1269 
effect then existed. The Panamanian proposal appeared to incorporate this posi- 
tion and was rejected in the Fourth Committee, receiving only four affirmative 
votes. While the Convention might be interpreted to anticipate the possibility 
of the shelf extending to the end of the continental margin, it does so only as 
Article 1 permits expansion of the boundary with advancing exploitation. Most 
significantly, the Convention also contains a provision, referred to earlier, which 
permits revision of the definition before exploitability has pushed the shelf boun- 
dary to the end of the continental margin. Hence it seems to me to be impossible 
to accept the notion that the Convention presently allocates sovereign rights to 
the extent the NPC suggests. 
In rejecting the NPC proposal for a shelf limit the Commission comments. 
that it would “create the danger’ that some states ‘“‘will feel justified in claiming 
exclusive access to the superjacent waters, the living resources in them, and the 
air above” their continental slopes and rises. The Commission then states that 
“The danger that rights of exclusive access for one purpose may extend to claims. 
of territorial sovereignty or exclusive access for all purposes materialized as an 
unforeseen and undesirable consequence of the Truman Proclamation of 1945.” 
If Dr. John Craven does not attain immortality in some other way, an outcome 
not lightly to be dismissed in view of his ingenuity, he may secure this in measure 
by virtue of the now common reference to ‘“Craven’s Law’, by which is meant the 
notion that jurisdiction claimed over the ocean floor will inevitably seep upward 
to control events in the space above. It is this apprehension which the Commis- 
sion sees as a danger in connection with the NPC concept of a relatively wide 
continental shelf. Craven’s Law, which has been much discussed but seldom: 
examined in light of the historical record, certainly deserves some investigation 
to see if, as I believe, these is less to it than meets the eye. 
The usual evidence cited to prove the existence of the Law consists of the 
extravagant action of a very few states—now eight out of over 100 coastal 
states—in asserting a claim to a very wide territorial sea of 200 or more miles, 
which claim some of them advanced in apparent reponse to the Truman Procla- 
mations of 1945. [It should be noted, in passing, that the Commission’s depiction 
of the past is somewhat selective. There were two Truman Proclamations in 
September, 1945, one dealing with fish beyond the territorial sea (and treating 
them differently than oil) and one dealing with the continental shelf. The Latin 
American states reacted to both proclamations and in so doing refused to distin- 
guish between shelf resources and resources in the waters above as the U.S. 
Proclamations did.] However, it is notable, but seldom mentioned by believers in 
Craven’s Law, that in a quarter-century only a small handful of states have 
reacted in this way and their positions are almost universally regarded as con- 
trary to international law. Except for these instances of extravagent behavior, 
there appear to be no other unusually extensive territorial claims resulting, 
even colorably, from narrower assertions by another state of certain limited 
jurisdiction and control. 
Another bit of assumed evidence consists of the recent difficulties experienced 
by foreign scientists in getting consent from coastal states to do certain 
research on the continental shelf. This is cited to show that having conceded 
the coastal state a measure of control over the seabed and subsoil these states: 
naturally extend the control upwards to interfere with the wholly different 
activity of research. The short answer to this “evidence” is that it bears an 
unfortunate lack of resemblance to reality. The fact is that these claims to affect 
research are not an unforeseen development involving unilateral expansion of 
authority but result from the firm agreement of numerous states, an agreement 
which was actively sought by the United States, the one state obviously likely 
to suffer the most from this control by other states over research. It was not 
at all inevitable that coastal states be given, or would claim, this control, 
especially since no one has ever demonstrated that the conduct of research 
with open publication of results, has any harmful effects on coastal states. It is 
perhaps ironic that this instance of alleged unilaterally expanded jurisdiction 
was in fact expressly authorized in a general international agreement at the 
apparent insistence of the United States Navy, yet this alleged expansion is 
now decried by a prominent member of the Navy scientific establishment whose 
name is commonly attached to this supposed phenomenon. Lewis Carroll would be 
quite at home here. 
In sum, as near as one can see from examining what states do in practice, 
in contrast to what some people say they do, Craven’s Law has no basis. If 
states are now expanding their exclusive authority, as they are, the phenomena 
