delimitation disputes. The ICJ was provoked in different occasions to settle boundary disputes involving the continental shelf of coastal states. In the AngloNorwegian fisheries case,
72 for instance, the Court professed the famously known
dictum of land dominating over the sea, or “it is the land which confers upon the
coastal State a right to the waters”. A few years later, the same Court attested the
connection between the principle of natural prolongation and the determination of
continental shelves, in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases.
73 In with the Court’s
decision,
a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea exist ipso facto and ab initio,
by virtue of its sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it in an exercise of sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed and exploiting its natural resources. In short,
there is here an inherent right. In order to exercise it, no special legal process has to be gone
through, nor have any special legal acts to be performed. Its existence can be declared (and
many States have done this) but does not need to be constituted (emphasis added).
74
Then, UNCLOS and the idea of a continental shelf beyond 200 nm followed suit,
and with them, the need to emphasize the existence of a single continental shelf
governed by slightly different rules, instead of two different maritime spaces.
75 Here
as well, states had entitlement to the maximum potential geographical extent of
jurisdiction over the continental shelf. Maritime delimitation cases involving continental shelves beyond 200 nm demanded courts and tribunals to determine the title,
i.e. the area of the shelf itself, to which coastal states were entitled. However, the
notion of a single continental shelf is of little help in cases of maritime delimitation
beyond 200 nm, where the delimitation methodology will necessarily be different
from that of the continental shelf within 200 nm. It was the case of the findings of the
ITLOS in the Bay of Bengal case, opposing Myanmar and Bangladesh, which will be
examined in Chap. 3.
2.4.2 Inherent Entitlement
The principle of inherent entitlement to the continental shelf (within and beyond
200 nm) is intimately connected to that of natural prolongation of the landmass. In
72 ICJ Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), judgement of 18 December 1951, ICJ Reports,
para. 133.
73 ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), judgment of
20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969, at 3.
74 ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands/Denmark),
Judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports (1969) para 19.
75 As reinforced by Kunoy (2013), p. 1, “in international law there is only a single continental shelf
regardless of whether the zone is beyond or within 200 nautical miles”. International jurisprudence
also attests the existence of a single continental shelf. See Dispute concerning delimitation of the
maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgement of 14 March 2012, para 361.
2.4 Core Principles of the Continental Shelf Regime
37
72 for instance, the Court professed the famously known
dictum of land dominating over the sea, or “it is the land which confers upon the
coastal State a right to the waters”. A few years later, the same Court attested the
connection between the principle of natural prolongation and the determination of
continental shelves, in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases.
73 In with the Court’s
decision,
a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea exist ipso facto and ab initio,
by virtue of its sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it in an exercise of sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed and exploiting its natural resources. In short,
there is here an inherent right. In order to exercise it, no special legal process has to be gone
through, nor have any special legal acts to be performed. Its existence can be declared (and
many States have done this) but does not need to be constituted (emphasis added).
74
Then, UNCLOS and the idea of a continental shelf beyond 200 nm followed suit,
and with them, the need to emphasize the existence of a single continental shelf
governed by slightly different rules, instead of two different maritime spaces.
75 Here
as well, states had entitlement to the maximum potential geographical extent of
jurisdiction over the continental shelf. Maritime delimitation cases involving continental shelves beyond 200 nm demanded courts and tribunals to determine the title,
i.e. the area of the shelf itself, to which coastal states were entitled. However, the
notion of a single continental shelf is of little help in cases of maritime delimitation
beyond 200 nm, where the delimitation methodology will necessarily be different
from that of the continental shelf within 200 nm. It was the case of the findings of the
ITLOS in the Bay of Bengal case, opposing Myanmar and Bangladesh, which will be
examined in Chap. 3.
2.4.2 Inherent Entitlement
The principle of inherent entitlement to the continental shelf (within and beyond
200 nm) is intimately connected to that of natural prolongation of the landmass. In
72 ICJ Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), judgement of 18 December 1951, ICJ Reports,
para. 133.
73 ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), judgment of
20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969, at 3.
74 ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands/Denmark),
Judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports (1969) para 19.
75 As reinforced by Kunoy (2013), p. 1, “in international law there is only a single continental shelf
regardless of whether the zone is beyond or within 200 nautical miles”. International jurisprudence
also attests the existence of a single continental shelf. See Dispute concerning delimitation of the
maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgement of 14 March 2012, para 361.
2.4 Core Principles of the Continental Shelf Regime
37