658 
our understanding that the scope of this proposal would not be confined to areas 
off the U.S. coast; it would apply to activities by U.S. nationals off any coast, in 
order to assure Government control of the evolving worldwide situation pending 
adoption of the new international framework. 
On these interim measures proposed by the Commission, we agree in part and 
disagree in part. 
Of the five principles put forward in the United Nations, we find the first four 
acceptable (on the understanding, with respect to the first, that redefinition of 
the shelf limit be taken as equivalent to arriving at an agreed interpretation of 
the Convention definition rather than a new convention). These principles are 
also in harmony with the 1968 ABA Resolution. 
We disagree with the fifth principle and with the recommendations for imple- 
menting it (except insofar as these recognize the importance of not suspending 
deep-sea exploration and exploitation activity).17 These proposals, calling in 
effect for a moratorium on claims beyond the 200-meter line, are in our opinion 
retrogressive, impractical, and not in the best interests of the United States. The 
principal reasons for our conclusions may be summed up as follows: 
(1) The 200-meter line is out of date. Activities now exist beyond that line, 
undertaken in justified reliance on the exploitability concept of the Shelf Con- 
vention. These are now clearly within the national jurisdiction, and their status 
should not now be cast in jeopardy. 
(2) Under our view of the Shelf Convention and its interpretation by parallel 
declarations, there is no need for a moratorium on claims. National rights simply 
extend or will extend to the limit of adjacency and stop. 
(3) The possibility of shifting regimes and responsibilities will assuredly dis- 
courage the large investment needed to develop resources in deeper and deeper 
waters. The adverse effect on U.S. interests is obvious. 
(4) The proposal for compensation is unrealistic. Even if Congress were pre- 
pared to enact such legislation, the suggested measure of compensation is wholly 
inadequate for the risks involved. The device thus fails to supply the inducement 
needed to overcome the uncertainties noted in point 3. 
APPENDIX 
Recommendation 
The ‘Sections of Natural Resources Law, International and Comparative Law, 
and the Standing Committee on Peace and Law Through United Nations, 
recommend that the following resolution be adopted by the House of Delegates: 
Whereas, the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil under the high seas 
are becoming, through technological progress, increasingly available to mankind 
in ways until recently unforeseen ; and 
Whereas, a Committee of the United Nations General Assembly is presently 
considering “practical means to promote international co-operation in the explora- 
tion, conservation and use of the seabed and the ocean floor, and the subsoil 
thereof, .. . and of their resources’; and 
Whereas, the United ‘States, asa member of that United Nations Committee, has 
proposed ‘that the exploration and use of the deep ocean floor be open to all states 
and their nationals without discrimination and in acordance with international 
law, and as a corollary of this that the exercise of sovereign rights over any part 
of the deep ocean floor be ruled out ; and 
Whereas, the treaty known as the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf 
in force between 37 nations, including the United States, recognizes that each 
coastal state has “exclusive sovereign rights for the purpose of” exploring and 
exploiting the natural resources of “the sea-bed and subsoil of the submarine 
areas adjacent to the coast ... to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, 
to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the 
natural resources of the said areas’; and 
Whereas, it is generally recognized that the definition in the 1958 Convention 
on the Continental Shelf of the boundary between the area of exclusive sovereign 
rights and the deep ocean floor needs to be clarified by an agreed interpretation ; 
and 
Whereas, the House of Delegates, by its Resolution of August 9, 1966, stated 
that “prior to framing a policy ... the United States Government ... review 
17 The Standing Committee on World Order Under Law takes no position with respect 
to the fifth principle here discussed, for want of sufficient qualification to do so. 
