570 
international waters and the taking of mineral resources of the deep ocean seabed 
and subsoil. In a nutshell, the use of the ocean surface and the water column 
beneath belongs to everyone, and can therefore be appropriated by no one; the 
fish and other living organisms, the mineral resources of the deep ocean seabed 
and subsoil, belong to on one, and can therefore be appropriated by anyone; 
anyone engaged in the use of the seas and utilization of its resources in accord- 
ance with these rules is entitled under international law to be undisturbed in 
his exercise of such rights. 
However, the present legal rules may not envisage a United States national 
merely staking a claim on the ocean floor, then leaving the area unoccupied 
returning to it without challenge by an actual occupant. Nor is there the other 
certainty and specificity of mining rules necessary to justify a large-scale invest- 
ment in a fixed location mineral development at the present time. - 
Exactly when such specific rules will be needed is impossible to predict at this 
time; it depends on the march of technology now proceeding at a rather rapid 
pace. Within a decade we probably will be testing a system of “harvesting” 
nodules. Whether it will be commercially profitable is another matter. Mining the 
ocean bottom, if it comes at all, will be much later. 
‘Since the large-scale development of any mineral resources in the deep ocean 
may require a detailed specific regime which does not now exist, and the articula- 
tion of this detailed legal regime is interlinked with the location of the boundary 
of the continental shelf, it is not too soon to be thinking seriously about where the 
poundary should be and of what the international legal regime and organizational 
structure should consist. For the mining industry this interrelation of location 
and legal regime accelerates the need for boundary location. ‘ 
The seabed and subsoil of these international ocean areas, on all present knowl- 
edge, contain much the greater part of the resources attractive to the hard mineral 
industry. 
In terms of both industry and national interest, an international legal and poli- 
tical framework applicable to these resources is therefore a matter of immediate 
concern. It will take time to do this, thus working out an acceptable international 
legal regime is an important part of our planning today. In this planning, we are 
fully justified in carefully balancing our potential but not yet realized continental 
shelf claims against the kind of international legal regime we want. 
'The President’s Commission recommended a formula for establishing the bound- 
ary between the area of national jurisdiction and the international zone, and 
simultaneously recognized that there is an important interrelation between the 
boundary location and the characteristics of the legal regime on either side of the 
boundary. 
Obviously, if a detailed international legal regime and organizational structure 
can be worked out that is highly encouraging to free private enterprise in the 
development of the mineral resources of the deep ocean, a narrow continental shelf 
would be acceptable. In such a situation a narrow continental shelf would mean 
that U.S. private industry would have access to mineral resources on favorable 
terms, whether on the U.S. continental shelf or in the international zone, and most 
importantly would have the advantage that the continental shelves of other 
coastal states around the world would be narrow. We thus would have unrestricted 
access to vast areas of the deep ocean which otherwise could be locked up by 
coastal states, and even on the shelves of the coastal states, the availability of 
favorable terms in the international area would put competitive pressure on the 
coastal states to grant reasonable terms on their continental shelves. 
On the other hand, if either an international legal regime and organizational 
structure unfavorable to free enterprise development is worked out, or no legal 
regime with the requisite certainty and specificity of rules is formulated at all, 
then the argument will be irresistible for a broad Treaty Continental Shelf in 
order that American industry have the certainty of operating under known and 
established rules. Hopefully, these would be favorable to private industry on the 
U.S. continental shelf and on the continental shelves of at least some other 
coastal nations around the world. 
_ The President’s Commission cautioned that its “major recommendations are 
interrelated.” I submit that so are the Principles embodied in Senate Resolution 
33. Whether in regard to these or other proposals in negotiation, this illustrates 
U.S. bargaining in the international arena must be extremely careful not to 
commit ourselves to one essential element until all essential elements are safely 
under control. 
