Hill 7/23/75

INTERNATIONAL LAW
AND COOPERATIVE WORLD PROGRESS

America and the nations of the world possess the capacity to create an era of stability, prosperity and justice unparalleled in history. Should we fail to cooperate in this effort, we face a future of threatened nuclear devastation, political competition, economic confrontation and social inequity.

To meet the challenge of change and continued international confrontation, the United States has set itself one overriding goal -- to help create an international structure of relations which fosters productive political and economic cooperation to fulfill the positive aspirations of the people of the world.

As a crystallization of international politics and a body of principles drawn from the practice of states, international law

-2-

M1

is crucial to this design. It can elicit, express and strengthen
the ties of common purpose and shared assumption that link
nations and cultures.

Our modern era has already seen a demonstration of how
international law can support and strengthen the fabric of international
political relations. From the Napoleonic Wars to 1914 a general
groundwork of public international law provided patterns of under-
standing about the political configuration of Europe and the
relations of the great powers. For a century it seemed possible
to speak of the progressive development of a public international
law composed of treaties, conventions and understandings among
states. These made up a web of relations enabling states to pursue
their own affairs, domestic and foreign, with some degree of

-3-

confidence in the stability of a larger international context.

It did much to permit a century of optimism and progress.

And the broad outlines of this achievement remained discernable
over the political landscape of Europe well within living memory.

But this achievement also permitted complacency. The
world we have known since 1914 has demonstrated what the loss
of this structure of consensus has meant. The progress of
public international law is no longer even or assured.

Today we are challenged to conceive and produce a new
synthesis. For if global consensus cannot be achieved,
cooperative progress will give way to chaos.

-4-

International legal agreements can only flourish and be effective when nations can define and perceive the basic principles they share. But unlike the Europe of the early 19th century the nations of our time share no homogeneous culture. Our task is more difficult, for the multiplication of differing perspectives complicates the achievement of global synthesis as never before.

The tendency in foreign affairs as in all human activity is to focus on the crisis of the present or look back to discover its causes. Rarely can we foresee the crisis of the future and move to prevent it. The problems of tomorrow do not come to us in the vivid form of crisis or high drama. But they are nonetheless real.

-5-

[Y]

Unprecedentedly crucial issues are now before us: the
use of the oceans, of space, the law of war, the laws pertaining
to new forms of transnational involvement.

The decisions we take this year and in the next few years --
indeed, whether we elect to act or now -- will have a vast
impact on the shape and structure of international relations for
generations. We stand poised between cooperative international
progress and corrosive nationalistic chaos.

The effort we make in the key areas of international law
will do much to determine the direction we take. As Felix
Frankfurter said, "fragile as reason is and limited as law is
as the institutionalized expression of reason, it is often all
that stands between us and the tyranny of will, the cruelty of
unbridled, unprincipled, undisciplined feeling."

-6-

The Law of the Sea

No question of international law dramatizes this more clearly
than the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. The United States
is participating with some 140 nations in an attempt to reach agreement
on legal principles to govern the use of the oceans. This negotiation
can be a milestone in the rule of law over the conduct of nations and
an exemplar of global collaboration. Failure to complete this
effort expeditiously would be an ill omen for the future of inter-
national relations.

Let us understand clearly the significance of what is at
stake in these negotiations. The oceans cover 70% of the
earth's surface. They are the source of life, the characteristic

-7-

distinguishing our world from all other planets known to us.

The oceans both divide and unite mankind.

- In a world facing the prospect of widespread famine and malnutrition, the importance of the oceans' fisheries as a source of protein, now and in the future, is enormous.

- In a world paying increasingly higher prices for its energy, the ocean holds vast promise as a source of fuel.

- In a world economy dependent on mineral resources, the seabed represents a virtually untapped lode of vital reserves which can meet future world requirements for nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese.

-8-

-- In a world slowly choking on its own waste matter,
the environmental integrity of the oceans is critical.

From the seventeenth century until the modern era, the law governing the use of the oceans was founded on a single concept -- freedom of the seas. Beyond a narrow offshore belt of territorial sea, freedom of the seas for navigation, fishing and other uses was universally accepted.

Now coastal states have begun to assert claims of territorial sovereignty over more extensive stretches of adjacent seas and their resources. Other states have vital national interests in resisting such claims.

The recent explosion of technology has intensified the uses of ocean space. Large, self-contained factory vessels now dominate fishing areas formerly the domain of small

-9-

coastal boats. The worldwide fish harvest has increased dramatically, but often without due regard to sound management or the legitimate concerns of the coastal states. Oil and gas wells cluster in off-shore areas, and dramatic initiatives in deep sea mining are being planned.

