of the things left to the Preparatory Comission 

 under the current text are not what I would call details. 

 For example, the decision-making procedures of the Legal and 

 Technical Commission with respect to the sufficiency of 

 applications for mining contracts are left to "rules and 

 regulations" to be drafted by the Prepcom. 



The Preparatory Commission approach has a long history 

 in international negotiations, but it certainly isn't the 

 only one that might work in this situation. We will be 

 looking at all the possibilities in the course of the review. 



7. Is a Law of the Sea Treaty essential or can the interest 

 in deep seabed mining be preserved under the existing U.S. deep 

 seabed mining law? 



This is a major issue to be evaluated in the review. The 



