679 
nents than in the abyssal depths, it follows that if jurisdictional uncer- 
tainties arise to impede such operations during the next several decades, 
such problems will be primarily related to the scope of the mineral juris- 
diction which is already vested exclusively in the coastal states by the 
“exploitability” and “‘adjacency”’ criteria of jurisdiction which now ap- 
pear in the Continental Shelf Convention. This uncertainty, if necessity 
for its resolution occurs, might be removed by consultation among the 
major coastal nations which are capable of conducting deep sea mineral 
development, looking toward the issuance by those states of parallel 
ex parte declarations. These declarations might appropriately restrict 
claims of exclusive sea-bed mineral jurisdiction, pursuant to the exploit- 
ability and adjacency factors of the Continental Shelf Convention, to 
(i) the submerged portions of the continental land mass, limiting this 
provisionally to a depth of, say, 2,500 meters, or (ii) to a stated distance 
(say 100 miles) from the base line, whichever limitation encompasses 
the larger area.* Such declarations might appropriately recognize special 
cases. Two such classifications suggest themselves: (i) In the case of 
states whose coasts plunge precipitously to the ocean floor (e.g., on the 
west coast of South America), the suggested 100-mile limit on sea-bed 
mineral jurisdiction would automatically operate on the deep ocean floor. 
(ii) In the case of narrow or enclosed seas, the principle of adjacency 
might appropriately carry coastal mineral jurisdiction to the median 
lines, even though these are beyond the continental blocks. 
This proposal should not necessitate any amendment of the text of 
the Continental Shelf Convention. That Convention’s differentiation be- 
tween the coastal state’s exclusive rights in sea-bed minerals, on the one 
hand, and, on the other hand, the non-exclusive status of the sea-bed 
with respect to research and other uses not related to mineral exploita- 
tion, would be retained. So also with the Convention’s preservation of 
the high-seas status of the overlying waters. 
It would, however, be both appropriate and desirable to reiterate these 
understandings in the recommended declarations. In the instance of 
scientific research, which is being increasingly impeded by the require- 
ment of coastal consent for research undertaken on the continental shelf, 
these parallel declarations might be employed to secure greater protec- 
tion for this vital activity. 
* Mr. McCracken, while joining in the report, would prefer not to suggest figures. 
