some time, they suggested that measures be considered to 

 freeze the present situation to avoid future claims. 



Netherlands. This government felt that the security as- 

 pects should be dealt with by the agencies concerned with arms 

 control and disarmament. They outhned an international 

 system for the ocean floor based on exploitation under the 

 supervision of the United Nations as the agent of the com- 

 munity of nations. They suggested that pending the prepara- 

 tion of this convention that future occupation of the ocean floor 

 be ruled out by a General Assembly resolution. 



Belgium. This country favored provisions for the sea-bed 

 similar to those in the Antarctic Treaty, and pointed out the 

 ambiguity of present international law. It was also inclined to- 

 ward excluding living organisms from new provisions pertaining 

 to the resources of the subsoil. In order to encourage exploi- 

 tation, the government suggested that exploiting nations be 

 allowed a reasonable profit on any ventures before profits 

 were appropriated for the benefit of mankind. 



China. The Chinese government favored internationaliza- 

 tion of the sea-bed and offered its cooperation to the U. N. in 

 future exploration and exploitation. 



Canada. As a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, Canada 

 stressed the importance of dealing with the legal questions re- 

 garding the area of the ocean floor under consideration. They 

 felt that the disarmament and political aspects, while of unde- 

 niable importance, would be more appropriately considered 

 at a later time after the legal and technical aspects had been 

 studied in some depth. 



Norway. The Norwegian government expressed the ur- 

 gency which it felt for the need for a thorough examination of 

 the problems involved. The problem of defining the limits of 

 national jurisdiction was seen as particularly acute, yet the 

 government refrakied from making any specific proposals. It 

 felt that the Outer Space Treaty provided some guidance for 

 effective and peaceful exploitation of the resources of the sea- 

 bed. The response also warned of possible conflicts of interest 

 between the traditional maritime activities and the future ex- 

 ploitation of the ocean floor. An opinion on the matter of who 

 should benefit by the proceeds of the exploitation was not 

 offered, although hope was expressed that they could be used 

 for the benefit of all mankind. 



Saudi Arabia. This country stressed the importance of 

 reserving the right of exploitation even though the country 

 might not be able to exercise the rights at the present time. It 

 suggested that "for the benefit of mankind" be interpreted as 

 the benefit of the coastal State conducting the exploitation which 



8 



