588 
argue that the sovereign rights of the coastal nation do not come into 
existence until, and as, exploration and exploitation proceed at greater 
and greater depths. But the question of whether those “sovereign 
rights” of the coastal nation come into existence in futuro, or encom- 
passed the whole area ab initio, is reduced to an exercise in semantics 
by article 2, paragraph 2, which says that the rights referred to in 
paragraph 1 of that article “are exclusive in the sense that if the 
coastal State does not explore the Continental Shelf’’—defined in arti- 
cle 1 as the submarine areas adjacent to the coast to a depth of 200 me- 
ters, or, beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters 
admits of the the exploration of the natura] resources of the said 
areas—then “no one may undertake these activities.” 
To clinch this, article 2, paragraph 3, says that these exclusive rights 
of the coastal nation to exploit that area, and to exclude others there- 
from, are not dependent upon occupation. These are permanently pro- 
tected rights, no matter how long a time may elapse before exploitation 
becomes technologically feasible, and they encompass the whole conti- 
nental margin. This is what the Ciudad Trujillo Declaration meant 
when it proclaimed the jurisdiction of the American nations over the 
submarine resources of the whole continental terrace, “from the edge 
of the shelf to the greatest depths.” When the Senate gave its consent 
to the Convention on the Continental Shelf, it had before it the repre- 
sentation of the State Department that the exploitability language of 
article 1, “the clause which protects the right to utilize advances in tech- 
nology at greater depths beneath the oceans was supported by the 
United States and was in keeping with the inter-American conclusions 
at Ciudad Trujillo in 1956.” This is the present limit on, and interna- 
tional recognition of, exclusive American jurisdiction, and it has no 
relation to depth of water. This limit is controlled only by the identifi- 
cation of the area as a prolongation of the territory occupied by the 
United States. This, in short, is what we now have, and it is valuable 
beyond all estimate. Any new agreement which would establish a limit 
on American “sovereign rights” to seabed minerals at a line which is 
landward of the submerged edge of the continent would give away a 
priceless asset of the American people. 
Second, I disagree with proposals for a new convention. If I under- 
stand Senator Pell correctly, he does not find in this existing Conti- 
nental Shelf Convention any limit on coastal jurisdiction. The Com- 
mission didn’t find any. As 'I understand Senator Pell, and perhaps I 
misunderstood him, he would write a new limitation, by a new con- 
vention at 550 meters, or some distance from land. The Commission 
proposes a new agreement—an agreement, presumably to be brought 
about by a new convention or protocol, at 200 meters or 50 miles from 
land. 
I disagree with both those recommendations for two reasons. First, 
I think it would be fatal to the interests of the United States to con- 
voke a new conference to replace the existing convention with a new 
one. We have not the slightest idea what could come out of Pandora’s 
box if it were opened in this way. 
Second, I believe that the existing convention does give us rights 
which these two proposals would surrender, and accomplish nothing 
in return. If the deep sea regime, beyond the line of national jurisdic- 
tion, as proposed by Senator Pell or as proposed by the Commission— 
