62 
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
Washington, D. C., September 14, 1967. 
Hon. DEAN RUSK, 
Secretary of State, Depariment of State, 
Washington, D.C. 
My Drar Mr. SECRETARY: The Geneva World Peace Through Law Conference, 
on July 18, 1967, recommended that the United Nations proclaim that the non- 
fishery resources of the high seas, outside the territorial waters of any State, 
and the bed of the sea beyond the continental shelf, be subject to the jurisdiction 
and control of the United Nations. Recent reports indicate that the United States 
Department of State is encouraging General Assembly consideration of this 
resolution in late September. We are told that the United States delegation 
will support the resolution. 
The National Chamber strongly urges the United States delegation to oppose 
this resolution because it is ill-timed. 
At the present time no practical purpose would be served by the United 
Nations resolution. This is not the time for considering United Nations 
takeover of marine resources. We are at least five, possibly ten, years away 
from attaining the knowledge and technology essential to develop and begin 
to harness the resources of the sea. We cannot now predict the international 
situation that will exist at the time this knowledge is gained. Until the whole 
issue is analyzed intensively on a national basis, it would be premature to confer 
title upon the United Nations or any other group. 
Proponents of the resolution argue that giving the United Nations the 
“Jurisdiction and control” over marine resources would avert a possible major 
international issue—submarine colonialism—and that management of marine 
resources would supply the United Nations with an independent source of 
income. 
I doubt that these arguments will ever be valid, and certainly there is nothing 
to substantiate them at the present time. 
The submarine colonialism issue has been minimized by recent actions which 
express the desire of individual nations to settle, among themselves, differences 
regarding the high seas. Examples of this attitude include the North Sea Agree- 
ment, the Bering Strait Agreement, and the numerous international fishing 
agreements. 
Further, since the development and exploitation of marine resources is years 
away, SO is the use of these as a source of income for the United Nations. 
The Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf (1958), to which the United 
States is a party, clearly establishes that the rights to marine resources rest with 
individual nations. This Convention, in Article I, defines the “continental shelf.” 
If there is reason to change this definition, as the proposed United Nations’ 
resolution would do, it would seem that the way to make the change is to amend 
the Convention rather than to go outside the signatories and make the change 
through the General Assembly of the United Nations. 
In effect, by changing the 1958 Convention’s definition of the “continental 
shelf,” the United Nations’ proposal could make the entire Convention void. This 
is because the Convention does not include a protective clause that permits the 
changing of any article without voiding all the other parts of the Convention. 
Therefore. the United Nations’ resolution is indeed a serious step that could com- 
pletely abrogate an important international convention regarding the seas. 
Still another reason to oppose the United Nations’ proposal at this time is the 
Marine Resources Council and Commission. This group has been instructed to 
prepare a report which will include United States policy with respect to marine 
resources. The Commission has been assigned the task of formulating national 
policy on this important subject. Certainly, the United States should want to 
obtain and evaluate the report of this Commission before supporting any United 
Nations’ resolution. 
There is little to be gained hy action now. and much to loose—the resources of 
the ocean. The National Chamber urges restraint on any action that would confer 
title to some of this nation’s resources upon an international body. Such action 
should be deferred until sufficient knowledge exists upon which to base a deci- 
sion, and until the need for such a decision is evident. 
Sincerely, 
ALLAN SHIVERS, President. 
