127 



other, is in danger of being resolved in the overall negotiations by a 

 compromipe which wonld preserve the essence of freedom of the seas; 

 namely, free navigation, at the expense of effectively nationalizing a 

 quite wide coastal strip, for most, if not all, important purposes. 



It is not my purpose to address the wisdom of giving the coastal 

 states control over the exploitation of living and nonliving resources 

 out to 200 miles or out to the continental rise, nor is it my purpose 

 to address the question of the wisdom of giving this coastal state con- 

 trol over other forms of activity. 



I am concerned, however, with the wisdom of giving this coastal 

 state control exclusive prerogatives with respect to environmental pro- 

 tection in that area, and that seems in some danger of happening in a 

 general sense, wnth the exceptions which I have already indicated. 



"Wliat such an outcome would mean for environmental protection of 

 the ocean in the lonir run has to be assessed in the light of tw^o facts 

 about the sources of injury to the marine environment. The first of 

 these facts is that we are told that the bulk of even present marine 

 pollution, and estimates range from over 50 to 90 percent, is traceable 

 to activities which take place on land and which produce effluents find- 

 ing their way into the ocean, from rivers, from outfalls or from dif- 

 fusion in the atmosphere. 



Second, the area which T have said mav be effectively nationalized, 

 while by no means geographically insignificant in itself, comprising as 

 much as a fifth of the entire area of the ocean, is nevertheless likely 

 to be of a greatly disproportionate importance in relation to the other 

 area of the ocean insofar as environmental protection is concerned. 



The reason for this is that this is the area where the bulk of mineral 

 exploitation takes place and where most of the living resources are to 

 be found. 



The negotiations seem to be headed toward a solution that would 

 leave the international community in the same position, as regards the 

 ocean environment, as it now occupies with respect to activities on 

 land which are injurious to the land environment. 



That is to say, from time to time in an ad hoc way, through the 

 T"^nited N'ations or otherwise, aroused by concern for some particular 

 problem that has finallv soaked in on the general consciousness, the 

 community can seek to invoke the assistance of states in getting to- 

 gether and addressing the problem. 



Rut it would be doing Avithout any preexistinc: and continuing basis 

 for the claim that it is really any of the international community's 

 business Avhat go(^s on in the national areas. And it would be doing so 

 without any preexisting mechanism for doing anything about what 

 is froing on in the area, even if its legitimate concern is recognized. 



This is not likelv to be an effective way for protecting the interests 

 of the T'^nited States as a member of the world communitv, or of that 

 community itself in the lonir nm, as regards the marine environment. 



May T conclude then witli souie suggestion as to what might be in- 

 troduced into the law of tlie sea negotiations to change the present 

 tendency of those negotiations as regards protection of the marine 

 environment. 



In a general way it seems to me clear that it must be recognized that 

 this new constitution for the. ocean which we are in the process of 

 formulating will not be sound or wise if the task of drawing up is 



