34 



desired to support that organization wholehearedly, they certainly could do 

 so without resorting to the sea at this stage in time. Certainly a restructuring 

 of the General Assembly would be a necessary requirement before the major 

 I)Owers would agree to permit it to dispose of large amounts of money obtained 

 independent of their control, but in reality, at their expense. Current political 

 realities make this a necessity. 



Certainly, the U.N. presently has enough administrative problems with which 

 to deal. It can ill afford additional burdens at this point. It has recently become 

 all too evident that the U.N. has a long way to go in its maturation process. 

 Doubts must be raised to the U.N. plan with respect to two of the three listed 

 criteria : acceptability and feasibility. 



The rather dramatic and immediate demonstration of how more effective in- 

 ternational and regional programs can play in the exploitation of the ocean bed 

 can be seen in the arrangements now being worked out for the extrication of 

 gas from under the North Sea. 



By the multilateral determination of the interested countries along general 

 principles offshore ownership of the gas and other mineral deposits under the 

 North Sea have been extended along a median in that body of water. The median 

 lies between two masses of land and is supplemented by unilateral agreements 

 on the actual division line of arc segments coining from sovereign coasts. Because 

 of this, understandings are emerging which make a peaceful, productive and 

 equitable solution to the North Sea problem appear eminent. 



The thrust of our argument questioned whether having this matter within the 

 jurisdiction of the United Nations would have unscrambled this situation in 

 anywhere near the time frame than this more practical handling was able to, 

 nor could we predict that United Nations handling would have provided any 

 more equity than that which was worked out on a regional basis. 



There are broad ramifications that can make a very definite contribution to 

 the emerging patterns of the body of law relating to the resources of the sea 

 where competing national interests impinge one upon the other. The North Sea 

 experience suggests positive ramifications. 



A large portion of the law will have to come into being based upon practical 

 experiences similar to that resulting from the North Sea situation where the 

 benefits of cooperation easily outweigh the benefits which may accrue from an 

 antagonistic and aggressive posture. 



The world's existing mineral laws, operating above the sea have evolved in 

 an orderly manner from centuries of struggle with problems far less complex 

 than these. Together with a maturation of the U.N., we ought to look toward a 

 maturation of the law of the sea, before burdening it with additional, and perhaps 

 naive codes. It would be wise to let the scientists precede the lawyers in this 

 field. Case law seems far more practical than codes prefabricated in an un- 

 knowledgeable vacuum. 



The issues are highly complex, the political dangers great, and the economic 

 consequences potentially enormous. A great degree of caution is vitally necessary. 



Mr. Rogers. I might say to the gentleman from California that I 

 share your concern about the Church proposal. I would hope very 

 much that the Council and the Commission, if they are also consider- 

 ing this, would certainly consider all other alternatives before they 

 even give consideration to the Church proposal. I think it would be a 

 great error for us to throw into the United Nations the ownership 

 of the bottom of the seas simply on some hopeful theory that they may 

 be able to finance themselves out of this. 



This seems to be the main concern of trying to get some money for 

 the United Nations. I think this is far beyond what would be in the 

 interest of this Nation, and I hope that we could take a very strong 

 stand against such a position. 



Mr. Pellt. I think you might rather turn over the resources of the 

 moon to them than the resources of the sea. 



Mr. Rogers. I think the gentleman has made a good point. 



Mr. Hanna. Very, very good. 



Mr. Edwards. I think we could say that that is a bipartisan position. 



Mr. Rogers. Mr. Reinecke? 



