487 



Mr. Pelly. That is my exact question. Would you prefer to submit 

 your opinion on this issue for the record ? It certainly is of vital inter- 

 est to all of us on this subcommittee, as well as the full committee. 



Mr. Pollack. We obviously do not have the answer to the question 

 at this moment. 



Mr. Pelly. Nevertheless, I would like to know the opinion of the De- 

 partment of State. It is of vital interest to us. I think it only fair not 

 to presume that anyone could give an off-the-cuff opinion on such an 

 important matter. 



Mr. Lennon". I assume the gentleman is requesting the Department 

 of State and the Department of Justice to furnish for the record an 

 explicit definitive answer on the question of the gentleman from Wash- 

 ington as supplemented by the remarks of the gentleman from Ala- 

 bama. Would there be any objection to doing that '^ 



Mr. Pollack. No, sir ; we will do our best to supply the answer to the 

 question. 



Mr. Lennon". I hope it will be illuminating. 



(The information follows :) 



U.S. Jurisdiction Over the Continental Shelf 



The question has been raised whether any diminution in the nature or extent 

 of US jurisdiction over the continental shelf, as provided for in the Convention 

 on the Continental Shelf, could be accomplished by treaty, or whether the action 

 of both Houses of Congress would be required. 



Broadly speaking, there are two sorts of international arrangements con- 

 cerning the continental shelf to which the above question may be addressed. 

 One such type of arrangement would involve divestment of U.S. jurdisdiction 

 over its continental shelf. There has been no proposal that we enter into any 

 arrangement of the first type nor do we contemplate doing so. 



The other sort of arrangement would involve clarifying or supplementing 

 the Convention on the Continental Shelf by providing a more precise delimitation 

 of the extent of the continental shelf. Such an arrangement would be in the 

 nature of a boundary determination which typically has been accomplished 

 by treaty- rather than legislation. 



Mr. Pelly. I think that such a legal opinion is something all of us 

 want very much, especially in view of the Malta Resolution. 



I have one or two other questions which I have noted on your very 

 fine prepared statement. Referring to page 14 of your statement where 

 you cite the remarks of Ambassador Goldberg, you say he pointed out 

 that the deep ocean floor should not become a stage for competing 

 national sovereignties. Rather, it should be open to exploration and use 

 by all states, without discrimination. 



What I would like to know is what did Mr. Goldberg mean when 

 he talked of "without discrimination"'? Does this mean that if you 

 are a nation which does not have any coastal areas of your own, you 

 have a full free right to go into somebody else's coastal area? I think 

 it would be interesting to get some clarification of that particular 

 statement. Would you like to submit that for the record or are you 

 prepared to answer now ? 



Mr, Pollack. It should be pointed out we are speaking here about 

 the deep ocean floor rather than the coastal areas. 



Mr. Pelly. If it is subject to development by a coastal state beyond 

 the Continental Shelf, then it seems to me imder the 1958 Geneva 

 Convention there are exclusive rights given to the coastal states to 

 exploit any resources that might be there if they can do so. 



