exploitable. Until recently it was expected that this controversial clause 

 would be a dominant issue in the current discussions. Then a host of 

 other difficulties arose which seemed for a while to overshadow it: con- 

 cern about the depletion and management of the living resources of the 

 world ocean, proposals for ultimate arrangements for the exploitation of 

 the ocean basins, a number of unilateral extensions of territorial limits, 

 a deepening universal concern about the environmental degradation of 

 the oceans, and concerns dealing with the destruction of species, such as 

 the whale. However, growing oil consumption may again force to the 

 fore problems having to do with resources beneath the ocean floor.* 



APPROACH TO GENEVA (1973) 



Against this background we wish to make four observations. The first 

 is that treaties in matters of this kind where a common heritage is in- 

 volved must allow for change. In the course of increasing knowledge of 

 the oceans and their resources, and increasing threats to the oceans, it 

 is clearly necessary to review the arrangements periodically and adjust 

 them equitably to new needs based on new knowledge. This point applies 

 principally to our present emergent fisheries position. 



The second observation is that these conventions have the force of in- 

 ternational law and should be observed as such. Unfortunately U.S. ex- 

 perience with the 1958 Geneva Conventions has been largely the opposite. 

 This experience raises grave questions as to the usefulness of attempts to 

 improve the situation by treaty revision alone, unless a better basis is 

 laid. For example, in waters off Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil, the 

 United States or its fishermen have had to pay fines or seek permits in 

 areas in which there should be unrestricted fishing access under generally 

 accepted provisions and conditions at the time of the 1958 Conventions. 

 Another example is in the area of scientific research. Various countries 

 have affected the freedom to conduct scientific research in that they have 

 not routinely granted permission to perform research in waters over their 

 shelves, or they have instituted permission-granting procedures sufficiently 

 cumbersome in many instances as to effectively exclude certain areas from 

 planning for scientific research cruises. Their reasons often seem obscure, 

 but it appears that they may be interpreted as possible efforts to force the 

 reopening of previously settled matters for the impending Law of the Sea 

 negotiations. It is all the more discouraging to observe that, for other 

 reasons, several of the developed nations have also denied permission for 



* It is possible that there will be a considerable lapse of time before international 

 agreement on Law of the Sea is attained. NACOA recognizes that economic and 

 other pressures may develop to such an extent that individual nations including 

 the United States will take unilateral actions, especially with respect to resource 

 exploitation. NACOA therefore urges consideration by the U.S. Government of 

 suitable interim arrangements that will allow development of these resources to 

 proceed, but at the same time will offer reasonable probability of meshing with 

 eventual international agreements. 



