research on their shelves. The reasons may well have involved serious 

 national questions, but they have also had chauvinistic overtones. 



This leads to a third observation, our pessimism as to the chaotic state 

 and the ultimate benefit of the preparatory sessions leading to the 1973 

 Law of the Sea Conference. The difference between the 1958 Conference, 

 with its mark of success, and the current negotiations is that the former 

 was preceded by quiet and hard work on the part of technical experts. 

 The 1958 results were based on the best oceanic expertise available at 

 the time and were limited to a small number of priority issues. Despite 

 the best efTorts of the United States and other major powers to limit 

 the forthcoming Conference to a few issues — particularly the question of 

 territorial limits — the member nations, led by the lesser developed coun- 

 tries, overwhelmingly voted to include all issues on the agenda. Most of 

 the countries will not have the time to become adequately informed 

 technically on a broad array of complex issues. Thus the Conference may 

 degenerate into a series of position-taking statements on very narrow 

 local issues rather than a striving for an optimum regime for the benefit 

 of all and for a situation that could enhance conflict-free prospects around 

 the world. 



Our fourth observation is that a legalistic approach will not serve and 

 an alternative must be sought. A legalistic approach will only work to 

 maintain the present fractionated situation. A strongly pragmatic ap- 

 proach based on the realities of what the oceans can offer mankind and 

 what is needed to deliver on this offer allows more hope for success. It 

 appears that the true requirement is a framework which permits all 

 nations to jointly participate in a mutual educational effort centered on 

 the world's oceans, the current and future resources, and the factors to 

 be balanced if mankind's long-term needs are to be most appropriately 

 met by oceanic means. 



Today's strong movement in the direction of further nationalism car- 

 ries with it serious threats to classical free movement on the oceans. This 

 is contradictory to the lofty phrase, the "common heritage of mankind," 

 which opened the present debates on the uses of the resources of the 

 midocean. 



The current position of the United States with respect to three im- 

 portant issues treated in this chapter (freedom of passage, fisheries, and 

 freedom of research) as it has slowly evolved in the ferment of the last 

 years, seems to us now eminently sound. It satisfies U.S. national interests, 

 it is based on good conservation principles, and it seems the best arrange- 

 ment leading to an amicable international situation and the common good. 



The Issue of Free Passage 



The U.S. policy for free passage in waters outside the 12-mile territorial 

 limit and in classical straits must remain unmodified. It is required in the 



