5.4 Partial Conclusions
This section was but an appetizer to the discussion concerning the environmental
jurisdiction of coastal states over the outer continental shelf and the regulatory
maneuver room enjoyed by those states in the seafloor beyond 200 nm. As a
pre-requisite to that discussion, it was paramount to shed light on the legal regime
applicable to the portion of the continental shelf extending beyond 200 nm.
The continental shelf regime is marked by a plurality of intersections and overlaps
with those regimes of other maritime spaces, which characterized the emergence of
the new law of the sea. Regarding the interaction between the continental shelf and
the EEZ regimes, it was said above that, despite the merging of provisions for both
zones in the Convention, as in the case of Art. 60 and 80, on artificial islands,
installations and structures, the relationship between continental shelf and EEZ rules
is marked by autonomy and parallelism. Both zones have upheld slightly differing
rules, which run, however, in parallel to each other. They are zones in which coastal
states exercise differing competences in differing degrees, as is the case of jurisdiction to manage and conserve natural resources, a power explicitly acknowledged to
them over the EEZ, but not over the continental shelf.
110 For instance, jurisdiction to
conserve and manage natural resources are not expressly mentioned in the continental shelf regime, what could theoretically restrict the environmental powers of
coastal states over the continental shelf extending beyond EEZ limits, i.e. the outer
continental shelf. This remark will be questioned and debunked in coming chapters,
reason why it was necessary to bring it to light in this part.
The intersection between continental shelf and high seas rules is a rather complex
and delicate one. Here, it was shown that the powers exercisable by the coastal state
over the outer continental shelf relate exclusively to the seafloor, as UNCLOS
preserved the legal status of the superjacent waters beyond the 200 nm as high
seas. The exact jurisdictional maneuver room left for coastal states over the outer
continental shelf are analyzed in Chaps. 7 and 8.
Another intersection with great potential for conflict is between the continental
shelf and the Area, governed by the common heritage of mankind. The current item
showed how the need to determine the exact size of the international deep seabed
was a powerful driver for the adoption of precise formulae to delineate the outer
limits of the continental shelf—Art. 76. In the light of the indeterminacy of Art.
1 CSC, it was pressing to reinforce the idea that continental shelves had limits, and
so did the drafters of UNCLOS.
In addition, the creation of the common heritage of mankind principle added
another pint of salt to the complex interaction between the Area and the outer
continental shelf. That principle is, by all means, an extremely relevant norm for
the management of the world’s oceans. Indeed, part of the literature takes the
common heritage principle as ius cogens of international law, due to the fact that
110 Art. 56, paragraph 1 (a) UNCLOS, on the rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal states in the
exclusive economic zone.
5.4 Partial Conclusions
135
This section was but an appetizer to the discussion concerning the environmental
jurisdiction of coastal states over the outer continental shelf and the regulatory
maneuver room enjoyed by those states in the seafloor beyond 200 nm. As a
pre-requisite to that discussion, it was paramount to shed light on the legal regime
applicable to the portion of the continental shelf extending beyond 200 nm.
The continental shelf regime is marked by a plurality of intersections and overlaps
with those regimes of other maritime spaces, which characterized the emergence of
the new law of the sea. Regarding the interaction between the continental shelf and
the EEZ regimes, it was said above that, despite the merging of provisions for both
zones in the Convention, as in the case of Art. 60 and 80, on artificial islands,
installations and structures, the relationship between continental shelf and EEZ rules
is marked by autonomy and parallelism. Both zones have upheld slightly differing
rules, which run, however, in parallel to each other. They are zones in which coastal
states exercise differing competences in differing degrees, as is the case of jurisdiction to manage and conserve natural resources, a power explicitly acknowledged to
them over the EEZ, but not over the continental shelf.
110 For instance, jurisdiction to
conserve and manage natural resources are not expressly mentioned in the continental shelf regime, what could theoretically restrict the environmental powers of
coastal states over the continental shelf extending beyond EEZ limits, i.e. the outer
continental shelf. This remark will be questioned and debunked in coming chapters,
reason why it was necessary to bring it to light in this part.
The intersection between continental shelf and high seas rules is a rather complex
and delicate one. Here, it was shown that the powers exercisable by the coastal state
over the outer continental shelf relate exclusively to the seafloor, as UNCLOS
preserved the legal status of the superjacent waters beyond the 200 nm as high
seas. The exact jurisdictional maneuver room left for coastal states over the outer
continental shelf are analyzed in Chaps. 7 and 8.
Another intersection with great potential for conflict is between the continental
shelf and the Area, governed by the common heritage of mankind. The current item
showed how the need to determine the exact size of the international deep seabed
was a powerful driver for the adoption of precise formulae to delineate the outer
limits of the continental shelf—Art. 76. In the light of the indeterminacy of Art.
1 CSC, it was pressing to reinforce the idea that continental shelves had limits, and
so did the drafters of UNCLOS.
In addition, the creation of the common heritage of mankind principle added
another pint of salt to the complex interaction between the Area and the outer
continental shelf. That principle is, by all means, an extremely relevant norm for
the management of the world’s oceans. Indeed, part of the literature takes the
common heritage principle as ius cogens of international law, due to the fact that
110 Art. 56, paragraph 1 (a) UNCLOS, on the rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal states in the
exclusive economic zone.
5.4 Partial Conclusions
135