revanues from mineral exploitation within the economic zone to a world common heritage fund, the share to depend on the per capita income of the coastal sisto. We believe that a significant portion of the estimated thirty trillion dollars worth of mineral resources within the 200-mile economic zone should se made available to promote economic development, to fund the fight against ocean pollution and, at least in some measure, to support the work of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. We are reconciled to the view that coastal states should get the predominant share of these minemal resources. But we believe it is fair to suggest that the richest coastal states should contribute onefifth of the revenues from the zone to the fund and that other states should contribute lesser dares, in proportion to their per capita incomes, but in no case less than one percent of their revenues fæù the zone. The allocation of these revenues should be the responsibility of the Assembly of the proposed ocean authority. We have stressed common heritage sharing because we believe that without adequate sources of funds the idea of the common heritage will be a cruel hoax. And we believe that with such a spirit of sharing the other difficult problems with which the Conference is grappling will be easier to solve. Thus we hope and trust that in the design of an international ocean authority to deal with deep seabed mining and other aspects of the ocean problem the Conference will arrive at a compromise which meets the interests of all states, whether developed or developing, in a system of ocean exploration which respects the marine environment and insures that all states are equitably represented in decision-making. We also hope that the delegates will preserve the values inherent in the traditional system of freedom of navigation and freedom of scientific research while paying appropriate attention to the legitimate concerns of coastal states, including the protection of the marine environment. We hope they will impress on all nations that it is important to stop, and if possible rescind, unilateral claims to further marine jurisdiction. Hopefully the Conference will establish clear limits, preferably 200 miles, to the economic zones of coastal states and will provide a system in which landlocked states and neighboring states which have traditionally fished in those zones will be insured a fair share of fish in them with due regard to the necessity that the fish taken not exceed the maximum sustainable yield. We hope that men and women in every country will acquaint themselves with the work of the Law of the Sea Conference and the urgent problems on which the delegates have worked so hard and so long. The Conference and its participants are tired from their mighty labors. We believe that an informed and concerned public opinion can put a new wind into the sails of the Conference to speed it to its goal, namely, a law of the sea treaty which preserves and protects the marine environment, reconciles the many uses of the oceans and utilizes their resources to build peace, development and ecological sanity. We commend the delegates for the constructive work they have done. We wish them a successful outcome for their historic task. Signed on Board the Barba Negra by: Amb. S. K. Upadhyay, Nepal Amb, Karl Wolf, Austria Amb. T.T.B. Koh, Singapore W. Riphagen, Netherlands Del Jan Witek, Polish Del Paul Jeynes, USA, Save Our Seas Elisabeth Mann Borgese, Austrian Del ENDORSERS!!.Please notify Dr. John Logue, WORI, Villanova U, Villanova, Pa. 19085 USA. ... Revenue Sharing and the Trilateral Commission (A Quote from the Commission's 1976 Report: "A New Regime for the Oceans") Note: The "Revised Single Negotiating Text" will be the focus of the discussions of the crucial May-July 1977 New York Session of the UN Law of the Sea Conference. That "New York Text" provides that coastal states will get all the seabed mineral resources within 200 miles of shore, resources worth at least thirty trillion dollars. Most geographically disadvantaged states believe that some of those revenues should be regarded as "the common heritage of mankind" and used to aid developing countries. But almost all the long coastline states, including such rich ones as the US, UK, USSR, Canada, Norway, Australia, South Africa and France favor such a 200-mile "exclusive economic zone" (EEZ). It is thus of great interest that early in 1976 the Trilateral Commission, a group of very prominent (see below) citizens of North America, Western Europe and Japan issued a report which urged that as much as one half the royalties from mineral production within the 200-mile EEZs of wealthy states go to aid international purposes. The relevant quote from the report (available at $1 from the Commission at the Carnegie International Center, 46th and UN Plaza) is on p. vii. It reads: "National continental shelf jurisdiction should be limited to 200 miles, with international sharing by wealthy coastal states of a generous portion (such as