760 
It is specifically to be noted that I do not advocate attempting to distinguish 
among fundamental scientific investigation, commercial exploration, or military 
intelligence. The same kind of vessel, with exactly the same kind of equipment, 
taking exactly the same kind of observations can be engaged in any or all of these. 
activities. The only way of distinguishing would be the intent of the operators, 
and I submit that intent is impossible to determine. I believe ‘that the important 
operational distinction is whether the people aboard the vessel, regardless of 
their intended use of the data, are willing to have representatives of the coastal 
State participate fully in the activities, have complete access to all equipment, 
devices, facilities and records aboard the vessel, and have copies of all of the 
information obtained, and ‘access to specimens collected. If these conditions are 
satisfied, I believe we have nothing to fear, regardless of the purpose to which 
the people gathering the data may put it. 
I strongly urge that both the Executive and Legislative Branches of our 
Government take the leadership, as recommended by the Commission, in resoly- 
ing this important problem. 
International affairs 
As I indicated at the outset of my testimony, Mr. Chairman, I have been en- 
gaged in international marine affairs in a variety of contexts for a great many 
years. In my opinion, the treatment of international marine affairs, especially 
in Chapter 4 under Marine Resources, is the weakest part of the report of the 
Marine Commission. 
The treatment of international fisheries management is naive, incomplete, and 
in some respects internally inconsistent. I shall not, however, go into this, because- 
I am sure it will be fully treated by others appearing before you. 
The Marine Commission has placed most of its emphasis concerning the inter- 
national legal political framework on detailed discussion of, and recommendations 
concerning, the extent of national jurisdiction over the seabed, and on recom- 
mendations for a new regime for the seabed beyond national jurisdiction. Again. 
I shall not go into this in detail, although I disagree with a number of the pro- 
posals of the Commission in this regard. For example, while I agree that it is 
desirable, and perhaps essential, firmly to establish the outer geographical bound- 
ary of the jurisdiction of the coastal State over the resources of the seabed, I 
believe that such a boundary should most appropriately be located at or near 
the outer boundary of the continental margin, rather than the much narrower 
zone of the coastal State jurisdiction advocated by the Marine Commission. In 
consequence, of course, I also disagree with the necessity, or desirability. of the 
proposed intermediate zone. Finally, so far as the resources of the deep-sea floor,. 
beyond the continental margin, are concerned, there seems to me to be no pressing” 
necessity for the establishment of any new regime at this time. I strongly ‘be- 
lieve that the present regime of the high seas is quite adequate for the initial 
stages of exploration and utilization of the sea-bed resources of this region, and 
should be followed until we have a better basis in experience for establishing 
any new regime for this region of the sea floor. 
However, my major concern with the deficiency of the report of the Marine 
Commission with respect of international legal issues is not because of dis- 
agreement with these particular recommendations, but because I do not believe 
that the Marine Commission gave adequate attention to other aspects of the 
public order of the oceans. Concentration, to the apparent exclusion of almost 
everything else, on the regime of the seabed may be extremely dangerous to the 
welfare of the United States. I should like to recall, Mr. Chairman, that our 
previous experience has been that it is impossible to select one aspect of the: 
international regime of the sea for separate international negotiation and agree- 
ment. All of our experience from 1950 through 1958 in preparing for, and carrying’ 
out, the International Conference on the Law of the Sea indicated that the inter- 
national law of the sea is such a complex, interrelated whole that one cannot 
successfully deal with one aspect without taking into account all other aspects. 
The failure of the Conference in 1960 called to deal with the important issue, 
unresolved at the 1958 Conference, of the breadth of the territorial sea, rein- 
forced this view. I submit also that our recent experience in the General As- 
sembly of the United Nations, in its ad hoc Committee on the Seabed, and the 
present Standing Committee on the Seabed, illustrates once again that one can-: 
not deal with seabed issues independently of other issues. 
I am, therefore, concerned because the present activity of the United States, 
which seems to be leading toward the early convening of an international con- 
ference to consider the seabeds issues, will almost certainly result in many other 
