67 
In light of the foregoing, the National Oceanography Association believes that 
the proposals set forth in SR-172 and SR-186 are premature. All of the actions 
required of the government are being undertaken under PL—89—454. 
Sincerely yours, 
JOHN H. CLotwortHy, President. 
TESTIMONY ON S. RES. 186 By WILLIAM T. BURKE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, OHIO 
STATE UNIVERSITY 
The following brief comments are directed both at some of the provisions em- 
bodied in S. Res. i86 and, more broadly, at the general problem of establishing a 
structure of international authority by which rational and orderly development 
of deep ocean mineral resources may be undertaken in the interest of the United 
States and of states generally. 
It is apparent that some of the detailed provisions of the ocean treaty proposed 
in 8. Res. 186 derive from two other agreements which deal with areas beyond the 
boundaries of any state, the Outer Space Treaty and the Antarctic Agreement. 
Although past experience undoubtedly may serve as a wise guide in seeking to 
resolve anticipated problems arising in the ocean, there are rather obvious dif- 
ferences among these environments that suggest caution in extrapolation from 
one to the other. With very limited exceptions neither space nor the Antarctic 
offer, now or in the foreseeable future, the resource potential that seems avail- 
able in the acean even over the short-term. And certainly neither of these areas 
has in the past, in the direct contrast to the ocean, provided man with a great 
range of resources. The record of man’s involvement in production of values from 
the ocean is very long indeed. The result is that public and private interests are 
already deeply engaged in the oceans in ways not at all comparable with either 
space or the Antarctic. Adequate consideration of our common interests in ocean 
development cannot, therefore, rest upon unexplored assumptions about the rele- 
vance of the quite different situations pertaining in space and the Antarctic. 
S. Res. 186 suggests the general outlines of an international structure for regu- 
lating ocean exploitation. With the general objective sought by this approach I 
have no quarrel. A number of years ago Professor McDougal and I wrote that it 
seemed “inevitable” that some form of international organization would be 
developed to resolve the problems of mineral exploitation beyond whatever limit 
came to be accepted as the continental shelf and nothing has happened in the 
years since then to alter that conclusion so far as I am concerned. However, it 
is one thing to agree on this goal and quite another to arrive at the substantive 
arrangements to implement it. In this sense the general outline in S. Res. 186 
is quite clearly unsatisfactory, for it fails to deai with two of the most critical 
problems that must be overcome if an acceptable international system is to be 
established. These problems are: the criteria for decision about allocation of 
licenses for exploitation of resources and the distribution of benefits realized 
from the fees or royalty payable from the licensee. To the extent the suggested 
treaty does address the problem of criteria for decision, it appears to me to be 
subject to serious question. For example, the “special interest” of the coastal 
state “in conservation of the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil of ocean 
space adjacent to its territorial sea and continental shelf” is by no means self- 
evident and appears more as a device for selfish extension of coastal rights, 
than as an effort to establish a regime for exploitation that is in the common 
interest. Perhaps of even greater importance, there is no discernible reason what- 
soever for requiring, apparently as a condition of research beyond the continental 
shelf, that the coastal state is “entitled” to take part therein. This latter pro- 
vision, and the implications of others, could pose serious new problems to the 
free conduct of scientific research, an activity that is already sufficiently threat- 
ened by states in pursuit of short-sighted interests. 
Part IV of the proposed draft (“Use of Seabed and Subsoil of Ocean Space 
for Peaceful Purposes Only”) suggests still other questions, the principal one 
being whether it is desirable to single out this specific part of the earth as open 
only to use “for peaceful purposes”, with the latter concept left wholly undefined. 
Part V on disposal of radioactive wastes goes well beyond the obligation which 
the United States and other contracting states have accepted in the Convention 
on the High Seas. Whether there is reason for this additional measure of obli- 
gation seems to me subject to considerable doubt. It may, for example, be asked 
whether implementation of the absolute prohibition of disposal embodied herein 
