-21-

would not solve this serious problem. Nations fishing off our coasts
may be willing to agree to a 200 mile fishing zone as part of an overall
law of the sea treaty that satisfies a variety of their oceans interests.

As part of a law of the sea treaty, a 200 mile fishing zone would be
in large measure self-enforcing. However, if we seek to assert
unilateral jurisdiction affecting the rights of other states without
compensating benefits, in terms of their global oceans interests,
these states may find it necessary as a matter of principle to
resist such jurisdiction. The result could be constant dispute
and conflict.

Indeed,
we have been advised that a 200 mile claim by the United
States would be followed by more extreme territorial claims
by other nations, which would purport to interfere with our

-22-

freedom of navigation and other uses of the high seas. An escalating
series of territorial claims would upset the chances of concluding a
Law of the Sea treaty protecting all our interests.

The most important underlying question is not whether a
200 mile fisheries claim is consistent with current international
law and treaties, but whether the United States should join and
promote a process in which each State unilaterally undertakes to
change international law in a manner that primarily reflects
its own national interests. We discard an old consensus before
we have a new one, at our peril. If every State, each with
different interests, proclaims different rules of law and seeks to
impose them on others, will we in fact have anything left that
can properly be termed "international law"?

-23-

[Y]

Deep Seabed Regime

Beyond the territorial seas, the offshore economic zone
and continental shelf, lie the deep seabeds, vast areas of which
are covered with nodules of manganese, nickel, cobalt and
copper.

Agreement on a new legal order to govern the exploitation of
these mineral resources is the most intractable problem in the
Law of the Sea negotiations. Scientists have known for more than
a century of the existence of vast mineral deposits on the deep
ocean floor. Until recently, these deposits have had no value,
for man did not possess the technical ability to recover them.
Now this new mineral resource frontier is opening as a result of
technology which will enable man to mine the ocean floor five
miles below the surface.

-24-

The deep seabed and its potential differ from other ocean areas
in that it has not yet become the focus of national claims. In 1970,
the United Nations declared the resources of the deep seabeds to be
"the common heritage of mankind". To us, this principle means,
first and foremost, that a law of the sea treaty should encourage
international cooperation in expanding production to meet the
needs of all mankind. A treaty should also provide that a portion of
the revenues from deep sea mining production should be used for
the benefit of all mankind. We view a new international organiza-
tion for the deep seabeds as the means for ensuring orderly
development and harmonization of relevant interests, not as a
means of conferring legislative power on organs in which each
state, irrespective of its interests, has one vote.

-25-

However, to some of the developing nations, the principle of "the common heritage" means that the resources of the deep seabed should be under the discretionary control of an international organization which could decide when and by whom resources should be exploited. Under such a solution, mineral resource development of the deep seabed could be indefinitely delayed or even abandoned, with serious consequences for the growth and economic development of all nations.

Sovereign nations should not be expected to make themselves dependent for critical resources on the discretion of other nations in an international authority.

The United States is prepared to agree to a system which meets the aspirations of the developing countries to participate