~ 
L 
Or 
brings into the discussion important non-economic factors such as national secu- 
rity. Unfortunately, at the moment, one can only speculate as to how other na- 
tions (and the U.S. Department of Defense) view their interests in the sea floor. 
THE ALTERNATIVES 
Four alternative regimes have been suggested for meeting the problems raised 
by the potential development of minerals of the sea floor. While these might be 
cast as quite separate and distinct regimes, the distinctions are not clear for all 
elements of each regime. A flag nation approach, for example, would probably 
require some degree of international authority; and an international authority 
might permit coastal states to exercise some rights in waters that are closer to 
them than to all other states. Nevertheless, the distinctions are useful to maintain 
for the purposes of discussion and for examining their relevance to the criteria 
and principles suggested above. 
A. The Division of the Sea Floor.—One alternative is to divide up the sea floor 
so that none of it remains outside the jurisdiction of some coastal state. Juris- 
diction, in this case, would cover only the rights of mineral exploitation. One 
approach would follow the guides laid down in Article VI of the Geneva Con- 
vention on the Continental Shelf—that is, where median lines cannot be arrived 
at by negotiation, the lines will be drawn so that every point is equal in distance 
to the nearest points of opposite or adjacent coastal states.” Another approach 
has been suggested by Bernfeld—“provide that the beds of all of the Great Seas 
shall be deemed divided by a median line through the longest dimension of each, 
and then run each coastal nation’s rights to the seabed to that median between 
the lines of latitude and longitude, as the case might be, from the nation’s coastal 
extremities.” ” While such schemes might meet the first two criteria, by providing 
for efficient production and allocation of the resources, it is most unlikely that 
they would be acceptable. 
As Bernfeld points out, islands would provide vexing problems. If islands are 
given full rights (in keeping with the Geneva Convention), such tiny desolate 
rocks as Clipperton Island would give the French a vast territory in the eastern 
tropical Pacific, and the U.K. would acquire half the South Atlantic because of 
Ascension, St. Helena, and Tristan da Cunha. If rights are limited only to those 
islands that are sovereign states, the U.S. might be able to leap over Bermuda 
and the Bahamas, but would have to give up areas accruing to Hawaii and the 
Aleutians. Furthermore, such a principle would tend to increase the already 
great proliferation of mini-states since they might acquire vast territory by 
doing so.” 
Aside from the problem of islands, the division of the sea floor is not likely to 
appeal to the United States Navy. Although the division might be limited to ex- 
ploitation rights, there is the possibility that the rights might become exteuded to 
cover more than exploitation and so a& to affect the use of the superjacent waters. 
To the extent that this becomes true, it would impede the mobility of naval craft. 
But the major reason for the unacceptability of this approach is that it would 
do littie or nothing for those nations that have little or no toe-hold on the oceans. 
In particular, it is most unlikely that the Soviet Union would find any such di- 
vision to its advantage. While some may find merit in such a solution, if is un- 
realistic to think that any solution would be viable in the absence of Soviet 
acquiescence. 
B. The Flag Nation Approach.—This would treat the “mineral resources which 
are beyond the limits of the coastal state’s exclusive seabed jurisdiction ‘how- 
soever those limits are defined) as open to appropriation and exploitation under 
the laws of the flag of the discovering nation.” * In an earlier paper, Ely stated 
that “as a practical matter, the explorer thereby appropriates a segment of the 
seabed, and the jurisdiction—iet us go further and say sovereignty—of his flag 
attaches to the discovery ... There is no argument about the geographical extent 
19 An illustration of this will be available in the forthcoming proceedings of the Second 
Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute held at the University of Rhode Island, 
Kingston, June 26-29, 1967. The map was prepared by the author and Henry Herfindah! 
as an illustration of the difficulties and unexpected results that might oceur by such a 
division. 
20Bernfeld, op. cit., p. T3. 
21Tslands already provide difficulties, as manifested by the current dispute between 
France and Canada over rights to resources on the Grand Banks. The French islands of 
St. Pierre and Miquelon are so located that a strict interpretation of the Geneva Con- 
vention gives them a large area of the Grand Banks. 
2 Bly, op. cit., p. 000. 
