566 
cussed later as preferred to the licensing authority set forth in the Declaration ) 
should be enough. ; : 
5. Many practices in ocean space, for example, recreation, require no supervision 
at all. 
6. There is built in here a “flag of convenience” problem. Which State, the State 
in which the particular persons involved have citizenship, or the State whose flag 
the vessel or enterprise is flying, shall be required to exert supervision? Are we 
going to require “a genuine link” between the persons engaged in activities in 
ocean space, or take the flag of convenience at face value? And what about such 
international entrepreneurs as Aristotle Onassis, generally thought of as a Greek, 
usually but not always operating through Greek corporations, but who happens 
to be a citizen of Argentina? Which nation will be required to exercise supervision 
over Mr. Onassis’ enterprises? 
7. Part III sets up an international licensing authority for exploration or ex- 
ploitation of ocean space. I respectfully submit that all of the purposes of this 
Declaration of Principles for ocean space could be accomplished by an interna- 
tional claim registry of the type recommended by the President’s Commission in 
its Report in February 1969, and that the creation of a licensing authority will in- 
troduce many complications and problems which would be avoided by the type of 
an international claim registry authority recommended by the President’s Com- 
mission. On pages 147-149 of the President’s Commission Report this international 
registry authority organization and functions are described in detail. In essence, 
the internationa] claim registry authority represents an international courthouse, 
at which mining claims could be filed on a first-come, first-recorded basis. This, I 
believe, would be acceptable to the mining industry. So long as the international 
registry authority goes no farther than this, it would be helpful in bringing order, 
regularity, and certainty into the mineral development of the deep ocean. 
In comparison with e claim registry system, a leasing or licensing system always 
interposes a government agency between the individual entrepreneur and his ac- 
tions, it lessens incentive, and restricts maximum and efficient development. Li- 
censing systems almost universally entail prior permissions, as Senate Resolution 
83 does, operating controls, and if deficient in the clarity of standards for resolv- 
ing disputes, as S. Resolution 33 may be, it interjects uncertainties which are not 
conducive to the undertaking of high risk, complicated mining ventures. 
From the point of view of the mining industry, the international claim registry 
authority proposed by the President’s Commission Report, “Our Nation and the 
Sea,” is to be preferred to any prior licensing requirement such as is set out by 
Senate Resolution 33. Furthermore, such a claim registry on a first-come, first- 
registered basis would accomplish all of the purposes apparently intended by the 
licensing authority proposed, and in a much simpler fashion. 
8. The whole approach reflected in Articles 3 and 1 of Part III is that States 
only can make application to the international licensing authority on either their 
own behalf or on behalf of their nationals. This reliance on the States only stems 
from the previous provisions that the States will exercise supervision over all 
activities of their nationals in international ocean space, which is a departure 
from existing law and will introduce some new complications. There are also 
some positive drawbacks to having any national government intervene between 
private enterprises and the international registry (or license) authority. For 
example, the offices of half a dozen mining companies are only a few blocks from 
the United Nations. If we were required to forward a mining claim to a Washing- 
ton bureau to pass on before it could be registered, there could be unfortunate 
delays and complications. If at any time while a mining claim, or a petroleum 
claim, was sitting on some Washington official’s desk, waiting for approval to be 
sent to the international registry or licensing authority and the Russians or the 
French filed ahead of it, there would be a justifiable howl from any American 
company. 
Why any government agency, for example, the Interior Department would 
want to assume this responsibility of filing claims on behalf of private companies 
is obscure. The persons or companies who explore and discover such mining 
claims are the most competent to draft and most interested in seeing that they 
are filed. Of course, the Department of the Interior might very well demand a 
record of such mining claims filed by U.S. nationals, and this would be a sensible 
provision. Or, there might be a provision for simultaneous filing with the inter- 
national registry authority and the national government in order to validate the 
claim. In order to discourage international speculators from claiming vast areas 
for the purpose of peddling, not development, perhaps endorsement by the claim- 
ants’ national government could be made a condition subsequent to validation. 
