580 
In the Commission’s view, mineral resources of the deep sea do not in fairness 
or law belong to the coastal states to the exclusion of other states from their 
benefits. 
However, the Commission recognizes that some coastal states may regard 
themselves as having preferential rights to resources of a reasonable subsea area 
beyond the treaty shelf and also have a national security interest in adjacent 
offshore areas. For these reasons, some coastal states might be reluctant to agree 
to a narrow treaty shelf without recognition of their particular interests in the 
area immediately beyond. 
As a compromise of the foregoing opposing views, the Report recommends the 
creation of an intermediate zone of seabed, seaward of the treaty shelf as defined 
by the Commission, to the 2,500 meter isobath or 100 nautical miles from the 
baseline of the territorial sea, whichever gives the greater area. The boundary 
would be permanently fixed as in the case of the shelf. The Commission assumes 
that the 2,500 meter isobath is the average depth at the foot of the geological 
continental terrace or slope and 100 miles is the average width of the shelf and 
slope or terrace. (Geologists do not all agree that these assumptions are true or 
relevant). 
Only the coastal state or its licensees would be authorized to explore and ex- 
ploit resources therein. It need not do so, but if it does so, its claims must be 
registered with the Authority and would come under the other terms and condi- 
tions of the international regime. 
Comment 
This proposal is essentially an effort by the Commission to propitiate the pro- 
ponents of a broad treaty shelf. Many of the arguments summarized earlier with 
regard to the proper limit of the shelf are also applicable, pro and con, to this 
intermediate zone concept. If the Commission’s intermediate zone proposal were 
adopted, in conjunction with a narrow shelf, foreign coastal nations would have 
exactly the Same power to exclude American companies, or to demand burden- 
some concession terms, as they would have if their jurisdiction were commen- 
surate with a broad shelf extending to the 2,500 meter isobath or other outer 
limit of the proposed intermediate zone. Such a zone has, however, other draw- 
backs, of which the most weighty is perhaps its sheer awkwardness. Areas sub- 
ject to divided responsibility are rarely viable, as the history of condominia and 
internationalized zones in international law indicates. 
‘On balance, we are opposed to this proposal. 
An alternative proposal which has been put forward would call for complete 
coastal state authority over the zone but would provide for some kind of pay- 
ments to the International Fund. Such an arrangement would be less objection- 
able, but it might lessen the incentives to the coastal state and its licensees to 
push on with development. It is also possible to foresee administrative difficulties 
under this system as well. 
In closing, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate this oppor- 
tunity to present the views of the American Bar Association and of cer- 
tain of its sections and committees. I again caution that the bar associ- 
ation speaks only through resolutions of the house of delegates. The 
additional items that I read to you from reports represent the views of 
the sections. What I have interpolated, and shall say in answer to your. 
questions, represents my own views. I do ask leave to include as part of 
my statement three appendices. 
Appendix A is a resolution of the house of delegates which is in- 
corporated in the report of the sections. 
Appendix B is a legislative history of the 1958 convention on the 
Continental Shelf which has been prepared under my direction but is 
not a part of the American Bar Association resolution or reports. 
Appendix C is another memorandum prepared under my direction, 
captioned “Coastal State Mineral Jurisdiction and the Contintental 
Margin: A Survey of National Practice.” This is adapted from appen- 
dix F to the National Petroleum Council report but is not a part of the 
resolution or reports [ referred to, 
