1 The term “quality” of an administering state’s interest or “title” in this context means the manner of holding title, and indicates the sources of its validity. It is to be contrasted with the quantity of such a state’s interest, i.e., the scope and duration of the rights allowed. The quantity of a state’s interest has usually been well covered in the published works on the subject.

2 “Title” in the present context is a shorthand term to indicate the bundle of rights of jurisdiction and control (see next footnote and the accompanying text) which an administering state may exercise over specific resources in its zone of special jurisdiction (see note 4 below).

3 The concept of sovereign rights was formulated by the International Law Commission and adopted in Art. 2, par. 1, of the Continental Shelf Convention, signed April 29, 1958, in force June 10, 1964, 499 U.N. Treaty Series 311, [1964] 1 U. S. Treaties 471, T.I.A.S., No. 5578, 52 A.J.I.L. 858 (1958) (hereinafter cited as “Continental Shelf Convention”). This term is clearly distinguishable from “sovereignty,” since it is specialized and restricted to the carrying out of the purposes of exploring and exploiting the resources of the seabed and its subsoil. On the other hand, it does include the recognition that the coastal state’s rights, limited and specific as they may be, are permanent, exclusive and proprietary. See I.L.C. commentary on Art. 68 of its Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea, I.L.C. Rep., 8th Sess., 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 253, 298, U.N. Doc. A/3159. Accordingly, the term “jurisdiction and control” has been selected, despite its early association, in Art. 2 of the I.L.C. 1951 Draft Articles on the Continental Shelf and Related Subjects, and in President Truman’s Proclamation With Respect to Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, Sept. 28, 1945, 10 Fed. Reg. 12303 (1945), with ideas of permanence, exclusivity and proprietorship. It is arguable that since this term was supplanted by “sovereign rights” in order to indicate those qualities more clearly, the term “jurisdiction and control” is available to indicate a legal concept which does not include permanent rights of full proprietorship, or dominium, let alone sovereignty, or imperium, over seabed areas.

4 “Zones of Special Jurisdiction” have been defined as areas in which “states may exercise exclusive authority over the explorations and exploitation of the specific mineral resources for which the authority was originally sought.” Goldie, , “The Contents of Davy Jones’s Locker: A Proposed Regime for the Seabed and Subsoil,” 22 Rutgers Law Review 1, 40 (1967)Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as “Goldie, ‘Davy Jones’s Locker’”). For a discussion of the limited and contingent nature of this concept see ibid. 43-48.

5 Commission on Marine Science. Engineering and Resources, Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action (1969) (hereinafter cited as the “Stratton Commission Report” after the Chairman of the Commission, Dr. Julius A. Stratton). This report was accompanied by eight Panel reports which were bound in three volumes, namely, Vol. 1: Science and Environment (1969); Vol. 2: Industry and Technology: Keys to Ocean Development (1969); Vol. 3: Marine Resources and Legal-Political Arrangements for their Development (1969) (hereinafter cited as “Panel Reports” and prefixed by the appropriate volume number). Page citations to these Panel Reports are prefixed by the Roman numerals indicating the appropriate Report.

The Commission was appointed by President Johnson on Jan. 9, 1967, pursuant to the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 203 (1966), ] 33U.S.C. §1101 (1970).

6 This was described in 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 34-35 as an area where only the “coastal State or its licensees, which may or may not be its nationals” may explore , for or exploit the zone’s “mineral resources.” In all other respects, however, the intermediate zone was to fall under the regime governing the deep sea. The zone’s geographical limits were then defined as follows:

“[I]t is recommended that the outer limits of the intermediate zone be defined in .i terms of the 2,500 meter isobath or 100 nautical miles from the baselines for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, whichever alternative gives the coastal State the ‘| greater submarine area for the purposes for which the international zone is created.”

See also Stratton Commission Report 151.

7 Stratton Commission Report 148; 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 36.

8 For the “Powers and Duties of Registering Nations” see Stratton Commission Report 150. See also 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 39.

9 Stratton Commission Report 149-150; 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 38-39.

10 Ibid.

11 Stratton Commission Report 148-149.

12 This has the same effect as par. (d), 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 37.

13 This has the same effect as par. (e), ibid.

14 This has the same effect as par. (f), ibid.

15 This may be intended to have a similar effect as par. (m), ibid, at 38.

16 Stratton Commission Report 150-151.

17 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 37; see also Stratton Commission Report 148.

18 See notes 20-24 below, and the accompanying text.

19 Panel Reports (VIII) 38.

20 The non-dispositive nature of a recording system is illustrated by the wag who tells of a county clerk “who would put a menu on record if a fee were tendered.” Cribbet, Fritz & Johnson, , Cases & Materials on Property 710 (2d ed., 1966)Google Scholar.

