b. The National Petroleum Council (NPC) 

 interprets the exploitability and adjacency criteria 

 as giving the coastal States exclusive jurisdiction 

 (1) generally, "over the natural resources of the 

 continental land mass seaward ... to where the 

 submerged portion of that land mass meets the 

 abyssal ocean floor," i.e., over the natural resources 

 of the geological continental shelf, continental bor- 

 derlands, continental slopes, and at least the 

 landward portions of the geological continental 

 rises;'* and (2) in particular instances, "(i.e., 

 where the continent drops off sharply from near 

 the present coastline to the abyssal ocean floor)," 

 over the natural resources of "an area of that floor 

 contiguous to the continent."' ' While this inter- 

 pretation does not go as far as that just previously 

 considered, it goes much further than Professor 

 Goldie's more restrictive reading of the Conven- 

 tion,'* and is without discernible limit in the 

 "particular instances" described. 



NPC argues that there is support for its view in 

 the history of the background and negotiations 

 leading up to the adoption of the Convention on 

 the Continental Shelf.' ' Our study of the history 

 of the Geneva Convention, and the work of the 

 International Law Commission preparatory to it 

 (see Preface, note 1), indicates that there are 

 isolated bits and pieces of "legislative history" 

 which may offer some support for the NPC view. 

 There is also stronger evidence for alternative 

 interpretations. The fact is the draftsmen of the 

 Convention did not anticipate that advancing 

 technology would make the exploitability cri- 

 terion so central an issue. The certainty and 

 emphatic manner that characterizes the statement 

 of the NPC conclusions is unwarranted. 



For example, to support its position, the NPC 

 Committee maintains that the "provisions of the 



Petroleum Resources Under the Ocean Floor, An 

 Interim Report By the National Petroleum Council's 

 Committee on Petroleum Resources Under the Ocean 

 Floor, July 9, 1968, p. 9 (hereinafter cited as NPC 

 Interim Report). The Interim Report was adopted by the 

 National Petroleum Council on July 9, 1968, with a Note 

 that "nothing contained" therein "should be construed as 

 representing U.S. poHcy." 



Id. at 15. It also recommends that the coastal States 

 "bordering enclosed seas and small ocean basins adjacent 

 to and closely related to the continents should reserve to 

 themselves full options with respect to the establishment 

 of exclusive jurisdiction over seabed resources." Ibid. 



See text accompanying notes 51 and 52 supra. 



5 9 



The legislative history upon which NPC relies is 

 summarized in Appendix B to the NPC Interim Report. 



Geneva Convention encompass the principles on 

 which the Truman Proclamation of 1945 was 

 based."*" We accept this view, but it does not 

 support the position contended for because the 

 Truman Proclamation appUed to the continental 

 shelf as geologically defined.* ^ Furthermore, there 

 is evidence in the legislative history that even 

 though the legal definition of the continental shelf 

 does not coincide with its geological definition, it 

 was not intended to abandon "the Unk" to the 

 geological shelf entirely.* ^ 



Essentially, NPC argues that the adjacency 

 criterion alone— not the exploitability criterion- 

 imposes a limit on the claims of the coastal State 

 and that the submarine areas encompassing the 

 geological continental shelves, continental border- 

 lands, continental slopes, at least the landward 

 portions of the continental rises and, in particular 

 instances, undefined areas of the abyssal ocean 

 floor, are still "adjacent to the coast." 



However, this is certainly not the sense in 

 which the concept of adjacency was used by the 

 International Law Commission. Even Dr. Garcia- 

 Amador, who was the leading proponent of the 

 exploitabiUty clause and upon whose words and 

 activities NPC greatly rehes, explained that the 

 adjacency criterion "placed a very clear limitation 

 on the submarine areas" covered by the conti- 

 nental shelf definition, including the exploitabiUty 

 criterion, because the "adjacent areas ended at the 

 point where the slope down to the ocean bed 



""NPC Interim Report, at 9. 



' Professor Henkin points out that although the 

 Truman Proclamation itself did not define the "conti- 

 nental shelf", the White House Press Release that accom- 

 panied it (See 13 Dep't State Bull. 484 (1945)) referred 

 to the common definition of the shelf as delineated by 

 the 100-fathom or 200-meter isobath. Henkin, supra note 

 38, at 19, n. 53. Furthermore, it is plausible to argue that 

 since the Truman Proclamation itself used a geological 

 term without qualification, it intended the geological 

 definition. Ibid. 



Henkin, supra note 38, at 18. For example, in its 

 final report, the International Law Commission stated 

 that while it was departing "to some extent from the 

 geological concept," it was "adopting, to a certain extent, 

 the geological test for the 'continental shelf as the basis 

 of the juridical definition of the term." 1956 Inter- 

 national Law Commission Report 41. Although at one 

 time it was proposed that the term "submarine area" be 

 substituted for "continental shelf in order to get away 

 from the geological connotation of that term, the 

 proposal was rejected because, in part, "the term 'sub- 

 marine areas' used without further explanation would not 

 give a sufficient indication of the nature of the areas in 

 question." /rf. at 42. 



VIII- 18 



