The Conquering of Inner Space
| Author | Kim Traavik |
| Published date | 01 March 1974 |
| Date | 01 March 1974 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/001083677400900107 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The
Conquering
of
Inner
Space.
Resources
and
Conflicts
on
the
Seabed
KIM TRAAVIK
In
discussing
the
legal
and
political
problems
connected
with
exploitation
of
the
in-
organic
resources
of
the
continental
shelf
and
deep
seabed,
the
author
examines
the
types
and
amount
of
resources
available.
Placing
special
emphasis
on
the
interests
of
the
developing
countries,
he
goes
on
to
suggest
some
of the
probable
consequences
of
large-scale
extraction
of
offshore
fuels
and
metals.
Against
this
backdrop,
the
article
concludes
that,
in
the
short
run,
the
Third
World
countries
are
not
likely
to
benefit
greatly
from
the
creation
of
a
UN
Sea-Bed
Regime.
In
the
final
section
of
the
article,
some
significant
lines
of
division
in
UN
Sea-Bed
Committee
are
discussed.
The
so-called
’cod
war’
between
Iceland
and
Great
Britain
shed
light
on
some
problems
of
international
politics
that
had
previously
been
neglected
to
a
surprisingly
great
extent.
Primarily,
this
conflict
be-
tween
two
NATO
countries
has
been
in-
strumental
in
producing
interest
in
the
political
and
economic
aspects
of
the
ques-
tion
of
fishery
zone
delimitation.
Simul-
taneously,
however,
the
cod
war
has
re-
sulted
in
a
growing
concern
about
some
other
closely
related
problem
areas
in
the
general
field
of
the
law
of
the
sea.
In
this
article
the
focus
of
attention
will
be
placed
on
one
of
these
related
problem
areas;
viz.
that
of
the
potential
for
con-
flict
and
cooperation
that
emerges
in
con-
nection
with
endeavors
to
regulate
the
legal
and
political
status
of
the
seabed.
The
seabed
and
its
underground
is
ob-
viously
a
novel
problem
in
international
politics.
The
novelty
probably
to
some
extent
accounts
for
the
fact
that
the
prob-
lem
has
attracted
such
little
attention
out-
side
the
ranks
of
experts.
Still,
the
low
interest
is
somewhat
paradoxical.
In
the
opinion
of
quite
a
few
well-informed
ob-
servers,
the
future
legal
status
of
the
sea-
bed
is
’possibly
the
most
important
issue
that
has
ever
come
before
the
United
Nations’.’
These
are
strong -
some
will
possibly
say
pretentious -
words.
The
fact
remains,
however,
that
a
fairly
convincing
argu-
ment
may
be
introduced
in
support
of the
above
point
of
view.
The
simple
geo-
graphical
facts
are
impressive
in
their
own
right:
Approximately
5/7 -
73
percent,
360
million
square
kilometers -
of
the
surface
of
the
planet
Earth
is
covered
by
oceans.
And,
what
is
more,
this
enormous
area
contains
a
large
number
of
raw
ma-
terials
that
are
of
vital
importance
to
all
industrial
civilization
in
quantities
that
in
some
cases
greatly
exceed
the
known
re-
serves
on
land.
The
conquering
by
man
of
this
’inner’
space
and
the
exploitation
of
its
resources
must
necessarily
entail
problems,
one
of
the
reasons
being
that
political
and
legal
development
has
not
kept
up
with
the
pace
set
by
advancing
technology
and
the
increasing
economic
attractiveness
of
sub-
marine
raw
materials.
In
spite
of
the
fact
that
a
rapidly
increasing
number
of
opera-
tors,
private
as
well
as
state,
are
taking
part
in
the
activities
in
this
last
frontier
of
the
Earth,
the
legal
and
political
regu-
lation of
its
status
has
remained
distinctly
rudimentary.
More
than
90
percent
of
the
total
submarine
area
is
today
political
and
legal
no-man’s
land -
white
spots
on
the
political-legal
maps,
as
it
were.
Only
those
parts
of
the
seabed
close
to
coastal
states,
that
is
to
say,
the so-called
continental
shelves,
have
so
far
been
assigned
a
less
ambiguous
position
in
international
law.
Still,
even
in
this
area
uncertainty
reigns
supreme.
The
need
for
a
legal
and
political
order
is,
consequently,
acute
and
pressing.
The
conflict
potential
in
the
wake
of
the
seabed
problems
has
a
number
of
im-
6
Fig.
1.
Hypothetical
division
of
the
Atlantic
ocean
floor
in
accordance
with
the
Median
Line
Principle.
portant
aspects.
For
one
thing,
legal
un-
certainty
at
the
international
level
is
in
itself
conducive
to
increased
tension.
In
addition,
there
are
the
economic
possibil-
ities
related
to
the
exploitation
of
sub-
marine
resources.
Lastly
it
is
clear
that
the
seabed
complex
of
problems
has
im-
portant
strategic
overtones
which
the
superpowers
in
particular
are
concerned
about.
It
is
no
secret
that
even
today
the
seabed
is
utilized
for
offensive
as
well
as
defensive
strategic
purposes.2
A
necessary
precondition
for
commer-
cial
and
military
activities
is
the
develop-
ment
in
the
field
of
technology.
Marine
technology
has
been
rapidly
advancing
in
the
post-war
period,
and
particularly
in
the
sixties
and
seventies.
One
conse-
quence
of
this
technology
revolution
has
been
the
making
obsolete
the
few
efforts
to
establish
a
legal
order
before
they
could
be
of
much
practical
import.
In
the
remainder
of
this
article
the
point
of
departure
is
that
an
international
conflict
triggered
off
by
the
exploitation
of
submarine
riches
in
the
present
situa-
tion
would
take
place
in
a
legal
void.
No
written
or
unwritten
rules
of
international
law
would
be
applicable
in
such
an
event.
Apart
from
the
continental
shelf
areas,
the
seabed
has
existed
in
a
legal
and
political
vacuum.
The
only
restraint
on
the
part
of
individual
actors
has
been
the
fear
of
creating
international
tension.
By
now,
surely,
it
has
become
a
fairly
stale
lesson
of
history
that
nations
easily
throw
inhibitions
of
that
nature
overboard
when-
ever
the
situation
so
requires
and
the
stakes
are
high
enough.
The
picture
is
not
all
black,
however.
The
widespread
awareness
of
the
conflict
potential
that
exists
has
resulted
in
the
emerging
international
opinion
that
the
seabed,
or
at
least
parts
of
it,
should
be
put
under
a
joint
administration
by
all
nations
of
the
world,
for
the
benefit
of
all
mankind.
Implicit
in
this
position
is
the
view
that
the
seabed
should
be
con-
sidered
part
of
the
common
heritage
of
mankind.
In
the
so-called
Sea-Bed
Com-
mittee
of
the
UN
there
seems
now
to
be
at
least
verbal
agreement
that
the
ocean
floor
beyond
national
jurisdiction
should
be
internationalized,
that
is,
placed
under
a
legal
order
that
is
not
dependent
upon
or
excessively
influenced
by
any
single
nation
state
or
group
of
states.
The
idea
of
a
future
international
seabed
regime
raises
two
main
problems:
(1)
where
to
place
the
boundary
be-
tween
national
and
international
seabed
areas.
This,
in
other
words,
is
the
prob-
lem
of
fixing
an
outward
limit
to
coastal
state
jurisdiction;
and
(‘?)
what
kind
of regime
should
be
established
in
the
international
zone.
This
is
mainly
a
question
of
mandate
and
or-
ganization.
In
the
following
we
shall
have
a
closer
look
at
these
problems,
and
at
the
economic
realities
behind
the
world-wide
interest
in
the
seabed
and
its
resources.
But
before
that,
a
few
words
about
the
legal
situation
today.
I.
THE
CONTINENTAL
SHELF
CONVENTION
Easily
the
most
important
legal
instrument
pertaining
to
the
seabed
is
the
Convention
on
the
Continental
Shelf,
which
was
worked
out
during
the
first
UN
Confer-
ence
on
the
Law
of
the
Sea
in
Geneva
in
1958.1
The
Convention
(which,
by
the
way,
To continue reading
Request your trial