Page 8: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (November 15, 1971)

OCEANS -

The New Frontier

This is the second ond final part of "Oceans—The New Frontier." The first half was presented in our issue of No- vember 1, 1971.

Boundary Limits Of

National Jurisdiction

As a step prior to solution of in- ternational problems, the United

States should improve and refine existing legal systems for the ex- ploration, exploitation and protec- tion of natural resources within the national jurisdiction, including such matters as fixing boundary lines, accommodation of conflicting uses, and environmental quality.

On September 28, 1945, Presi- dent Truman issued a Presidential

Proclamation proclaiming that the "natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the Continental Shelf beneath the High Seas, but con- tiguous to the coasts of the United

States were to be regarded as sub- ject to the jurisdiction and control of the United States." Supporting our nation's traditional policy of freedom of the seas, he expressly provided that his proclamation in no way affected the "character as

High Seas of the waters above the

Continental Shelf and the right to their free and unimpeded naviga- tion."

President Truman then placed the natural resources of the Con- tinental Shelf under the Depart- ment of the Interior by Executive

Order, pending Congressional ac- tion.

Eight years later in May 1953,

Congress enacted the 'Submerged

Lands Act which granted the states ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters seaward to a line three miles distant from the coast- line of each state.

Immediately following this, the

Congress enacted the Outer Con- tinental 'Shelf Lands Act which de- clared that the United States owns all submerged lands in the Con- tinental 'Shelf seaward of the lands granted to the states. The law did not define the seaward limits of the

Outer Continental 'Shelf.

In 1958, the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, an inter- national treaty which the United

States has ratified, defined the legal

Continental Shelf as the seabed and subsoil adjacent to the coast out- side the territorial sea to a depth of 200 meters, or beyond that limit to where the depth of the super- jacent waters admits of the exploit- ation of said areas. The coastal state exercises sovereign rights over this Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploitation and de- velopment of its natural resources.

This is an exclusive right. If the coastal state does not explore or develop the Continental Shelf, no one else may undertake these ac- tivities or lay claim to the shelf without the express consent of the coastal state. These rights do not depend upon occupation or proc- lamation.

This territorial right to the Con- tinental Shelf was further rein- forced by the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Con- tinental Shelf Cases. The Court re- lated its decision to the Truman

Proclamation of 1945 as "the start- ing point of positive law on this subject and the chief doctrine it enunciated, namely that a Coastal

State as having an original, natural and exclusive (in short, a vested) right to the Continental Shelf off its shores, came to prevail over all others, being now reflected in Ar- ticle 2 of the 1958 Geneva Conven- tion on the Continental Shelf." It is obvious that the United States now holds an exclusive right to the lands off its coastal shore, namely the

Continental Shelf and Slope. In 1968, the American Bar Associa- tion stated "In our opinion, the

United States should stand on its right under the (1958 Geneva)

Convention as heretofore ratified. "If legal uncertainties are be- lieved to constitute an impediment to utilization of undersea mineral resources, such uncertainties can be eliminated by uniform declarations of the coastal nations which are parties to the Convention . . . iden- tifying their claims of jurisdiction with the submerged portion of the continental land mass, and recipro- cally restricting their claims ac- cordingly."

The language of the Geneva treaty implies that, as its technical capability develops, a coastal coun- try may extend its jurisdiction across that portion of the seabed and ocean floor adjacent to its coastline until it encounters the similarly extended jurisdiction of the coastal country opposite. Op- ponents of this interpretation argue that the Convention did not intend for the boundary limits of the Con- tinental Shelf to be determined by the gradual extension of this boundary by developing techno- logy. Many experts state that if the

Convention had such a radical ex- tension of national jurisdiction in mind, the Convention undoubtedly would have made this point clear.

The present state of affairs re- garding the legal limits of the Con- tinental 'Shelf is chaotic. Claims by various countries vary from 12 to 200 miles, and the world is faced with the insecurity of having individual countries extend the boundary limits of their Continent- al Shelves on a continuing and al- most daily basis.

On May 23,1970, President Nixon proposed a treaty under which all nations would renounce their na- tional claims over the natural re- sources of the seabed beyond the 200 meter (656 feet) isdbath. He proposed that the resources beyond that limit would be regarded as the "common heritage of mankind."

This proposal 'was presented as a draft treaty by the United States delegation to the United Nations

Seabed Committee in August 1970.

In his message, the President called for an international regime for exploiting of seabed resources beyond this limit and this regime would collect mineral royalties to be used 'for economic assistance to developing countries. An interna- tional trusteeship zone would be created for the continental margins beyond the 200 meter depth and the coastal nations would act as trus- tee for the international communi- ty. Each state would receive a share of the revenues from the area under its trusteeship and would be able to impose additional taxes if it were deemed desirable. Further- more, exploration and exploitation permits would be issued by the trustee states, pending agreement on the international machinery that would ultimately regulate the in- ternational zone. Such permits would be subject to approval when international machinery is finally agreed upon.

At the same time that the Presi- dent released his message, the U.N.

General Assembly adopted a reso- lution that the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national juris- diction should be the common heri- tage of mankind, that they should not be subject to appropriation by states or persons, and that no state may exercise or acquire rights in this area except in accordance with an international regime to be es- tablished. The General Assembly also adopted a resolution calling for a third United Nations Confer- ence on the Law of the Seabed to be held in 1973. This summer the

U.N. Seabed Committee will meet in Geneva to draft a working treaty for an international regime and to prepare a comprehensive agenda for the 1973 conference. The con- ference will also deal with pre- servation of the marine environ- ment, free passage through, under and over international straits, and agreement establishing the width of the territorial sea at 12 miles.

At this early stage of negotiation it is unwise for the United States to suggest unilaterally limiting its jurisdiction to the narrow boundary suggested by the President. If the

President's suggestion were adopt- ed, all Continental Shelf and Con- tinental Slope resources beyond a depth of 200 meters would fall within an internationalized zone, and the recovery of these resources would be under the control of an international regime yet to be de- termined.

The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the potential resources in place between the 200 and 2,500 meter isobaths as including more than 600-billion 'barrels of oil. By comparison, U.S. production of oil on land and on the Continental

Shelf has amounted to less than 100-billion barrels during the past 100 years.

Obviously, these submerged lands are a major component of the U.S. mineral estate which will be vital to our welfare in future decades. It is alleged that in return for this renunciation the United States would obtain four benefits: free- dom of scientific research ; freedom to use the seabed for nonoffensive military purposes, such as auto- matic stations in the seabed for monitoring possible hostile ship movements; freedom of transit in straits of the world, and encourag- ing other nations to reduce their claims of a 200-mile territorial sea.

However, all of these dbjectives can be Obtained by reaching limit- ed protocol or agreements that do not require renunciation of potenti- al minerals and resources that will be vital to our nation's welfare be- fore the end of this century.

The United States should assert promptly and 'forthrightly its ex- clusive jurisdiction over the miner- al resources of the entire submerg- ed portion of the continent off its shores seaward of state-owned off- shore areas down to its junction with the abyssal ocean floor, and should work with other nations to- ward the ultimate objective of pre- cise demarcation of the boundaries of coastal nations' natural resources jurisdiction.

The adoption of this proposal on a worldwide basis would give each coastal country exclusive rights to the resources of its entire Conti- nental Shelf and Continental Slope to an average depth of 10,000 and 18,000 feet, or to a point where the

Continental Shelf joins what is commonly defined as the deep ocean floor. Such an extension of rights would not include jurisdiction over the suprajacent waters or related air space that extend ibeyoncj the limits of a country's territorial sea. (Continued on page 12) 10 Maritime Reporter/Engineering News