Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:19:09.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Content Analysis of the United Nations Seabed Debate: Methodology and a Continental Shelf Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

R. L. Friedheim  and
J. B. Kadane
Get access

Extract

International arrangements for the uses of the ocean have been the subject of long debate within the United Nations since a speech made by Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta before the General Assembly in 1967. Issues in question include the method of delimiting the outer edge of the legal continental shelf; the spectrum of ocean arms control possibilities; proposals to create a declaration of principles governing the exploration for, and the exploitation of, seabed mineral resources with the promise that exploitation take place only if it “benefits mankind as a whole,” especially the developing states; and consideration of schemes to create international machinery to regulate, license, or own the resources of the seabed and subsoil. The discussions and debates began in the First (Political and Security) Committee of the 22nd General Assembly and proceeded through an ad hoc committee to the 23rd and 24th assembly plenary sessions. The creation of a permanent committee on the seabed as a part of the General Assembly's machinery attests to the importance members of the United Nations attribute to ocean problems. Having established the committee, they will be faced soon with the necessity of reaching decisions. The 24th General Assembly, for example, passed a resolution requesting the Secretary-General to ascertain members' attitudes on the convening of a new international conference to deal with a wide range of law of the sea problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , Summer 1970 , pp. 479 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 UN Document A/7834.

2 For a review of the literature and an attempt to impose a typology on the conceptual ideas in the debate see Friedheim, R. L., Understanding the Debate on Ocean Resources (Monograph Series in World Affairs, 6, No. 3) (Denver, Colo: Social Science Foundation and Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver, 1969)Google Scholar.

3 The following United Nations documents were used in this analysis: A/C.1/PV.1524–1539; A/–AC.135/1–28; A/AC.135/WG.1/SR.1-SR.14; A/AC.135/WG.2/SR.1–SR.11; and A/C.1/PV.1588–1605.

4 Holsti, Ole R., Content Analysis jor the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 5–7, 122–124Google Scholar. F°r an extensive bibliography of the literature of content analysis see the above work or Ole R. Holsti, with the collaboration of Loomba, Joanne K. and North, Robert C., “Content Analysis,” in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (ed.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (2nd ed; Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 651–653Google Scholar.

5 One of the investigators did factor analyze votes on ocean problems when they were available–at the 1958–1960 law of the sea conferences. See Friedheim, R. L., “Factor Analysis as a Tool in Studying the Law of the Sea,” Alexander, L. M. (ed.), The Law of the Sea (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

6 Holsti, p. 10.

7 Friedheim, R. L., “The ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Dissatisfied’ States Negotiate International Law: A Case Study,” World Politics, 10 1965 (Vol. 18, No. 1), pp. 20–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Moses, Lincoln E., and others, “Scaling Data on Inter-Nation Action,” Science, 05 26, 1967 (Vol. 156, No. 3778), pp. 1054–1059CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

9 For a detailed description and discussion of the shallow water areas of the world see Heselton, L. R. Jr, “The Continental Shelf,” (Center for Naval Studies Research Contribution No. 106) (Arlington, Va: Institute of Naval Studies, Center for Naval Analyses, 04 1969)Google Scholar.

10 For definitions of these terms see Baker, B. B. Sr, Deebel, W. R., and Geisenderfer, R. D., Glossary of Oceanographic Terms (Special Publication 35) (2nd ed; Washington: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, 1966), p. 38Google Scholar. For a discussion of these and related areas see K. O. Emery, “The Continental Shelves,” and Menard, H. W., “The Deep-Ocean Floor,” in Scientific American, 09 1969 (Vol. 221, No. 3), pp. 106–122 and pp. 127–142, respectivelyCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shepard, Francis P., Submarine Geology (2nd ed; New York: Harper & Row, 1963)Google Scholar.

11 The subject of seabed resources has been of considerable concern to the United Nations; see United Nations Documents E/4449 and Add.1–2; E/4680; A/AC.138/6; A/AC.138/12 and Add.I.

12 For a fuller discussion of general and special purpose zones see Friedheim, R. L., Understanding the Debate, pp. 5, 10Google Scholar.

13 Two contradictory proposals on the seabed delimitation problem have already been published in official and quasi-official United States government reports. See Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, Our Nation and the Sea (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), pp. 143–146Google Scholar, and Brockett, E. D., Chairman, , Petroleum Resources under the Ocean Floor (Washington: National Petroleum Council, Committee on Petroleum Resources under the Ocean Floor, 1969), p. 113Google Scholar.

14 This has been clearly demonstrated for formal procedural votes under UN voting rules. Using factor analysis techniques, procedural votes factor directly into the clusters on substantive issues. See R. L. Friedheim, in Alexander, p. 53.

15 General Assembly Resolution 2574A (XXIV), January 15, 1970.

16 This tentative conclusion, first made in January 1970, has been partially validated by the March 1970 conclusion of a treaty between Indonesia and Malaysia delimiting their territorial sea boundaries in the Strait of Malacca. In the treaty, at least for this strait, Indonesia has abandoned its archipelago theory. Netv York Times, March 18, 1970, p. 12.

17 The leadership role of the Scandinavian nations generally within the United Nations is also reflected in the size of die delegations they maintain in New York. Keohane, Robert, “Who Oares About the General Assembly?,” International Organization, Winter 1969 (Vol. 23, No. 1), p. 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 For an exposition of the stepwise multiple regression technique see Goldberger, Arthur S., Econometric Theory (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964), pp. 194–197Google Scholar.

19 See Appendix, B, “Factor Analysis: A Cautionary Note,” in Mueller, John E. (ed.), Approaches to Measurement in International Relations: A Non-Evangelical Survey (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969), pp. 309–311Google Scholar.