1181 
same time technology in the recovery of petroleum from oil-shales and tar-sands 
advances in the direction of bringing cost per unit of production down on that 
source. 
Additionally the technology and economics of producing energy more cheaply 
from nuclear fuels moves forward slowly but steadily and massively. 
‘3. It is impractical to exploit oil off the coast of a country without having the 
permission and good will of that country, no matter what the legal situation is. 
The main cause is not the fear of harassment but is the necessity for logistic 
support. An oil firm company can afford to pay to one governmental body for 
permission to operate, but not to two (25). 
4. Whether one considers the Convention on the Continental Shelf, or the 
decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Cases, or the re- 
port of the National Petroleum Council, or the report of the National Marine 
Commission, or the proposals referred to herein as the Pell Danzig Borghese, 
Auerbach, and Hichelberger recommendations, the continental shelves of most 
countries in the world are now terminated at a depth more or less greater 
than 200 meters. Thus the economics of producing oil from the sea floor has 
to improve enough to at least double the depth from which recovery is pos- 
sible before a problem will arise under the narrowest width of the shelf 
presently contemplated. This looks to be a long time off. Even then the nations 
can license their own firms to operate beyond their national jurisdiction under 
existing international law. 
5. A scanning of the General Assembly debates does not indicate a willingness 
of nations who have the possibility of petroleum deposits near their coasts on 
the shelf, as broadly defined by the National Petroleum Council, to turn over their 
putative rights to any international body. Such nations would appear to make up 
a majority of United Nations members, or very close thereto, which makes the 
possibility of General Assembly action ratifying such a policy unlikely. If the 
General Assembly did take such action it would not apply to an unwilling sov- 
ereign. Thus the amount of revenue such an international body could expect 
from such sources in the foreseeable future would certainly be far short of its 
own costs of operation, let alone any excess to devote to good works. The syllo- 
gism stated above appears to have no basis of reality. 
6. In the reports of the prophets of change referred to above much is made 
of the phrases “use of their resources in the interest of mankind” for the bene- 
fit and interest of all mankind’, and ‘‘the common heritage of mankind”. While 
these are what are called ‘“O.K.” words in the argot of the day, what they have 
meant heretofore in international law is that resources of the high seas belong to 
him who first reduces them to his possession, and they were the common heri- 
tage of mankind in the sense that anyone competent to harvest them was free 
to do so within the usages of international law and the practice of nations. 
7. Harvestable phosphate nodules, heavy metals, sand and gravel, diamonds, 
ete, are, so far as known, on the continental shelf within national jurisdiction 
and not available for international revenue raising without the consent of the 
sovereign. Even at present it is not economical to harvest many of these shallow 
water resources. To put added taxes on deeper deposits which may be outside 
national jurisdictiion (and at present unlocated) would delay further the be- 
ginning of their harvesting. No revenue is in sight from these sources for an in- 
ternational agency. 
8. Manganese nodules, and the economics of harvesting and marketing their 
components, have been studied intensively and recently. Everyone concerned 
agrees that with existing technology these cannot be harvested profitably. They 
are clearly abundant beyond the limits of national sovereignty. To add new 
reyenue raising burdens to their harvesting will clearly slow down further the 
beginning of their harvest. 
9. Living Resources are the most valuable present crop had from the ocean 
and, in fact, the annual crop of them is valued higher than that of all other re- 
sources presently harvested from the ocean put together (including petroleum 
from the continental shelf). (26). Furthermore they are harvested broadly 
outside the limits of national sovereignty. 
The current efforts of national governments and international agencies in 
respect of living resources harvest from the ocean are uniformly directed toward 
lowering the cost per unit of production of fish and shellfish from the ocean, and 
substantial governmental funds (at least a half billion dollars per year in toto) 
are used for this purpose. The reason is to increase the yield of protein food from 
the sea. The means used are research to provide conservation, to explore for new 
resources, to perfect technology, and quite frequently to subsidize fishermen to in- 
