682 
Dissenting Statement by Louis Henkin 
I cannot subscribe to the Committee’s report. In my view, its 
focus is narrow, its concerns parochial, and its proposals short-sighted. 
The laissez faire philosophy which permeates it is a dangerous 
anachronism. ‘The positions its recommends would lead to a “grab” 
by the coastal states, especially the highly developed states, of resources 
which the President of the United States has declared to be “the 
legacy of all human beings.” They would seriously damage other 
interests of all nations, including the coastal states, and eventually end 
“the freedom of the seas” in principal parts of the oceans. 
I am particularly troubled by the proposed extension of the doctrine 
of the continental shelf to an area more than three times that originally 
contemplated. That recommendation is without foundation in the 
1958 Convention, either in its language or in its history. It would 
grab for the coastal states the resources of one-quarter of all the ocean 
bed, and the area in which the principal mineral resources are believed 
to lie. Even in its narrow concerns, I believe this recommendation to 
be mistaken; the implication that it is better for entrepreneurs to deal 
with national governments without international regulation or inter- 
vention is a misreading of recent history and extremely short-sighted. 
But the most serious consequences of a magnified continental shelf 
are not even mentioned. For while the doctrine of the continental shelf 
formally gives the coastal state sovereignty only for the purpose of 
exploiting mineral resources, exclusive jurisdiction for one purpose 
tends to expand to sovereignty for all purposes. The Committee’s 
proposal would mean that, increasingly, one-quarter of the ocean—and 
in many ways the most important quarter—would tend to become 
territorial sea. Surely, it would soon be effectively barred to many 
other uses by other nations, including much navigation, scientific 
research, and defensive measures at sea that are important to national 
security and world peace. 
Comments by the Rapporteur and Chairman on 
Professor Henkin’s Dissent 
1. As to the jurisdiction of the coastal states: Professor Henkin 
apparently construes the Convention as though the exploitability cri- 
terion were not there; otherwise, his assertion that the submerged 
portion of the continental land mass encompasses “an area more than 
three times that originally contemplated” is irrelevant, because this 
is a comparison of the areas included within the 200 meter and 2,500 
