1260 
sequences of attempting soon to convene an international conference of states 
to dispost of these issues by agreement. In particular, comments are addressed 
to (1) recent developments in the decision process by which legal prescriptions 
are devised and projected to regulate ocean activities; (2) some of the pos- 
sible consequences of precipitate action to convene a new law of the sea con- 
ference; and (3) some of the substantive recommendations recently proposed 
by the President’s Commission on Marine Sciences, Hngineering and Resources. 
Currently a most interesting and significant aspect of the decision process 
is the split between the developed states (in the sense of marine science and 
technology) and the lesser developed states or countries (the LDC’s) that is 
becoming more and more apparent within international institutions. This split 
has special importance for ocean law in light of the method by which such law 
is, or has been, formulated. 
The last sustained effort to promulgate general international law for the 
ocean began in 1949 with the initiation of deliberations by the International 
Law Commission, a subsidiary organ of the United Nations General Assembly. 
The Commission eventually, in 1956, adopted a number of draft rules on 
mumerous aspects of the law of the sea which it submitted to the General 
Assembly as part of its report for that year. In submitting the draft the Com- 
mission recommended that the General Assembly convene a meeting of pleni- 
potentiaries to examine the law of the sea and to formulate conventions on the 
topic. In making this recommendation the Commission also made an observa- 
tion about the scope of the task before such a meeting that deserves special 
mention for it records an extremely important fact that is still pertinent but 
frequently overlooked today. This is the observation: 
“The Commission is of the opinion that the conference should deal with 
the various parts of the law of the sea covered by the present report. 
Judging from its own experience, the Commission considers—and the 
comments of Governments have confirmed this view—that the various 
sections of the law of the sea hold together, and are so closely interdepend- 
ent that it would be extremely difficuit to deal with only one part and leave 
the others aside.” * 
The General Assembly acted favorably upon the Commission’s proposal and 
invited “all States Members of the United Nations and States members of the 
specialized agencies” to a conference to be convoked in Geneva in March 1958. 
As a result of these actions and preparatory work, the representatives of 87 
states gathered in Geneva in the spring of 1958 and over long weeks of negotiat- 
ing hammered out four treaties on the law of the sea. By agreement it was 
established that Conference decisions on matters of substance required a two- 
thirds majority vote of those present and voting. Thus a group of thirty states 
could block adoption of a particular provision by the Conference. 
This organized procedure whereby practically all the states of the world pre- 
scribed policies for ocean use, with each state having one vote, seems likely 
to be followed again if another law of the sea conference is held. Indeed the 
1958 Conference virtually assured this pattern by writing in a provision in 
each of the four treaties that five years after the treaty came into force any 
contracting party thereto could request revision thereof, such request being 
addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations and subject to action 
by the General Assembly. It seems highly unlikely that members of the 
Assembly will vote to deprive themselves of influence on decisions about the 
ocean. Whether other routes for change are feasible merits rather urgent study. 
_ The point of this historical reference is merely to lay a base for noting that 
the situation has changed radically since 1958 in several ways. First, the num- 
ber of players in the game has increased about 50%, there being 126 members 
of the United Nations at the end of the 23d General Assembly in December, 
1968. Second, a conference held under the same rules as in 1958 would require 
a vote of 84 to adopt a provision and a biocking vote would require 43 votes 
instead of 30. Third, ‘the lareg increase in U.N. membership is accounted for 
entirely by developing states, especially African which now comprise about 
one-third. Fourth, since 1960 the developing states have become much more 
organized in presenting demands and while they may not yet as a body consti- 
tute two-thirds of a new sea conference they most certainly would be able to 
block any proposal not to their liking. Thus the voting situation at a new con- 
ference is likely to differ drastically from that prevailing in 1958. 
It is highly probable that many of the developing states will have very 
different views from the developed states about ocean management in terms of 
