683 
meter isobaths. But the exploitability criterion is there; it explicitly 
takes coastal jurisdiction “beyond that depth” of 200 meters; and 
if it is not limited to the continental land mass by the criterion of 
adjacency, as the Committee construes the Convention, then what other 
limit is to be found in the Convention? Professor Henkin does not 
tell us. The Committee proposes to limit, not extend, the exclusive 
coastal jurisdiction. Of course, we decline to limit it to the 200 meter 
isobath, since the Convention itself says coastal jurisdiction extends 
“beyond that depth,” just as we decline to extend it to the median 
lines of the oceans, as some have construed the Convention. 
2. As to the contention that the Continental Shelf Convention, con- 
strued as encompassing the seabed of the continental margin, would 
tend to expand coastal sovereignty over the superjacent waters: History 
does not support this assertion. The claims of the Latin American 
countries to 200-mile wide territorial seas antedate the Convention. 
The Convention’s explicit dissociation of coastal control of the seabed 
from territorial sovereignty over the superjacent waters has been 
respected, so far as we know, irrespective of the width of the seabed 
area under coastal control. The Committee proposes that this be 
reaffirmed in declarations of coastal states limiting their seabed juris- 
diction to the continental margin. 
3. As to the deep ocean floor beyond coastal jurisdiction: It is 
strange to characterize as an “anachronism” the application of the 
principles of freedom of the sea to the bed of the sea, in order to 
maintain access to the world’s submarine minerals for all mankind 
without discrimination. These principles have served mankind well 
for three centuries. It is curious to call “parochial” the Committee’s 
call for international agreement on enlightened standards of national 
conduct which will assure that this accessibility continues, accom- 
panied by recognition of one another’s investments in undersea mineral 
development, and is not replaced by claims of exclusive territorial 
sovereignty. It is odd to call “narrow” our proposal that the nations 
which take the whole risk of developing the minerals of the deep 
ocean floor seaward of the coastal jurisdictions shall dedicate a portion 
of their gains, if any, to the welfare of other countries. 
WILLIAM T. BURKE 
NORTHCUTT ELY 
26-563 O - 70 - pt.2 - 12 
