Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
Interactions between different kinds of actors engaged in outer space and ocean exploration and exploitation can be grouped into five major categories of activities. These activities reflect the dominant interests of all the participants, and they are treated at a level of generality which facilitates comparison. The categories of activities are: i) management and regulation of common resources; 2) exploitation of specific resources; 3) coordination and financing of research, including exploration and experimentation at the international level, and arrangements governing the exchange of information gained; 4) preservation of national and international security; and 5) recreation and the control of pollution.
1 This account is based on conversations with several individuals who were Department of State officials and members of the President's Science Advisor's Office at the time these events took place. In addition, the author is grateful for a long and valuable telephone interview with Reichelderfer on October 18, 1969. For a partial account of these difficulties see Skolnikoff, Eugene B., Science, Technology, and American Foreign Policy (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1967), pp. 173–178Google Scholar.
2 Sec ITU Document 8-E (Extraordinary Administrative Radio Conference, 1961 ), Annex, , pp. 29ff.Google Scholar; and ITU Document 46-E.
3 United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Radio Frequency Control in Space Telecommunications, by Wenk, E[dvvard], Committee Print (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 75–78Google Scholar.
4 COSPAR Information Bulletin, 03 1961 (No. 4), pp. 8–9Google Scholar; and July 1961 (No. 5), pp. 10–12.
5 ITU Document 75-E.
6 COSPAR Information Bulletin, 07 1960 (No. 2), pp. 4–5Google Scholar.
7 COSPAR Information Bulletin, 11 1964 (No. 20), p. 20Google Scholar.
8 Ibid., pp. 10–11.
9 On the general question of the international law, politics, and economics of fisheries see, inter alia, Oda, Shigeru, International Control of Sea Resources (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1963)Google Scholar; Johnston, Douglas M., The International Law of Fisheries: A Framework, for Policy-Oriented Inquiries (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Christy, Francis T. Jr, and Scott, Anthony, The Common Wealth in Ocean Fisheries: Some Problems of Growth and Economic Allocation (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Press [for Resources for the Future], 1965)Google Scholar; Crutchfield, James A. and Pontecorvo, Giulio, The Pacific Salmon Fisheries: A Study of Irrational Conservation (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Press [for Resources for the Future], 1969)Google Scholar; Kask, J. L., Tuna: A World Resource (Occasional Paper, No. 2) (Kingston: Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, 05 1969)Google Scholar; and Koers, Albert W., The Enforcement of Fisheries Agreements on the High Seas: A Comparative Analysis of International State Practice (Occasional Paper, No. 6) (Kingston: Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, 06 1970)Google Scholar.
10 Sullivan, William, “A Warning: The Decline of International Fisheries Management, Looking Particularly at the North Atlantic Ocean,” in The United Nations and Ocean Management, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, June 15–19, 1970, ed. Alexander, Lewis (Kingston: University of Rhode Island, 1971), pp. 43–48Google Scholar.
11 Lucas, C. E., International Fishery Bodies of the North Atlantic (Occasional Paper, No. 5) (Kingston: Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, 04 1970)Google Scholar.
12 Chapman, Wilbert, “Fishery Resources in Offshore Waters,” in The Law of the Sea: Offshore Boundaries and Zones, ed. Alexander, Lewis (Publication of the Law of the Sea Institute and the Mershon Center for Education in National Security) (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1967), p. 98Google Scholar.
