218 



regulate or prevent marine pollution. The High Seas Convention is primarilj' 

 concerned about two classes of pollutions, oil and radioactive substances, i-ather 

 than all soui'ces of pollution. The conventions contain broad language, which, at 

 the coming conference, should be replaced with more specific criteria. Further, 

 the ions Geneva conventions contain a more fundamental defect, for they are 

 l>ased in a fragmented, piecemeal approach to the causes and remedies of marine 

 pollution. Future provisions in law of the sea conventions should be ba.sed upon 

 a comprehensive, systematic approach to marine pollution and oceanic life, which 

 is suggested by scientific ecological analysis. 



There is a threshold question of what constitutes pollution, a term which is not 

 defined in existing law. The U.N. has suggested the following definition : 



"The introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into 

 the marine environment (including estuaries) resulting in such deleterious 

 effects as harm to living resources, hazard to human health, hindrance to marine 

 activities, including fishing, impairment of quality for use of sea water and 

 reduction of amenities." 



A comprehensive approach has been suggested by the U.N. Intergovernmental 

 Working Group on Marine Pollution (IWGMP), which adopted principles that 

 were endorsed by the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in its 

 Reconmiendation for Action No. 92. That Stockholm Recommendation stated that 

 the IWGMP principle should be "guiding concept" for the U.N. Conference on 

 the Law of the Sea. In its Declaration of Principles, the Stockholm Conference 

 further stated the obligation of states to protect the oceans : 



"Principle 7 : States shall take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the 

 seas by substances that are liable to create hazards to human health, to harm 

 living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other 

 legitimate uses of the sea." 



A comprehensive approach to marine pollution is also supported by Canada, 

 and defined by it as "a concerted attack on all sources of marine pollution whether 

 land based or marine based." This is necessary because it is "evident" that 

 "existing international conventions, even taken together, do not constitute a 

 comprehensive approach to the preservation of the marine environment." Canada 

 urges that the conference on the Law of the Sea adopt the keystone for such a 

 system by elaborating a "matter or umbrella treaty." 



Finally IWGMP, whose principles are attached, urges that the implementa- 

 tion of controls should be "flexible" to reflect increasing knowledge of the marine 

 ecosystems, and the discovery of new or unsuspected pollutants. 



Thus international law should be revised to define pollution and to clearly 

 state a general obligation of all nations to protect and preserve the ecology of 

 the oceans and these provisions should manifest a comprehensive, systematic 

 approach to the control of marine pollution. 



4. International Regimes For the Seabed and Deep Oceana 



One of the principal reasons for the Law of the Sea Conference is that inter- 

 national law contains no clear rules governing tlie ownership of ocean mineral 

 resources beyond the vague legal limits of the continental shelf. These resources, 

 especially hard minerals like manganese nodules, are estimated to represent 

 immense potential wealth ; and they could supply a large part of the world's 

 needs for basic metals as land based sources are exliausted. Until recent techno- 

 logical advancements, these minerals were inaccessible. Consequently, rules were 

 formulated concerning ownership and development. 



U.N. resolutions and the seabed proposals of many countries declare that the.<?e 

 resources belong to all nations. They are "the common heritage of all mankind," 

 which are not subject to appropriation by any State. Many countries urge the 

 creation of an international agency to regulate the development of these 

 resources. The United States, through Pre-'Jidents .lohn.'^on and Xixon. has 

 approved these principles. In addition, on August 30, 1070, the I'nited States 

 submitted a draft convention which would establish an International Seabed 

 Resource Authority with jurisdiction over certain areas of the ocean to govern 

 seabed mineral resource development. 



Under the U.S. proposed seabed convention, the "international seabed area" 

 would comprise all of the seabed and ocean floor seaward of the l2(K) meter iso- 

 bath (approximately 50 miles from shore). This area would be the "common 

 heritage of all mankind," which could not be subject to national appropriation or 

 sovereignty by any one nation. Jurisdiction of the international seabed area 

 would be divided between the coastal state and an international agency. In the 

 zone of the ocean seaward of the 200 meter isobath to the edge of the continental 



