through the receipt of a share of revenues derived from the exploitation of deep
seabed resources.
68
Adjacency between the two zones may breed unexpected issues concerning the
extension of jurisdictional powers and duties of states parties to UNCLOS over each
zone. For an analysis of the interaction between both regimes of the Area and the
continental shelf, the combined interpretation of Parts VI and XI provides an initial
framework, which covers some of the most controversial topics, such as implementation of the revenue-sharing mechanism of Art. 82, titularity of natural resources
shared between the outer continental shelf and the Area, adoption of environmental
standards by coastal states in the extended shelf which are softer or stricter than the
standards adopted by the ISA concerning the Area, among others.
Upfront, it should be made clear that UNCLOS contains no legal prohibition on
the exploitation of outer continental shelf resources by coastal states prior to the
recommendations of the CLCS. However, it is high advisable that those states refrain
from doing so, particularly in portions of the seafloor that may be considered the
Area. If a State exploits a part of the seabed that turns out to be the Area, the state will
have breached UNCLOS provisions and may be held liable for that. The only way to
achieve certainty as to the exact area of legitimate action by the coastal state’s
offshore sector is through delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf in
pursuance with CLCS recommendations.
In addition to that, it should be noted that the common heritage principle does not
apply to the outer continental shelf, but some of its key features analyzed supra
found their way into the core of the continental shelf regime. Firstly, the principle is
at the core of the obligation imposed on coastal states to share the benefits of the
commercial development of outer continental shelf resources with the international
community.
69 Secondly, the principle permeates the outer continental shelf regime
by restricting the discretion of coastal states to withhold consent for the conduct of
marine scientific research on the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
70
Intersections between regimes are also due to the fact that coastal states will
necessarily interact with the ISA for the management of the outer continental shelf.
Indeed, coastal states are expected to dialogue with the ISA concerning strategies for
implementing the Convention’s mechanism for sharing benefits of international
seabed exploitation. It is so due to the ISA status as the international organization
entrusted by UNCLOS to manage the resources of the Area on behalf of humanity.
The Authority, nonetheless, exercises no hierarchy over the coastal state, the lack of
which is noted on the issues of management of bordering resources and the definition
of environmental standards for the Area and for the outer continental shelf.
68 Wolfrum (1983), p. 321.
69 Obligation contained in Art. 82 UNCLOS, on the payments and contributions with respect to
theexploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
70 Art. 246, paragraph 6, UNCLOS, on the marine scientific research on the continental shelf beyond
200 nm. Disputed issues connected to the jurisdiction to conduct marine scientific research on the
outer continental shelf will be analyzed in Chaps. 7 and 8.
124
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .
seabed resources.
68
Adjacency between the two zones may breed unexpected issues concerning the
extension of jurisdictional powers and duties of states parties to UNCLOS over each
zone. For an analysis of the interaction between both regimes of the Area and the
continental shelf, the combined interpretation of Parts VI and XI provides an initial
framework, which covers some of the most controversial topics, such as implementation of the revenue-sharing mechanism of Art. 82, titularity of natural resources
shared between the outer continental shelf and the Area, adoption of environmental
standards by coastal states in the extended shelf which are softer or stricter than the
standards adopted by the ISA concerning the Area, among others.
Upfront, it should be made clear that UNCLOS contains no legal prohibition on
the exploitation of outer continental shelf resources by coastal states prior to the
recommendations of the CLCS. However, it is high advisable that those states refrain
from doing so, particularly in portions of the seafloor that may be considered the
Area. If a State exploits a part of the seabed that turns out to be the Area, the state will
have breached UNCLOS provisions and may be held liable for that. The only way to
achieve certainty as to the exact area of legitimate action by the coastal state’s
offshore sector is through delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf in
pursuance with CLCS recommendations.
In addition to that, it should be noted that the common heritage principle does not
apply to the outer continental shelf, but some of its key features analyzed supra
found their way into the core of the continental shelf regime. Firstly, the principle is
at the core of the obligation imposed on coastal states to share the benefits of the
commercial development of outer continental shelf resources with the international
community.
69 Secondly, the principle permeates the outer continental shelf regime
by restricting the discretion of coastal states to withhold consent for the conduct of
marine scientific research on the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
70
Intersections between regimes are also due to the fact that coastal states will
necessarily interact with the ISA for the management of the outer continental shelf.
Indeed, coastal states are expected to dialogue with the ISA concerning strategies for
implementing the Convention’s mechanism for sharing benefits of international
seabed exploitation. It is so due to the ISA status as the international organization
entrusted by UNCLOS to manage the resources of the Area on behalf of humanity.
The Authority, nonetheless, exercises no hierarchy over the coastal state, the lack of
which is noted on the issues of management of bordering resources and the definition
of environmental standards for the Area and for the outer continental shelf.
68 Wolfrum (1983), p. 321.
69 Obligation contained in Art. 82 UNCLOS, on the payments and contributions with respect to
theexploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
70 Art. 246, paragraph 6, UNCLOS, on the marine scientific research on the continental shelf beyond
200 nm. Disputed issues connected to the jurisdiction to conduct marine scientific research on the
outer continental shelf will be analyzed in Chaps. 7 and 8.
124
5 Jurisdictional Intersections Between the Continental Shelf and Other Maritime. . .