125 



significance, while genuine, certainly is not of such scope as to lead 

 us to conclude that the problem of international protection of the 

 marine environment is going to be satisfactorily met by this one move. 



I comment also on the role of the United Nations Environmental 

 Program, pointing out that this newly established organization, within 

 the United Nations system, will have an important role in alerting the 

 world community to problems in the environment itself and problems 

 relating to the development of global policy, and will have an im- 

 portant role in coordination with genuinely regulatory agencies within 

 the United Nations system. It is not, however, an operational or regu- 

 latory agency and therefore cannot be relied upon to do the kinds 

 of jobs of lawmaking that in my judgment are required with respect 

 to protection of the marine environment. 



r then comment on the backgi-ound of the Law of the Sea negotia- 

 tions, pointing out how they can in substantial respect be explained 

 as a conflict, or the culmination of a conflict which has been growing 

 since World War II, between two competing principles of ocean 

 management. 



One is the principle of freedom of the seas, which is essentially a 

 response to the interests of powerful maritime states and has been 

 the controlling principle for the last 300 or 400 years. 



The other is the principle of coastal state control, or the extension 

 of the notion of territoriality for more and more purposes for greater 

 and greater distances into the ocean. 



This was what was involved in the Truman proclamation in 1945 

 when the United States for a special purpose extended the notion 

 of territoriality a distance into the ocean with respect to resources of 

 the Continental Shelf. It was what was at stake in the later move 

 by the west coast Latin American countries proclaiming something 

 closely approximating territorial waters for a distance of 200 miles 

 from their coasts. And it was essentially the concern w'hich led the 

 Ignited States and the Soviet T^nion in the late 1960's to begin an in- 

 ternational lobbying efi'ort aimed at bringing about a new conference 

 on the territorial sea. These two great maritime powers were con- 

 cerned that these tendencies set in train in part by the Ignited States 

 toward extension of territoriality for greater and greater distances 

 into the ocean would set off a chain of events which would substantially 

 impede the free navigabilitv of the ocean. 



You are familiar with the 1967 proposal in the United Nations by 

 Ambassador Pardo of Malta, which came along with the efforts of 

 the United States and the Soviet Union. That proposal was directed 

 toward another form of ocean usage, and two efforts converged in the 

 United Nations with the result that a comprehensive conference on 

 the Law of the Sea. covering not just these two questions, but all 

 uses of the ocean, and the question of protection of the marine environ- 

 ment as well, was eventuallv decided upon. 



That Con^rence is scheduled to begin in a procedural way later 

 this year, and in a substantive way next year. 



Senator Tunney. Are you sanguine about the results of these con- 

 ferences ? 



Mr. Hargro\te. In respect to the protection of the marine environ- 

 ment, or the foundations that will be laid for its later protection, I am 

 afraid I am not. Perhaps I can explain why. 



