that the "areas adjacent to the coast" in which the 

 coastal States have exclusive mineral rights are 

 areas that do not take "too-big" a "bite" out of 

 the deep-sea bed; that do not reach "too-far" from 

 shore; where the coastal State has a legitimate 

 interest in excluding others; where-economically 

 and technologically-exploitation depends heavily 

 on the coastal State. There is some support, too, 

 for an argument that the geological shelf has not 

 become wholly irrelevant, that a State can claim 

 all of its geological shelf, but that over-all and in 

 general, "adjacent" areas do not extend "too-far" 

 beyond the geological shelves of the world. * ' 



There is little question but that the NPC view 

 of adjacency extends too-far beyond the 200 

 meters, the depth of most geological shelves of the 

 world. Considering the totality of its interests in 

 the oceans, the United States would never have 

 accepted the Convention on the Continental Shelf 

 as NPC now reads it. 



Professor Henkin's guidelines are based upon 

 the justifications advanced for the Truman Procla- 

 mation of 1945. It was reasonable and just, 

 according to the Proclamation, for the United 

 States to assert its right of permanent, exclusive 

 access to the mineral resources of its continental 

 shelf: 



since the effectiveness of measures to utilize or 

 conserve these resources would be contingent 

 upon cooperation and protection from the shore, 

 since the continental shelf may be regarded as an 

 extension of the landmass of the coastal nation 

 and thus naturally appurtenant to it, since these 



Id. at 24. There is some evidence as to what the 

 United States thought might not be "too-fai" beyond the 

 geological shelf. Dr. John Lyman has given the Institute 

 of Naval Studies the following view of why the United 

 States supported the addition of the exploitability cri- 

 terion: 



At an Interamerican Conference on the Conti- 

 nental Shelf held at Ciudad Tmjillo in 1956. [upon the 

 results of which NPC relies heavily} the U.S. Delegation 

 had the advance position of supporting 100 fathoms (200 

 meters) as the outer limit of the continental shelf. It was 

 also provided with a detailed bathymetric chart of the 

 East Coast, which showed that a curious platform exists 

 off New York a short distance down the Continental 

 Slope at a depth slightly greater than 100 fathoms. On the 

 basis of the possible strategic importance of this special 

 area, the U.S. Delegation cabled home and was authorized 

 to support the "feasibility" rule, which was adopted by 

 this Conference and subsequently by the International 

 Law Commission and the 1958 Geneva Convention. 



resources frequently form a seaward extension of a 

 pool or deposit lying within the territory, and 

 since self-protection compels the coastal nation to 

 keep close watch over activities off its shores 

 which are of the nature necessary for the utiliza- 

 tion of these resources. ^ '^ 



It wiU be seen that two of these justifica- 

 tions rely upon the geological concept of the 

 continental shelf. The first justification wiU have 

 less and less applicabUity as technology advances 

 to the point where exploitation of the mineral 

 resources of the seabed and subsoil beyond the 

 200-meter isobath is no longer heavily dependent, 

 technologically or economically, upon any particu- 

 lar coastal State. The last justification continues to 

 be vahd. 



Taken together, these justifications make it 

 very difficult to translate Professor Henkin's rea- 

 sonable guideUnes into depth, or distance-from 

 shore, figures. But they were most carefully 

 weighed by the International Panel, as we shall 

 point out, when it fashioned its recommendations 

 for the "intermediate zone." 



3. The Submarine Areas Beyond the Limits of the 

 Continental Shelves 



The panel assumes agreement here that the 

 definition of the continental shelf should not be so 

 interpreted as to permit the coastal States to 

 divide the sea-bed and subsoil of the world's 

 oceans among themselves. That interpretation 

 would eliminate the question to which we shall 

 now turn: Are there general principles of inter- 

 national law governing exploration and exploita- 

 tion of the mineral resources of the sea-bed and 

 subsoil beyond the outer limits of the continental 

 shelves? 



No one can answer this question with certainty. 

 International lawyers disagree on whether these 

 resources belong to nobody (res nullius) or to 

 everybody (res communis). In the case of fishing 

 and navigation, these concepts seem to be merely 

 alternative ways of justifying the doctrine of the 

 "freedom of the seas." Recently, however, the 

 State Department's Deputy Legal Adviser has 

 suggested that if the mineral resources underlying 



^"Presidential Proclamation No. 2667, Sept. 28, 1945, 

 lOFed. Reg. 12303(1945). 



VIII-20 



