the view that the former had to be taken as “subject to and within the orbit of the
paramount principle of the freedom of the seas”.
101
Amongst the rights of other states sustained by the continental shelf regime was
the right to lay submarine cables and pipelines on that maritime space.
102 Such
freedom is tempered by several rights attributed to coastal states, namely the right to
explore and exploit its natural resources; the right to prevent, reduce and control
pollution from pipelines, in accordance with UNCLOS Art. 79 (2); the right to be
consulted and to grant consent to the delineation of the trajectory of cables and
pipelines; the right over cables and pipelines penetrating its territorial sea; the right to
exercise jurisdiction over submarine cables and pipelines on its continental shelf,
which is not be understood as a right to without consent for the laying of those
objects, pursuant to paragraph 5 of that same provision.
At the end of the day, the insertion of the phrase “sovereign rights” into
UNCLOS, so as to govern the regime of the continental shelf, represented a critical
compromise in the negotiations for the Convention, continuing a work which date
back to 1958, with the CSC. In short, the phrase is a legal construct, developed and
adopted to “make it clear that the coastal State did not own the seabed, as advocated
by some states”,
103 but had the exclusive right to explore and exploit natural
resources therein. Freedoms exercised over the water column were duly kept, in
order to satisfy the interests of maritime powers, while giving to the interests of
coastal states in natural resources offshore. The emergence of the continental shelf
regime represents, thus, a vigorous yet not the last step towards the “enormous
extension of coastal State rights offshore”.
104 In fact, the outer limits of the continental shelf stretching further out beyond the 200 nm are still to be defined.
2.5 Partial Conclusions
Whenever the expression “legal regime” is used, it refers to a body of rules and
principles applicable to a particular branch of international law. A central regime to
this work is that of the continental shelf, or in other words, “the law of the continental
shelf”. To approach a fragment of the content of the law of the sea is deemed
101 UN (1956), p. 298, commentary to Art. 69: “The articles on the continental shelf are intended as
laying down the regime of the continental shelf, only as subject to and within the orbit or the
paramount principle of freedom of the seas and of the airspace above them. No modification of or
exceptions to that principle are admissible unless expressly provided for in the various articles.”
102 Such right to lay cables and pipelines is also preserved in the EEZ regime, according to Art.
58, which incorporates high seas provisions as long as they are not incompatible with Part V, on the
EEZ. Here, there is a clear overlap between regimes, which, if nothing, strengthens that specific
right of other states in the maritime spaces beyond 12 nm under national jurisdiction.
103 Jayakumar (2013), p. 6.
104 Schofield (2012), p. 46.
2.5 Partial Conclusions
43
paramount principle of the freedom of the seas”.
101
Amongst the rights of other states sustained by the continental shelf regime was
the right to lay submarine cables and pipelines on that maritime space.
102 Such
freedom is tempered by several rights attributed to coastal states, namely the right to
explore and exploit its natural resources; the right to prevent, reduce and control
pollution from pipelines, in accordance with UNCLOS Art. 79 (2); the right to be
consulted and to grant consent to the delineation of the trajectory of cables and
pipelines; the right over cables and pipelines penetrating its territorial sea; the right to
exercise jurisdiction over submarine cables and pipelines on its continental shelf,
which is not be understood as a right to without consent for the laying of those
objects, pursuant to paragraph 5 of that same provision.
At the end of the day, the insertion of the phrase “sovereign rights” into
UNCLOS, so as to govern the regime of the continental shelf, represented a critical
compromise in the negotiations for the Convention, continuing a work which date
back to 1958, with the CSC. In short, the phrase is a legal construct, developed and
adopted to “make it clear that the coastal State did not own the seabed, as advocated
by some states”,
103 but had the exclusive right to explore and exploit natural
resources therein. Freedoms exercised over the water column were duly kept, in
order to satisfy the interests of maritime powers, while giving to the interests of
coastal states in natural resources offshore. The emergence of the continental shelf
regime represents, thus, a vigorous yet not the last step towards the “enormous
extension of coastal State rights offshore”.
104 In fact, the outer limits of the continental shelf stretching further out beyond the 200 nm are still to be defined.
2.5 Partial Conclusions
Whenever the expression “legal regime” is used, it refers to a body of rules and
principles applicable to a particular branch of international law. A central regime to
this work is that of the continental shelf, or in other words, “the law of the continental
shelf”. To approach a fragment of the content of the law of the sea is deemed
101 UN (1956), p. 298, commentary to Art. 69: “The articles on the continental shelf are intended as
laying down the regime of the continental shelf, only as subject to and within the orbit or the
paramount principle of freedom of the seas and of the airspace above them. No modification of or
exceptions to that principle are admissible unless expressly provided for in the various articles.”
102 Such right to lay cables and pipelines is also preserved in the EEZ regime, according to Art.
58, which incorporates high seas provisions as long as they are not incompatible with Part V, on the
EEZ. Here, there is a clear overlap between regimes, which, if nothing, strengthens that specific
right of other states in the maritime spaces beyond 12 nm under national jurisdiction.
103 Jayakumar (2013), p. 6.
104 Schofield (2012), p. 46.
2.5 Partial Conclusions
43