wave of the 1960s had the pendulum swing towards a law of the sea informed by
principles of peaceful uses and political cooperation, and not by particularist appropriation logics valid for the “law of the land”.
43 In this context, creative and bold
formulations surfaced, such as that of Robert Creamer, who postulated that the UN
should be given ownership of the deep seabed, i.e. jurisdiction and control, but not
sovereignty.
44
Nonetheless, the proposal that deserved international acclamation was the one
forwarded by Arvid Pardo, on 18 August 1967, which advised the adoption of a
declaration and a treaty “concerning the reservation exclusively for peaceful purposes of the seabed and ocean floor, underlying the seas beyond the limits of present
national jurisdiction, and the use of their resources in the interest of mankind”. That
was the first time when the principle was formally voiced.
45 Pardo’s proposal
opposed vehemently the utilization of the traditional principles underpinning the
law of the sea: sovereignty and freedom of the seas. On the one hand, it objected the
concept of sovereignty for the deep seabed, a position noted in the negative valuation
of national appropriation of larger portions of continental shelf.
46 On the other hand,
it countered the application of an absolute freedom of the seas to the deep seabed,
which could lead to unequal access by states and unregulated exploitation.
47 The
international context was one of a move to institutions, in which the institutionalist
matrix enjoyed relative prestige in comparison to realist approaches.
48
The UNGA discussed the Maltese proposal and adopted Resolution 2749,
49 next
challenge being to incorporate the principle into a binding treaty, so as to prevent
both the national appropriation of the world’s ocean floor and an irresponsible race to
natural resources of the deep seabed. With these goals in mind, it was paramount to
halt coastal states’ increasing jurisdiction seawards by determining with sufficient
clarity the limits of the continental shelf and, thus, repairing the disastrous definition
of the Art. 1 CSC. In sum, the perfect stage for the Third Conference.
During the Conference’s negotiations, tensions between international seabed and
continental shelf rules arose several times, usually countering broad- and
43 The divergence between law of the sea and law of the land was a recurrent topic in the work of
Elisabeth Borgese. See generally Borgese (1968).
44 Creamer (1968), pp. 225–228.
45 See item 3 of the note verbale of the Permanent Mission of Malta to the United Nations addressed
to the Secretary-General to the United Nations, A/6695, 18 August 1967. In the note, Malta
requested the inclusion of a supplementary item in the agenda of the 22nd session of the UNGA.
46 “It is feared that [. . .] the seabed and the ocean floor, underlying seas beyond present national
jurisdiction, will become progressively and competitively to national appropriation and use”. See
item 2 of the Maltese note verbale.
47 “The financial benefits derived from the use and exploitation of the seabed and of the ocean floor
shall be used primarily to promote the development of poor countries”. See item 3 (c) of the Maltese
note verbale.
48 See generally Keohane and Nye (1977).
49 UN Resolution 2749, New York, 17 December 1970. The approval of the Declaration was
followed by heated debates on a moratorium on all activities on the deep seabed.
120
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .
principles of peaceful uses and political cooperation, and not by particularist appropriation logics valid for the “law of the land”.
43 In this context, creative and bold
formulations surfaced, such as that of Robert Creamer, who postulated that the UN
should be given ownership of the deep seabed, i.e. jurisdiction and control, but not
sovereignty.
44
Nonetheless, the proposal that deserved international acclamation was the one
forwarded by Arvid Pardo, on 18 August 1967, which advised the adoption of a
declaration and a treaty “concerning the reservation exclusively for peaceful purposes of the seabed and ocean floor, underlying the seas beyond the limits of present
national jurisdiction, and the use of their resources in the interest of mankind”. That
was the first time when the principle was formally voiced.
45 Pardo’s proposal
opposed vehemently the utilization of the traditional principles underpinning the
law of the sea: sovereignty and freedom of the seas. On the one hand, it objected the
concept of sovereignty for the deep seabed, a position noted in the negative valuation
of national appropriation of larger portions of continental shelf.
46 On the other hand,
it countered the application of an absolute freedom of the seas to the deep seabed,
which could lead to unequal access by states and unregulated exploitation.
47 The
international context was one of a move to institutions, in which the institutionalist
matrix enjoyed relative prestige in comparison to realist approaches.
48
The UNGA discussed the Maltese proposal and adopted Resolution 2749,
49 next
challenge being to incorporate the principle into a binding treaty, so as to prevent
both the national appropriation of the world’s ocean floor and an irresponsible race to
natural resources of the deep seabed. With these goals in mind, it was paramount to
halt coastal states’ increasing jurisdiction seawards by determining with sufficient
clarity the limits of the continental shelf and, thus, repairing the disastrous definition
of the Art. 1 CSC. In sum, the perfect stage for the Third Conference.
During the Conference’s negotiations, tensions between international seabed and
continental shelf rules arose several times, usually countering broad- and
43 The divergence between law of the sea and law of the land was a recurrent topic in the work of
Elisabeth Borgese. See generally Borgese (1968).
44 Creamer (1968), pp. 225–228.
45 See item 3 of the note verbale of the Permanent Mission of Malta to the United Nations addressed
to the Secretary-General to the United Nations, A/6695, 18 August 1967. In the note, Malta
requested the inclusion of a supplementary item in the agenda of the 22nd session of the UNGA.
46 “It is feared that [. . .] the seabed and the ocean floor, underlying seas beyond present national
jurisdiction, will become progressively and competitively to national appropriation and use”. See
item 2 of the Maltese note verbale.
47 “The financial benefits derived from the use and exploitation of the seabed and of the ocean floor
shall be used primarily to promote the development of poor countries”. See item 3 (c) of the Maltese
note verbale.
48 See generally Keohane and Nye (1977).
49 UN Resolution 2749, New York, 17 December 1970. The approval of the Declaration was
followed by heated debates on a moratorium on all activities on the deep seabed.
120
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .