608 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 17 In December of 1968 the United Nations General Assembly created a permanent 42 member Committee with essentially the same framework of responsibility." During 1969 the Committee considered a number of broad economic, technical and legal issues regarding the exploration, exploitation and use of the seabeds, including the type of administrative machinery that should be established for the development of natural resources in areas beyond limits of national jurisdiction and the extent of those limits.18 The United States indicated that it was in favor of an international régime providing for the administered development of deep ocean resources and international emphasis on a number of goals directed toward greater and more beneficial uses of the marine environment.19 In 1969 the Marine Sciences Commission reported to the President and Congress in a report entitled Our Nation and the Sea 20 17 The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction was instructed: "(a) To study the elaboration of the legal principles and norms which would promote international co-operation in the exploration and use of the sea-bed and the ocean floor and the subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and to ensure the exploitation of their resources for the benefit of mankind, and the economic and other requirements which such a regime should satisfy in order to meet the interests of humanity as a whole; (b) To study the ways and means of promoting the exploitation and use of the resources of this area, and of international co-operation to that end, taking into account the foreseeable development of technology and the economic implications of such exploitation and bearing in mind the fact that such exploitation should benefit mankind as a whole; (c) To review the studies carried out in the field of exploration and research in this area and aimed at intensifying international co-operation and stimulating the exchange and the widest possible dissemination of scientific knowledge on the subject; [and] (d) To examine proposed measures of co-operation to be adopted by the international community in order to prevent the marine pollution which may result from the exploration and exploitation of the resources of this area." 23 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A/2467 (1968). 18 See U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/1 (Feb. 5, 1969), through U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/20 (Oct. 23, 1969), passim. 19 Ambassador Phillips, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, stated on October 31, 1969, that "[b]ecause mere registry of claim would probably only contribute to a confused race, it is our view that an international regime should include an international registry of claims governed by appropriate procedures." See Press Release USUN-141(69). 20 Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, Our Nation and The Sea: A Plan for National Action (1969) (hereinafter cited as "Our Nation and The Sea"). No. 4] EVALUATION OF UNITED STATES OCEANS POLICY 609 in which it was recommended that the United States "take the initiative to secure international agreement on a redefinition of the 'continental shelf' for purposes of the Convention on the Continental Shelf" and that the redefined continental shelf be fixed at a depth of 200 meters or 50 miles from the coastline, whichever is further.21 Beyond that distance the Commission recommended an "intermediate zone" extending from the redefined continental shelf to the 2500 meter isobath or 100 miles from the coastline, whichever is further. In this zone the coastal states would administer the resources, but proceeds from it would be paid to the "International Fund" to be used for the benefit of the poor and developing nations of the world. The governing board of the International Fund would be determined by the U.N. General Assembly. To administer areas beyond this buffer zone there would be the "International Registry Authority", similar to the World Bank in organization, which would register the claims of various nations for mineral resources and pay the proceeds to the International Fund.22 This proposal did not meet with immediate acceptance domestically,23 however, and the United States' position in internationa discussions continued to be quite conservative, as was that of the Soviet Union. As a result neither was able to effectively guide deliberations in the United Nations on this and related subjects. In December of 1969, following extensive and heated debates in the Sea-Bed Committee and the U.N. First Committee, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a very important resolution over the active opposition of the United States and the Soviet Union and their usual supporting blocs. By a 65-12 vote with 30 abstentions the General Assembly passed a resolution requesting the Secretary General to determine "the desirability of convening at an early date a conference on the law of the sea to review the regimes of the high seas, the continental shelf, the territorial sea and contiguous zone fishing and conservation of the living resources of the high seas particularly in order to arrive at a clear, precise and internationally accepted definition of the sea-bed and ocean floor which lies beyond national jurisdiction, in the light of the international regime to be 21 Our Nation and The Sea, at p. 145. 22 Id., at p. 147. 23 See Report of National Petroleum Council, Petroleum Resources unde the Ocean Floor 72 (1969); Joint Report of Sects. of Nat. Res. Law, Int'l ar Comp. Law and Standing Comm. on Peace and Law Through U.N., app. AB at p. 4 (Aug. 7, 1968). 610 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 17 established for that area".24 This resolution is quite significant in that there had been a considerable effort by the United States and others of the developed powers to avoid a broad scale conference of this type and to endeavor to reach international consensus by uniform unilateral declarations of policy.25 By a vote of 62-28 with 28 abstentions the General Assembly also passed a resolution providing that nations "are bound to refrain from all activities of exploitation of the resources of the area of the sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction".25a This resolution, which was of little legal effect,26 nevertheless was quite revealing of the political antipathy of the developing nations toward the great powers on the subject of marine resources. This was also vividly illustrated by the passage of a further resolution adopted by acclamation in the General Assembly referring a "Draft Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and the Sub-soil Thereof",27 which had been prepared and supported by the Soviet Union and the United States, back to the Geneva Conference of the Committee on Disarmament because of objections voiced by a number of the smaller nations during debate. 28 The General Assembly also passed without objection by the United States or the Soviet Union resolutions requesting the Sea-Bed Committee to expedite its work and prepare a draft resolution stating the principles which it believes should govern the peaceful uses of the seabed 29 and a resolution requesting the Secretary General to prepare a study on various types of interna 24 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A/2574A (1969). The original version of the resolution was introduced by Malta and called for the Secretary-General to determine the views of member states on the desirability of a conference "for the purpose of arriving at a clear, precise and internationally acceptable definition" of the area beyond limits of national jurisdiction (the "continental shelf") and the "prospective establishment of an equitable international regime" for such area. U.N. Doc. A/C, L 473 (Oct. 31, 1969), Rev. 2 (Dec. 2, 1969). See Krueger supra, n. 2 at p. 446. 25 See Sea-Bed Committee Press Release USUN-36(69) (March 28, 1969) to USUN-183(69) (Dec. 2, 1969). 25a 24 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A2574D (1969). 26 Resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly do not have a formal binding effect upon member states. Articles 10 through 17 of the United Nations' Charter which sets forth powers of the General Assembly provides merely that that body may "discuss", "consider" and "recommend". 27 Press Release USUN-142 (69) (Nov. 3, 1969). 28 24 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A/7902 (1969) adopted by acclamation. 29 24 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A/2574B (1969). No. 4] EVALUATION OF UNITED STATES OCEANS POLICY 611 tional machinery for the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed resources.30 In 1970 there were a number of significant developments in this area, most of which reflected a recognition by the developed countries that future international deliberations on basic oceans issues were unavoidable and even desirable. Many, too, evidenced the desire of the United States to assume leadership and establish the initiative in future discussions. The U.N. Seabeds Committee met in New York in March where the United States proposed a relatively comprehensive set of principles 31 and indicated a willingness to attend a future law of the sea conference or conferences if the issues were "treated in manage 30 24 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A/2574C (1969). 31 Press Release USUN-27(70) (Rev. 1). The objectives stated were as follows: "1. To encourage exploration and exploitation of seabed resources. 2. To assure that all interested States will have access, without discrimination, to the seabed for the purpose of exploring and exploiting mineral resources. 3. To encourage scientific research and the dissemination of scientific and technologic information related to seabed resources. 4. To encourage the development of services, such as aids to navigation, maps and charts, weather information, and rescue capability. 5. To provide procedures for the assignment of rights to minerals or groups of minerals in specific areas under terms that protect the integrity of investments in seabed resource development, that encourage economic efficiency in the exploration and exploitation of seabed resources, that prevent a race for claims, and that discourage operators from seeking to hold large areas for purely speculative purposes. 6. To provide for a reasonable return on risk investment. 7. To provide revenue to benefit international community purposes, taking special account of the needs of the developing countries, and to meet the operating expenses of the international body established to administer its provisions. 8. To assure that exploration and exploitation of seabed mineral resources will be carried out in a manner that will protect human life, prevent conflicts between users of the seabed, safeguard other uses of the ocean environment against undue interference, avoid irreparable damage to the environment and its resources, and promote the use of sound conservation practices. 9. To provide terms and procedures governing liability for damage resulting from exploration and exploitation of seabed minerals so that damage will be adequately repaired or compensated. 10. To provide for the stability of rules, and yet for the flexibility to સા. 612 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 17 able packages".32 The following month Canada introduced in its House of Commons the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (creating a Pollution Control Zone extending 100 nautical miles from the coastline and to all adjacent waters located above its continental shelf) 33 and a companion bill extending Canada's territorial sea to 12 miles.34 Within such a zone, Canada asserted the right to regulate this discharge of substances and to control shipping.35 The Canadian proposal was immediately challenged by the U.S. Department of State as constituting "unilateral extensions of jurisdictions on the high seas [which] the United States can [not] accept".36 Notwithstanding, the Canadian Parliament promptly en introduce modifications over time responsive to new knowledge and new developments. 11. To provide effective procedures for the settlement of disputes. 12. In the overall, to establish an international regime so plainly viable that States will in fact ratify the treaties establishing it." Id., at pp. 3-5. 32 U.S. Dept. of State Press Release No. 49 (Feb. 18, 1970); U.S. Dept. of State Press Release USUN-81(70) (June 12, 1970) ("procedures for the resolution of these issues should be structured so as to insure that each issue receives appropriate attention”). 33 Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act Bill C-202 Sect. 3, (1) and (2). It was passed by the House of Commons on April 22, 1970. House Commons Debates, Apr. 22, 1970, 6170-6172. Id., at Sect. 4. The Act has been printed in (1970), 9 Int'l L. Materials 543. 34 Bill C-203, an Act to Amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, ibid., at p. 553 (1970). 35 Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, n. 33 supra, at Sect. 4. 36 U.S. Dept. State Release No. 121 (Apr. 15, 1970), which gave as a reason for the objection the following: "We are concerned that this action by Canada, if not opposed by us, would be taken as precedent in other parts of the world for other unilateral infringements of the freedom of the seas. If Canada had the right to claim and exercise exclusive pollution and resources jurisdiction on the high seas, other countries could assert the right to exercise jurisdiction for other purposes, some reasonable and some not, but all equally invalid according to international law. Merchant shipping would be severely restricted, and naval mobility would be seriously jeopardized. The potential for serious international dispute and conflict is obvious." Actually, as was pointed out in the Canadian reply to the U.S. Government, its position is not inconsistent with the development of international solutions in this area: "It is well known that Canada takes second place to no nation in pressing for multilateral solutions to problems of international law, an |