one-half) of royalties derived from resource exploitation in this zone but beyond the territorial sea." The Trilateral Commission GERARD C. SMITH North American Chairman -ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI Director GEORGES BERTHOIN TAKESHI WATANABE Donald M. Fraser, House of Representatives Richard N. Gardner, Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International European Chairman Japanese Chairman Patrick E. Haggerty, Chairman, Texas Instruments CHRISTOPHER MAKINS North American Members 1. W. Abel, President, United Steelworkers of America William A. Hewitt, Chairman, Deere & Company Alan Hockin, Executive Vice President, Toronto-Dominion Bank Thomas L. Hughes, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Edgar F. Kaiser, Jr., President & Chief Executive Officer, Kaiser Lane Kirkland, Secretary- I reasurer, AFL-CIO David M. Abshire, Chairman, Georgetown University Center for Strate Sol M. Linowitz, Senior Partner, Coudert Brothers Graham Allison, Professor of Politics, Harvard University Doris Anderson, Editor, Chatelaine Magazine John B. Anderson, House of Representatives Ernest C. Arbuckle, Chairman, Wells Fargo Bank J. Paul Austin, Chairman, The Coca-Cola Company -George W. Ball, Senior Partner, Lehman Brothers Michel Belanger, President, Montreal Stock Exchange Russell Bell, Research Director, Canadian Labour Congress Bruce K. MacLaury, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Paul W. McCracken, Edmund Ezra Day Professor of Business Administratio - Walter F. Mondale, United States Senate Lee L. Morgan, President, Caterpillar Tractor Company Kenneth D. Naden, President, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Lucy Wilson Benson, Former President, League of Women Voters of the David Packard, Chairman, Hewlett-Packard Company Robert W. Bonner, Q.C., Bonner & Fouks, Vancouver Robert R. Bowie, Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs, †William T. Coleman, Jr., Secretary, Department of Transportation Barber B. Conable, Jr., House of Representatives Jean-Luc Pepin, P.C., Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board of Canada Peter G. Peterson, Chairman, Lehman Brothers Edwin O. Reischauer, University Professor, Harvard University; former Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary, Department of Commerce David Rockefeller, Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank Robert V. Roosa, Partner, Brown Bros., Harriman & Company •William M. Roth, Roth Properties William V. Roth, Jr., United States Senate Carl T. Rowan, Columnist Henry B. Schacht, President, Cummins Engine Company Richard N. Cooper, Frank Altschul Professor of International Economi William W. Scranton, Former Governor of Pennsylvania Yale University John C. Culver, United States Senate Gerald L. Curtis, East Asian Institute, Columbia University Lloyd N. Cutler, Partner, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering Archibald K. Davis, Chairman, Wachovia Bank & Trust Company Peter Dobell, Director, Parliamentary Center for Foreign Affairs and - Hedley Donovan, Editor-in-Chief, Time, Inc. 1 Currently in Pulth Service "Gerard C. Smith, Counsel, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering Robert Taft, Jr., United States Senate Arthur R. Taylor, President, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. • Cyrus R. Vance, Partner, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett Paul C. Warnke, Partner, Clifford, Warnke, Glass, McIlwain & Finney Marina von N. Whitman, Distinguished Public Service Professor of Carroll L. Wilson, Professor of Management, Alfred P. Sloan School of Arthur M. Wood, Chairman, Sears, Roebuck & Company • Leonard Woodcock, President, United Automobile Workers NEWS COMMENTARY Who will own By Sister Mary Beth Reissen Special to the National Catholic Reporter WASHINGTON-What concern has the Vatican over manganese nodules, the black, potato-size blobs prolifically strewn over the seabed and now hotly contended by rich and poor nations alike? In light of the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission statement, "On the Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Universal Purpose of Created Things," distributed in July, manganese nodule management, as well as that of other ocean riches, must serve the "universal purpose of created things" whereby all people must have access to these resources. The commission's praise for the common heritage of humankind concept suggests that accessibility to ocean wealth be accomplished by this concept's application. Common heritage and the Law of the Sea are no strangers to each other. November marks the 10th anniversary of Maltese Ambassador Arvid Pardo's celebrated address before the UN General Assembly. He proposed the seas and their beds be declared the common heritage of humankind and that new global organizations be established to manage ocean wealth for all people, but with special regard for the needs of the poorest nations. Pardo warned that if this common heritage concept went unheeded, the seas would be plundered by the most powerful and technologically advanced. Nuclear wars could be fought over ocean claims. In view of Pardo's warning, the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission denounces this Wild West mentality by disclaiming the res nullius principle, the idea that the seas belong to no one and are open for unlimited exploitation. