65 
In summary, I believe that the principles of sharing of wealth for the bene- 
ficial use of all the participants are of irrefutable value. I believe just as strongly, 
however, that premature evaluation of these principles for the sake of quick 
resolution of yet unknown problems would not be of much use. The Special Work- 
ing Group stimulated by the November 8th proposals of Ambassador Goldberg 
before the United Nations holds promise. The President’s Commission, while 
under a mandate concerning national problems will most certainly produce data 
of aid in solving this complex problem as well. In view of these negotiations, it 
would seem that we should try to avoid such premature determinations as the 
admittedly shortsighted limitation placed upon the extent of the legal continental 
shelf in the Geneva Convention of 1958. 
I am convinced that the mere introduction of such resolutions as those in ques- 
tion is of inestimable value. Senator Pell, and this Committee, are to be highly 
commended for their foresightedness and dedication. But on the whole my atti- 
tude must remain, for the time, one of restrained optimism and patience. When the 
information from present studies becomes available, discussions stimulated by 
this, and similar inquiries, will have established a framework within which 
prompt and appropriate action may be taken. Until that time, it would be unwise 
to indorse specific action that may mislead nations as to our purpose, or discour- 
age present plans for industrial expansion into the fields of ocean space. Thank 
you for the opportunity to express these views. 
Sincerely yours, 
THOMAS A. CLINGAN, Jr., 
Associate Professor of Law. 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 
CENTER FOR POPULATION STUDIES. 
Cambridge, Mass., December 11, 1967. 
Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, 
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 
Dear SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I have been asked by Senator Claiborne Pell to 
submit written testimony concerning S. Res. 172 and S. Res. 186, on which 
hearings were held before your Committee on Wednesday, November 29, 1967. 
Senate Resolution 172 proposes that the United States Senate affirm certain 
general principles concerning the exploration and use of the deep sea by the 
nations of the world. These principles seem reasonable and good to me, and 
I can see no reason why they should not be accepted as a basis for United States 
policy. Some of their implications are spelled out in S. Res. 186, and I shall 
confine the remainder of these comments to that Resolution. 
The proposed “Declaration of Legal Principles Governing Activities of States 
in the Exploration and Exploitation of Ocean Space” is liberal and far-sighted, 
and would serve the best interests of the United States. Senator Pell is to be 
congratulated for the thought and sophistication that have clearly gone into 
the preparation of this Declaration. There are certain specific points which I 
believe should be clarified or modified as follows: 
Article II, Section 1 (page 6, line 7). I suggest the words “submarine trans- 
portation and communication” be inserted after the words “in-solution mining.” 
Article II, Section 4(a) (page 8, lines 7-19). Perhaps there should be some 
spelling out of the purposes to which the fees or royalties provided in this 
Section should be put. I have long believed, and have publicly stated on many 
occasions, that the resources of the deep sea floor might be used to give the 
United Nations and/or some of itS specialized agencies an independent source 
of revenue, which would give them some degree of autonomy from their member 
governments. 
Article II, Section 4(e) (page 9, lines 17-23). There should be no interference 
for any reason with “fundamental oceanographic or other scientific research 
carried out with the intention of open publication.” It is not enough to say that 
such interference shall not result from the exploration of the sea bed and sub- 
soil of ocean space and the exploitation of its natural resources. 
Article IV, Section 1 (page 13, lines 11 and 12). The stationing of devices 
for submarine detection, identification, and tracking on the sea bed and subsoil 
should be permitted. Such devices, while in no sense offensive weapons, may be 
essential for national and international security. As such, they could be thought 
of as having a “peaceful purpose,” but the position might be ambiguous if they 
are not specifically mentioned. I can see no compelling reason why such devices 