21 State ex rel. Douglas v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437, 438, 89 N.W. 175 (1902) (emphasis added).

22 Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, The United Nations and the Bed of the Sea 27-28 (19th Report, 1969); idem, New Dimensions for the United Nations: The Problems of the Next Decade 44 (17th Report, 1966). See also Statement of Clark Eichelberger, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Hearings on SJ. Res. 111, S. Res. 172, S. Res. 186 before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. at 39–43 (1962).

23 See, from among Christy’s, Dr. many writings on this topic, “A Social Scientist Writes on Economic Criteria for Rules Governing Exploitation of Deep Sea Minerals,” 2 The International Lawyer 224 (1968)Google Scholar.

24 Stratton Commission Report 147; 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 35-36.

25 Stratton Commission Report 149; 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 38-39.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 See Stratton Commission Report 149, where the following statement is made:

“The Commission’s proposals for an International Fund do not constitute just another way for the rich nations to aid the poor nations. They are intended to compensate the common owners of the mineral resources of the deep seas by using the ‘economic rent’ for purposes that the international community agrees will promote the common welfare.”

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid. 150.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid. 150-151.

34 3 Panel Reports (VIII) 37.

35 Alexander, , “We Must Go Down to the Sea Again,” 5 Columbia Journal of World Business 77, 84-85 (1970)Google Scholar.

36 Feb. 26, 1885, 10 Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général (2d sér.) 384, 396; 3 A.J.I.L. Supp. 7 (1909). Art. 35 contains a classic definition of occupation.

37 Goldie, , “Davy Jones’s Locker” 40-42 Google Scholar (footnotes omitted).

38 Von, Mehren and Trautman, , “Recognition of Foreign Adjudications: A Survey and a Suggested Approach,” 81 Harvard Law Review 1601 (1968)Google Scholar.

39 Von, Savigny, Private International Law 26 (Guthrie transl., 1869)Google Scholar.

40 This point was made in Goldie, , “Davy Jones’s Locker” at 53 Google Scholar. See also ibid, at 53-54, for the analogous position regarding defense installations, which, however, is not germane to the present discussion.

41 This argument is accepting customary international law as still current and does not attempt any evaluation of the General Assembly’s so-called “Moratorium Resolution,” Res. 2574 D (XXIV).

42 3 Panel Reports (VIII)

43 Signed Sept. 6, 1952, in force Sept. 16, 1955, [1955] 3 U. S. Treaties 2731; T.I.A.S., No. 3324; 216 U.N. Treaty Series 132; 49 A.J.I.L. Supp. 149 (1955).

44 Signed Oct. 31, 1958, in force Jan. 4, 1962, [1962] 1 U. S. Treaties 1; T.I.A.S., No. 4931.

45 1962 Official Text (Including the 1966 Official Recommendations for Amendment) 266-268 (1968). It is of interest to note that Art. 220 of the Common Market Treaty, 1 CCH Common Market Reporter 1-5251 at 4336—4337, provides, inter alia for negotiations among member states for the “equal protection” of individuals, the mutual recognition of firms and the maintenance of their legal personality, and the “simplification of the formalities governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments . . . and arbitral awards.” The main agreements negotiated so far have been the Convention Relating to the Jurisdiction of the Courts and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed Sept. 27, 1968, 2 CCH Common Market Reporter ¶¶6003-6081 at 5015-5043, and Convention Relating to the Mutual Recogntion of Companies and Legal Persons, signed Sept. 27, 1968, 2 CCH Common Market Reporter ¶¶6083-6107 a t 5045-5050. For a critical evaluation of the Common Market Enforcement of Judgments Convention, see Nadelman, “The Common Market Judgments Convention and Hague Conference Recommendation: What Steps Next?” 82 Harvard Law Review 1282 (1969).

46 See, e.g., Goldie, , “Davy Jones’s Locker” 43-47 Google Scholar.

47 See, e.g., 2 Panel Reports (V) 8.

48 1 Panel Reports Foreword (first unnumbered page).

49 Ibid.

50 It is disappointing to note that, at page 150, the Stratton Commission Report discussed proposals for domestic legislation to implement its international legal-political framework, but it did not take this opportunity to discuss the issue of the transnational recognition of titles. At the same page it also discussed the “international machinery for the international recognition of claims to exclusive access to subsea minerals in large enough areas . . . .” But here again it failed to recommend any system to effectuate titles to those “subsea minerals” once they have been won from the seabed and begun to move in international commerce.