13

1 under section 8 (b), and such actions may be initiated in 2 any judicial district where the defendant resides or may be 3 found. Any regulation prescribed by the Secretary under 4 this Act, any issuance, denial, or condition of a license under 5 this Act by the Secretary, any consent or refusal of consent 6 by the Secretary to the transfer of such license, and any determination of the Secretary allowing or disallowing reim

7

8 bursement under section 10, shall be subject to judicial re9 view on petition of any interested person in accordance with chapter 158 of title 28 of the United States Code.

10

11

12

13

ENACTMENT DATE; SEPARABILITY

SEC. 13. This Act shall take effect on the date of its

enactment. If any provision of this Act or any application 14 thereof is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the 15 Act or of any other application shall not be affected thereby.

In a letter to you on May 19, 1972, the Chairman of the Inter-Agency Law of the Sea Task Force indicated that the Executive Branch was not prepared at that time to state a position on S.2801, the "Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act". A bill identical to S.2801 has been reintroduced in this session of the Congress as H.R. 9. In his May 19th letter, the Chairman of the Task Force noted the connection of the bill with the Law of the Sea preparatory negotiations in the United Nations Seabed Committee, and said that we would report again on our views in the light of developments at the summer session of the Seabed Committee and the 27th United Nations General Assembly. This letter provides Executive Branch views on H.R. 9 supplemented by an appendix on the bill's mineral resource and technical aspects and their relationship to the negotiations.

By far the most important development at the 27th General Assembly regarding the Law of the Sea was the unanimous adoption of a Law of the Sea Conference Resolution. This resolution establishes a precise schedule for the Law of the Sea Conference and preparatory negotiations. Preparatory work in the UN Seabed Committee will be intensified in 1973, with provision for a five week session beginning in early March in New York and an eight week session beginning in early July in Geneva. The Resolution provides for convening a brief organizational session of the Law of the Sea Conference in New York in November/December 1973, and for convening a second session of the Conference, for the purpose of dealing with substantive matters, in Santiago, Chile in April/May 1974. There is also provision for such subsequent sessions of the Conference if necessary, as may be decided by the Conference with the approval

-2

of the General Assembly, at a subsequent session or subsequent sessions no later than 1975.

The Resolution also provides for the General Assembly to review at its 28th session next fall the progress of preparatory work and, if necessary, to take measures to facilitate completion of the substantive work for the Conference and any other action it may deem appropriate. As a strictly legal matter, such a clause is unnecessary since the General Assembly has this authority in any event. Its inclusion made it easier to accommodate concerns about proceeding to a Conference in the absence of adequate preparation. Moreover, we and others have made it clear that we will wish to seek an adjustment in the schedule in order to ensure that there are more than eight weeks of work in 1974.

The present hope of a large majority of States is that the kind of schedule outlined in the Conference Resolution can be met. This conclusion is necessarily based upon the expectation of important accomplishments in the preparatory work of the Seabed Committee in 1973.

As significant as the content of the Conference Resolution was the fact that it was adopted unanimously. All groups involved in its negotiation expressed great sensitivity to the concerns of other States, and great efforts were devoted to arriving at a resolution which could command not merely a majority or a 2/3 majority, but general support. This augurs well for the future of Law of the Sea negotiations, since a successful Law of the Sea Conference will necessarily require a similar attitude of mutual respect and accommodation.

Although not directly relevant to the legislation before us, there were other developments in the General Assembly this year that wee less auspicious but which, nevertheless, merit reporting. A deep division of opinion developed regarding a request by certain land-locked and shelf-locked states for a study of the implications for the international seabed area of various proposed limits of national jurisdiction. It had been our hope that this issue could be resolved by negotiation and accommodation, but unfortunately, such an accommodation did not in fact occur until after a number of close votes and intense

-3

debate.

The ultimate result was the adoption of a revision of the land-locked/shelf-locked study resolution, as well as a companion resolution introduced by Peru calling for an analysis of the effect of different limits on coastal States. The U.S. has consistently supported reasonable requests for studies and information on Law of the Sea subjects, and in accordance with this policy we supported both the land-locked/shelf-locked proposal and the Peruvian proposal.

One other significant development at this General Assembly, fortunately in keeping with the spirit that dominated the negotiation of the Conference Resolution, was the fact that no new resolution calling for a moratorium on deep seabed activities was introduced. While it would not be accurate to interpret this as an indication that States supporting the earlier moratorium resolution have changed their opinion, we believe that the avoidance of a renewed and divisive debate on this subject was related to the general attempts to ensure the best possible atmosphere as we enter the final stage of preparatory work this year. Needless to say, our own opposition to the moratorium remains unchanged.

Turning to H.R. 9, the considerations expressed in our letter of May 19, 1972 on S.2801 (identical to H.R. 13904) remain applicable, and generally set forth the factors affecting our approach to H.R. 9. In the time that has elapsed, however, we have been able to give further cosideration to the matter in the light of international and domestic developments. We are accordingly in a position now to state a more definitive view on H.R. 9 and interim mining activities.

First, we adhere to the policy on this subject contained in the President's Oceans Policy Statement of May 23, 1970. We continue to believe that it is necessary to achieve timely widespread international agreement on outstanding Law of the Sea issues in order to save over two-thirds of the earth's surface from national conflict and rivalry, protect it from pollution, and put it to use for the benefit of all. It remains vital to all our national interests involved in the Law of the Sea Conference that the world agree on a treaty that will properly accommodate

-4

the many and varied uses of ocean space including the seabeds. At the same time we believe that it is neither necessary nor desirable to try to halt exploration and exploitation of the seabeds beyond a depth of 200 meters during the negotiation process, provided that such activities are subject to the international regime to be agreed upon, which should include due protection of the integrity of investments made in the interim period.

Second, we believe that there is reason to expect that the schedule for the Law of the Sea Conference outlined in the Conference Resolution just passed by the General Assembly will be adhered to. As previously indicated, the preamble of the Conference Resolution expressly states the expectation that the Conference will complete its work in 1974 or at the very latest in 1975.

Third, we believe that with the Law of the Sea negotiations moving into a critical stage, it is necessary for States to be very careful to avoid actions that can have an adverse effect on the negotiating atmosphere. It is apparent that S.2801 (now H.R. 9), independent of the particular content or merits of the Bill, has become a symbol to many countries of defiance of the multilateral negotiating process. Regardless of our views on the intent and effect of the legislation, it may be argued by others that the legislation is similar to unilateral claims that we oppose and that are contrary to our security, navigation and resource interests, and moreover preempts the Law of the Sea Conference on this issue. It is well known that we have urged legislative restraint on other countries during the multilateral negotiating process even when they felt important interests were involved; we believe we should do the same so long as there are reasonable prospects for a timely and successful conference.

Fourth, we wish to insure that technology to mine the seabeds will be developed and that the United States will be able to look to seabed mineral resources as a new source of metals which would otherwise have to be imported with an attendant impact on our balance of payments and other interests.

Fifth, we also believe that a secure and stable investment climate must surround seabed mining activity under any new legal regime.