The range of issues these developments present is without parallel. New rules and rational/are required to ensure a steady supply of resources to the world community, and to protect the quality of the environment from which they are drawn. Unless resolved soon, conflicts will intensify.

These developments indicate that there is no alternative to chaos in the oceans except a comprehensive, widely accepted international agreement. No single nation can write rules for

-10-

the oceans and no group of nations can impose its views on a
significant minority. Those who urge an imposition of an
oceans regime on others against their will -- whether by
economic and military power or by majorities in the United
Nations -- are not seeking the rule of law but the rule of power.

The Law of the Sea Conference could bring about a regime
of law for two-thirds of the earth's surface, offering the promise
of order, stability and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

But the conference is in jeopardy of being overtaken by
events. The pace of technology, the extent of economic need,
and the claims of national egoism and ideology threaten to
submerge the difficult process of negotiation. Even so, the
urgency of reaching accommodation is not yet accepted by all.

-11-

Every nation should understand that an agreement is now a
global political necessity of the highest importance. These
negotiations must not be seen as an arena for struggle -- rich
against poor, East against West. Whatever the dictates of ideology
or national feeling, the self-interest of every state is at stake
in this process of international accommodation.

The United States urges all nations to resolve to hold two
sessions next year in order that the negotiations can conclude
in 1976 before the pressure of events places agreement beyond
our reach.

With the hope of enhancing this possibility I want this
morning to set out the issues involved and the United States position
on them.

-12-

## The Issues

The issues in the Law of the Sea negotiations extend from the shoreline to the farthest reaches of the deep seabed. They involve the extent of the territorial sea and the related issue of passage through straits; the degree of control the coastal state will exercise in a broader, offshore economic zone; and finally, the nature of the international regime to govern exploitation of the vast mineral potential of the deep seabed. There are also issues of marine pollution and marine scientific research which relate to all areas of the sea.

These problems are complex and interlocking. They affect the vital national security and economic interests of many states.

-13-

## Territorial Sea and Passage Through Straits

First let me turn to the issue of the territorial sea -- that part of the ocean over which the coastal state exercises full sovereignty.

After years of dispute the participants at the Law of the Sea Conference can reach general agreement on a twelve-mile territorial limit, provided the treaty includes recognition of unimpeded transit through and over straits used for international navigation.

But if we extend the territorial sea from three to twelve miles without qualification, more than 100 straits currently free for international navigation would become subject to the territorial jurisdiction of coastal states. These would include

-14-

some of the world's most strategic and heavily travelled ocean
highways such as the Straits of Gibraltar and Bab-el-Mandeb.

Maintaining freedom of passage through and over straits
is of fundamental importance to international cooperation.

A Law of the Sea treaty that does not protect the rights of all
nations to use international straits would be a failure. It would
be unacceptable to the United States.

It is time to set aside once and for all the charge that
freedom of navigation is a jealously guarded privilege benefitting
only wealthy and powerful nations. The United States and other
major maritime nations are fully capable of defending their
navigational freedoms, in any event. But the ocean commerce

-15-

and communication of nations without powerful navies or large
merchant marines could be seriously impeded should the tradi-
tional principle of freedom of navigation be lost.

## Economic Zone

The security and economic implications of Law of the Sea
are by no means confined to a narrow belt of water along the
coastlines. Lying within 200 miles of the shore are some of the
world's most important fishing grounds and important reserves of
petroleum and natural gas.

A major undertaking of the Law of the Sea Conference is
to develop a mutually acceptable framework of coastal state
and international rights and duties in the area beyond the
territorial sea. Coastal state sovereignty over a 200 mile

- 15 -

-- the degree of control that a coastal state can exercise in an
offshore economic zone beyond its territorial waters; and

-- the nature of the international dominion over the deep seabed
and the rules for exploitation of its vast mineral potential.

If we begin at the coastline and work outward, the first issue we
encounter is the extent of the territorial sea -- the belt of ocean over which
the coastal state exercises sovereignty. Historically, it was widely
recognized as three miles, and that has been the long-established United
States position; other states have claimed 12 miles or even 200.

After years of dispute and contradictory international practice, the
Law of the Sea Conference is approaching a consensus on a twelve-mile
territorial limit. We accept this solution, provided that the treaty guarantees
unimpeded transit rights through and over straits used for international navigation.

