^1 



and suggestions frequently have as their genesis the basis that this is an area for 

 potential agreement and the assumption that such agreements cannot pose a 

 material threat to national security. It has been suggested that there is some 

 similarity between this concept and the limitations that have been imposed in 

 Antarctica and outer space. On the other hand, in relation to general conflict 

 management, it may prove most desirable to separate weapons from the popula- 

 tions and the sea could play a special role in this effort. The escalation potential 

 of war at sea should be much less than war near civilian populations. Of course 

 several nations already have the capacity to use the deep seas for military pur- 

 poses, so that any effort to limit military uses will require the same sort of effec- 

 tive international control that is needed for other types of disarmament. 



Some Particular Legal Interests 



In the field of International Law, there have been and will continue to be 

 special military interests in the following areas : 



1. Seaward extension of territorial waters and the contiguous zone. The United 

 States has for years followed the principle of the three-mile limit. Some other 

 nations, for economic or other reasons, have claimed that territorial waters exist 

 out to four, six, twelve and even two hundred miles. These claims have been 

 resisted, albeit somewhat unsuccessfully, by the United States. The future devel- 

 opment of this doctrine is of considerable importance to our military posture. 



2. Seaward extension of jurisdiction and sovereign rights on the continental 

 shelf. With respect to this proposal, some of you may note — what about the fact 

 that the United States Continental Outer Shelf Lands Act of 1953 unilaterally 

 proclaimed jurisdiction on the seabed of the continental shelf subject to the full 

 force and effect of the Constitution and the laws pursuant thereto? Didn't this 

 conflict with the Treaty on the Continental Shelf which limited sovereignty to 

 exploration and exploitation ? Presumptively, the Treaty which was ratified after 

 enactment of the statute is superior to the internal legislation. In any event the 

 act and Treaty both serve to protect private enterprise against unfair competi- 

 tion, theft, unsurpation of claims, and outright piracy in the exploitation of 

 the ocean. 



3. Establishment of jurisdiction and rights on the seabed of the deep ocean. 

 We must remain alert to advances in technology in this area. For the time be- 

 ing, however, in the absence of clear developmental directions, perhaps our 

 wisest course of action would be to adopt a "wait and see" attitude. 



4. Vertical extension from the continental shelves and seabed. It is only 

 natural that nations in the future will attempt to claim rights on the waters 

 above these areas by extension from the rights of the areas themselves. This 

 will inevitably affect freedom to operate on the high seas of the world. 



5. Modifications in the law of air and space over the seas. Control of air and 

 space over the seas is presently limited to control of the air (not space) over 

 the territorial waters and land areas belonging to a state. Any extension of these 

 controls would appear to violate current basic freedom of movement. Control of 

 the high seas in a military sense depends to a great extent upon control of the 

 air above the high seas. The United States should therefore carefully regard 

 any proposal to restrict the free use of the air over an area that is not terri- 

 torial waters, and indeed should be cautious with respect to space agreements 

 that might impede future use of satellites in ocean surveillance. 



6. Introduction of international jurisdictions in the ocean. International sov- 

 ereignty over ocean bottom areas has been suggested with the view of charging 

 fees for some uses of them. Proposals of this sort frequently look to the improve- 

 ment of the underdeveloped nations. Potential benefits of such proposals must 

 be weighed against the implications to United States security of vesting even 

 informal control of the seabed in ah international organization. 



From the standpoint of the United States military capabilities, it would ap- 

 pear to be generally advantageous if claims of the seabed were limited to ex- 

 ploration and exploitation. The right of military surveillance could be endan- 

 gered by permitting establishment of sovereignty or control jurisdiction, either 

 by nations or international bodies, over the sea bottom. 



It is militarily desirable to — 



(1) minimize any extension of territorial seas ; 



(2) closely limit sovereignty over the continental shelves ; and 



(3) maintain freedom of the air space above the high seas. 



