Incidentally, in this connection, a few comments are pertinenc regarding the 
National Petroleum Council position that the shelf now extends to include all 
the submerged portion of continents. On this assumption the NPC Report casti- 
gates the Commission recommendation of a 200 meter/50 mile shelf as “patently 
a needless and dangerous give-away of a vital segment of the American mineral 
estate. .. .” Ido not agree with the Commission’s recommendation as to the U.S. 
final position on this point (although it might well be the starting point if nego- 
tiations must occur rather soon), but I do not at all share the assumption which 
underlies the NPC view. Further it seems to me that Professor Auerbach is com- 
pletely right in noting that what we are concerned with here is determining 
what the “American mineral estate” is and, accordingly, we are not much aided 
by such boot-strapping argumentation as the NPC advances. 
One final aspect of the Commission recommendations deserving mention are 
those which have to do with providing greater freedom than now prevails for 
the conduct of marine science research. The Commission devoted. special consid- 
eration to this important problem and devised a highly desirable set of pro- 
posals by which, if adopted, progress can be made. The only disturbing aspect of 
the Commission’s work in this regard derives from its recommendations for a 
political-legal framework beyond the continental shelf which appear largely to 
have been conceived without paying much attention to their impact on scientists. 
In recommending an intermediate zone the Commission does state that “scien- 
tific inquiry concerning the bed of the intermediate zone undertaken there will not 
require the coastal nation’s prior consent.” Unfortunately there is reason to doubt 
whether it will prove possible to conclude an agreement to this effect. The prin- 
cipal basis for this doubt is that the Commission proposes to require that all 
claims to explore for minerals beyond the continental shelf must be registered 
with an international registry authority. Within the intermediate zone only the 
coastal state or its licensees would be authorized to explore or to exploit mineral 
resources. Beyond this zone the first registrant receives the exclusive right to ex- 
plore in a particular area for particular mineral resources. The question this sys- 
tem will raise, probably inevitably, is how to distinguish between marine science 
research and mineral exploration. It is already painfully clear that no objective 
distinction can be discerned between these activities on the Shelf, hence there is 
ample reason for concern over the same problem beyond the shelf. 
If there is concern to protect exclusive rights of mineral exploration both in the 
intermediate zone and in the deep sea bed, it is not easy to See how a system 
an be established which will not interfere with research. 
Coastal states may merely extend their present apprehensions (though they 
have little foundation for them) about research in the shelf region to the zone 
beyond. In the enormous expanse of seabed outside the zone, the international 
authority would presumably have to do something to assure its licensees that 
exclusivity is protected. In either event it would not be surprising if the registry 
authority felt compelled to establish some administrative regulations and pro- 
cedures especially directed at marine science research. That these techniques 
would impede marine science can be taken for granted, unless scientists seek to 
use their influence to avoid this result. It is not reassuring to recall that from 
1955 to 1958 scientists sought unsuccessfully to warn that the Continental Shelf 
treaty then under consideration would very probably interfere substantially 
with scientific research. On the other hand the sad experiences under the shelf 
treaty, which scientists had fully anticipated, may have taught state officials a 
lesson and perhaps similar future difficulties might be avoided. Unfortunately 
there is little evidence of sufficiently widespread concern over the shelf problems 
to cause one to have much optimism about heading off some new difficulties for 
marine science. x 
REFERENCES 
1. IT 1956 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 256 (1957) (U.N. Doe. 
No. A/ON.4/SER.A/1956/Add.1). 
2. 22 GAOR, Provisional Verbatim Record of the 1589th Meeting of the First 
Committee 18-16 (U.N. Doe. No. A/C.1/PV.1589) (1968). 
2 292 GAOR. Provisional Verbatim Record of the 1590th Meeting of the First 
Committee 13 (U.N. Doc. No. A/C.1/PV. 1590) (1968). 
4. 22 GAOR. Provisional Verbatim Records of the 1592d Meeting of the First 
Committee 7 (U.N. Doe. No. A/C.1/PV. 1592) (1968). ‘ 
5. This information is derived from Appendix F of National Petroleum Council, 
Petroleum Resources under the Ocean Floor 100-01 (1969). 
