63 
UNDERWATER MARINE SERVICE. 
Cleveland, Ohio, December 4, 1967. 
Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 
DEAR SENATOR PELL: Thank you for your letter of the 22nd of November con- 
cerning the Malta proposal in the United Nations. 
Senate resolution no. 172 and 186 are the first constructive attempts to resolve 
the many problems of exploration and exploitation of the deep sea that I have 
seen. 
Due to the internal friction and lack of cooperation by member nations, I do 
not feel that the United Nations is the proper agency at this time, to control 
over 70% of the earths surface. Perhaps the isSue could be brought before the 
General Assembly with hopes of establishing a separate organization to adminis- 
ter the deep sea resources. 
Concerning page 12, paragraph 8 of S. Res. 186, I believe that industry would 
feel that their proprietary devices and methods would be in danger from constant 
inspection by the sea guard. Perhaps an annual or semi-annual inspection would 
be more in order unless there were complaints against the company. 
One possible area of conflict is in the area of mineral rights and leasing. These 
should be spelled out to avoid as many loop holes as possible. 
With the exception of the minor problem areas I have mentioned, your resolu- 
tions are excellent, especially in the area of atomic weapons. 
Best of luck in getting the resolutions out of committee and into law. 
Sincerely, 
WiLsur A. Dicus, President. 
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, 
THE NATIONAL LAW CENTER, 
Washington, D.C., December 5, 1967. 
Hon. CLATBORNE PELL, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 
DEAR SENATOR PELL: In response to your kind invitation of Novemher 28, 1967, 
I am pleased to submit the following comments with regard to Senate Resolu- 
tion 172 and Senate Resolution 186. Because the latter contains the greater de- 
tail, I shall address myself specifically to it. 
I would like to preface my remarks by explaining that while I am at present 
the chairman of the Law Committee of the Marine Technology Society, the 
opinions expressed herein are solely mine, and not necessarily those of the 
Society. 
Secondly, I would like to place my opinions in the proper context by empha- 
Sizing, as you have recognized, that the only true path to an effective world 
order—to the solution of the problems of nations—is via the reute of interna- 
tional accord achieved by multilateral negotiation leading to formal or informal 
agreement. Having said that, however, I must go on to emphasize that problems 
can be solved only where problems exist. Meaningful progress takes place in the 
light of specific disputes. The term ‘‘dispute’’. as it is used here. I define as the 
existence of a group of operative facts so structured as to permit adversary 
parties to advance theories that become legal sanctions throughout the adjudica- 
tive process. On the basis of that definition, effective legal sanctions depend unon 
such a group of operative facts. This is as true in the international realm as it is 
with disagreements among individuals. If the facts do not bring a disagreement 
to the dispute level, resultant action based wnon them can be at best speculative. 
Let me give an illustration of “diplomatic restraint’? preventing premature 
action. In 1944, a private correspondent informed the Secretary of State that he 
had developed means for rendering the ocean floor accessible to human exploita- 
tion, and expressed the view that this development. affording to the writer occu- 
pancy of lands previously beyond the reach of man, vested in him title and do- 
minion over such lands. The Department of State, happily, did not concur. Not to 
be easily put aside, this same citizen, a year later, declared that for the pur- 
pose of perpetuating his claims, he established an “Under Seas Proprietorship” 
providing order where no national government could be permitted to function. 
He asserted that “extraterritorial lands are not at the disposal of parties other 
than members of the Under Seas Proprietorship” and that the “Under Seas 
