² The term is taken from Johnston, Douglas M., “The Options for LOS III: Appraisal and Proposal,” in Christy, Francis et al. , eds., Law of the Sea: Caracas and Beyond, (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 357–72Google Scholar.

³ Edward Miles, “An Interpretation of the Caracas Proceedings,” in ibid., pp. 39–94; “The Dynamics of Global Ocean Politics,” in Johnston, Douglas ed., Marine Policy and the Coastal Community (London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1976), pp. 147–81Google Scholar; “An Interpretation of the Geneva Proceedings–Part I,” Ocean Development and International Law Journal Vol. 3, No. 3: 187–224, and Part II, ibid., Vol. 3, No. 4: 303–40.

⁴ The definition of “international regime” employed here is the same as that of Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends,” International Organization Vol. 29, No. 3: 570–74Google Scholar.

⁵ See Edward Miles, “An Interpretation of the Caracas Proceedings,” and “An Interpretation of the Geneva Proceedings-Part II.”

⁶ See Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations,” World Politics Vol. 27, No. 1 (10 1974): 39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Only the Fishhook Club seemed still to be very active during the New York session.

⁸ See for example: Friedheim, Robert, Kadane, Joseph et al. , “Quantitative Content Analysis of the United Nations Seabed Debate: Methodology and a Continental Shelf Case Study,” International Organization Vol. 24 (Summer 1970): 479–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedheim, Robert and Kadane, Joseph, “Ocean Science in the UN Political Arena,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce Vol. 3, No. 3 (04 1972): 473–502Google Scholar; Friedheim, Robert, “A Law of the Sea Conference-Who Needs It? pp. 44–66 in Wirsing, Robert ed., International Relations and the Future of Ocean Space, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Alexander, Lewis ed., The Law of the Sea: A new Geneva Conference, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, 1971 (Kingston: University of Rhode Island, 1971)Google Scholar; Alexander, Lewis ed., The Law of the Sea: Needs and Interests of Developing Countries, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, (Kingston: University of Rhode Island1, 1972)Google Scholar; Gamble, John and Pontecorvo, Giulio eds., Law of the Sea: The Emerging Regime of the Oceans, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1973)Google Scholar; Hollick, Ann L., “Seabeds Make Strange Politics,” Foreign Policy Vol. 9 (Winter 1972–1973): 148–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hollick, Ann L., “Canadian-American Relations: Law of the Sea,” International Organization Vol. 28, No. 4 (Autumnx 1974): 755–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; United Nations, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, Vols. 1–6 (New York: United Nations, 1973)Google Scholar; Francis T. Christy et al., eds., Law of the Sea: Caracas and Beyond; Lφvald, Johan Ludvik, “In Search of An Ocean Regime: The Negotiations in the General Assembly's Seabed Committee 1968–1970,” International Organization Vol. 29, No. 3 (Summer 1975): 681–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Document No. A/CONF.62/WP.8.

¹⁰ Document No. A/CONF.62AVP.9, 21 July 1975.

¹¹ For a detailed analysis of the work of the Seabed Committee in this period, see Brown, E. D., “The 1973 Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Consequences of Failure to Agree,” in Alexander, Lewis M. ed., The Law of the Sea: A New Geneva Conference, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I., 21–24 June 1971 (Kingston, R.I.: University of Rhode Island, 01 1972), pp. 1–37Google Scholar.

¹² SIPRI Yearbook of World Armaments and Disarmament, 1969/70 (New York: Humanities Presss 1971), pp. 154–84Google Scholar.

¹³ Edward Miles, The International Decision-System for Outer Space, unpublished manuscript, Chapter II.

¹⁴ For an analysis of UNCTAD politics see Nye, Joseph S., “UNCTAD: Poor Nations Pressure Group,” pp. 334–70 in Cox, Robert and Jacobson, Harold eds., The Anatomy of Influence (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1972)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ On the background to early US policy, see Hollick, Ann L., “Seabeds Make Strange Politics,” Foreign Policy No. 9 (Winter 1972–1973): 148–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ The details for what follows are provided in Miles, Edward, “The Dynamics of Global Ocean Politics,” in Johnston, Douglas ed., Marine Policy and the Coastal Community, pp. 147–81Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Document No. A/AC. 138/80. The formal proposal embodying this concept was tabled in 1973 by Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela in Document No. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.21. See also Aguilar, Andrés, “The Patrimonial Sea,” in Alexander, Lewis M. ed., Tlte Law of the Sea: Needs and Interests of Developing Countries, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, 26–29 June 1972 (Kingston, R.I.: University of Rhode Island, 02 1973), pp. 161–65Google Scholar.

¹⁸ See Report of the African States Regional Seminar on the Law of the Sea (Yaounde 1972)Google Scholar, Document No. A/AC. 138/79; “Organization of African Unity Declaration on the Issues of the Law of the Sea–CM Res.289(19),” Document No. A/AC.138/89; and the proposal by Kenya introduced in 1972 as Document No. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.10.

¹⁹ On the major role played by Canada at LOS III, see Buzan, Barry C. and Johnson, Barbara, Canada at the Third Law of the Sea Conference: Policy, Role, and Prospects, (Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, Occasional Paper No. 29, 12 1975)Google Scholar.

²⁰ On this issue see Kusumaatmadja, Mochtar, “The Legal Regime of Archipelagoes: Problems and Issues,” in Alexander, ed., The Law of the Sea: Needs and Interests of Developing Countries, pp. 166–77Google Scholar. See also the article by William T. Burke in this journal.

²¹ See the proposals submitted by the US, Document No. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.4; USSR, Document No. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.6; and Japan, Document No. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.12.

²² See the Draft Ocean Space Treaty submitted by Malta in Document No. A/AC.138/53.

²³ These were submitted by: US (A/AC.138/25); UK (A/AC.138/26); France (A/AC.138/27); Tanzania (A/AC.138/33); USSR (A/AC.138/43); Poland (A/AC. 138/44); Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Trinidad-Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela (A/AC.138/25); Afghanistan, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Nepal, Netherlands, and Singapore (A/AC.138/55); Canada (A/AC. 138/59); Japan (A/AC.138/63); and Italy (A/AC.138/SC.1/L.26).

²⁴ See Alexander, Lewis M., “Proposals for Future Regimes for the Seabed,” paper presented to a Ditchley Foundation Conference, United Kingdom, 02 1972Google Scholar; Buzan, Barry, Seabed Politics (New York: Praeger, 1976), Chapters 7–10Google Scholar. For other relevant accounts, see also: Luard, Evan, The Control of the Sea-Bed, (London: Heinemann, 1974)Google Scholar; and Piquemal, Alain, Le Fond des Mers: Patrimoine Commun de L'Humanité, Centre National Pour L'Exploitation des Océans, Rapport No. 2 (Nice: Université de Nice, 1973)Google Scholar.

²⁵ The Report of the Secretary-General entitled: Economic Significance in Terms of Sea-Bed Mineral Resources, of the Various Limits Proposed for National Jurisdiction, Document No. A/AC.138/87, 4 June 1973, was an attempt by the Landlocked and Geographically Disadvantaged States Group to show that wide national limits were unnecessary.

²⁶ See in particular: Possible Impact of Seabed Mineral Production in the Area Beyond National Jurisdiction on World Markets, with Special Reference to the Problems of Developing Countries: A Preliminary Assessment, Document No. A/AC.138/36 of 1971; and Additional Notes on the Possible Economic Implication of Mineral Production from the International Seabed Area, Document No. A/AC.138/73 of 1972.

²⁷ See General Assembly, United Nations, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction (New York: United Nations, Vol. I, 1973, pp. 13–37Google Scholar; and Vol. II, 1973, pp. 57–165).

²⁸ The material relating to the Caracas session of 1974 is summarized from the more detailed presentation by the author in “An Interpretation of the Caracas Proceedings.” Similarly, the material on the Geneva session of 1975 is taken from “An Interpretation of the Geneva Proceedings, Parts I and II.” The analysis of the New York sessions of 1976, however, has not previously been published and is made on the basis of the author's observations and interviews at the Conference from 22 March–2 April 1976, from 25 April–7 May 1976, and again from 29 August–17 September, 1976.

²⁹ The formal record of the first session of the Conference is contained in Document No. A/CONF.62/SR1–13, 22 February 1974. This analysis, however, is made from the detailed notes of the author who was present at every session.

³⁰ See Document No. A/CONF.62/WP.2, 25 June 1974. The Gentlemen's Agreement reads:

“Bearing in mind that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole and the desirability of adopting a convention on the Law of the Sea which will secure the widest possible acceptance.

“The Conference should make every effort to reach agreement on substantive matters by way of consensus and there should be no voting on such matters until all efforts at consensus have been exhausted.”

³¹ A provision was later inserted which suspended this requirement during the last two weeks of a session. See Conference Room Paper No. 3/Rev.2, 25 June 1974.

³² Document No. A/CONF. 62/L.l, p. 23.

³³ Document No. A/SR.16, 27 June 1974, p. 8.

³⁴ With the adoption of a new Rule 40, this became Rule 65. It reads:

“These rules of procedure may be amended by a decision of the Conference taken by the majority specified in paragraph 1 of Rule 39, after the General Committee has reported on the proposed amendment.”

³⁵ UN General Assembly, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and Ocean Floor Beyond National Jurisdiction. This criticism applies not to Vols. I, II, and III but to the attempts at cross-tabulation in Vols. IV, V, and VI.

³⁶ Document No. A/CONF.62/C.2/WP.1 of 15 October 1974. It is entitled the “Main Trends.”

³⁷ The effect of time is also important. For instance, Ambassador Aguilar had prepared a Single Text for Committee II in Caracas but was prevailed upon by others not to introduce it at that time since it was inopportune. By the end of the Geneva session, however, with failure looming large, the President of the Conference was willing to resort to more drastic measures and ordered the Chairman of each Committee to produce a Single Text. The Informal Single Negotiating Text, Part II is reportedly not strikingly different from the one Ambassador Aguilar had prepared in Caracas.

³⁸ Ibid., Table 1, p. 79.

³⁹ Document No. A/CONF.62/L.4 of 26 July 1974, co-sponsored by Canada, Chile, Ireland, India, Indonesia, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, and Norway.

⁴⁰ See Press Release SEA/C/80 of 29 July 1974.

⁴¹ Statement of the representative of Norway in Plenary, 2 July 1974. Document No. A/CONF.62/SR.5, pp. 19–23.

⁴² Document No. A/CONF.62/C.3/L.6, of 31 July 1974.

⁴³ For details see Knauss, John, “Developing the Freedom of Scientific Research Issue of the Law of the Sea Conference,” Ocean Development and International Law Journal Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1973): 93–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ Statement of 19 July 1974. Document No. A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.8, pp. 5–7.

⁴⁵ Document No. A/CONF.62/C.3/SR.8, of 19 July 1974, pp. 2–3.

⁴⁶ Document No. A/CONF.62/C.3/L.17.

⁴⁷ Document No. A/CONF.62/C.3/L.19.

⁴⁸ A detailed analysis of the work of Committee I can be found in Lee, Roy Skwang, “Machinery for Seabed Mining: Some General Issues Before the Geneva Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,” in Christy, et al. , eds., Law of the Sea: Caracas and Beyond, pp. 117–149Google Scholar. See also the article by Michael Hardy in this volume.

⁴⁹ See United Nations, Economic Implications of Sea-Bed Mineral Development in the International Area: Report of the Secretary-General, Document No. A/CONF.62/25, of 22 05 1974Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ See United Nations, Seabed Committee Report 2: 57–58Google Scholar.

⁵¹ First Committee, Informal, C.1/CRP.4. The text reads:

“All activities of exploration of the area and of the exploitation of its resources and all other related activities including those of scientific research shall be conducted directly by the Authority.

“The Authority may, if it considers it appropriate, and within the limits it may determine, confer certain tasks to juridical or natural persons, through service contracts, or association or through any other such means it may determine which ensure its direct and effective control at all times over such activities.”

⁵² See Document No. A/CONF.62/C.1/L.6. This was originally presented informally as CRP.6 of 8 August 1974.

⁵³ Shapley, Deborah, “Law of the Sea: Energy, Economy Spur Secret Review of U.S. Stance,” Science 183 (25 01 1974): 290–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁴ The information on which this interpretation is based was gained in separate interviews with several representatives from three different agencies on the US delegation. These individuals and the Departments which they represented must, of course, remain nameless.

⁵⁵ Document No. A/CONF.62/C.1/L.7, originally introduced as CRP.7 of 15 August 1974.

⁵⁶ This section is summarized from the more detailed treatment to be found in Miles, Edward, “An Interpretation of the Geneva Proceedings,” Ocean Development and International Law Journal, Part I, in Vol. 3, No. 3: 187–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Part II, in Vol. 3, No. 4:303–40.

⁵⁷ Document No. A/CONF.62/C.2/WP.1.

⁵⁸ Article 3 reads:

^{page 203 note 1.} “States, acting through the competent international organization, shall establish as soon as possible, and to the extent that they are not already in existence, international regulations to prevent, reduce, and control pollution from ships.

^{page 203 note 2.} “States which have reasonable grounds for believing that a particular area of the sea is an area where, for recognized technical reasons in relation to its oceanographical and ecological conditions, its utilization, and the particular character of its traffic, the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of pollution from ships is required, may apply to the competent international organization for the area to be recognized as a special area. Any such application shall be supported by scientific and technical evidence and shall, where appropriate, include plans for establishing sufficient and suitable land-based reception facilities.”

⁵⁹ Third Committee, “Provisional Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting Held on Wednesday, 26 March 1975 at 10:55 a.m.” A/CONF.62/C.3/SR-19, 1 04 1975, p. 8Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ First Committee, Working Group, “Opening Statement by C. W. Pinto (Sri Lanka), Chairman of the Working Group,” Informal Paper No. CP/Cab.ll,(C.I.), 19 03 1975, pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Ibid. See also the statement of Ambassador Pinto to the First Committee on 26 March 1975: “Provisional Summary Record of the Nineteenth Meeting,” no number.

⁶² Alternative C, Article 9, A/CONF.62/C.1/L.3, rev. 1, p. 7.

⁶³ See Miles, , “An Interpretation of the Caracas Proceedings,” pp. 70–72Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ This is clearly the opposite of my own view as expressed earlier in the paper, supra., p. 207. However, we agree on the effects of this “newly-awakened” interest.

⁶⁵ In one sense the performance went beyond anything seen at Caracas since it included table-pounding.

⁶⁶ “The Authority shall from time to time determine the part or parts of the Area in which activities relating to exploration and exploitation may be conducted.”

⁶⁷ “The Authority shall establish appropriate procedures and prescribe qualifications on the basis of which persons natural or juridical may apply to the Authority for entering into contracts relating to one or more stages of operations.”

⁶⁸ The “machinery” is a shorthand term for the functions and powers of the Authority and the composition, functions, and powers of its subsidiary organs.

⁶⁹ For the details of these differences, see Miles, , “An Interpretation of the Geneva Proceedings,” pp. 214–15Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See the Summary Record of the discussions on 15 March 1976 in the General Committee (Doc. A/CONF.62/BUR/SR.14 of 17 March 1976) and in the Plenary (Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.57 of 17 March 1976).

⁷¹ As had occurred in Caracas, Ambassador Andres Aguilar of Venezuela replaced Ambassador Reynaldo Galindo Pohl of El Salvador as Chairman of Committee II.

⁷² The two new members were Jamaica and Algeria. For Algeria this was a major reversal of the position enunciated in Caracas. The general interpretation was that recent experiences with Morocco over the Spanish Sahara led Algeria to forsake ideology in order to protect its substantive interests. However, Algeria, in view of its previous behavior, was regarded as a Trojan horse by the Disadvantaged Group and its application for membership was not regarded with favor. In response, the Algerian delegation made a major push on behalf of the Landlocked and GDS during the debate on Article 45 defining the status of the economic zone. This was apparently enough to gain their admission.

⁷³ See the informal Revised Blue Paper of 27 April 1976 put out by Minister Jens Evensen.

⁷⁴ Introductory note by the Chairman of Committee II to the Revised Single Negotiating Text, Part II, Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.I/Part II of 6 May 1976.

⁷⁵ Hedberg, Hollis D., “Ocean Boundaries and Petroleum Resources,” Science (12 03 1976): 19l (4231); 1009–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ Combined Single Negotiating and Evensen Texts, Committee III (Pollution), n.d.

⁷⁷ “Outline of Issues Concerning Vessel Source Pollution and Suggestions of the Chairman of the Informal Meetings of Committee III on Marine Pollution,” n.d.

⁷⁸ Personal Statement of Results of Discussion in the Informal Group of Juridical Experts on Marine Scientific Research, at Intersessional Meetings held in August/September 1975 and January/February 1976, and March 1976.

⁷⁹ See supra, pp. 184–85.

⁸⁰ First Committee, Workshop. “Proposal by the Group of 77: Functions of the Authority,” Workshop Paper No. 1, 17 08 1976Google Scholar. Restatements of earlier positions were also informally tabled by the USSR (Workshop Paper No. 2, 19 August, 1976) and the US (Workshop Paper No. 3, 19 August, 1976).

⁸¹ Unusually blunt and extensive analyses of the negotiating difficulties were presented by the Committee Chairman and the Co-chairmen of the informal Workshop of Committee I. See Report by Mr. Paul Bamelo Engo, Chairman of the First Committee on the Work of the Committee at the Fifth Session of the Conference, A/Conf. 62/L.16, 17 September, 1976; and Final Report by the Co-chairmen on the Activities of the Workshop, 9 August to 8 September, 1976, A/Conf.62/C.l/WR.5, 9 September, 1976 and Addendum 1.

⁸² Cox, Robert and Jacobson, Harold, The Anatomy of Influence, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; and Edward Miles, The International Decision-System for Outer Space, (unpublished manuscript).

⁸³ Lφvald, John Ludvik, “In Search of An Ocean Regime: The Negotiations in the General Assembly's Seabed Committee 1968–1970,” International Organization Vol. 29, No. 3 (Summer 1975): Table 9, p. 705CrossRefGoogle Scholar.