13 For general information about INTELSAT sec Colino, Richard, “INTELSAT: Doing Business in Outer Space,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Spring 1967 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 17–60Google Scholar; Smith, Delbcrt D., International Telecommunication Control: International Law and the Ordering of Satellite and Other Forms of International Broadcasting (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1969), pp. 142–160Google Scholar; Maddox, Brenda, “The Connections,” The Economist, 08 9, 1969 (Vol. 232, No. 6572), pp. vii–xxxviGoogle Scholar; Samuelson, Robert J., “Intelsat: Flying High, but Future Course Uncertain,” Science, 04 4, 1969 (Vol. 164, No. 3875), pp. 56–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Galloway, Jonathan F., “Worldwide Corporations and International Integration: The Case of INTELSAT,” International Organization, Summer 1970 (Vol. 24, No. 3), pp. 503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 See Pardoe, G. K. C., “Space Programmes in Western Europe and the U.K.” (Paper delivered at the Impact of Aerospace Science and Technology on Law and Government Conference, Washington, 08 28–30, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, now American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper No. 68–897; and Layton, Christopher, European Advanced Technology: A Programme for Integration (London: George Allen & Unwin [for Political and Economic Planning], 1969), pp. 162–194Google Scholar.
15 This is described in detail in my essay, “International Administration of Space Exploration and Exploitation,” in Multinational Cooperation, ed. Jordan, Robert (New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming), pp. 128–148Google Scholar.
16 This compromise combined both geomorphological and technological criteria in defining the limits of the continental shelf. Article 1 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf defines the continental shelf as “the seabed and the subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas.…” UN Document A/CONF.-13/L.55.
17 For some of the recent literature on mineral exploitation of the oceans see, inter alia, Mero, John L., The Mineral Resources of the Sea (Elsevier Oceanography Series, No. 1) (New York: Elscvier Publishing Co., 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cocnc, G. T., “Profile of Marine Resources,” Proceedings of the Conference on Law, Organization and Security in the Use of the Oceans, Ohio State University, March 17–18, 1967, Vol. 1Google Scholar; Alexander, Lewis M., ed., The Law of the Sea: The Future of the Sea's Resources, Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, June 26–29, 1967 (Kingston: University of Rhode Island, 1968)Google Scholar; Alexander, Lewis M., ed., The Law of the Sea: International Rules and Organization for the Sea, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, June 24–27, 1968 (Kingston: University of Rhode Island, 1969)Google Scholar; Henkin, Louis, Law for the Sea's Mineral Resources (ISHA Monograph, No. 1) (New York: Institute for the Study of Science in Human Affairs, Columbia University, 1968)Google Scholar; Committee on Petroleum Resources, Petroleum Resources under the Ocean Floor: An Interim Report (Washington: National Petroleum Council, 07 9, 1968)Google Scholar; and McKelvey, V. E. and Wang, Frank, World Subsea Mineral Resources: Preliminary Maps (Washington: United States Geological Survey, 1969)Google Scholar.
18 New York Times, February 15, 1971, pp. 1, 7.
19 For general analyses of the oil industry see Penrose, Edith T., The Large International Firm in Developing Countries: The International Petroleum Industry (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Stocking, George, Middle East Oil (Nashville, Tenn: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Tanzer, Michael, The Political Economy of International Oil and the Underdeveloped Countries (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Tugendhat, Christopher, Oil: The Biggest Business (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1968)Google Scholar. I should note, however, that data is not generally available on the formation of coalitions between governmental and nongovernmental actors within the major oil-producing and oil-importing countries nor on the penetration of those coalitions by other external actors.
20 I am grateful to my colleague Bernhard Abrahamsson for bibliographic and substantive guidance on international shipping questions.
21 Lawrence, Samuel A., United States Merchant Shipping Policies and Politics (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1966), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.
22 Abrahamsson, Bernhard, “Developing Nations and Ocean Transportation: An Analysis of Price and Cost of Ocean Transportation, Balance of Payments, and the Case for National Merchant Marines with Special Reference to Southeast Asia” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1966), especially chapter 2Google Scholar; see also Marx, Daniel, International Shipping Cartels: A Study of Industrial Self-Regulation by Shipping Conferences (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1953)Google Scholar; and the essay by Robert L. Thornton in this volume.
23 Abrahamsson, , “Developing Nations and Ocean Transportation,” p. 34Google Scholar.
24 Ibid., pp. 35, 39ff.
25 See, for example, Maritime Transport Committee, Maritime Transport, 1968 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1968), p. 11Google Scholar.
