For some authors, particularly in Latin America, the “exploitation criterion” of
the CSC benefited exclusively advanced countries, and not just that.
54 In an era of
rapidly evolving exploitation techniques as applicable to the oceans, that definition
was already outdated upon its entry into force in 1964, due to intense technological
progress in the post-war years.
55 Indeed, the length of the continental shelf was
obscure and juridically uncertain, while depth and exploitability criteria cared for
dissatisfaction over the undefined limits of the continental shelf, which would be
subject to forceful adaptation every time new technological advancements allowed
for resource extraction in deeper waters, further and further offshore.
Moreover, despite some advantages brought by the 1958 CSC, there was still
plenty of uncertainty regarding the limits of maritime claims, such as the territorial
sea, or the waters under coastal sates exclusive economic jurisdiction. The increasing
amount of States unilaterally extending their territorial seas and maritime spaces
under some sort of functional jurisdiction led to the need for a compromise, which
ultimately materialized around UNCLOS Art. 76 and the rules on the delimitation of
the continental shelf. From 1946 to 1958 alone, fifteen Latin American states
changed their maritime borders, whereas in the 1960s some forty states expanded
their territorial sea. Such trend could prove deleterious to the principle of freedom of
navigation, dear to the United States and to other maritime powers. In fact, there was
no consensus on relevant issue, such as the breadth of the territorial sea, or “marginal
sea”, as phrased by Fraser.
56
Thus, the birth and development of the continental shelf regime may be compared, for didactic reasons, to that of a strong plant.
57 After the sowing of the seed of
extended maritime jurisdiction, the international community witnessed the germination of coastal State authority over living and non-living resources of both the
seafloor and the water column in an area much larger than the 3-nm territorial sea.
The evolution of the doctrine of the continental shelf, as observed with the regime of
territorial waters, revealed a tendency towards the expansion coastal states
jurisdiction.
2.4 Core Principles of the Continental Shelf Regime
In international law, legal principles have strong value connotation, as axioms, and
are therefore subject to being influenced by different elements, such as historical,
cultural, psychologic, political and legal factors. Such a volatile nature may lead to a
different approaches and interpretations, depending on the operator actively
interpreting a given principle. Menezes believes that the specialization of certain
54 Opinion espoused by Cançado Trindade (2014), p. 209.
55 On the limitations of the criteria adopted by the 1958 Convention, see Poyoyo (1997), p. 247.
56 Fraser (1925), p. 456.
57 See Schofield (2012), p. 43.
2.4 Core Principles of the Continental Shelf Regime
33
the CSC benefited exclusively advanced countries, and not just that.
54 In an era of
rapidly evolving exploitation techniques as applicable to the oceans, that definition
was already outdated upon its entry into force in 1964, due to intense technological
progress in the post-war years.
55 Indeed, the length of the continental shelf was
obscure and juridically uncertain, while depth and exploitability criteria cared for
dissatisfaction over the undefined limits of the continental shelf, which would be
subject to forceful adaptation every time new technological advancements allowed
for resource extraction in deeper waters, further and further offshore.
Moreover, despite some advantages brought by the 1958 CSC, there was still
plenty of uncertainty regarding the limits of maritime claims, such as the territorial
sea, or the waters under coastal sates exclusive economic jurisdiction. The increasing
amount of States unilaterally extending their territorial seas and maritime spaces
under some sort of functional jurisdiction led to the need for a compromise, which
ultimately materialized around UNCLOS Art. 76 and the rules on the delimitation of
the continental shelf. From 1946 to 1958 alone, fifteen Latin American states
changed their maritime borders, whereas in the 1960s some forty states expanded
their territorial sea. Such trend could prove deleterious to the principle of freedom of
navigation, dear to the United States and to other maritime powers. In fact, there was
no consensus on relevant issue, such as the breadth of the territorial sea, or “marginal
sea”, as phrased by Fraser.
56
Thus, the birth and development of the continental shelf regime may be compared, for didactic reasons, to that of a strong plant.
57 After the sowing of the seed of
extended maritime jurisdiction, the international community witnessed the germination of coastal State authority over living and non-living resources of both the
seafloor and the water column in an area much larger than the 3-nm territorial sea.
The evolution of the doctrine of the continental shelf, as observed with the regime of
territorial waters, revealed a tendency towards the expansion coastal states
jurisdiction.
2.4 Core Principles of the Continental Shelf Regime
In international law, legal principles have strong value connotation, as axioms, and
are therefore subject to being influenced by different elements, such as historical,
cultural, psychologic, political and legal factors. Such a volatile nature may lead to a
different approaches and interpretations, depending on the operator actively
interpreting a given principle. Menezes believes that the specialization of certain
54 Opinion espoused by Cançado Trindade (2014), p. 209.
55 On the limitations of the criteria adopted by the 1958 Convention, see Poyoyo (1997), p. 247.
56 Fraser (1925), p. 456.
57 See Schofield (2012), p. 43.
2.4 Core Principles of the Continental Shelf Regime
33