769 
the folks aboard the vessel, regardless of their intended use of the 
data, are willing to have the work all done openly, with full access of 
the representatives of the coastal State to everything that is going on. 
If these conditions are satisfied, I believe that, particular ly, a coun- 
try like ours, with advanced scientific knowledge and technology has 
nothing to fear regardless of the purpose for which the people gath- 
ering the data may “be taking it. 
if strongly urge, therefore, that both the executive and legislative 
branches take the leadership recommended by the Commission in re- 
solving this very important problem, which is becoming increasingly 
a burdensome handicap to the scientific community, as well as to some 
branches of our industry, that are attempting to explore the oceans 
for research purposes. 
The third topic I would like to speak about very briefly, sir, is the 
matter of international affairs. 
In my opinion the treatment of international affairs, especially that 
in chapter 4 under Marine Resources, is the weakest part of the report 
of the Marine Commission. The treatment of international fisheries 
management in that section, and in the panel report, is, in my opinion, 
sir, naive, incomplete and in some respects internally inconsistent. 
I won't go into this in detail, because I am sure it will be fully 
treated by others appearing before you, and there was a fairly long 
discussion of this at the recent Law of the Sea Institute at the Uni- 
versity of Rhode Island, the proceedings of which are available. 
The Marine Commission, however, has placed most of its emphasis 
concerning the international legal political framework on a detailed 
discussion of, and recommendations concerning, national jurisdiction 
over the seabed, and recommendations for a new regime for the seabed 
beyond national jurisdiction. 
Again I shan’t go into this in detail, although I disagree with a 
number of the proposals of the Commission in this regard, of which 
I have in my statement given some examples. For one example, I 
believe it is desirable and essential to establish an outer geographic 
boundary of the jurisdiction of a coastal state over the resources of 
the seabed, but I don’t agree with the Commission’s recommendation 
on where this boundary should be. 
However, my major concern with the report of the Marine Com- 
mission with respect to international legal issues isn’t so much because 
of disagreement with these particular recommendations respecting 
the seabed, but because I don’t believe the Marine Commission gave 
adequate attention to the other aspects of the public order of the 
oceans. 
The concentration, to the apparent exclusion of almost everything 
else, on the regime of the seabed could be somewhat dangerous to the 
welfare of the United States. 
It has been our experience in preparation for the conferences in 
1958, and in other related conferences, that the international law of 
the sea constitutes such a complex, interrelated whole that you can’t 
successfully deal with one aspect without getting involved to some 
extent with all the other aspects. 
I am, therefore, concerned, because the present activity of the United 
States which seems to be leading toward the early convening of an in- 
ternational conference to consider the seabeds issue will almost cer- 
tainly result in many other issues being brought before the conference. 
