1267 
(6) Substantive aspects 
The Commission’s substantive recommendations call for : 
(1) A definition of the continental shelf to fix the limit at the 200 meter isobath 
or 50 nautical miles from the baseline, whichever includes the greater area. 
(2) The creation of an intermediate zone out to the 2500 meter isobath or 100 
nautical miles from the baselines whichever includes the greater area. In this 
zone Only the coastal state or its nationals would be permitted to explore or 
exploit, but the framework of regulation would otherwise be that which applies 
to the area beyond the intermediate zone. 
(8) The conclusion of an international agreement establishing a regime for 
the areas beyond the continental shelf. Basically the Commission proposes a 
registration scheme, with provision for collecting and distributing revenues. 
This framework the Commission recommends ‘for the immediate future’ but 
believes it will take years to arrive at such a framework. Accordingly the Com- 
mission recommends that the U.S. ‘propose the principle that no nation, in the 
interim, should claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part 
of the seabed or subsoil beyond the 200-meter isobath.’’ The U.S. should continue 
to authorize exploration and exploitation beyond the limit “provided such authori- 
zation states that any such expioration or exploitation shall be subject to the 
new inernational framework agreed upon.” Recognizing the deterrent effect of 
this, at least in part, the Commission further recommends that “Congress enact 
legislation to compensate private enterprise for loss of investment or expenses 
occasioned by any new international framework that redefines the continental 
shelf so as to put the area in which it is engaged in mineral resources develop- 
ment beyond the shelf’s outer limits.” 
Although labelled “interim”, the recommendation that the U.S. and other states 
refrain from claiming or exercising sovereignty or sovereign rights beyond 200 
meters is for several reasons probably the most significant of these recommenda- 
tions for a legal framework. First, a principle of this kind, if not of the same 
detail, would seem essential if some definite limit is to be placed on outward 
expansion of coastal control over the seabed. Second, it is at least somewhat 
surprising that the Commission suggests 200 meters since ithe U.S. has already 
claimed rights beyond this limit, as apparently have numerous other states. Thus, 
the Commission is recommending that the U.S. and other states not only accept 
a shelf limit they rejected in 1958 but also that they now retract the extension 
of sovereign rights which were properly made in accordance with the limit 
agreed upon in the 1958 Convention. If the U.S. were to amend the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to accord with this proposal, as the Commission 
pparently recommends, some outstanding leases would no longer be on the U.S. 
shelf although they would, for the time being, still be subject to U.S. control. 
Third, unless this interim limit were generally adopted, the prospects of accept- 
ance of the Commission’s long-term proposal, which seem none too sanguine 
anyway, would become virtually non-existent. Fourth, the Commission’s interim 
proposal is more restrictive of coastal rights than even Malta proposes. At the 
March 1969 meeting of the U.N. Seabed Committee, Malta originally offered a 
resolution which called for an interim limit of 200 meters or an unspecified limit 
in miles. Such a formulation at least anticipates that pre-existing claims might 
not be affected by a new international regime. 
The basic difficulty with the Commission’s interim recommendation appears 
to me to be that it both turns the clock back and has a high potential of frus- 
trating wholly legitimate expectations. The clock-turning-back goes to the prac- 
ticality of the Commission’s proposal, not its wisdom. It is at least difficult to 
anticipate that the large number of states who wished in 1958 to have a limit 
greater than 200 meters would now be willing to accept a lesser limit. Perhaps 
the perceived advantages of an international regime will be large enough to 
persuade states to accept the 200-meter/50-mile limit, but it is not unreasonable 
to incline to doubt this. ’ 
The more serious shortcoming appears to arise from the Commission’s sug- 
gested policy that leases now or in the future granted beyond 200 meters become 
subject to a future international regime. The Commission recommends that the 
loss private enterprise might incur, if such a regime is less favorable, be shared 
by the enterprise and the community. To protect private enterprise against 
“undue loss” “The Commission recommends that the Congress enact legislation 
to compensate private enterprise for loss of investment or expenses occasioned 
by any new international framework that redefines the continental shelf so as to 
