606 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 17 quences of this type of global activity led to a reconsideration of its own and world oceans policy. President Johnson in 1966 made his much quoted statement that: under no circumstances must we ever allow the prospects of rich harvest and mineral wealth to create a new form of colonial competition among the maritime nations. We must be careful to avoid a race to grab and to hold the lands under the high seas. We must ensure that the deep seas and the ocean bottoms are, and remain, the legacy of all human beings." The same year the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act was adopted which required the President with the advice and assistance of the newly created Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development to undertake a broad scale review of the marine science activities of the United States, including the duty to: undertake a comprehensive study..... of the legal problems arising out of the management, use, development, recovery, and control of the resources of the marine environment...10 The Act also created a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources ("Marine Sciences Commission") which was required to: make a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of marine science in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will meet the present and future national needs. 11 It was not, however, the United States but the smaller and developing nations led by Malta that provided the impetus for the current reexamination of global policy regarding the oceans, indeed the entire marine environment. In 1967 the Mission of Malta to the United Nations proposed a resolution which would call for a conference for the drafting of a treaty which would reserve the seabed and ocean floor "beyond limits of present national jurisdiction" as a "common heritage of mankind” and provide for their "economic exploitation ... with the aim of safeguarding the interests of mankind [and using] the net financial benefits derived [therefrom] to promote the development of poor countries".12 This highly controversial proposal found strong support from a number of the smaller and lesser developed countries in the United 9 Comments made by the President at the commissioning of the new research ship, The Oceanographer, on July 13, 1966. 10 33 U.S.C. § 1103 (1966). 11 33 U.S.C. § 1104(b) (1966). 12 U.N. Doc. A/6695, dated August 18, 1967. No. 4] EVALUATION OF UNITED STATES OCEANS POLICY 607 Nations 13 and led to a resolution of the 1967 United Nations General Assembly creating an Ad Hoc Committee to Study Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and Ocean Floor Beyond Limits of National Jurisdiction.14 This Committee, on which both the Soviet Union and the United States were represented, was given a broad mandate to study the entire international organization with respect to the seas.15 During the course of its work in 1968, the United States expressed the view that there should be "an internationally agreed precise boundary for the deep ocean floor" and that no nation should "claim or exercise sovereignty" over it.16 13 It also found a substantial amount of support in the United States, notable in resolution proposed by Senator Pell that included its basic principles. S. Res. 172, 186, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967). See Senate Comm. on For. Rel. Report on Governing the Use of Ocean Space, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) pp. 1-7. 14 22 U.N. GAOR at U.N. Doc. A/2340 (1967). 15 The Ad Hoc Committee was requested to cooperate with the SecretaryGeneral in the preparation of a study with the twenty-third (1968) session of the U.N. General Assembly which would include: "(1) a survey of the past and present activities of the United Nations, the specialized agencies, the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and other intergovernmental bodies with regard to the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and of existing international agreements concerning these areas; (2) an account of the scientific, technical, economic, legal and other aspects of this item; (3) an indication regarding practical means to promote international co-operation in the exploration, conservation and use of the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, as contemplated in the title of the item, and of their resources, having regard to the views expressed and the suggestions put forward by Member States...." Id. 16 U.N. Doc. A/AC.135/25 (June 28, 1968); U.N. Doc. A/AC.135/L.1, Annex III, at p. 4 (July 16, 1968). The proposal also stated that there should be established "as soon as practicable, internationally agreed arrangements governing the exploitation of resources of the deep ocean floor" which shall included provision for: (a) the orderly development of resources of the deep ocean floor in a manner reflecting the interest of the international community in the development of these resources; (b) conditions conducive to the making of investments necessary for the exploration and exploitation of resources of the deep ocean floor; (c) dedication as feasible and practicable of a portion of the value of the resources recovered from the deep ocean floor to international community purposes; and (d) accommodation among the commercial and other uses of the deep ocean floor and marine environment.” Id., at para. 2. 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 Sea2 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 international 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 under the Ocean Floor 72 (1969); Joint Report of Sects. of Nat. Res. Law, Int'l and Comp. Law and Standing Comm. on Peace and Law Through U.N., app. ABA 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".25 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). |