1 The basic ideas of the concept are: (a) that the seabed and the ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as the area), as well as the resources of the area, are the common heritage of mankind, (b) that the area shall not be subject to appropriation by any means by states or persons, natural or juridical, (c) that the area shall be reserved exclusively for peaceful purposes, and (d) that the exploration of the area and the exploitation of its resources shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole. A useful interpretation of this concept and its role in guiding the formulation of articles for the Law of the. Sea Convention is found in Sohn, The United Nations and the Oceans, Current Issues in the Law of the Sea, 23 Report, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace (1973)Google Scholar.

2 UN Doc. A/RES/2749(XXV) (1970). The resolution was adopted on December 17, 1970, following its preparation by a Special Committee established by the General Assembly earlier that year to study a question which Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta had placed on the United Nations agenda in 1967.

3 Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, 28 UN GAOR Supp. 21, vol. II, at 57–58, UN Doc. A/9021 (1973).

4 See United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (Organization of the second session of the Conference and allocation of items). UN Doc. A/CONF.62/29 (1974).

5 The First Committee was allocated the items for which the Seabed Committee had prepared draft articles. These articles were divided into two parts. Part I contained draft articles dealing with status, scope, and basic provisions of the seabed regime based on the Declaration of Principles, cited supra note 2. Article 9 under discussion is one of the first 21 articles contained in Part I. Part II contains 52 draft articles and certain additional texts dealing with the status, scope, functions and powers of the international machinery to be established for the exploration and exploitation of the seabed area. The two parts are contained in Report of the Sea-Bed Committee, supra note 3, at 51–165.

6 Supra note 3, at 57–58.

7 Id., at 58.

8 Circulated as an informal Working Paper No. C.1/CRP1, July 22, 1974. First proposal in the document.

9 See in this connection infra note 26.

10 Supra note 8, second proposal in the document.

11 Supra note 8, at 2.

12 The fundamental issue, “System of Exploration and Exploitation of the Area,” and the three subissues arising therefrom were suggested by the Chairman of the informal working group, Dr. C. W. Pinto of Sri Lanka.

13 The name “Group of 77” refers to the original 77 countries from the developing world which got together and decided to pursue their interests together within the United Nations system. Except for Yugoslavia, the members of this Group come from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. They are now 103 countries but the name has been retained.

14 Circulated as an informal Working Paper No. C.1/CRP.3, July 25, 1974; reproduced in part, in First Committee Draft Articles considered by the Committee at its Informal Meetings (Articles 1–21), A/CONF.62/C.1/L.3, at 19.

15 Circulated as Working Paper C.1/CRP.4, July 26, 1974; reproduced in A/CONF. 62/C.1/L.3, at 6.

16 Cf. para. 1 of the Jamaican proposal.

17 From the paper entitled “Questions of the proposal put forward by the Group of 77 in the First Committee (Article 9)” specially prepared and submitted to the writer upon request. The writer wishes to thank the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the First Committee for having graciously agreed to submit to the writer these questions in writing.

18 From the paper entitled “Questions Posed by Canada in Committee 1,—29 July, 1974,” specially prepared and submitted to the writer upon request. The writer wishes to thank the representative of Canada to the First Committee for having graciously agreed to favor the writer with these questions in writing.

19 “Can or do proponents of Alternative A envisage a method or methods of contractual arrangements, other than the licensing method, with respect to exploration and exploitation activities in the International Area?”

20 “Should one interpret the wording of the first clause in the Jamaican proposal to mean that what is envisaged here is in effect a moratorium on all exploration and exploitation activities until such time as appropriate regulations are in force?”

21 From the paper entitled “Questions by the delegation of Ireland on the Proposal of the Group of 77—29 July 1974,” specially prepared and submitted to the writer upon request. The writer wishes to thank the delegation of Ireland for having graciously agreed to favor the writer with these questions in writing.

22 From the paper entitled “Statement by the Chinese Delegation on the proposal of the Group of 77 Article 9 in the informal Committee 1, August 1, 1974,” specially prepared and submitted to the writer upon request. The writer wishes to thank the Chinese delegation for having agreed to furnish the English translation of the statement as set out in this paper.

23 A/CONF.62/SR.45, at 9.

24 In another important document presented by the Group of 77 on “Basic Conditions for Exploration and Exploitation of the Sea-bed Area,” “joint ventures” as a legal arrangement is mentioned in paragraph 4 thereof. See infra note 30.

25 A/CONF.62/C.1/SR.11, at 11–13.

26 A/CONF.62/C.l/L.6. The text of this proposal should be compared with the earlier U.S. proposal. See text at supra note 8.

27 See text at supra note 6.

28 See text at supra note 15.

29 See text at supra note 6. All four alternatives can also be found at supra pp. 7–8.

30 The three basic approaches were first identified by Jamaica and later referred to by the Chairman of the informal meeting of the Committee. See A/CONF.62/C.1/ SR.14, at 4.

31 Reference is made here to the paper submitted by the United States. A/CONF. 62/C.1/L.6. Other papers containing comparable technical details on the basic conditions were submitted by Japan (A/CONF.62/C.1/L.9) and by the European Common Market group (A/CONF.62/C.1/L.8).

32 This was the position originally taken by a majority of the developing countries.

33 This view was first championed by Jamaica as reflected in its proposal. See text at supra note 14. This approach was later adopted by the Group of 77 which submitted a paper containing 17 paragraphs which do not constitute as detailed technical conditions as those cited supra note 31. See Text prepared by the Group of 77 and circulated in accordance with the decision taken by the Committee at its informal meeting on 16 August 1974: Basic conditions A/CONF.62/C.1/L.7. Norway, Sweden, China, Canada, and Albania supported this paper.

34 Supra, at note 15.

35 For the African Group: Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco,- Nigeria, and the United Republic of Tanzania; for the Asian Group: Afghanistan (alternating with Nepal), China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan, Philippines (alternating with Indonesia), Singapore, and Yugoslavia; for the Latin American countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela; for the Western European and Others Group: Austria, Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; for the Eastern European Group: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR; and one sponsor of each proposal submitted to the Committee: Australia, Colombia, France, Japan, and the United States.