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER September 23, 1977 ocean wealth? BEAT THE RSWO SHARES. AND THEIR SPAR When the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference convened in Caracas in 1974, the Vatican Observer to the UN, Monsignor Giovanni Cheli, urged that the conference be guided by the common heritage prin Sister Mary Beth Reissen, a School Sister of Notre Dame, is the nongovernmental organization (NGO) representative for Pax Christi International Catholic Peace Movement at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. She is also an Ocean Education Project Staff Member and Network religious lobby consultant on Law of the Sea Issues. FOR THE LAW URGING PRAYER: Catholic representatives join in prayers for the success of ciple. Unfortunately, after three years and Already coastal nations, pushing for the 200 mile limit or exclusive economic zone concept, have neatly carved out a third of ocean space for themselves, staking claims to most of the world's fish and some $30 trillion worth of oil and gas. They leave but the crumbs from the master's table for the land-locked and geographically dis advantaged nations. Only the deep seabeds and their resources, lying beyond the world's continental margins, are still recognized as the common heritage of humankind. But since the seabed management question remains unresolved, the ultimate race for seabed domination and control has begun. Developing nations favor the establish ment of a new, unique type of global governing body, the International Seabed Authority, which would manage and con trol seabed mining. As commercial mining operations progress in the mid-1980s, pro Cover; fits would be shared with international development agencies, such as the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program. Multinational corporations in the industrialized world eagerly covet seabed mineral wealth. They fix their corporate eyes on the Pacific seabeds burgeoning with more than a trillion and a half tons of manganese nodules, rich in nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese. Mining companies want easy nodule access with no strings attached, such as applying to the International Seabed Authority for mining licenses. But if the common heritage principle were realized in the seabeds, the world would experience a revolutionary breakthrough. For the first time in history, multinational corporations would operate under public international control, not with domination but by cooperation. The International Seabed Authority with its own revenue, balanced voting, peaceful enforcement of mining contracts, could even offer a model for arms control and management of other global resources. Unfortunately seabed mining negotiations have snagged at the Law of the Sea Conference. Industrialized nations, with the U.S., Japan, West Germany and the United Kingdom in the lead, refuse to cede multinational corporation power to an International Seabed Authority for fear of Third World domination. But with another conference session starting next spring in Geneva, the hour is not too late for a compromise solution. Meanwhile Washington lobbyists work overtime for passage of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Bills. This legislation sponsored by Representatives John Breaux (DLa.), and John Murphy (D-N.Y.) and Senator Lee Metcalf (D-Mont.) would grant licenses and permits to U.S. companies such as Kennecott Copper, U.S. Steel-Deep Sea Ventures, International Nickel, Lockheed, for huge seabed blocks (estimated at one and a half times the size of Vermont) before a Law of the Sea Treaty is concluded. Such action, while claiming seabed ownership, would defy the common heritage principle. It would also pull the rug out from under the Law of the Sea Conference by establishing a "reciprocating state" system, whereby two industrialized nations would mutually recognize each other's presence in the seabed. Such a system would contradict any international management scheme. Several concerned religious groups are doing their share to keep the common heritage of humankind principle alive at the United Nations during Law of the Sea Conference sessions. Pax Christi International Catholic Peace Movement holds nongovernmental organization representation. Quaker and United Methodist efforts range from sponsoring interfaith prayer services to hosting high-level, off-the-record seminars and discussions for conference dele. gations, including the Holy See. Two small, Quaker-inspired public interest organizations, the Ocean Education Project and its lobby arm, the U.S. Com mittee for the Oceans, help to shape and influence U.S. Law of the Sea