1277 
Rather than reopeneing the laboriously negotiated Geneva Convention to try 
to reach a new generalized definition of the shelf, it would seem better to deline- 
ate the shelf on a pragmatic basis, instance-by-instance, as occasions arise—par- 
ticularly in view of the limited extent of today’s knowledge about the underlying 
character of the shelf in many parts of the world. 
The “intermediate zone” proposed by the Commission is also open to objection. 
Rather than holding national jurisdiction in the seas within strict limits, as 
United States policy has always tried to do, this idea would, in my opinion, 
encourage states to expand their claims to exclusivity toward the 100-mile line 
in order to obtain title or bargaining power over the maximum potential re- 
sources possible. The situation could end up more confused than it now is. 
More seriously, the “intermediate zone” idea would entitle an international 
body to interfere within an area which numerous states hold to be vital to na- 
tional security. The United States has an aircraft identification zone (A.D.I.Z.) 
that extends out several hundred miles into the Atlantic and Pacific, for exam- 
ple. Should an international body be given rights to inspect, police, and control 
leases within such areas, disputes could arise that would hardly be in the inter- 
ests of peace and security. 
It proved impossible between 1958 and 1960 to enlarge the area of agreement 
on the law of the sea beyond that incorporated in the Geneva treaties. There is 
no indication that the nations are prepared to go farther today. On the contrary, 
the area of agreement appears to be narrowing. 
In relation to national defense, the values of the slope and rise in particular 
are just beginning to be seen. As capability to work here becomes an accom- 
plished fact, use of this region for listening, detection, housing defense instal- 
lations, and other purposes will multiply in much the same way as outer space 
technology has opened up new vistas of concern for national security there. 
INTERNATIONAL LICENSING AUTHORITY 
A second area in which the Commission’s recommendations are open to chal- 
lenge is in relation to the proposed International Registry Authority. The Com- 
mission recommends that the United States take leadership in negotiating agree- 
ments that will establish an International Authority to register national claims 
for exploring and exploiting areas of the deep sea bottom beyond the redefined 
continental shelf. 
The nations would undertake not to engage in or authorize action without 
first registering a claim to a particular area. On a ‘first-come, first-registered”’ 
basis, registration would give “the exclusive right to engage in or authorize 
such exploitation in a large enough area and for a long enough time to enable 
the producer to operate economically .. . and to recover its original investment 
as well as an adequate return thereon. The size of the area covered by the claim 
and the term of years for which it is registered should be fixed by the Authority.” 
By alert maneuvering, foreign parties might succeed in laying claims to ex- 
tensive tracts of seabed on the outer edge of the continental shelf off the coast 
of Maine or off the South Atlantic states, where the shelf extends out more 
than one hundred miles. Should this occur, it would allow alien parties to become 
lodged on our doorstep regardless of local security or economic interests. 
It is desirable for the United States to take leadership in world affairs, but it 
is questionable whether this particular suggestion is in the larger national 
interest. An I.R.A. would be allowed to give away rights to resources in areas 
physically joined to the American land mass where these could be developed by 
American industry, and would require states to pay fees—which an Authority 
composed of a majority of the newer countries would be tempted to set high. 
It is difficult to believe that the Congress of the United States will favor such 
a give-away program, or support an international authority that will have the 
power to “inspect all stations, installations, equipment, and other devices” in 
claimed areas. This sounds close to an authority with supranational powers 
over states. 
The establishment of an international agency for settling conflicting claims 
on the abyssal sea floor or over midoceanic ridges or seamounts may eventually 
be in order. There is ample machinery now in existence, however, for settling 
such disputes whether by political means, or by arbitration or judicial settle- 
ment. Many states have bilateral arrangements with others for mixed claims 
procedures. Nearly all states are members of the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
tion and of the international Court of Justice at the Hague. It hardly seems 
necessary to pile Ossa on Pelion further simply because there is increased 
