677 
right would remain exclusive, however, only so long as work continued 
in conformity with specified criteria. If minerals were found, their pro- 
duction would be governed by the laws of the nation which had regis- 
tered the original notice of intent. In addition, it has been suggested 
that the availability of areas for mineral development, under the registry 
scheme, particularly the requisite distance offshore from adjacent states, 
would be determined by international convention and not by the 
registry office. Recognition of previously acquired rights is an essential 
of the scheme, as is the recognition of competing interests in the use 
of the marine environment, e.g., for fishing and navigation. 
It would be appropriate in the development of a treaty covering these 
provisions to give consideration to the recommendation advanced by the 
United States Representative on June 20, 1968, to the Legal Working 
Group of the U.N. Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Peaceful Uses 
of the Sea Bed and Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Juris- 
diction for the “dedication as feasible and practicable of a portion of 
the value of the resources recovered from the deep ocean floor to world 
or regional community purposes.” 
The algebraic form in which the registry concept is here stated is de- 
liberate. Some of the difficulties, including the problems of competing 
notices of claims, priorities, areas, duration, work required to keep 
claims alive, and so on, are self-apparent. No one knows as yet how to 
put numbers into any of these concepts. No one will know how to do 
so until after a great deal of deep sea exploration and discovery of min- 
erals has taken place. This exploration, in our view, should be encour- 
aged, not retarded. 
While we prefer the intermediate solution (No. 3 above), we decline 
to characterize the flag nation concept (No. 1 above) as one that invites 
“anarchy” or “chaos” or “race to grab,” as some have contended. 
This approach is not one characterized by the absence of law. On the 
contrary, we are of the opinion that under existing law a state has 
competence to establish limited rights of jurisdiction and control over 
minerals of the sea-bed by effective use of the area encompassing them. 
We are of the further opinion that, in the event of conflict between 
the mineral development projects of two or more nations, there are 
established principles of international law, now applicable to the high 
seas, which would be available to resolve such conflicts on an ad hoc 
basis. Nevertheless, we recognize that these existing principles may not 
provide an adequate basis for long-term development of these resources 
in an orderly manner. If a comprehensive legislative solution can be 
