of scientific opportunities as they arise in the mind 

 of the investigator."^ ^ 



The scheduling of large, expensive research vessels, 

 so as to obtain the optimum scientific return for 

 the funds expended is already a difficult enough 

 problem, without throwing in this new element of 

 uncertainty.^* 



Finally, there is always the possibility that a 

 coastal State may deny foreign scientists per- 

 mission to conduct research concerning its conti- 

 nental shelf and thereby prevent them from 

 acquiring data that may be critical for their 

 purposes. 



3. Position of United States with Respect to Some 

 of These Questions 



The United States has apparently taken the 

 position that its consent is required only for 

 scientific research involving physical contact with 

 the continental shelf. Thus a pamphlet pubUshed 

 by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography 

 states: 



Research on the continental shelf includes the 

 removal of shelf samples (such as by coring and 

 dredging) and of living resources which are unable 

 to move at the harvestable stage except in con- 

 stant physical contact with the shelf. Research 

 on waters above the shelf or on swimming crea- 

 tures is not affected. ^ ^ 



On this interpretation, measurements of mag- 

 netic fields or gravity and the taking of acoustic 

 subbottom reflection measurements and water 

 samples would not be research requiring the prior 

 consent of the coastal State. ^* However, doubt 

 has been expressed as to whether this interpreta- 

 tion reflects United States practice in this matter 

 and whether it will be accepted by other 



nations.^' For example, it may be argued that the 

 coastal State's consent is required "if the investiga- 

 tive technique is aimed at the surface or the 

 subsoil of the shelf even though the physical 

 instrumentality employed is on the surface or in 

 the water column"; the "end result of using the 

 instrumentaUty is to probe . . . into the shelf and 

 such research is [it may be argued] undertaken 

 there."^« 



4. Recommendations: A Policy of "Easy Access" 

 for Scientific Inquiry 



Pending the negotiation of a new international 

 convention of the kind proposed below, the panel 

 recommends that the United States announce a 

 poUcy of "easy access" to its continental shelf for 

 purposes of scientific inquiry. Accordingly, the 

 United States should interpret and apply the 

 Convention on the Continental Shelf as follows: 



(a) It should declare that it will consent to the 

 conduct of any proposed foreign scientific investi- 

 gation certified by the Intergovernmental Oceano- 

 graphic Commission (IOC) as meeting the require- 

 ments of the Convention of the Continental Shelf. 

 Thus in performing this task, IOC will be guided 

 by the criteria set forth in Article 5 (8) of the 

 Convention, namely whether the request for ap- 

 proval and consequent consent by the United 

 States "is submitted by a qualified institution with 

 a view to purely scientific research into the 

 physical or biological characteristics of the conti- 

 nental shelf." Cooperative projects sponsored or 

 endorsed by IOC will obviously fall within these 

 criteria. Because IOC is an intergovernmental 

 organization and one in which coastal States 

 predominate, coastal States should have confi- 

 dence in its actions. 



(b) It should give the terms "qualified institu- 

 tion" and "purely scientific research" the broadest 

 possible interpretation and so, for example, con- 

 sent to scientifically-valuable exploration for min- 



23 

 24 



Schaefei, supra note 16, at 16. 

 Ibid. 



Interagency Committee on Oceanography, U.S. Oce- 

 anic Research in Foreign Waters, ICO Pamphlet No. 25, 

 January 1966, at 7. 



Schaefei, supra note 16, at 14. 



Burke, supra note 5, at 52, 58; Schaefer, supra note 

 16, at 14. For a summary of the argument that the United 

 States position may be a too restrictive interpretation of 

 the Convention, see Burke, supra note 5, at 58-60. 

 (Professor Burke himself supports the less restrictive view. 

 Id. at 58.) 



28 



Burke, supra note 5, at 60. 



VIII-75 