26 See the excellent account by Padwa, David J., “The Curriculum of IMCO,” International Organization, Autumn 1960 (Vol. 14, No. 4), pp. 524–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Ibid., p. 524.
28 Ibid., p. 533.
29 Roullicr, Jean, “A Youthful Agency: IMCO and Its Work since Its Establishment,” IMCO Bulletin, 11 1967 (No. 11), pp. 3–7Google Scholar. Roullier was secretary-general of IMCO at this time.
30 COSPAR, Transactions Number 5Google Scholar. Reports of National Institutions on Space Research Activities Presented at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of COSPAR, London, July 1967, and Paris, April 1968.
31 Frutkin, A. W., “International Cooperation in Space,” Science, 07 24, 1970 (Vol. 169, No. 3943), pp. 333—339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; see also Newell, Homer E. and Jafle, Leonard, “Impact of Space Research on Science and Technology,” Science, 07 7, 1967 (Vol. 157, No. 3784), pp. 29–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
32 Miles, Edward, “Development of Legal Regimes to Guide Space Exploration” (Paper delivered at the Impact of Aerospace Science and Technology Conference, Washington, 08 28—30, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, now American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper No. 68–908; see, especially, section V, “Trends in International Agreements for Space Exploration, 1960–1967,” pp. 7–9.
33 See Odishaw, Hugh, “Science and Space,” in Outer Space: Prospects for Man and Society, ed. Bloomfield, Lincoln P. (rev. ed.; New York: Frederick A. Praeger [for the American Assembly, Columbia University], 1968), pp. 75–93Google Scholar; van de Hulst, H. C., “COSPAR and Space Co-operation,” in The Challenges of Space, ed. Odishaw, Hugh (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 291–298Google Scholar; and Leonard Schwartz, “International Space Organizations,” in ibid., especially pp. 242–266.
34 Roy, Maurice, “Benefits of Membership in COSPAR,” COSPAR Information Bulletin, 02 1969 (No. 48), pp. 5–10Google Scholar.
35 Committee on Oceanography, Oceanography: 1960 to 1970, Vol. 10Google Scholar: International Cooperation (Washington: National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, 1959)Google Scholar; see also United States Congress, House, Committee on Science and Astronautics, Ocean Sciences and National Security, H. Rept. 2078, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., 1960Google Scholar; and Marine Science Commission, Our Nation and the Sea (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970), pp. 169–208Google Scholar.
36 Wooster, Warren, “International Organization for Science,” in Alexander, , The Law of the Sea: International Rules and Organization for the Sea, p. 421Google Scholar.
37 Wooster, Warren, “The Ocean and Man,” Scientific American, 09 1969 (Vol. 221, No. 3), pp. 218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 See Burke, William T., “Law, Science, and the Ocean,” Natural Resources Lawyer, 05 1970 (Vol. 3, No. 2), pp. 195–226Google Scholar; and by the same author, Marine Research and International Law (Occasional Paper, No. 8) (Kingston: Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, 09 1970)Google Scholar.
39 See the excellent report by the joint Advisory Committee on Marine Resources and Research (ACMRR)–WMO working group on the implementation of the United Nations resolution on the resources of the sea. SCOR, International Ocean Affairs: A Special Report (La Jolla, Calif., 09 1, 1967)Google Scholar; see also IOC, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (Five Years of Work.) (IOC Technical Series, No. 2) (Paris: UNESCO, 1966)Google Scholar; and Holt, Sidney, “The Intergovrnmental Oceanographic Commission: A Biased History” (Paper delivered at the Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, 06 1970)Google Scholar.
40 “Future Development of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Meeting of Consultants Convened by the IOC Bureau, UNESCO, Paris, 11–12 October 1968,” International Marine Science, 12 1968 (Vol. 6, Nos. 3–4), pp. 55–56Google Scholar.
