Scientific Research 
Debate concerning the conduct of marine scientific research has focused 
on the economic zone, or special resource zone adjacent to coastal nations. 
Clearly, each coastal nation has the inherent right to regulate scientific 
research in its own sovereign waters, including the right to demand that 
a research vessel obtain prior consent. Just as clearly, present international 
law places no barriers in the way of marine scientific research upon the 
high seas beyond national jurisdiction. Some nations are now advocating 
that, within any special resource zone to be established, a nation wishing to 
conduct marine scientific research seek prior consent from the adjacent 
coastal nation. This position is anathema to the conduct of effective 
research, and is opposed by the United States. 
The draft proposal of the United States provides for a set of obligations 
to be assumed by any vessel conducting marine scientific research in areas 
of special coastal nation jurisdiction. If these obligations, which include 
the right of participation, publication of results, protection of the environ- 
ment, and sharing of results, and others, are met, the vessel is free to carry 
on with the work. NACOA believes that this is the minimum position that 
can be accepted without suffering severe consequences concerning the 
improvement of knowledge of the oceans. If a consent regime results from 
the negotiations, the impact on the conduct of research will be serious. 
Experience has shown that costs rise as restrictions increase. Since the 
funds for research are finite, increased costs result in less research for the 
dollar. Less research means less knowledge available to all. 
CONCLUSION 
While the likelihood of total failure of the forthcoming Conference is 
small, statesmanship will be needed to maximize the beneficial results. The 
United States, along with the rest of the participating nations, needs a 
successful Law of the Sea treaty to provide the framework within which 
the body of law and the associated body of scientific knowledge can evolve. 
Successful negotiation is necessary to establish workable dividing lines 
between management responsibilities of the coastal nation on the one 
hand, and the international community on the other. Ambiguities presently 
are so severe as to retard the beneficial uses of the oceans. 
There is, of course, always the possibility that the Conference will come 
to no conclusion. Recognizing this fact, NACOA feels the United States 
would be remiss if it were not well prepared for that contingency. This 
could best be accomplished by planning now for legislation and/or other 
appropriate action which could be rapidly implemented to protect the 
legitimate interests of the United States in the oceans. 
NACOA reiterates its position taken in its first Annual Report: “It is 
possible that there will be a considerable lapse of time before international 
26 
