1261 
priorities in use, of allocation of authority between states, on the one hand, and 
international institutions on the other, and of some boundary locations. A 
divergence in these views is detectable in the debates in the First Committee 
of the 23d General Assembly in the fall of 1968 when the Committee considered 
the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed 
and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction. 
A principal indication of the attitudes of developed and developing states is 
to be seen in the opposing conceptions of the desirable role and function of the 
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The IOC is a constituent element 
of UNHSCO, having been created in 1960, after the 1958 Geneva Conference. It is 
common knowledge that the activities and policies of the IOC are influenced pre- 
dominantly by the United States and the Soviet Union. The membership of the 
IOC is far smaller than that of the U.N. itself, now numbering about 60 with a 
noticeable increase in recent years. The LDC’s have had little influence on the 
course of events in the IOC. The reason for this is not an invidious one, but pri- 
marily arises from the nature of the activties IOC has been involved in and 
within the years since its creation. Essentially the IOC has served a coordinating 
function for scientific activities in the ocean and, as is well known, such activities 
are limited almost completely to the developed states and even to a small group 
of these. 
The IOC has thus far been largely a scientific and technical body, to which a 
minority of states belong, but this orientation may change and, indeed, in some 
quarters a change is being planned and promoted. It is this move to broaden 
the base and scope of the IOC, and to give it the key role in the implementation 
of the proposed International Decade of Ocean Exploration and in the long-term 
expanded program in international cooperation in marine science, that has at- 
tracted the opposition of some LDC’s or spokesmen therefor. They have a very 
specific apprehension. It is simply that the political issues arising out of the 
ocean and its multiple uses will in some fashion or other be removed from the 
General Assembly and disposed of, or subjected to the jurisdiction of, another 
international agency such as the IOC. The effect of this would be to locate the 
ball game in an entirely different park where the rules are not the same and where 
the players might have different influence than in the General Assembly. It is 
this kind of sentiment which underlies the suspicions evident in the following 
statement by Ambassador Pardo of Malta: 
We must, however, deprecate over-emphasis on exploration of the seabed 
and on the scientific aspects of the item before us and also clearly express our 
doubts on current plans which are being formulated with regard to IOC. 
The proposed international decade and the Secretary General’s expanded 
programme will produce a more rapid expansion of scientific knowledge. They 
will also result in a more precise evaluation of the mineral resources and of 
the military potential offered by the sea-bed and the ocean floor. They will, 
finally, considerably stimulate technological developments, which are already 
sufficiently rapid and which will make commercial and military exploitation 
easier. If, as we have every reason to believe, the ocean floor contains virtually 
inexhaustible mineral resources and if some areas of the ocean floor are of 
considerable strategic significance, the commendable scientific programmes pro- 
posed will inevitably intensify existing pressures for national appropriation and 
exploitation of some areas now universally recognized as being beyond national 
jurisdiction. 
Numerous scientific papers will no doubt be circulated by IOC to member 
Governments on the results of the projects undertaken under the Secretary- 
General’s expanded programme, thus contributing to the diffusion of scientific 
knowledge, and all countries will in greater or lesser measure benefit thereby ; 
but, in present circumstances where an equitable international regime for the 
ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction is completely lacking, where indeed 
internationally recognized norms are so few that this area can be used, abused and 
appropriated with minimal risk of incurring international responsibility and 
where only very few States have the financial resources to engage actively in the 
exploitation of the seabed beyond the continental shelf, who is likely to profit 
most in practice, that is, economically and militarily, from the scientific pro- 
grammes proposed to us? Not land-locked countries, not countries bordering on 
closed seas, not the developing world in general—and, I would add, not the 
goal of demilitarization of the ocean floor. 
Nor are we convinced that at the present stage there is real need to broaden 
the statute of IOC or to establish an inter-agency board for this body. Mem- 
