91 
As domestic industries became more active in the formulation of 
ocean policy, the priority accorded the military interests became more 
restricted. Whereas the military previously intervened in seabed as 
well as fisheries policy, it became largely restricted to policy inputs 
relating directly to military mobility—to straits and territorial sea 
boundaries affecting navigation. In response to strong industry pres- 
sure, an Advisory Committee on the Law of the Sea, consisting of 60 
representatives of the industrial and scientific communities, was formed 
in early 1972. The official purpose of the Advisory Committee was to 
advise the head of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Seabed Committee 
in the areas of petroleum, hard minerals, marine science, interna- 
tional law and relations, fisheries, international finance and taxation, 
marine environment, and maritime industries. The input from these 
domestic interests coupled with strong international pressures was 
apparent in the statements made by the chairman of the U.S. delega- 
tion to the Seabed Committee, Ambassador John R. Stevenson, on 
August 10, 1972 which placed a new emphasis on the national interest 
in ocean resources. Shifting from an earlier position stressing a species 
approach for international regulation of all fishing, the U.S. delega- 
tion indicated that it would accept coastal state management of coastal 
and anadromous species. Furthermore, the United States abandoned 
its position on a 200 meter isobath limit of national jurisdiction. The 
United States would accept coastal state regulation of mineral re- 
sources to the outer edge of the continental shelf or some specified dis- 
tance from shore with other uses of the area unrestricted and pollution 
controls to be internationally determined. Another factor possibly in- 
fluencing the shift in U.S. naval concerns is the development of new 
Trident submarine missiles with ranges up to 6,000 miles, reducing the 
need for submarines to enter straits-closed seas. : 
The first session of the Third U.N. Law of the Sea Conference con- 
vened in New York in November 1973 with discussion centering on 
procedural matters. Many of these were left unresolved and two addi- 
tional weeks were added to the beginning of the Caracas session 1n 
1974 for discussion of these matters. The initial lack of agreement on 
voting procedures and other preliminary matters marked an inau- 
spicious beginning for the Conference, and to some observers suggested 
great difficulties would arise in reaching future substantive agreements. 
In Caracas, the establishment of an international regime for deep 
seabed mineral exploitation was debated in Committee I. While the 
determination of the limits of national jurisdiction was placed in 
Committee II of the Conference, these limits bear directly on the work 
of Committee I. The major positions on this issue, as reflected in the 
first article of the draft proposals before Committee I, were (1) the 
limits of the Area (subject to international control of seabed resources) 
would be seaward of the limit of national jurisdiction established at 
the 500 meter isobath or 100 nautical miles from the coastal states 
baselines; (2) the limits of the Area would be the seaward limit of 
a Coastal Seabed Area of a breadth to be specified; and (3) the Area 
would commence at the lower edge of the continental margin or, if 
the edge were closer than 200 miles of the coast, then from a distance 
of 200 miles of the coast. In general, developing countries maintained 
claims to sovereignty or sovereign rights in a zone of 200 miles while 
allowing others only freedom of navigation, rights to lay cables and 
