l!9 



in this direction which, it seems to me, is reenacting when we discovered 

 the New World. 



You gentlemen will recall, or your history will tell you that there was 

 a papal bull that divided the whole New World even before people 

 had a good map of it. That papal bull really did too much for what 

 was involved as to who controlled what in the New World, and I don't 

 know that the U.N. would be in any better position than the Pope 

 was at that time. 



In fact, I don't think they are probably as good. They don't have 

 any troops and they don't have some of that other persuasion that 

 the Pope had. Although the Senator's view is pretty exciting, it seems 

 to go ahead of the game. 



The law is a living framework and it goes with experience and de- 

 velopment. Isn't it true that in the North Sea we are seeing the devel- 

 opment of international law following a more pragmatic and practical 

 approach in law? Wouldn't you say so? 



Dr. Wenk. Your observation about the North Sea is absolutely 

 correct, Mr. Hanna. This is a rather interesting time in history in that 

 we do have an opportunity to develop a better understanding of the 

 uses of the resources of the sea and to clarify questions of sovereignty 

 before we get into a shooting match over these resources. 



The convention that one of your gentlemen referred to earlier, I 

 guess Mr. Keith, that was ratified in 1964, clarified this picture with 

 regard to seabed resources on the Continental Shelf. It defined that 

 shelf as the adjacent land to a depth of 200 meters, roughly 600 feet. 

 Mr. Hanna. If you will yield there, wasn't there some Mickey 

 Mouse language in these that said in addition to the 200 meters or to 

 that depth at which there could be demonstrated a practical extraction ? 

 Mr. Rogers. Ability to exploit. 



Dr. Wenk. That is correct. It said out to a depth to which it was 

 practical to exploit, but only out to a median line which would be im- 

 plicitly a line drawn in the ocean midway between the coasts of two 

 nations facing each other. 



Median lines must also be established when nations are along the 

 same coast. The North Sea is a good example of where they had to 

 be negotiated. In most instances, such a boundary at sea is arnbiguous 

 until nations agree themselves as to what it shall be, and these may be 

 developed on a bilateral basis. With one or two exceptions, agreements 

 in the North Sea — have proved satisfactory. 



With regard to extension of sovereignty to deeper water, the defini- 

 tion of the median line not only becomes fuzzier, as you suggest, but 

 it raised some very serious questions. We can take the case of the 

 Atlantic Ocean by way of example. Most of us would immediately 

 think about the Atlantic coast of this country giving us access at least 

 to half of that Atlantic Ocean. But when you constder that there are 

 other nations facing on this same body of water : Cuba, Canada ; from 

 the other side, the Azores belonging to Portugal; a small island be- 

 longing to France where the question of this extension from a small 

 island is just as potent as from a major continental boundary, we 

 immediately see that the complex geography including the question of 

 our own national interest is not as clear as it might be. 



For this very reason we are studying this question intensively at 

 the present time. 



