590 
the extent permitted by the dual criteria of exploitability and adjacency. This 
interpretation, both for the general and the special case, is supported by the 
findings of many qualified bodies which have studied the matter, by the history 
of the negotiation of the Convention, by its legislative history in the U.S. Senate. 
and by the subsequent practice of coastal nations, including the United States 
in granting concessions or leases in progressively deeper waters. 
While the matter does not appear to have been specifically discussed in the 
preparatory works leading to the Convention, the language selected would also 
appear broad enough to permit the United States and other coastal nations, in 
appropriate cases, to claim natural resources jurisdiction to the median line of 
semienclosed seas, regardless of their depth, under the same twin criteria of 
of exploitability and adjacency. 
* s & * s s s 
The 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf clearly confirmed the rights 
of the United States, and other coastal nations, to jurisdiction of the seabed and 
subsoil mineral resources of the submerged portion of the continent adjacent to 
their shores. Thus this jurisdiction extends over the continental shelf, the con- 
tinental slope, and at least the landward portion of the continental rise. The 
United States should promptly and forthrightly assert these rights, while recog- 
nizing similar rights of other coastal nations. Not to do so—in the light of our 
present and future energy needs—is risking our vital national interests and se- 
eurity and that of our allies as well. 
Certainly no consideration should be given to the relinquishment of any of our 
legitimate rights to offshore areas confirmed to the United States by the Con- 
vention on the Continental Shelf. The petroleum potential of this submerged 
region is largely unknown, but in many areas it may be substantial. If it is, then 
the region is of critical importance with respect to this Nation’s future energy 
requirements. Any attempt now to restrict the area of U.S. mineral jurisdiction 
to less than that already recognized under the Geneva Convention would be 
patently a needless and dangerous give-away of a vital segment of the American 
mineral estate, which this Nation cannot afford to relinquish. 
It is desirable that the United States and other parties to the 1958 Conven- 
tion, with such additional nations as care to join them, promulgate parallel uni- 
form declarations along the lines recommended herein, stating the extend of their 
rights (and the limitations on those rights) under the 1958 Convention on the 
Continental Shelf. 
* * * * *% * * 
Beyond the bounds of national sovereignty and the limits of exclusive coastal- 
nation jurisdiction over subsea mineral resources lie the deeper or more remote 
oceanic areas constituting more than 80 percent of the total ocean-covered area of 
the world. 
International law imposes no prohibition upon the freedom of a state or its 
nationals to explore or exploit the resources of the bed of the high seas, if this 
freedom is exercised with reasonable regard for the interests of other states in 
their exercise of high-seas freedoms. Although general rules of international law 
may not be sufficiently detailed to provide the necessary certainty for long-range 
mineral exploitation in this deep-ocean region, these rules will constitute the legal 
framework for any introductory activity that may occur for some years to come. 
* * * * * * * 
Even though existing international legal principles are sufficient to govern pre- 
liminary deep-seabed activities, national regulation in matters of state jurisdiction 
and national consideration of long-term arrangements concerning the seabed 
should reflect policies which will encourage rather than deter production, recov- 
ery, and use of deep-ocean minerals. These include policy objectives such as 
(a) encouraging exploration for and production of resources at reasonable con- 
sumer cost consistent with a fair return to the investor; (b) encouraging max- 
imum efficient recovery through the use of proper conservation practices; (c) 
facilitating responsible mineral development on a nondiscriminatory basis; and 
(d) reconciling competing uses of the environment and minimizing adverse effect 
of mineral operations on that environment. 
In harmonizing competing uses in deep-ocean areas, each use should be consid- 
ered upon its own merit and significance, and no particular use should be 
considered as having any per se priority over another use. 
* * * ¥ * * * 
