inspect all stations, installations, equipment and 

 other devices used in operations under a registered 

 claim. The Authority shall not revoke any regis- 

 tered claim without first giving the State Regis- 

 trant involved a fuU opportunity to be heard. Any 

 decision to revoke a registered claim shall be 

 subject to review by the independent arbitration 

 agency recommended below. 



6. Relations Between the United States as a State 

 Registrant and the Business Entities on Whose 

 Behalf It Will Register Claims 



Apart from authorizing and obligating the State 

 Registrant to enact implementing and supple- 

 menting domestic legislation of the kind indicated 

 above, the agreements embodying the new frame-' 

 work will not deal with these relations. They are 

 the domestic concern of each State, but they must 

 be considered by the Commission in discharging its 

 statutory mandate. New legislation will be neces- 

 sary in the United States to fix these relations and 

 to implement and supplement the new framework. 



Accordingly, the panel recommends that Con- 

 gress should enact legislation embodying the fol- 

 lowing policies: 



(a) Any business entity, whether a United 

 States national or not, seeking to have the United 

 States register a claim on its behalf with the 

 International Registry Authority shall apply to the 

 Department of the Interior, which shall be desig- 

 nated as the United States agency to register such 

 claims. 



(b) In deciding whether to register the claim, 

 the Secretary of the Interior shall apply criteria 

 which are not inconsistent with those the Inter- 

 national Registry Authority itself wiU use and shall 

 also be guided by the State Department's judg- 

 ment as to the foreign poHcy impUcations, if any, 

 of registering the particular claim. 



(c) The recommended framework does not 

 provide any revenues for the State Registrant from 

 mineral resources exploration or exploitation 

 under a registered claim. The panel considered and 

 rejected the possibility that the framework might 

 itself provide that the coastal States and the 

 International Fund shall share the payments of 

 specified portions of the value of the minerals 

 extracted from the deep seas on a basis that 

 diminishes the share of the coastal State as the 

 exploitation takes place farther and farther from 



its shores.' ^^ We do not think coastal States have 

 any more equitable claim to share in the revenues 

 from mineral resources exploitation in the deep 

 seas than non-coastal States. All the nations of the 

 world, under the panel's recommendations, will be 

 compensated for their common ownership of these 

 resources through the payments made to the 

 International Fund. 



Furthermore, each State Registrant of a claim 

 may decide for itself whether and how it shall be 

 compensated by the business entities on whose 

 behalf it will register claims to explore or exploit. 



(d) So far as the United States is concerned: 



(i) The business entity on whose behalf a claim 

 is registered shall pay to the United States the 

 specified fees to cover the costs of the Registry 

 Authority. The United States shall then remit 

 these proceeds to the Registry Authority. 



(ii) If the claim sought to be registered pertains 

 to an area in its intermediate zone, the United 

 States shall adopt the policies it follows in leasing 

 mineral resources on its outer continental shelf— 

 with some important modifications to be noted. 

 The panel is aware that the pohcies of the United 

 States with respect to leasing on the outer conti- 

 nental shelf are currently being reviewed by the 

 PubUc Land Law Review Commission.' '* Never- 

 theless, its statutory mandate requires the Com- 

 mission to evaluate these policies. 



The recommended framework gives the United 

 States, and every other coastal State, valuable 

 rights in the intermediate zone— only it may 

 register claims there— and it is entirely equitable 

 that it should sell this right of exclusive access to 

 the highest bidder. It is not essential, of course, 

 that the bidding shall be in terms of fixed amounts 

 of cash to be paid before exploitation begins— as is 

 now the case on the outer continental shelf. It 

 may be in terms of a percentage of profits or net 

 return."^ 



"This suggestion, sometimes referred to as the 

 'revenue lines' concept, was initially outlined by George 

 Miron of the Office of the Solicitor, United States 

 Department of the Interior." Henkin, supra note 38, at 

 62, n. 193. 



It is our understanding that Mr. Miron himself has now 

 abandoned this proposal. 



''*Pub. L. 88-606, Sept. 19, 1964, 78 Stat. 982, 43 

 U.S.C. §§1391-1400 (1967). The Commission must 

 submit its final report to the President not later than 

 December 31, 1970. 



'"See generally, Dam, Oil and Gas Licensing and the 

 North Sea, 8 J. Law & Econ. 51 (1965). 



VIII-40 