41 “Second Meeting of the IOC Working Committee for the IGOSS, WMO Headquarters, Geneva, February 24, 1969,” International Marine Science, 04 1969 (Vol. 7, No. 1), pp. 28–29Google Scholar; see also Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Legal Problems Associated with Ocean Data Acquisition Systems (ODAS) (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1969)Google Scholar.
42 “Report of the President of CMM [Commission for Maritime Meteorology] and Report of the Fifth Session of CMM,” Abridged Report with Resolutions of the Twenty-First Session of the Executive Committee of the World Meteorological Organization, May 29–June 12, 1969 (Geneva: Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, 1969), pp. 32—38Google Scholar.
43 Marine Science Commission, pp. 174–175.
44 SCOR Proceedings, 04 1969 (Vol. 5, No. 1), p. 8Google Scholar.
45 See, inter alia, Storer, Norman W., The Social System of Science (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966)Google Scholar; and Merton, Robert, Social Theory and Social Structure (rev. and enl. ed.; Glencoe, 111: Free Press of Glencoe, 1957), pp. 550–561Google Scholar.
46 I am indebted to Robert Friedheim for this point.
47 For more details on this see Miles, in Jordan.
48 Stroud, Richard, “Sport Fishery and Recreation Demands on the Continental Shelf,” in Alexander, , The Law of the Sea: International Rules and Organization for the Sea, p. 242Google Scholar; cf., Marine Science Commission, Panel Reports, Vol. 3Google Scholar: Marine Resources and Legal Political Arrangements for Their Development (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1969), chapter 7, pp. 31 and 36Google Scholar.
49 See, for example, Nanda, Ved P., “The ‘Torrey Canyon’ Disaster: Some Legal Aspects,” Denver Law Journal, Summer 1967 (Vol. 44, No. 3), pp. 400–425Google Scholar; and Nanda, Ved P. and Stiles, Kenneth R., “Offshore Oil Spills: An Evaluation of Recent United States Responses,” San Diego Law Review, 07 1970 (Vol. 7, No. 3), pp. 519–540Google Scholar.
50 Nanda, , Denver Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 405–413Google Scholar.
51 Orr, Samuel C., “Resources Report: Soviet, Latin Opposition Blocks Agreement on Seabeds Treaty,” CPR National Journal, 09 12, 1970, p. 1977Google Scholar.
52 Some of this data on capabilities is gross and should be used with care. For example, Peru has the largest share of the world fishing catch, but this is based on a single species. This is why it is necessary to balance the data on total catch with data on the average tonnage of a country's fishing fleet in order to obtain a reliable profile of the extent of its capability.
53 Marine Science Affairs: A Year of Transition, Report of the President to the Congress on Marine Resources and Engineering Development (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 47–49Google Scholar.
54 Christy, Francis T. Jr, “Fisheries and the New Conventions on the Law of the Sea,” San Diego Law Review, 07 1970 (Vol. 7, No. 3), table 2, p. 466Google Scholar.
55 Ibid.
56 Marine Science Affairs, p. 47.
57 See UN Document TD/B/C.4/66. The dead weight tonnage measure is an indication of carrying capacity, while the gross registered tonnage measure is not. The rankings are slightly changed when utilizing the gross registered tonnage measure: 1) Liberia, 2) the United Kingdom, 3) Norway, 4) Japan, 5) the United States, 6) the Soviet Union, 7) Greece, and 8) Italy. See Maritime Transport Committee, Maritime Transport, 1968, table 22, p. 107Google Scholar.
58 Marine Science Commission, Panel Reports, Engineering and Resources, Vol. IGoogle Scholar: Science and Environment (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1969), table 4, chapter 1, p. 14Google Scholar.
59 Ibid., table 5, chapter 1, pp. 14–15.
60 East, Maurice, “Stratification and International Politics: An Empirical Study Employing the International Systems Approach” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1969), pp. 89–127 and 147–180Google Scholar.
