fact, entitlement of the coastal state to the continental shelf stems from its sovereignty over the land territory. In other words, “entitlement to the continental shelf, as
to any other coastal State maritime zone, is based on the title of the coastal State over
the land”.
76 That has been an undisputed assumption in the law of the sea since at
least the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelves cases,
77 which has acquired the status
of customary international law.
78
Coastal states’ entitlement to the continental shelf is inherent, ipso facto and ab
initio, implying that the shelf does not need to be proclaimed. For the sake of
comparison with other maritime zones under national jurisdiction, the right to a
continental shelf is always there, due to the coastal state’s sovereignty over the land
territory from which the continental shelf originates. The contiguous zone and the
EEZ, on the other side, need express proclamation by coastal states. Those three
zones have a “sui generis character”
79 and relate to specific functions, giving birth
what is called in the law of the sea as “functional jurisdiction”.
The implications of inherent entitlement play out especially regarding the outer
continental shelf, where broad-margin states are entitled to a continental shelf
beyond 200 nm even if they have not yet established the outer limits, nor forwarded
a submission to the CLCS. That is to say, the absence of outer limits established in
consistency with Art. 76 does not threaten the entitlement of coastal states to an outer
continental shelf, pursuant to Art. 76 (4) to (7) UNCLOS.
80 However, a state’s
inherent right to an outer continental shelf does not eliminate the burden of demonstrating its entitlement to that area,
81 a topic lying at the core of Chap. 3.
76 See ILA (2004), p. 2. It should be noted that there is a subtle distinction between entitlement and
title. According to Kunoy (2013), p. 6, “entitlement to the continental shelf corresponds to coastal
States’ maximum potential geographical extent of jurisdiction, while title corresponds to the area
landward the boundaries which the relevant judicial or arbitral forum declares”. Hence, in delimitation procedures before international tribunals, courts determine title, and not entitlement, to the
area under dispute.
77 However, it has not been always so, and this discussion is detailed in Chap. 4, on jurisdiction in
the law of the sea.
78 Wolfrum (2008), p. 5.
79 Molenaar (2015), p. 297.
80 Detailed discussions on the implication of the inherent entitlement to an outer continental shelf
will be further explored in Chap. 3. For instance, whether having entitlement mean that states may
exercise sovereign rights over that area before the clear establishment of the outer limits or not.
81 McDorman (2010), p. 520.
38
2 The General International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf
to any other coastal State maritime zone, is based on the title of the coastal State over
the land”.
76 That has been an undisputed assumption in the law of the sea since at
least the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelves cases,
77 which has acquired the status
of customary international law.
78
Coastal states’ entitlement to the continental shelf is inherent, ipso facto and ab
initio, implying that the shelf does not need to be proclaimed. For the sake of
comparison with other maritime zones under national jurisdiction, the right to a
continental shelf is always there, due to the coastal state’s sovereignty over the land
territory from which the continental shelf originates. The contiguous zone and the
EEZ, on the other side, need express proclamation by coastal states. Those three
zones have a “sui generis character”
79 and relate to specific functions, giving birth
what is called in the law of the sea as “functional jurisdiction”.
The implications of inherent entitlement play out especially regarding the outer
continental shelf, where broad-margin states are entitled to a continental shelf
beyond 200 nm even if they have not yet established the outer limits, nor forwarded
a submission to the CLCS. That is to say, the absence of outer limits established in
consistency with Art. 76 does not threaten the entitlement of coastal states to an outer
continental shelf, pursuant to Art. 76 (4) to (7) UNCLOS.
80 However, a state’s
inherent right to an outer continental shelf does not eliminate the burden of demonstrating its entitlement to that area,
81 a topic lying at the core of Chap. 3.
76 See ILA (2004), p. 2. It should be noted that there is a subtle distinction between entitlement and
title. According to Kunoy (2013), p. 6, “entitlement to the continental shelf corresponds to coastal
States’ maximum potential geographical extent of jurisdiction, while title corresponds to the area
landward the boundaries which the relevant judicial or arbitral forum declares”. Hence, in delimitation procedures before international tribunals, courts determine title, and not entitlement, to the
area under dispute.
77 However, it has not been always so, and this discussion is detailed in Chap. 4, on jurisdiction in
the law of the sea.
78 Wolfrum (2008), p. 5.
79 Molenaar (2015), p. 297.
80 Detailed discussions on the implication of the inherent entitlement to an outer continental shelf
will be further explored in Chap. 3. For instance, whether having entitlement mean that states may
exercise sovereign rights over that area before the clear establishment of the outer limits or not.
81 McDorman (2010), p. 520.
38
2 The General International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf