on 
64 
objectives and support the creation of an international seabed mining monopoly 
controlled by less developed nations as a trade-off for the votes of such less 
developed nations in favor of the Defense Department-sponsored free transit 
proposal. 
To sacrifice U.S. mineral interests in mining the deep seabed for a perceived 
military objective is at least debatable; but to sacrifice U.S. mineral objectives 
in mining the deep seabed for what may be an unattainable military objective is 
folly, we feel.” 
The staff report found a strong international trend for a wide shelf 
similar to the position taken by the former Special Subcommittee on 
Outer Continental Shelf. Most coastal nations favored a seaward 
extension of national jurisdiction to the outer edge of the submerged 
continental land mass or to 200 miles from shore, whichever is greater. 
Consequently, there seemed little prospect for adoption of the U.S. 
proposal for nations to renounce sovereign rights beyond the 200-meter 
depth contour. 
The report recommended that the Senate Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs go forward with legislation to encourage U.S. 
nationals to proceed with the orderly development of seabed resources 
under the authority of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 
The report concluded : 
Ample authority under well established law, enables the United States to 
regulate the activities of its nationals engaged in deep seabed mineral exploita- 
IIVU4 
>) 
ative 
5 ds ns. An 1aen 
Jf aan ein WPoasomlay (YP 
By a 
qauced 7 
. 
IML 
mas 
the Secretary of the Interior to promote the conservation and orderly 
development of the hard mineral resources of the deep seabed, pending 
adoption of an international regime. 
Shortly before hearings on these bills were scheduled, observers 
were sent to the March 1972 session of the U.N. Seabed Committee. 
Their report ** warned of the militant stand toward U.S. rights to 
mine the ocean floor taken by the “Group of 77,” the policy caucus of 
now more than 100 developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America. The delegate from Chile contended that present seabed ex- 
ploration and development activities of U.S. companies violated in- 
ternational law. He called for a cessation of such activities by the 
United States and other countries and urged the U.N. Secretariat to 
investigate U.S. ocean mining activities and requested the U.S. dele- 
gation to provide the Secretariat with all evidence of seabed mining 
activities of its nationals. The Chilean delegate also attacked S. 2801 
by suggesting that, if enacted, it would establish a policy contrary to 
international law. 
The delegate from Peru endorsed these remarks and threatened the 
United States and other developed countries with U.N. sanctions un- 
less they assured the Seabed Committee that there would be no further 
seabed mining development. 
5 [bid., p. 10. 
16 Thid., p. 10. 
7 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Law of the sea 
Ree ane polarization. Fen A Staff Report on the United Nations Seabed 
1 e Outer Continenta elf and Marine Mineral Develo ‘ 5 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972, 147 p evelOP Rent aaa 
