587 
the best way for the law to develop. I agree with you that if you try to 
blueprint too much into the future, what is going to effectively control 
the meeting of peoples and the meeting between peoples and conditions 
not yet tried, you are on a very unsound foundation. 
Mr. Exy. In these bar association reports and that of the American 
Branch Committee of the International Law Association, you will 
find the theme developed that for the next 10 or 20 years, perhaps, 
what is needed to preserve good order is agreement among the major 
nations which are in fact capable of carrying out operations in the 
very deep sea that they will operate as good neighbors and not jump 
each other’s claims, or interfere with each other. Out of that, bit by bit, 
you will be able to develop formal law. 
Mr. Hanna. Wouldn’t it help if we were able to put into expression 
in a little more understandable way and to make more readily available 
some of the great body of existing law of the sea, which many people 
who are now becoming interested are completely unaware of and there- 
fore come in and create problems that would not exist if they were 
made more aware of what really exists? 
Mr. Exy. I think you have made a very good point. 
Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Lennon. Mr. Ely, in what you have stated here today you find 
yourself in disagreement with that part of the Commission’s report 
which suggests an international organization such as we had recom- 
mended in IRA, I believe it was, and also you differ with the Senator 
who was here this morning with respect to the international owner- 
ship of certain areas of the sea. 
That is a general way of stating it, but that is in substance true; is 
it not ? 
Mr. Exy. If I might respond first as to NOAA, as I understand, 
that is intended to be a wholly domestic reorganization. I have not 
testified as to that. 
Mr. Lennon. I used the wrong word. The recommendation of the 
witness who preceded you was that in substance he agreed with the 
governmental structure at the domestic level as well as the Commission 
aspect, but his statement with respect, and the Commission’s report 
with respect to the ownership by an international organization of 
some of our seabed beyond the Continental Shelf—you differ with that. 
don’t you? 
Mr. Exy. I respectfully differ from Senator Pell’s presentation here 
today in two respects: First, as to what the United States now has; 
second, as to the wisdom of negotiating a new convention restricting 
our claims on the continental margin. ‘ 
First, as to what we now have: In my opinion, the existing national 
jurisdiction of the United States, in the dual sense of (1) the power 
to exclude others from exploitation of seabed resources per article 2, 
paragraph 2, of the convention, and (2) the possession of exclusive 
sovereign rights to explore and exploit seabed resources, per article 2, 
paragraph 1, of the convention, now encompasses the whole continental 
landmass adjacent to our coasts, down to the junction of the con- 
tinent with the abyssal ocean floor. I base this conclusion on the lan- 
guage of the convention and its legislative history. Some, reading 
article 1 only with the first paragraph of article 2, not paragraph 2. 
26-563 O—70—pt. 2-6 
