31 



Tinder seas. This is not to say that some role cannot in the early stages be as- 

 sumed by the United Nations. Nor is it to deny that ultimately, that role may 

 wisely be expanded. 



Pragmatically, it strikes us that the more productive approach would be in 

 limited stages, closely associated with practical problems as they occur, and 

 the gradual working out of problems of cooperation within a framework of in- 

 ternationally binding law. 



During the period in which modern international law evolved, the bed of the 

 sea and its subsoil were technologically inacessible, As a result, no specific doc- 

 trine was developed as to ownership and exploitation of submerged areas. 

 Whether the exercise of sovereignty over the territorial seas and contiguous 

 zones included a like or lesser control of the subsoil and seabed was not a matter 

 of practical or legal importance. 



Unilateral action regarding sponges and pearls — in areas called fisheries — 

 represented the initial attempt to control areas of seabed. In English juris- 

 prudence, the isolated incidents of litigation and subsoil rights were brought 

 by the Crown as a result of the extension of mine shafts beneath territorial 

 seas. 



Nonetheless, two general principles have evolved which could be applied. One 

 is the Roman doctrine of res communis, or common to all. This has provided the 

 basis for the generally accepted doctrine of freedom of the seas. Institutions 

 of this doctrine would prevent any establishment of national sovereignty. The 

 second doctrine, is that of res nullius, or belonging to none. Such a doctrine 

 would permit the acquisition and extension of sovereignty into such areas as 

 were not already occupied. The two doctrines, of course, are incompatible. 



It has been only recently, when modern technology has made it feasible and 

 profitable to drill oil wells into the subsoil, and when projections of future inter- 

 related demands for energy, water, and minerals from the sea have been estab- 

 lished, that the importance of ownership of the seabed and subsoil has become 

 fully recognized. 



In 1945, President Harry Truman issued a landmark proclamation in which 

 he expressed the view that — 



"The exercise of jurisdiction over the natural resources of the subsoil and 

 seabed of the Continental Shelf by the contiguous Nation is reasonable and just." 



And proclaimed further : 



"The Government of the United States regards the natural resources of the 

 subsoil and seabed of the Continental Shelf beneath the high seas but contigu- 

 ous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States (and) 

 subject to its jursidiction and control." 



This, however, could be explained as a domestic matter in the historic sense. 

 Soon, however, in light of the new technological capabilities, it became necessary 

 to extend the width of territorial waters and to establish contiguous zones, 

 formerly regarded as high seas areas. 



As a result, the Convention on the Continental Shelf attempted to establish a 

 method for national control over the seabed and subsoil of the Continental Shelf, 

 so that sovereignty over the superjacent waters would not be extended. Unfor- 

 tunately, the Convention adopted a double standard for establishing the limits 

 within which the coastal state may exercise "sovereign rights for the purpose of 

 exploring and exploiting" the Continental Shelf. The first article of the Con- 

 vention provides that — 



"The term 'continental shelf is used as referring (a) to the seabed and sub- 

 soil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the 

 territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth 

 of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of 

 the said areas; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas ad- 

 jacent to the coasts of islands." 



And the second article then declares that — 



"1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for 

 the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. 



"2. The rights referred to in paragraph one of this article are exclusive in the 

 sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit 

 its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities, or make a claim to 

 the continental shelf, without the express consent of the coastal State. 



"3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on 

 occupation, effective or national or on any express proclamation." 



