According to its Solicitor, the Department of the 

 Interior has not decided on a line beyond which it 

 will not lease, nor has it decided to lease as far out 

 as anyone might suggest. "Each case," he stated, 

 "will be considered individually, with consultation 

 with the State and Justice Departments where 

 appropriate."^' 



Other nations, too, have indicated an interest in 

 exploring and exploiting mineral resources at 

 depths greater than 200 meters.'" If the United 

 States limited itself to the 200-meter isobath, it is 

 not likely that other nations would follow its 

 example. To persist in such a limitation would 

 slow the progress of marine science, technology 

 and resource development and deprive the United 

 States and its nationals of a fair opportunity to 

 engage in exploration and exploitation of the 

 mineral resources of the deep seas. This would be 

 inconsistent with the objectives of the Marine 

 Resources and Engineering Development Act, 

 which seek to maximize the opportunity for 

 American industry to exploit these mineral re- 

 sources and preserve the role of the United States 

 as a leader in marine science and resource develop- 

 ment. 



Thus, even a wait-and-see policy must be an 

 active, not a do-nothing, policy if these objectives 

 are to be attained and undesirable faits accomplis 

 avoided. Such a poUcy would require the United 

 States to decide now that it would not claim 

 permanent, exclusive access to mineral resources 

 beyond a certain depth and that it would object to 

 any such claims by other coastal States. It would 

 require the United States to decide whether to 

 permit the Interior Department to lease rights to 

 explore and exploit mineral resources beyond that 

 depth. If Interior were to be permitted to lease 

 such rights, the United States would need a plan to 

 encourage activity by the lessee because the 

 international legal-poUtical framework eventually 

 agreed upon might not recognize United States 

 authority in the area in question. 



89 

 90r 



See Bany, supra note 88, at 13. 



Fourteen States other than the United States have 

 issued permits for activity beyond the 200-meter isobath. 

 Wilson, Oil Hunters Will Hasten Quest for Marine Re- 

 serves, 27 Offshore, No. 13, p. 43 (Dec. 1967). Australia 

 has issued an exploration permit for an area 200 miles 

 from its coast; Honduras and Nicaragua have licensed 

 exploration in an area 225 miles from their coasts. 

 Schedule of Selected Concessions Granted in Continental 

 Shelf Areas 11 (1967). 



In short, because of the uncertainties of the 

 status quo, an effective wait-and-see poUcy would 

 require the United States to have a clear picture of 

 the international legal-poUtical framework it 

 would prefer. In that case, it might just as well 

 take the initiative to seek that framework and 

 thereby help to shape the future in a constructive 

 fashion. 



D. United Nations Activity Looking to a New 

 International Legal-Political Framework 



In any case, it is not reahstic to assume that the 

 United States will have the option simply to wait 

 and see what happens under the existing frame- 

 work. The United Nations is deeply immersed in 

 the oceans and steps have been taken in various of 

 its organs looking to the creation of a new 

 framework for the exploration and exploitation of 

 the mineral resources of the sea-bed and subsoil 

 beyond the outer limits of the continental shelf. It 

 should also be noted that under Article 13 of the 

 Convention on the Continental Shelf, any State 

 acceding to the Convention may request its re- 

 vision at any time after five years have elapsed 

 from the date the Convention came into effect, 

 i.e., at any time after June 10, 1969. The United 

 Nations General Assembly must then decide what 

 to do about the request. 



1 . The Resolution on Resources of the Sea 



At the 1966 United Nations General Assembly, 

 United States initiatives resulted in the adoption 

 of a Resolution on Resources of the Sea.' ^ This 

 Resolution requested the Secretary-General (a) "to 

 make a survey of the present state of knowledge of 

 the resources of the sea beyond the continental 

 shelf, excluding fish, and of the techniques for 

 exploiting these resources";'^ and (b) "to under- 

 take ... a comprehensive survey of activities in 

 marine science and technology, including that 

 relating to mineral resources development, under- 

 taken by members of the United Nations family of 

 organizations, various Member States and inter- 



^^Resolution 2172, 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 16, at 

 32, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (Dec. 8, 1966). 



A similar resolution, not excluding fish, was passed 

 by the United Nations Economic and Social Council on 

 March 7, 1966. Resolution 1112, 40 U.N. ECOSOC, 

 Supp. No. 1, at 3, E/4176 (1966). 



VIII-25 



