1176 
Exploration and Exploitation of Ocean Space” (5). Later in the same year the 
United Nations Committee of the World Peace through Law Center published 
a study, incorporating a “Proposed Treaty Governing the Exploration and Use 
of the Ocean Bed” (6). This will be referred to herein as the Danzig Treaty,. 
after the Chairman of the Drafting Committee which produced it. In October, 
1968, there was published by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 
under the authorship of Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a study (The Ocean Regime) 
(7) incorporating a third form of such a treaty “Draft Statute of the Inter- 
national Regime for the Peaceful Uses of the High Seas and the Seabed beyond 
the Limits of National Jurisdiction’. In January 1969 Senator Pell filed a revi- 
sion of his former draft treaty in the U.S. Senate (8). In March, 1969, there was. 
published “Our Nation and the Sea,’ Report of the U.S. Commission on Marine 
Science, Engineering and Resources, which contained recommendations on this 
subject (9).This has been followed by the publication of three volumes oc 
Panel Reports (10). For brevity I will refer to these as the Auerbach recom: 
mendations, recognizing them to be the joint efforts of a good many people 
pulled together and made coherent by Professor Auerbach. Also in March, 1969 
was published the 19th Report of the Commission to Study the Organizatior 
of Peace entitled “The United Nations and the Bed of the Sea” in which are in. 
corporated far-reaching recommendations on this subject to the General Assembly 
of the United Nations (11). 
During these few years a very large literature on this subject has arisen 
which I will make no attempt to review. I have pointed out the above actions as 
examples from the work of a relatively small but vigorous group of individuals, . 
and private and public organizations, who seek to change international law and 
the organization of international affairs for a variety of purposes and are em- 
ploying the use of the ocean as a vehicle for seeking this accomplishment. It 
will be my purpose only to discuss some of the main points that have arisen in 
the ensuing debates. 
1. Lack of Regime for the Deep-Sea Bed.—It is often implied, and sometimes: 
stated, that there exists no regime of law to cover the exploitation of the min- 
erals and other resources of the deep-sea bed. This, of course, is untrue. There 
has been, as yet, no general division for juridical purposes in international law 
between the water column of the high seas, the air column above it, and the 
solid earth column below it. They remain maritime expanses that appertain to 
no one. 
The high seas means all parts of the sea that are not included in the terri- 
torial sea or in the internal waters of a State (Convention on the High Seas, 
Article 1) (12). The high seas are open to all nations, both coastal and non- 
coastal, and no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its 
sovereignty (Article 2). Freedom to use the high seas under rules of international 
law shall be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of 
other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas. (Article 2). 
To be specific, there is no reason why the United States cannot license a firm 
to mine anything on the deep sea bed anywhere under existing international 
law in the same manner that it licenses vessels wearing its flag specifically to 
engage in the mackerel trade. By such a license it can regulate the activity of- 
that firm in those operations in any manner that accords with its municipal 
law, as it does the vessels of others of its firms licensed to do various other 
things on the high seas. It can do this without purporting, or implying. any 
claim to sovereignty or jurisdiction over the nationals of other States similarly 
engaged in the same geographic area. 
Similarly, the United States can license any firm within its jurisdiction to- 
mine in this fashion within a particular geographic area, by particular means. by 
particular amounts, by particular time intervals. etc. With respect to firms 
within its jurisdiction it can grant these rights exclusively to it, or partially to- 
several such firms, or allocate general rights to all such firms, as it chooses. 
It can assess whatever charges against such firms it chooses to do, and it can 
allocate funds so received entirely to its own treasury, or to the United Nations, 
or to a particular fund for the underprivileged, or for other purposes. 
The problem is not in international law. If any exists it is in the absence of 
specific legislation in the United States Code, and this is subject to rectification 
by the United States Congress. 
What I have said with respect to the United States, of course, is true of other 
nations. 
2. Disputes over the Use of Deep-Sea Bed Resources.—Disputes over the use- 
of Deep-Sea Bed resources falling within the purview of international law arise~ 
