59 
The above suggestions for the operation of an international authority do no 
more than characterize its nature. Clearly, there are many difficulties that would 
have to be overcome and many interesting questions of law that would have to 
be answered. However, some form of market mechanism would appear to meet 
the economic eriteria better than any of the alternative regimes. 
The guarantee of exclusive rights would depend, of course, upon the degree 
to which the nations find this regime acceptable. There would be difficulties in 
deciding which blocks or areas to open for auction, but to the extent that some 
control could be exercised, this system would reduce the incentive to exploit at 
an excessively rapid rate. The auction should not deter the pioneers, since no 
one, at this stage of the game, is likely to bid very much for such a high risk 
venture. As experience is gained the amount of the bid is likely to increase, but 
it would still reflect the value to the entrepreneur of the exclusive right. It would 
be high for the high valued sites and low for the low valued sites. The allocation 
of rights through such a market place would benefit efficient producers and would 
solve the problem of deciding among competing claimants. 
The acceptability of such a regime would depend upon how the exploiting na- 
tions would view their ability to compete in the market and upon how the non- 
exploiting nations would view their returns. With respect to the latter, the flag 
nation regime would provide them nothing. A registry office would provide 
nothing unless there is a provision for sharing revenues, Whether they do better 
by negotiating shares than by auction would depend upon their ability to nego- 
tiate. If they negotiate too well, then the registry office scheme would not be 
acceptable to the exploiting nations. 
Admittedly, some of the advantages of the market mechanism have been 
painted in terms too glowing to be real. Obviously there will be imperfections. 
And obviously, too, nothing has been said about the great difficulties that would 
be experienced in establishing the laws and institutions that would govern such 
an authority. And yet, the principles are valid and should not be discarded 
simply because we do not know how to write the laws. 
Several points might be kept in mind in the examination of this and of the 
other alternatives. (1) It is useful to distinguish between the pioneer effort, 
the short run situation, and the long run situation. Certain rules that might be 
desirable to stimulate the pioneer may not be desirable as exploitation develops. 
(2) My assumption that the resource sites will have economic searcity in the 
short run is important to the criterion of non-arbitrary allocation of exclusive 
rights. If this assumption is incorrect, disputes over access to resource sites 
may not occur for many years. This may give us time to arrive at a system for 
the rational allocation of rights. I do not believe that this is the case, but the 
point should be fully explored. (83) My purpose in suggesting an international 
authority is not to provide an independent income for the UN but to meet the 
need for efficient development and exploitation of deep sea minerals. (4) The 
presence of the UN is not relevant to the discussion of alternative regimes. Even 
if the UN did not exist, some regime would be required to govern exploitation. 
(5) It may be advisable to adopt general principles now, while adoption is 
possible, even if this requires “great decisions’. 
STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, NOVEMBER 29, 1967 
My name is Paul Edelman and I am a member of the Committee on Ocean 
Resources of the American Trial Lawyers Association. I am testifying on behalf 
of the American Trial Lawyers Association’s President Samuel Langerman. 
The American Trial Lawyers Association, a 25,000 member bar association, 
represents the interests of accident victims and their families. Our organization 
has long been a champion of safety measures and our active maritime practi- 
tioners have taken part in discussions concerning cruise ship legislation and 
maritime liability laws. 
At this time when the Senate has before it committee hearings concerning the 
rationale of exploitation of the seas, we believe that our members, and partic- 
ularly the maritime attorneys who are members can offer a varied experience 
in aid of these far-reaching discussions. 
Our organization has participated in a government grant from the National 
Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development in a study on the 
legal liability problems in exploration and exploitation of the seas. 
