the outer limits of the continental shelf, as defined by Art. 76, paragraphs 4 to
8 UNCLOS.
Moreover, the size of both areas may vary. The EEZ regime applies until 200 nm
from the baselines, also for the sake of natural resources eventually present on and
below the seafloor, such as precious minerals, biodiversity ecosystems populating
hydrothermal vents, among others. Where the continental margin extends beyond
200 nm, coastal states may delineate the outer limits of their continental shelves, as
analyzed before, and will be subject to the regime set forward in Part VI UNCLOS.
Another aspect which separates both regimes concerns the jurisdictional powers
attributed to coastal states in each zone. UNCLOS guarantees coastal states sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage natural resources in the EEZ.
9
Jurisdiction to conserve and manage natural resources are not expressly mentioned
in the continental shelf regime, what would theoretically restrict the environmental
powers of coastal states over the continental shelf extending beyond EEZ limits,
i.e. the outer continental shelf.
Coastal states have, thus, a relatively narrow scope of rights over natural
resources of the continental shelf, if compared to the array of sovereign rights
exercisable within the EEZ. However, regardless of the limitations inherent to the
concept of sovereign rights, it should be noted that coastal states still enjoy the
necessary rights to “control resource development within the exclusive economic
zone and on the continental shelf”.
10 The coexistence between both EEZ and
continental shelf regimes is the corollary of a fundamental idea underpinning the
Convention, the “plurality of regimes”, as an attempt to contemplate opposing
claims and interests by a variety of states.
11 Negotiators meant the regimes to coexist
with as little normative conflict as possible, despite the unavoidable overlaps of
rights and duties. As a result, one could say that the Convention comprises a number
of new zones governed by specific rules under a framework that sought simultaneously for parallelism and harmony between legal regimes.
The theory of parallelism between the EEZ and continental shelf regimes is to be
found in the work of Barbara Kwiatkowska. In a study about the degree of harmony
between EEZ and continental shelf rules with respect to rights and jurisdiction, the
Dutch scholar defended that the EEZ regime is aligned to that of the continental
shelf, but does not encompass it, nor does it render the continental shelf a mere
appendix to the EEZ.
12 Such parallelism is twofold: within 200 nm, rights and duties
over the continental shelf are similar to the EEZ, where coastal states exercise extra
sovereign rights over economic resources of the water column and other
9 ITLOS “Virginia G” case, Panama v. Guinea Bissau, ITLOS Reports 2015, judgment of
14 April 2014.
10 Townsend-Gault (2014), p. 70.
11 Garcia-Amador (1974), pp. 33–37.
12 For Kwiatkowska, that parallelism between the EEZ and the continental shelf within 200 nm as
two distinct, but coexisting regimes has entered the realm of general international law.
Kwiatkowska (1989), p. xvi. Confirming that theory, see also Stoll (2008) para 6.
112
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .
8 UNCLOS.
Moreover, the size of both areas may vary. The EEZ regime applies until 200 nm
from the baselines, also for the sake of natural resources eventually present on and
below the seafloor, such as precious minerals, biodiversity ecosystems populating
hydrothermal vents, among others. Where the continental margin extends beyond
200 nm, coastal states may delineate the outer limits of their continental shelves, as
analyzed before, and will be subject to the regime set forward in Part VI UNCLOS.
Another aspect which separates both regimes concerns the jurisdictional powers
attributed to coastal states in each zone. UNCLOS guarantees coastal states sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage natural resources in the EEZ.
9
Jurisdiction to conserve and manage natural resources are not expressly mentioned
in the continental shelf regime, what would theoretically restrict the environmental
powers of coastal states over the continental shelf extending beyond EEZ limits,
i.e. the outer continental shelf.
Coastal states have, thus, a relatively narrow scope of rights over natural
resources of the continental shelf, if compared to the array of sovereign rights
exercisable within the EEZ. However, regardless of the limitations inherent to the
concept of sovereign rights, it should be noted that coastal states still enjoy the
necessary rights to “control resource development within the exclusive economic
zone and on the continental shelf”.
10 The coexistence between both EEZ and
continental shelf regimes is the corollary of a fundamental idea underpinning the
Convention, the “plurality of regimes”, as an attempt to contemplate opposing
claims and interests by a variety of states.
11 Negotiators meant the regimes to coexist
with as little normative conflict as possible, despite the unavoidable overlaps of
rights and duties. As a result, one could say that the Convention comprises a number
of new zones governed by specific rules under a framework that sought simultaneously for parallelism and harmony between legal regimes.
The theory of parallelism between the EEZ and continental shelf regimes is to be
found in the work of Barbara Kwiatkowska. In a study about the degree of harmony
between EEZ and continental shelf rules with respect to rights and jurisdiction, the
Dutch scholar defended that the EEZ regime is aligned to that of the continental
shelf, but does not encompass it, nor does it render the continental shelf a mere
appendix to the EEZ.
12 Such parallelism is twofold: within 200 nm, rights and duties
over the continental shelf are similar to the EEZ, where coastal states exercise extra
sovereign rights over economic resources of the water column and other
9 ITLOS “Virginia G” case, Panama v. Guinea Bissau, ITLOS Reports 2015, judgment of
14 April 2014.
10 Townsend-Gault (2014), p. 70.
11 Garcia-Amador (1974), pp. 33–37.
12 For Kwiatkowska, that parallelism between the EEZ and the continental shelf within 200 nm as
two distinct, but coexisting regimes has entered the realm of general international law.
Kwiatkowska (1989), p. xvi. Confirming that theory, see also Stoll (2008) para 6.
112
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .