6957 
rent and the royalty now paid for mineral leases on the Outer Continental 
Shelf. 
We agree in general, but would recall our comment in regard to the Authority 
about the danger of delay in domestic registration channels which could lose an 
applicant his “first-come” position before the Authority. 
2. Additional Intermediate Zone policies 
The Report recomends (p. 154) that the Secretary of the Interior should have 
power to award mineral rights without requiring competitive bidding, on the 
same basis as it recommended such procedure for the Outer Continental Shelf. 
This problem only arises if the intermediate zone proposal is adopted. 
3. Additional policies beyond the intermediate zone 
If the United States uses competitive bidding to select the companies to 
explore and exploit claims registered by it with the International Authority, 
U.S. companies would have an incentive to request states which charge less to 
register claims on their behalf. This would create a “flag of convenience” problem 
unless the United States prevented its nationals from applying to other states. 
The latter would be undesirable. Therefore, the Report recommends (p. 155) 
that the United States follow the “‘first-come, first-registered”’ policy in selecting 
the companies on whose behalf it registers claims with the Authority. 
We agree with this recommendation. 
F. A Course of Interim Action 
The Report observes (p. 155) that it will take years to arrive at a new 
framework. In the meantime, it is important to seek early agreement on princi- 
ples to guide states in interim exploration and exploitation of deep-sea resources. 
The Commission therefore announces its support for the principles proposed by 
the United States in the United Nations in June 1968," which it summarizes 
as follows: 
(1) A “redefinition of the outer limits of the continental shelf.” * 
(2) Exclusion of any claims to national sovereignty or sovereign rights over 
the deep-sea floor beyond the shelf limit. 
(3) Dedication to international purposes of a portion of the value of the 
resources recovered. 
(4) Call for a new international regime to be established as soon as prac- 
ticable. 
(5) Exploitation prior to the establishment of a shelf limit to be without 
prejudice to the eventual location of that limit. 
To implement this last principle, the Commission recommends a U.S. pro- 
posal that in the interim, no nation should claim sovereign rights beyond the 
200-meter line. Exploration and exploitation should, however, be permitted to 
continue beyond that line, provided that the authorization therefore ‘explicitly 
states that such exploration or exploitation shall be subject to the new inter- 
national framework agreed upon” (p. 156). 
Recognizing the uncertainties which such a rule would create for the private 
entrepreneur who would not know when his landlord and the terms of his lease 
might be switched, the Commission recommends (p. 156) : 
“That Congress enact legislation to compensate private enterprise for loss of 
investment or expenses occasioned by any new international framework that re- 
defines the continental shelf so as to put the area in which it is engaged in 
mineral resources development beyond the shelf’s outer limits.” 
‘A final recommendation from the Commission (p. 156) is that the Outer Conti- 
nental Shelf Lands Act be amended to require permission from the Secretary of 
the Interior: 
“To engage in mineral resource exploration or exploitation in any subsea area 
beyond the 200-meter isobath upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
deems appropriate. The amendment should make clear that this requirement is 
not intended to constitute a U.S. claim to exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights 
over any subsea area beyond the 200-meter isobath.” 
In exercising this authority, the Secretary of the Interior should be guided by 
the Secretary of State’s judgment as to foreign policy implications (p. 157). It is 
165 UN Doc. A/AC. 135/25; also in 59 Dept. of State Bulletin 152 (August 5, 1968). 
16 We do not read the U.S. proposal this way. It did not, in our view, propose a “redefini- 
tion” of the outer limits of the continental shelf, but merely proposed that the limit be 
fixed 1n accordance with the existing Convention on the Continental Shelf. 
