653 
(3) We reaffirm our opinion that the United States should assert to the full the 
rights over adjacent submarine areas now vested in it by the shelf convention and 
by general international law. 
(4) We reaffirm our opinion that claims to rights in excess of those recognized 
in the Shelf Convention (such as rights over the superjacent waters, nonseden- 
tary fisheries, or airspace) are invalid extensions of the continental shelf doctrine, 
and should be so regarded by the United States. 
The position stated in these comments necessarily leads us to disagreee with 
the Commission’s recommendation, already quoted, that the United States should 
take the initiative to secure international agreement on a seaward limit for the 
legal shelf at the 200-meter line (or 50 miles offshore, whichever is greater). Both 
these limits have now been exceeded in practice, and they must be regarded as 
obsolete. We also disagree with the proposed initiative to seek international 
agreement if this means the convocation of a formal conference for that purpose. 
D. The regime beyond the treaty shelf 
The Commission Report recommends (p. 147) 
“that the United States seize the opportunity for leadership which the present 
situation demands and propose a new international legal-political framework for 
exploration and exploitation of the mineral resources underlying the deep seas, 
that is, the high seas beyond the outer limits of the Continental Shelf as redefined 
in accordance with the Commission’s recommendations.” 
It then proposes that new international agreements be negotiated to embody 
six main provisions (each of which is described and discussed below). The 
Report emphasizes (p. 147) that these proposals are interrelated, and that rejec- 
tion of any one ‘would raise serious questions in the minds of the Commission 
as to the advisability of continuing with the others.”’ 
Before proceeding to examine the Commission’s specific proposals, we would 
note that a preliminary question exists as to the urgency for creating an inter- 
national regime for resources beneath the deep sea. Many of our members feel 
that it is premature to seek establishment of such a regime at this time. They 
stress that technology for deep-sea exploitation on a significant scale is not yet 
available, that not enough is yet known about the character or extent of deep-sea 
resources, and that an ill-conceived regime can smother development indefinitely. 
On the other hand, other members point out that the question of a deep-sea 
regime is inevitably entangled with the question of the shelf limit. Since it is 
bound to arise, it should not be disregarded. Further, particularly with respect 
to hard minerals, the advent of adequate technology to reach deep-sea resources 
may not be as remote as some think. Finally, the creation of an international 
framework will require several years of negotiation at least, and the result may 
be ready none too soon. During the same period great advances may be expected 
in our knowledge of the oceans, and these can be taken into account as negotia- 
tions proceed. : 
Whichever view is preferable in the abstract, the fact remains that active 
efforts looking toward an international regime are now under way in the United 
Nations. The United States must have a policy and position with respect to 
these efforts. If only for this reason, the proposals for such a regime made by 
the Commission ¢all for careful scrutiny now. 
1. International Registry Authority (p. 147) 
The Commission’s Report proposes a claim-registration scheme, under which 
only a state or an association of states would be eligible to register a claim but 
the registrant may choose anyone to do the work or transfer its claim to another 
state. 
All states should be free to engage, or authorize, preliminary investigation to 
decide whether to register a claim to explore. An exclusive right to explore or 
exploit would be acquired by registry with an International Registry Authority. 
The membership of the Authority and manner of choosing its governing body 
would be specified in the agreements embodying the new framework. “The Au- 
thority should find its place in the family of the United Nations but should be 
as autonomous as the World Bank” (p. 149). 
The Authority should be required to register claims on a “first-come, first- 
registered” basis, without discretion to deny it except on the ground that the 
explorer or exploiter is not able and willing to develop the claim. ; 
Upon proof of discovery the Authority would be required to register a claim 
to exploit for a large enough area and for a long enough time (fixed by the 
