568 
the extent of “ocean space adjacent”? How far beyond the continental shelf is 
“adjacent’’? 
In Article 4(d) immediately following, the words “in that area’’ apparently 
refer to this “adjacent” area. To avoid disputes as to whatever follows from 
these provisions, “that area” and the consequences of being in “that area” 
should be defined more clearly. 
Under Article 4(e) an effort is made to reconcile exploitation of natural 
resources of the seabed with other possibly conflicting economic uses of the sea. 
Yet there is no attempt made here or in other parts of the Declaration to recon- 
cile the exploitation of natural resources with military use. There should be, 
even if it is contemplated that a separate treaty will proscribe permanent 
military installations on the deep sea bottom. There will always be mobile military 
uses which should be recognized. 
With reference to Article 7 of Part III, the power of the licensing authority 
to suspend, modify, or prohibit the projected activity or experiment which on the 
allegation of another State might cause potentially harmful interference with 
its activities, could be used to stymie exploitation and development for years, or 
to block military activity perhaps. This kind of power really does not need to be 
vested in the licensing authority itself, but should be part of an overall settlement 
of disputes mechanism connected with the Principles regulating ocean space. 
Again, the placing of this type of power in the licensing authority might be 
considered a logical outgrowth of the concept of licensing itself. If the basic con- 
cept were an international registry authority, a much simpler mechanism, then 
probably this type of power would not even be thought necessary, another illustra- 
tion of the advantages of a simple claim registry system as compared to a 
licensing authority. 
Under Article 8 of Part III, I would suggest some provision in regard to the 
safeguard of proprietary information after any inspection either by the licensing 
authority or the Sea Guard. 
I note that under Article 9 there has been an insertion of the right of the 
license owner to correct any failures of compliance, which had been recommended 
in regard to the Draft Treaty introduced by Senator Pell. Also, under Article 16, 
the tribunal for the adjudication of disputes is required to render a decision 
within a period of ninety days, which is a great improvement over the Draft 
Treaty. 
In regard ‘to the review of disputes provisions in Articles 12 through 16, how- 
ever, I would say this. A review authority is needed. It should insure prompt, 
fair, and respected adjudication. The provision for ultimate compulsory review 
by the World Court may cause some States 'to shy away from the whole concept 
of this Declara'tion of Principles. 
If this Declaration of Principles were modified in the ways suggested, a great 
amount of the political overtones of the Declaration of Principles would be elim- 
inated, and it would stand as the enunciation of Principles for the economic 
development of ocean space, which along with the reduction of chances of conflict 
appears to be the basic purpose of this Declaration of Principles. 
It would also be wise, whatever review tribunal is set up, to permit private 
parties to litigate on their own in the appellate form. This illustrates again the 
wisdom of allowing private parties to be the original applicants for either licenses 
or claim registry. This will serve to de-escalate disputes, which inevitably will 
arise in regard to deep ocean mineral resources, to private commercial arguments, 
instead of major political issues between sovereign States. 
Turning now to Part IV, Use of the Seabed and Subsoil of Ocean Space for 
Peaceful Purposes Only, I submit that the logical purpose of preserving the sea- 
bed for peaceful purposes only can best be accomplished separately, not in a 
Declaration of Principles primarily devoted to the regulation of the seabed for 
commercial purposes. You will recall that the military provisions were separately 
considered in the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee, and I believe are now being 
taken up as part of the general disarmament negotiations. In the U.N. Ad Hoc 
Committee the United States introduced two separate resolutions, one dealing 
with the economic development of the deep ocean, and the other dealing with the 
purely military considerations. 
You will also recall that the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf gave the 
coastal state “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its 
natural resources.” This was a limited extension of the coastal states’ powers 
for a limited purpose. It is sufficient to insure the development of the mineral 
