of the US. From the document one can extract premises, which inspire the policy
being adopted by the American at the time, and the legal content of provisions. Such
premises range from a variety of economic, geographical, geopolitical and conservational motives. Firstly, the document was inspirited by clear economic motivations. 1945 marked the end of World War II, a historic event out of which the United
States emerged as the world’s uncontended industrial power, with insatiable energy
needs—in particular, petroleum and gas.
However, technological developments enabled companies to pump oil out of notso-shallow waters but were confronted with legal insecurity of not being able to
exploit a specific oil field with exclusivity, in case it would be located beyond the
3 nm jurisdictional scope of the coastal state. Invariably, that “inability to obtain
secure legal title – exclusive rights – was very frustrating to an industry aware of the
production potential beyond the three-nautical mile limit”.
44 This was the turning
point towards a “jurisdictional shift” in the law of the sea, so as to grant companies
secure grounds to invest, a reasonable justification for the “jurisdictional preemptive
strike” by the federal government of the United States. Hence, the express clause of
the Proclamation aiming at encouraging “efforts to discover and make available new
supplies of these resources”.
Secondly, there was a geographical motivation, in line with which “the continental shelf may be regarded as an extension of the land-mass of the coastal nation
and thus naturally appurtenant to it”. Indeed, the main argument used to back the
American claim for extended jurisdiction over the continental shelf was the natural
prolongation of the landmass, or “land that simply happens to be covered by
ocean”.
45
Thirdly, there was a latent security reason, inserted on broader geopolitical
(or oceanopolitical) concerns, according to which “self-protection compels the
coastal nation to keep close watch over activities off its shores which are of the
nature necessary for utilization of these resources”. Last, but not least, the US also
identified the conservation and rational use of marine resources, as early as 1945, as
an important premise for the extension of coastal states jurisdiction seaward. In fact,
they saw the coastal state as a key player in promoting the rational use of finite
marine resources, or as the Proclamation puts it, “jurisdiction over these resources is
required in the interest of their conservation and prudent utilization when and as
development is undertaken”.
Politically, the Truman Proclamation is a master-piece of realism in international
politics. In a concise instrument, the US condensed all the necessary dimensions of
statehood, supporting the extension of jurisdiction over the submarine shelf seaward.
From a legal standpoint, the Proclamation embraced a resource-oriented jurisdiction,
in which natural resources of the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf shall
appertain to the US and be subject to their jurisdiction and control. Exercise of such
jurisdiction was based on the ideas of reasonableness and fairness of the claim, to be
44 Townsend-Gault (2014), p. 77.
45 Id. 78.
30
2 The General International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf
being adopted by the American at the time, and the legal content of provisions. Such
premises range from a variety of economic, geographical, geopolitical and conservational motives. Firstly, the document was inspirited by clear economic motivations. 1945 marked the end of World War II, a historic event out of which the United
States emerged as the world’s uncontended industrial power, with insatiable energy
needs—in particular, petroleum and gas.
However, technological developments enabled companies to pump oil out of notso-shallow waters but were confronted with legal insecurity of not being able to
exploit a specific oil field with exclusivity, in case it would be located beyond the
3 nm jurisdictional scope of the coastal state. Invariably, that “inability to obtain
secure legal title – exclusive rights – was very frustrating to an industry aware of the
production potential beyond the three-nautical mile limit”.
44 This was the turning
point towards a “jurisdictional shift” in the law of the sea, so as to grant companies
secure grounds to invest, a reasonable justification for the “jurisdictional preemptive
strike” by the federal government of the United States. Hence, the express clause of
the Proclamation aiming at encouraging “efforts to discover and make available new
supplies of these resources”.
Secondly, there was a geographical motivation, in line with which “the continental shelf may be regarded as an extension of the land-mass of the coastal nation
and thus naturally appurtenant to it”. Indeed, the main argument used to back the
American claim for extended jurisdiction over the continental shelf was the natural
prolongation of the landmass, or “land that simply happens to be covered by
ocean”.
45
Thirdly, there was a latent security reason, inserted on broader geopolitical
(or oceanopolitical) concerns, according to which “self-protection compels the
coastal nation to keep close watch over activities off its shores which are of the
nature necessary for utilization of these resources”. Last, but not least, the US also
identified the conservation and rational use of marine resources, as early as 1945, as
an important premise for the extension of coastal states jurisdiction seaward. In fact,
they saw the coastal state as a key player in promoting the rational use of finite
marine resources, or as the Proclamation puts it, “jurisdiction over these resources is
required in the interest of their conservation and prudent utilization when and as
development is undertaken”.
Politically, the Truman Proclamation is a master-piece of realism in international
politics. In a concise instrument, the US condensed all the necessary dimensions of
statehood, supporting the extension of jurisdiction over the submarine shelf seaward.
From a legal standpoint, the Proclamation embraced a resource-oriented jurisdiction,
in which natural resources of the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf shall
appertain to the US and be subject to their jurisdiction and control. Exercise of such
jurisdiction was based on the ideas of reasonableness and fairness of the claim, to be
44 Townsend-Gault (2014), p. 77.
45 Id. 78.
30
2 The General International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf