any portion of Antarctica. At the same time, the Government of the United States has not made a claim itself, and has consistently reserved all its basic historic rights in Antarctica. With regard to the overlapping and conflicting claims of Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom, the United States has refrained from taking any action which might be considered discriminatory with regard to the interests of any one of those three countries. See generally 1 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 399-400, 452-465 (1941); 2 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 250-254, 1262 (1963). The Soviet Union and several other interested states similarly do not recognize any territorial claims in Antarctica. 2 Whiteman, op cit. at 1254-56.

All states with territorial claims in Antarctica, as well as the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, Belgium and South Africa, are parties to the Antarctic Treaty. Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty sets aside the claims issue in the interest of international cooperation under the Treaty:

1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as:

(a) renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica;

(b) a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica or otherwise;

(c) prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of any other state's rights of or claims or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

2. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

By virtue of Article IV, paragraph 2, mineral resources activities in Antarctica while the Treaty is in force will not constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antartica and will not create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. Such activities would, however, be within the "peaceful purposes" for which Antarctica shall only be used, as provided in Article I. Any stations, installations and equipment in Antarctica would be subject to inspection by designated observers and notice must be given of expeditions, in accordance with Article VII. Moreover, Article X commits each of the Contracting Parties to "exert appropriate efforts, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to the end that no one engages in any activity in Antarctica contrary to the principles and purposes of the present Treaty."

It is clear that any activities by treaty parties, including mineral resource activities in Antarctica, would be subject to applicable provisions of the Antarctic Treaty and agreed measures in furtherance thereof under Article IX. Since the Treaty does not refer to mineral resource activities in particular, however, absent a specific understanding, it can be expected that the states concerned would react to such activities in light of their respective juridical positions on territorial sovereignty. In this connection, the U.S. would continue to consider that Antarctica, or any part thereof, is not subject to the sovereignty of any state.

II. Legal Status of the Continental Shelf

It is generally recognized with respect to other parts of the world that a coastal state exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources. Article 2, Convention on the Continental Shelf (TIAS 5578). The International Court of Justice has recognized a customary rule of international law that "the rights of the coastal state in respect of the area of continental shelf that constitutes a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea exist ipso facto and ab initio, by virtue of its sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it in an exercise of sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed and exploiting its natural resources." North Sea Continental Shelf Judgment, I. C. J., Reports, 1969, p. 22.

As indicated above, the U.S. does not consider that Antarctica, or any part thereof, is subject to the sovereignty of any state. Pronouncements on the subject of the continental shelf almost invariably refer to the exercise of "sovereign rights" by a coastal state. Since the adjacent land is the legal source of the power which a state may exercise over the natural resources of the continental shelf (cf. North Sea Continental Shelf Judgment, op. cit. at 51), it follows that no state now exercises over the continental shelf of Antarctica sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.

Under these circumstances, the status of the Antarctic continental shelf is unclear. Any regime that is developed for the exploitation of Antarctic shelf resources would have to be consistent with the Antarctic Treaty, which, inter alia, protects the rights of states with regard to the high seas and provides for environmental safeguards and freedom of scientific investigation. Moreover, activities relating to seabed mineral resources must be undertaken with reasonable regard for the interests of other states and in accordance with other applicable rules of international law. See Article 2, Convention on the High Seas (TIAS 5200). It remains to be determined whether exploitation of the resources of the continental shelf would be subject to the same legal regime as that applicable to the resources of the Antarctic land mass, or whether such a regime is in general based upon the freedom of the high seas, subject, of course, to the environmental and other measures applicable in the Antarctic pursuant to the Treaty.

III. Resources Seaward of the Continental Shelf and South of 60° Latitude

As is well known, a precise definition of the seaward limits of the continental shelf has not yet gained general recognition. See Article I, Convention on the Continental Shelf (1958); Oxman, The Preparation of Article I of the Convention on the Continental Shelf (1967). Nonetheless, it is clear that the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil of the high seas seaward of these limits and south of 60° South Latitude are subject to the same legal regime as other seabed resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as applicable provisions of the Antarctic Treaty.

(The present memorandum does not address questions concerning the status of ice in Antarctica, nor questions concerning the territorial seas, contiguous zones, and fisheries jurisdiction, nor other concepts which may be applied to offshore areas).

Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., May 15, 1975, pp. 18–20. The published hearings also contain, inter alia, a statement by Dixy Lee Ray, Asst. Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; a map of Antarctica showing territorial claims; and the report of the meeting of experts at the Nansen Foundation, May 30-June 10, 1973, including the report of the Scientific and Technical Working Group and the report of the Working Group on Legal and Political Questions.

The Aquatic Exploration Company of Dallas, Texas, in a letter of August 8, 1975, invited the United States Geological Survey to participate in a proposed offshore seismic survey surrounding Antarctica to be conducted by a survey ship the M/V Aquatic Explorer. A similar invitation was extended to the Department of Minerals and Energy of the Australian Government. Asked by the Australian Embassy in Washington for the views of the United States regarding the proposed survey, Oswald H. Ganley, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Advanced and Applied Technology Affairs, wrote to the Counselor of the Embassy, in part, as follows:

... we have recently received information that the proposed survey, originally planned for the 1975-76 austral summer, is being postponed until the 1976-77 season.

We are informed that . . . invitations have been extended to several American and other companies as well as to one other government, the Soviet Union.

We are cognizant of the prevalent opinion at the Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting that better information on the geology of the Antarctic continental shelf is needed in order to proceed with well informed discussion on the questions of mineral exploration and exploitation in Antarctica.

Insofar as the proposed survey may extend across seabed areas adjacent to the Australian-claimed territory in Antarctica,

it will be recalled that the United States does not recognize any claim to territories in Antarctica. It is, of course, well-established that the principle of sovereign rights over the continental shelf adjacent to the coast, for the purpose of exploring for and exploiting its natural resources, derives from the sovereignty of the coastal state over adjacent land territory. Accordingly, the United States does not consider that the continental shelf adjacent to Antarctica is subject to the sovereignty of any state. Dept. of State File No. P75 0195-2353.

On January 27, 1975, Frederick Smith, Jr., Deputy Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs of the Department of State, in a letter to Garner J. Cline, Staff Director of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, stated the Department's opinion that "children born in the United States to the families of officers and employees of the Soviet consular establishment are generally subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and acquire U.S. citizenship at birth." The following is an excerpt from his letter:

As you know, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This provision of the 14th Amendment is also reflected in section 301(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. At the time of its conclusion, the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Consular Convention was unique in the granting of full immunity to consular officials. However, unlike some consular conventions subsequently concluded with other Eastern European countries, the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Consular Convention did not extend such immunities to the families of Soviet consular officers and employees. The family members are granted certain limited immunities, such as from military service and custom duties, but they are not granted immunity from criminal or civil jurisdiction. Thus they would appear to be in the same position as family members of employees of foreign diplomatic missions whose names are included in the so-called "White List." While such employees enjoy functional immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction, they do not have full diplomatic immunity nor do their children or other family members.

Dept. of State File No. P75 0109-0204.

Mr. Cline subsequently inquired whether the Department's conclusion might be altered in any way by Note No. 1328, dated March 1, 1968, sent by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow to the Soviet

(112)