767 
At the same time, these advances in science and technology have also 
increased the capabilities of nations to use the oceans’ resources more 
fully—to drill for petroleum in deep water and perhaps even to mine 
the mineral resources of the deep sea floor, about which I understand 
you will hear more tomorrow, to fish further offshore and catch much 
larger quantities. 
In consequence of this, there has been a recent spate of extended 
claims for expanded jurisdictions, or the establishment of new juris- 
dictions, in water adjacent to the coasts of many nations. 
This of course hampers the freedom of scientific research and explo- 
ration. So the goose that is laying the golden eggs is in the process of 
strangling itself. 
I want to commend the Marine Commission in this report, because 1n 
the section of its report, commencing at page 201, it has devoted con- 
siderable attention to this problem and to some recommendations to- 
ward its solution. 
The history is moderately well covered in that report, and I have 
also submitted to your counsel a couple of studies that I have recently 
done on the subject, that give a great deal of detail on the historical 
background of the growth of this problem and proposals to deal with 
it, so I won’t go into much detail here. 
IT would recall, however, that the deterioration commenced during 
the preparations for, and the negotiation of, the Conventions on the 
Law of the Sea that were adopted in Geneva in 1958. It was quite un- 
fortunate that the International Law Commission and the Interna- 
tional Conference itself did not see fit explicitly to designate scientific 
research as one of the freedoms of the high seas, even though it was, 
recognized as being one of them. 
Most unfortunate was the inclusion in the convention on the Con- 
tinental Shelf of paragraph 8 of article 5, which requires the consent 
of the coastal State with resvect of any research concerning the Con- 
tinental Shelf undertaken there. Although this was supposed to be 
exercised only in exceptional circumstances, that is, a refusal was only 
to be given in exceptional circumstances, in practice it has tended com- 
pletely to negate the provision of paragraph 1 of the same article that 
provides that there shall be no “interference with fundamental ocean- 
ographic or other scientific research carried out with the intention of 
open publication.” 
This restrictive provision was adopted, despite very strong recom- 
mendations from the scientific community, with the full urging and 
support of the United States. I believe this was a great mistake on 
our part, and the sooner we rectify it, the better it will be for our own 
national welfare and for mankind in general. 
I would like to call attention, in addition to the detailed studies I 
referred to earlier, to the activities of a working group of the Inter- 
governmental Oceanographic Commission on Legal Questions Related 
to Scientific Investigations of the Ocean. In this case, with the full sup- 
port and leadership of the United States, there has been recommended 
to the to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission that it 
adopt a resolution that might provide one means of resolving many 
problems of freedom of access in all, or most, parts of the sea that we 
scientists require access to for our scientific research and exploration. 
This would establish a system whereby the IOC would assist in facili- 