A twelve-mile territorial sea without such guarantees would place over 100
straits, currently free for international sea and air travel, under the

- 16 -

jurisdictional control of coastal states. These would include some of the
world's most important ocean highways, including the Straits of Gibraltar,
Malacca, Bab-el-Mandeb, and Hormuz. A treaty guarantee of unimpeded
transit of straits used for international navigation is for the benefit of all
nations. The United States and other major maritime nations are capable
of defending their freedom of navigation in any event. But we believe that
the cause of peace will be threatened if the Conference leaves any uncertainty
about the right to use vital world communication routes without interference.
This principle is essential.

Beyond the territorial sea, but within 200 miles of the shore, are
some of the world's most important fishing grounds and important deposits
of petroleum, natural gas, and minerals. Because of this wealth, some
coastal states in the negotiations have pressed for recognition of full
sovereignty over this 200-mile zone. Full sovereignty over the zone is

-17-

unacceptable to the United States; this would bring thirty percent of the total area of the ocean under national territorial control -- the very area through which much of the world's shipping travels.

The United States agrees with those many countries who prefer international recognition of a 200-mile offshore economic zone, granting to the coastal states -- control over living and mineral resources but guaranteeing the freedoms of the international community for navigation and communication through this zone.

-18-

Fishing within the zone would be managed by the coastal state, but
international standards of conservation would be applied. If the
coastal state cannot harvest all the yearly fishing catch, others
should be allowed to do so to meet the protein needs of all nations
of the world. Special arrangements for tuna and salmon, and other
fish which migrate over large distances, would also be required.

There are areas of the globe where the continental shelf
extends beyond 200 miles. There is continuing disagreement in
the Conference as to whether the coastal state should have sole
jurisdiction over the mineral resources of these areas. It is the
position of the United States that these farther reaches must in part

as well as the coastal state.
serve the common benefit, / To this end, we propose that coastal
nations be given jurisdiction over the continental margin beyond
200 miles, to a precisely defined limit, with the provision that they

-20-

[Y]

This brings us to the next step, to the _deep seabeds_, lying
beyond the territorial sea, the offshore economic zone, and the
continental margin. The deep seabeds are the planet's last great
unexplored frontier. For more than a century we have known that
the deep seabeds hold vast deposits of manganese, nickel, cobalt,
copper and other minerals; only now is technology opening up
this region and its wealth for exploration and commercial exploitation.

The United Nations has declared the seabed to be the "common
heritage of mankind." But this only states the problem. The seabed
is open to everyone. But how will the world community manage the
competition of national interests and of regional interests, the
inequality of technological capability? How will the world community
reconcile unbridled competition with political order?

The United States has nothing to fear from competition. In fact,
our enterprises are the most advanced and in the best competitive

-21-

position. But this will not always be the case. Ultimately, unless there are basic rules to regulate exploration, rivalry is an invitation to contests of power. Carving out exclusive domains of exploration only restricts freedom of navigation and the access of others.

The Law of the Sea Treaty must ensure the right of access and commercial exploitation by our citizens and enterprises. Burdens on this free access will only retard the development of seabed resources and are not consistent in our view with the principle of the common heritage of all mankind. Nor is it feasible, as developing countries have proposed, to create a new international seabed organization and reserve to it the sole right of direct exploitation of the seabeds.

This is a formula for inefficiency and for political wrangling over the management of the organization.

Nevertheless the United States believes strongly that law must regulate international activity in this area. And we also

-22-

[M]

believe that the vast wealth being opened up in this international
domain offers an historic opportunity for the world community to
dedicate additional resources to the economic and social development
of the poorer countries. In the global dialogue between North and South,
rich and poor, consumer and producer -- in the new practice of
accommodation that we believe must govern the political relations
between the Third World and the industrial countries -- the legal
regime for the seabeds can be a milestone in the legal and political
development of the world community.

The United States has devoted much thought and consideration
to this area. We are prepared to subject our own ideas to the process
of negotiations. But we offer the following principles:

[4]

-23-

-- We agree that an international organization should be created for deep seabed mining.

-- The treaty and this new international organization must ensure that the rights of all countries, developed and developing, and their citizens, directly to exploit deep seabed resources are preserved. The United States regards this principle as essential. The international organization would not have the power to regulate production or prices. Security of investment and the fair adjudication of conflicting interests must be guaranteed.

-- As part of a treaty which guarantees these essential United States interests, we are prepared to agree that this organization could itself conduct mining operations in the name of the international community.

-- Countries and their enterprises mining deep seabed resources should pay a portion of the revenues from their production as a royalty to the international organization, to be used as the organization determines for the benefit of the international community.