policy for the good. The respective organization heads, Miriam and Samuel Levering, are nationally ecognized advocates for a more just and humane world order in the oceans. Samuel Levering has repeatedly testified against the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Bills before key congressional committees. These bills have also received opposition from Network, a religious lobby organized by sis ters. Law of the Sea commitment for United Methodists stems from a 1976 national reso lution which urges them to recognize the Law of the Sea Conference as one of the most crucial ways of promoting global peace and justice. In addition to direct lobby work at the United Nations, the United Methodists plan 10 regional conferences throughout the U.S. during 19771978 on Law of the Sea issues, Barbara Weaver, United Methodist Church Law of the Sea project director, welcomes interfaith participation in these conferences. The Law of the Sea has yet to peak among U.S. Catholic justice and peace concerns. As the sun sets on Law of the Sea negotiations and U.5+ palicy solidifies, a stronger Catholic advocacy is imperative. More Catholics are needed like Professor John Logue of Villanova University's World Order Research Institute, who has tirelessly championed oil and get revers revenue sharing in the economic zone or nations in consideration the poorest nations. The U.S. bishops might take closer look at Law of the Sea implications in the light of the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission statement. Organizations like the National Council of Catholic Women, the Center of Concern, Network, Pax Christi-USA, which have already begun educating their constituencies about the Law of the Sea, might heighten their efforts. Catholic par ticipation in Quaker and United Methodist Law of the Sea programs could offer a worthy ecumenical witness. As the tide turns in favor of a resource grab heretofore unknown on this watery planet, concerned people everywhere may have the last opportunity to preserve what little remains of their common ocean heritage, 1 1 Senator MATSUNAGA. We have 71⁄2 minutes. Would you like to take your 72 minutes now before we go vote or would you like to wait until we come back? Mr. CHARNEY. I haven't timed my summary. Senator STEVENS. I will not be able to come back. If you would, I would like to hear your comments. go. Senator MATSUNAGA. When the bells ring next, we have got to STATEMENT OF JONATHAN I. CHARNEY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, NASHVILLE, TENN. Mr. CHARNEY. I am Jonathan I. Charney, associate professor of law, Vanderbilt University. I have been involved in the law of the sea issues for over 10 years in many capacities and currently a member of the U.S. Advisory Committee on the Law of the Sea. I have written extensively in the area, particularly on the deep seabed issues. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to present my views to you today and have presented them in detail to you which I assume will be included in the record. I believe the legislation raises a number of significant issues. My final conclusion, as you will see, is generally to oppose the investment guarantee provision in the legislation, but to recognize justification for refined regulatory legislation dealing with deep-seabed mining. My initial starting point is based on the view a successful and timely conclusion of the negotiations is, in fact, possible. I base this in part on the progress last summer where we saw in committees significant progress for refining the law of the sea text and, in fact, even Committee One with the work under the Evensen group work. Let me approach the interest to be served by the legislation in the negotiations from the broader to the narrower issue. I have set out in my testimony, and in my article in "Foreign Affairs" last April, the statement that there are broad systemic interests involved in law of the sea negotiations. We are not dealing with a narrow issue of the law of the sea; we are dealing with a system of negotiation of multilateral systems under multilateral law. Failure of this Conference can prejudice the system of nations' resolution of major issues. I think there is great interest and great purpose by seeing a successful conclusion of this negotiation at the Law of the Sea Conference. I will not go into that in more detail. I will if you wish. In addition, another broad interest of the United States are the general interests in other areas of the law of the sea negotiations which Ambassador Richardson had touched on. It is very important we preserve the gains made there and see them codified into the treaty. As a result there are broad U.S. interests in seeing the U.S. negotiations succeed and the Senate and the executive branch should do all that is necessary to attempt to see success reached. I believe well refined legislation can help to get these negotiations back on track. I believe in the Evenson Group work there was an indication of a willingness and ability to reach agreement. |