565 
and many of these non-controversial sections are equally important with those 
on which I shall have some suggestions for change. 
The fundamental principle of this Declaration is found in Part I, Article 3: 
“Ocean space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by 
means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” It is not essential to have 
sovereignty, or fee simple title of ownership, to encourage a ‘development of min- 
eral resources. Article 3 does not rule out the necessary security of tenure to 
encourage natural resource development. 
_ The portions of this Declaration which give me the most concern, and which 
appear to need a reorientation, are found in Part I, Articles 5 and 6, and Part III, 
Articles 1 and 3. Let’s examine these four Articles together. 
Article 5 of Part I refers to “The activities of States in the exploration and 
exploitation of ocean space and its resources. .. .’’ There is no mention of the 
nationals of states here, while it is obvious that private enterprise historically 
has had the greatest role in the oceans and probably will so continue in the 
future. Again, in Article 6: “States bear international responsibility for national 
activities in ocean space. .. .” Article 6 goes on to say that the activities of non- 
governmental entities and nationals of states in ocean space “shall require au- 
thorization and continuing supervision by the State concerned.” Here again is 
the idea of the State either doing it all or being responsible for it, which is con- 
trary to both the existing legal and economic situation. Again, in Part III, Arti- 
cle 1, “States shall engage in such exploration or exploitation only under 1li- 
censes. . . .”’ There is no reference to “States or their nationals.” Again, in Ar- 
ticle 3 of Part III is a reiteration of the required authorization of the State for 
any activity by the nationals of that State in ocean space, comparable to Article 
6 of Part I. 
CONSIDERING THESE FOUR ARTICLES TOGETHER 
1. The whole philosophy of Articles 5 and 6 of Part I and Articles 1 and 3 
of Part III is that the States are going to do it all in ocean space. This is con- 
trary to previous history and contrary to what I think a reasonable prognosti- 
cation at this time would be. If the Declaration of Principles started at this 
point with the idea that most meaningful economic activities have been and 
are likely to be carried on by free private enterprise, at least by the Western- 
non-Socialist world, the Declaration of Principles would be drafted differently 
here and in several subsequent sections. This would not only avoid certain diffi- 
culties which I foresee, but would also actually work to accomplish the objec- 
tives of the Declaration, that is the development of ocean space for the benefit 
of all mankind, in a much more expeditious manner. 
2. With particular regard to Article 6 of Part I, “States bear international 
responsibility for national activities in ocean space, whether carried on by gov- 
ernmental agencies or non-governmental entities or nationals of such States,” 
this appears to broaden greatly State responsibility under existing law. To 
my mind, such an unqualified principle has never applied to maritime transport, 
to fishing, to recreation, to oil drilling, or to exploration or scientific experiment 
in the deep ocean. Would this make the U.S. Government liable in a case of a 
collision between a U.S. flag ship and the ship of another country in international 
waters, if the U.S. flag ship were at fault? Could a lone scuba diver, if operating 
in the deep ocean, implicate the United States? The objects of Article 6 appear 
to be to avoid conflicts in ocean space and to pin responsibility on parties big 
enough to shoulder the responsibility, ie., Governments. I submit that the same 
objectives can be achieved with existing legal principles and a much simpler 
mechanism, such as the Notice and International Claim Registry recommenda- 
tions of the President’s Commission. 
3. Further under Article 6, “The activities of non-government entities and 
nationals of States in ocean space shall require authorization and continuing 
supervision by the State concerned.” This would impose on each nation the 
exertion of an authority which probably few countries in the Western world 
exert at the present time. Surely each nation should be left to decide for itself 
what degree of supervision it will exercise over its own nationals. ; ; 
4, If there is set up either a licensing authority or an international claim regis- 
tration agency as recommended by the President’s Commission, surely minimum 
supervision over the nationals of an individual country should be sufficient. Com- 
pliance with the rules and regulations of the international claim registry (dis- 