-24-

[4]

-- The management of the organization and its voting proce-
dures should reflect the interests and contributions of the
participating states.

-- The new organization should be conceived as a vehicle
for cooperation between the technologically advanced and
the developing countries. The United States is prepared
to explore ways of sharing technology with all nations.

take into account

-- To/ the concerns of developing countries which are
substantially dependent on the export of minerals also
produced from the deep seabed, a commission should be
created to monitor the possible adverse effects of deep
seabed mining on their economies. The views of consumers,
seabed producers and land-based producers must be equally reflected.

-25-

[4]

There are many ways of accomplishing these objectives. The United
States believes that the world community has before it promising proposals
and an extraordinary opportunity, and that the interests and needs of all
states can be accommodated in fair and practical solutions. To this end
the United States will continue serious negotiations on these issues, to
lay the groundwork for final progress when the Law of the Sea Conference re-
convenes in New York next year.

United States ocean mining firms are currently making preparations
and substantial investments for deep seabed mining. It would be preferable
for the new law to be agreed upon before deep sea mining begins. But,
pending resolution on the issues at the Conference, we will not impede the
present development of ocean mineral resources for the use of our people
and the people of the world.

In addition to the problems of the territorial sea, the economic zone,
and the deep seabed, the Conference is faced with important issues which
apply to all areas of the ocean.

The Conference must find ways to encourage marine scientific research
for the benefit of all nations while safeguarding the legitimate interests
of the coastal state against interference in its

-26-

economic zone. The United States believes that a state conducting scientific research in another state's economic zone should fulfill certain obligations concerning notification, participation and sharing of data.

The Conference is also an opportunity for the world community to take steps to protect the oceans from pollution. We must ensure that internationally-agreed controls on pollution from ships are accepted by all nations and are effectively enforced.

Lastly, but particularly important, a treaty must provide for the peaceful, compulsory and impartial third-party settlement of disputes

oceans.

throughout the/ Otherwise, the compromise arrived at with great difficulty will quickly unravel. The United States is not prepared to accept unilateral interpretation of a treaty by individual states or by an international seabed organization.

-27-

M

Our ability to manage these issues diminishes rapidly as time passes. The pace of technology, the extent of economic need, and the claims of ideology and national ambition threaten to submerge the difficult process of negotiation.

The self-interest of every nation is heavily engaged in this process of international compromise. Every state must consider the possibility that failure could seriously impair confidence in global treaty-making and the very process of multilateral accommodation. Although the consequences of a failure to agree will be less for the United States than for others, we are committed to the principle that a just and beneficial regime for the oceans is essential to global peace.

While we await the conclusion of a treaty, disturbing developments continue to impose upon us. Most prominent is the problem of fisheries.

-28-

[Y]

The United States cannot accept unregulated and indiscriminate foreign fishing off its coasts. In the past, many fish stocks were near extinction as a result of foreign overfishing. We have recently concluded agreements with the Soviet Union, Japan and Poland which will limit the amount of fish they catch off our coasts. And of course, we have a long history of conservation agreements with Canada. But much more needs to be done.

Many within Congress are urging us to solve this problem unilaterally. A bill to establish a 200-mile fishing zone passed the Senate last year and a similar measure is currently before the House.

The Administration shares the concern which has led to such legislative proposals. And a 200-mile zone is likely to be the result of the international consensus. But unilateral action is unacceptable as a matter of principle and dangerous. We have consistently

-29-

resisted the unilateral claims of other nations, and others will
almost certainly resist ours; some will assert even more extreme
claims of their own.

We welcome the statement last Thursday by Prime Minister
Trudeau that Canada reaffirming the need for an international solution
through the Law of the Sea Conference rather than through
unilateral action. That attitude should be

a model for our own. If every state proclaims its own rules of
law and seeks to impose them on others, the very basis of inter-
national law will be shaken. The United States, particularly, has an
obligation of leadership and an obligation to principle.

-30-

To conserve the fish and protect our fishing industry in
the interim, the United States will negotiate arrangements with
other nations as a transition to -- and consistent with -- the provisions
of the treaty being developed by the Law of the Sea Conference. We will
require effective enforcement and whatever measures are necessary
to conserve the fish stocks, to ensure their optimum utilization and
to protect the livelihood of our coastal fishermen. We will support
the efforts of other states, including our neighbors, to deal with
these problems by similar types of agreements. At the same time,
we will consult fully with Congress, the States, the public, and
foreign governments on a new fisheries management system to
be ready for implementation as soon as we can establish a 200-mile
zone by virtue of the Conference Treaty.