The delineation procedure set out in Art. 76 UNCLOS has been widely respected
by the international community. It is, therefore, consentaneous to the international
law of the sea to claim that the delineation procedure latu sensu has acquired a
customary nature, which ought to be respected including by non-parties to the
Convention. There can occur, however, divergences as to the interpretation of
technical terms employed at the Convention, such as “foot of the continental
slope”, which do not jeopardize the obligation to have outer continental shelf limits
expressly recommended by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
(CLCS).
Upon the analysis of the tasks, overall performance and challenges lying ahead of
the two UNCLOS-based institutions that are mandated to aid and monitor the
delineation and delimitation of outer continental shelf limits, this work concluded
that both the CLCS and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
have performed satisfactorily thus far. Each body has a clear and precise role in
upholding the coherent system legal regime applicable to the continental shelf. Yet,
their mission is far from over, and the road ahead seems a rather bumpy one.
On the Commission’s side, the key challenge concerns the massive workload in
sight, with optimistic estimates shooting at another 40 years until the last outer
continental shelf delineation. Reasons for that are the gigantesque amount of data
scrutinized in every submission, added to the limited number of members of the
Commission and their far-from-optimal working conditions. Furthermore, complexities of a technical nature and steep costs of gathering high-quality seafloor data are
factors that may postpone not only the issuing of recommendations, but also the
adoption of those recommendations by coastal states.
On the ITLOS’ side, the Tribunal has faced questions regarding its jurisdiction to
delimit and delineate outer continental shelves, apart from speculations as to the
relation between the Tribunal and the CLCS. In its jurisprudence, the Tribunal has
asserted jurisdiction to delimit the continental shelf in its entirety, within and beyond
200 nm, particularly due to the concept of a “single continental shelf”. The Tribunal
has also carved a distinction between the delimitation of opposing continental
shelves beyond 200 nm and the delineation of outer limits. Finally, the judges
have crafted the notion of a “grey area”, in which one state exercises sovereign
rights over the seabed, whereas another state, over the superjacent EEZ.
Furthermore, the Tribunal has not yet dealt with issues regarding the marine
environmental protection of continental shelf ecosystems and habitats, neither to the
environmental jurisdiction of coastal states on the continental shelf. Possible reasons
for that are the still ongoing scrutiny of outer limits’ claims by the CLCS; the
insecurity faced by coastal states as to whether their claims will be upheld by the
Commission; the lack of urgency in implementing outer continental shelf provisions—such as Art. 82 or Art. 246 (6) UNCLOS, in light of the currently inexistent
exploitation of natural resources of the outer continental shelf, which has not
prompted disputed relating to the environmental management of continental shelves,
nor to eventual jurisdictional conflicts concerning the shelf beyond 200 nm.
That said, the legal regime of the continental shelf has still not been entirely
understood, in particular the environmental jurisdiction of coastal states in the
11 Conclusions
355
by the international community. It is, therefore, consentaneous to the international
law of the sea to claim that the delineation procedure latu sensu has acquired a
customary nature, which ought to be respected including by non-parties to the
Convention. There can occur, however, divergences as to the interpretation of
technical terms employed at the Convention, such as “foot of the continental
slope”, which do not jeopardize the obligation to have outer continental shelf limits
expressly recommended by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
(CLCS).
Upon the analysis of the tasks, overall performance and challenges lying ahead of
the two UNCLOS-based institutions that are mandated to aid and monitor the
delineation and delimitation of outer continental shelf limits, this work concluded
that both the CLCS and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
have performed satisfactorily thus far. Each body has a clear and precise role in
upholding the coherent system legal regime applicable to the continental shelf. Yet,
their mission is far from over, and the road ahead seems a rather bumpy one.
On the Commission’s side, the key challenge concerns the massive workload in
sight, with optimistic estimates shooting at another 40 years until the last outer
continental shelf delineation. Reasons for that are the gigantesque amount of data
scrutinized in every submission, added to the limited number of members of the
Commission and their far-from-optimal working conditions. Furthermore, complexities of a technical nature and steep costs of gathering high-quality seafloor data are
factors that may postpone not only the issuing of recommendations, but also the
adoption of those recommendations by coastal states.
On the ITLOS’ side, the Tribunal has faced questions regarding its jurisdiction to
delimit and delineate outer continental shelves, apart from speculations as to the
relation between the Tribunal and the CLCS. In its jurisprudence, the Tribunal has
asserted jurisdiction to delimit the continental shelf in its entirety, within and beyond
200 nm, particularly due to the concept of a “single continental shelf”. The Tribunal
has also carved a distinction between the delimitation of opposing continental
shelves beyond 200 nm and the delineation of outer limits. Finally, the judges
have crafted the notion of a “grey area”, in which one state exercises sovereign
rights over the seabed, whereas another state, over the superjacent EEZ.
Furthermore, the Tribunal has not yet dealt with issues regarding the marine
environmental protection of continental shelf ecosystems and habitats, neither to the
environmental jurisdiction of coastal states on the continental shelf. Possible reasons
for that are the still ongoing scrutiny of outer limits’ claims by the CLCS; the
insecurity faced by coastal states as to whether their claims will be upheld by the
Commission; the lack of urgency in implementing outer continental shelf provisions—such as Art. 82 or Art. 246 (6) UNCLOS, in light of the currently inexistent
exploitation of natural resources of the outer continental shelf, which has not
prompted disputed relating to the environmental management of continental shelves,
nor to eventual jurisdictional conflicts concerning the shelf beyond 200 nm.
That said, the legal regime of the continental shelf has still not been entirely
understood, in particular the environmental jurisdiction of coastal states in the
11 Conclusions
355