558 



of states to protect the marine environment. With respect to "dumping". 

 States would be obliged to minimize to the fullest possible extent the re- 

 lease of toxic substances. Interestingly, the definition of dumping 

 in the ICNT/Rev. 2 could be construed to include sub-seabed disposal, sj:nce 

 the double use of the phrase "at sea" has been deleted. Dumping is now 

 defined to mean, inter alia: 



. . . any deliberate disposal of wastes or other matter from 



58 



vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea. 

 In view of all the ambiguities of terminology and the qualifying words on 

 obligations, however, certainly this clause cannot be construed absolutely 

 to prohibit sub-seabed disposal. 



In addition to the articles on marine pollution and associated matters, 

 the important results of UNCLOS III for present purposes is the establish- 

 ment of a regime of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction. Under the 



59 

 proposed LOS text, the seabed is declared the common heritage of mankind. 



The United States previously recognized this status by voting in favor of 



General Assembly Resolution 2749 (XXV) in 1970; in the recently passed Deep 



Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, however. Congress has indicated that this 



resolution was signed in the expectation that a comprehensive LOS treaty 



60 

 would be agreed upon. One could argue therefore that the adherence of 



the U.S. to the common heritage concept was limited in scope and was in- 

 tended to be in connection with development of an international regime for 

 the exploitation of seabed minerals. In addition, the text of the General 

 Assembly resolution speaks primarily about the resources of the seabed (in 

 addition to its environment as discussed above) ; one could also argue 

 that the acquiescence of the U.S. in its principles was limited to mineral 



