64 
Proprietorship is a self governing world entity’, with a flag to be flown over all 
sites in the murky domain. 
It is apparent that this claim was not taken seriously. But it is important 
to realize that it was not disclaimed because it was in its nature, an undesirable 
concept. It was not honored because it so lacked in substance as to pose no 
recognizable threat to international order. In short, no person at that time be- 
lieved that a potential for dominion existed in this individual. 
Today the technology has advanced to a point where serious consideration of 
the future ocean regimes must be instituted. But the factual context has brought 
us little further than we were in 1944, particularly when we focus, as we have 
here, primarily on the deep ocean bottoms. We must now say, as we did in 1944, 
that there is not a sufficiently pressing problem to call for sweeping reform. 
There are pressures of urgency, to be sure, but the fact remains that there are but 
yet a handful of firms around the world with a capability for exploiting, com- 
mercially, hard minerals from the continental shelves, and these operators func- 
tion in waters much shallower than those now being considered. The leading 
coastal nations of the world have not, contrary to some suggestions, yet entered 
into anything like a race for resources, assiduously avoiding serious encroach- 
ments onto areas fringing the recognizable geologic shelf. This in itself suggests 
a propensity toward reasonable consideration and negotiation as a basis for solu- 
tions of problems as the facts become clearer. 
I must agree that the prospects of future use call us all to a serious academic 
discussion and prolonged consideration of the eventual wealth that we hope the 
oceans may yield. I believe that an informed community cannot long ignore the 
merits of proposals regarding shared wealths either in the home environment 
or in the world community. Such theories have great economic and social appeal. 
However, it would seem that their application at this point would be highly pre- 
mature. Such action would run the risk of being quickly outdated and harmful 
when applied to unanticipated fact situations. 
To be more specific concerning the proposals now before the committee, I 
would first like to say that I see serious problems of administration. There are 
many kinds of difficulties. The first, it would seem, is the apparent inability of 
any known supra-national organization to provide an effective administrative 
unit having the necessary expertise to supervise the potentially complex problems 
of ocean bottom leasing. Secondly, it would not seem practical at this time to 
structure a police force with the size and experience necessary for the conduct 
of inspection and enforcement procedures in the more than 139 million square 
miles of the world’s wet spaces. Aside from these practical considerations, it 
would appear that the cost of maintaining such an extensive system would for 
many years exceed the potential net economic yield. 
Article IV of Senate Resolution 186 puts voice to one of the most frequently 
heard arguments for immediate action; the fear that the oceans might be used 
for hostile or aggressive purposes. To this end, the proposal contemplates certain 
restrictions on the use of the ocean bottoms for emplacement of objects contain- 
ing weapons of mass destruction. I believe that this particular proposal is at 
present unnecessary. First, as stated above, there is a real problem of inspection 
and enforcement. I do not believe that we are entitled to rely on agreement alone 
lacking sufficient ability to create an infallible detection system. Secondly, recent 
experiences in new weaponry suggests that there is merit in an arms control sys- 
tem that succeeds through neutralization by balance of power. 
The analogies made to space and Antarctic regions seem appealing. Yet I do 
not find them apt. Such comparisons are bottomed on the premise that the ocean 
spaces, like those areas, are no-man’s lands, where contemporary civilization 
has yet to penetrate. Were this true of the oceans, the arguments based upon 
those agreements would have more force. Contrary to the celestial bodies or 
southern extremes of the earth, however, the oceans have been in commercial 
use for thousands of years. This makes two things true of them not true of the 
others: (1) there is great potential for wealth, the extent of which we must 
determine within reasonable bounds before we enter treaties directed at its ex- 
ploitation: and (2) there are existing accommodations of uses that have been 
worked out peaceably over the intervening years. There has evolved a great body 
of law based upon proven custom and usage. As Professor Myers McDougal, of 
Yale Law School, appropriately observed, it is error to commence our considera- 
tions under the impression that world order does not exist with respect to the 
oceans, Therefore we are not totally devoid of sanctions adequate to deal with 
the problems with which we may be faced until we have all of the facts. 
