691 
ELY AND DUNCAN, 
COUNSELLORS AT Law, 
Washington, D.C., October 7, 1969. 
THOMAS CLINGAN, Esquire, 
House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Tom: I enclose some material which I would appreciate having added 
to your record, following my testimony. It consists of a letter of inquiry from 
Luke W. Finlay, addresed to Dr. Garcia Amador, asking clarification of some 
frequently quoted remarks of Garcia Amador, during the negotiation of the 
Continental Shelf Convention in 1958. Dr. Garcia Amador’s reply is most illu- 
minating. I think it would be important to have this material available, in a 
place where we can all cite it, when necessary. 
With kind personal regards, 
Sincerely, 
NorTHCUTT ELyY. 
STANDARD OL COMPANY 
INCORPORATED IN NEW JERSEY, 
New York, N.Y., February 24, 1969. 
Dr. F. V. Garcia AMADOR, 
Washington, D.C. 
Dear Dr. Garcia AMADOR: Some of the people favoring a narrow interpre- 
tation of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf are making what I 
believe to be an improper use of a statement attributed to you, and I would 
greatly appreciate your assistance in clarifying the matter. 
As you know, the Inter-American Specialized Conference on ‘Conservation of 
Natural Resources: The Continental Shelf and Marine Waters’, held at Ciudad 
Trujillo in March of 1956, at which you served as Chairman of the Cuban 
Delegation, unanimously resolved to submit the following conclusion for con- 
sideration by the American states: 
“To submit for consideration by the American states the following conclu- 
sions: 
“1. The sea-bed and subsoil of the continental shelf, continental and insular 
terrace, or other submarine areas, adjacent to the coastal state, outside the 
area of the territorial sea, and 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 sea-bed and subsoil appertain exclusively to that state 
and are subject to its jurisdiction and control.” 
The report, attached as an appendix to the final act of the Conference, defines 
“continental terrace’, as used in this resolution, as being “that part of the 
submerged land mass that forms the shelf and the slope”. In turn, these two 
terms are defined as follows: 
“(m) Scientifically, the term ‘continental shelf’ is undestood to be that 
portion of the continent or island which is covered by the waters up to the 
point of declivity of the slope or edge of the shelf. 
“(n) The limit of the shelf, the point of declivity of the slope or edge, varies 
according to the depth at which it occurs (from 120 to 365 m.). 
“(o) Scientifically, the term ‘continental slope’, or inclination, refers to the 
slope from the edge of the shelf to the greatest depths.” 
The report goes on to add the following conclusions : 
“TJ. The American states are especially interested in utilizing and conserving 
the existing natural resources on the American terrace (shelf and slope). 
“TI. As the edge of the continental shelf varies in depth, it is advisable to 
describe it conventionally as the submerged part of the continents or islands to 
depths of 200 meters (100 fathoms, more or less). 
“III, The utilization of the resources of the shelf cannot be technically limited, 
and for this reason the exploitation of the continental terrace should be included 
asa possibility in the declaration of rights of the American states. 
“TV, Adequate technical precautions should be taken in the laying of cables, 
oleoducts, and gas pipelines, in order to prevent accidents and avoid impediments 
to navigation and fishing. 
“VY. Governments should be urged to promote a better knowledge of the terrace 
(continental shelf and slope) and its resources.” 
A few weeks later the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United 
