Secondly, agreement had been reached on the principle of common heritage of
mankind, following the proposal by Arvid Pardo in 1967,
3 which would render the
ocean floor and subsoil beyond national jurisdiction unfit for appropriation by any
particular state. For that principle to produce legal effects, it was paramount to define
the precise limits of national jurisdiction over the continental shelf.
Thirdly, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the adoption of the UN
General Assembly Resolution 2574 A of 15 December 1969, upon considering
that the 1958 CSC did not “define with sufficient precision the limits of the area
over which a coastal state exercises sovereign rights”. In addition to that, delegates
took customary international law on the matter for “inconclusive”.
4 These circumstances can be said to have led to the “protracted, difficult and at times highly
technical negotiations on the limits of the continental shelf which followed, first in
the Seabed Committee and later at UNCLOS III”.
5
The dawn of the outer continental shelf was, thus, the result of a critical
compromise between broad- and narrow-margined states. Together with the creation
of the category of sovereign rights,
6 the adoption of formulae determining the
geographical extension of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm was, beyond
doubt, the second chief accord between states with opposing interests.
7 The rules
for delineating the outer continental shelf, as well as the rights and duties exercisable
thereon stood out as two of the most contentious topics of the III Conference.
Hence, debates and compromises preceded the international agreeance on the
possibility of a coastal state’s continental shelf extending beyond 200 nm.
8 The bulk
of pressure pro-extension stemmed from broad-margin states, which nurtured interests in the potential resources offshore. As such, the crafting of the outer continental
shelf, has been described as a “profound reallocation of resource rights from
international to national jurisdiction”.
9 Currently, more than 30 million km
2 of
potential extended continental shelf areas are subject to submissions to the CLCS.
3 Note verbale of the Permanent Mission of Malta to the United Nations addressed to the SecretaryGeneral to the United Nations, A/6695, 18 August 1967. In the note, Malta requested the inclusion
of a supplementary item in the agenda of the 22nd session of the UNGA.
4 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2574 A, “Question of the reservation for exclusively peaceful purposes of the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and the sub-soil thereof, underlying the
high seas beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction and the use of their resources in the use
of mankind” of 15 December 1969, Vol. I, 169.
5 Nordquist et al. (2002), p. 829.
6 According to Jayakumar, those compromises regarding the continental shelf are but an example of
the “carefully constructed compromises characteristic of the provisions in UNCLOS”. Jayakumar
(2013), p. 5.
7 Art. 76, paragraphs 4 to 6, UNCLOS, on the scientific formulae that determine the size of the
continental margin, as well as the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
8 The political struggles that preceded the phenomenon known as the “rise of coastal states” and the
expansion of coastal state jurisdiction seawards in the second half of the twentieth century are
further analyzed in Chap. 4.
9 Schofield (2012), p. 46.
48
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS
mankind, following the proposal by Arvid Pardo in 1967,
3 which would render the
ocean floor and subsoil beyond national jurisdiction unfit for appropriation by any
particular state. For that principle to produce legal effects, it was paramount to define
the precise limits of national jurisdiction over the continental shelf.
Thirdly, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the adoption of the UN
General Assembly Resolution 2574 A of 15 December 1969, upon considering
that the 1958 CSC did not “define with sufficient precision the limits of the area
over which a coastal state exercises sovereign rights”. In addition to that, delegates
took customary international law on the matter for “inconclusive”.
4 These circumstances can be said to have led to the “protracted, difficult and at times highly
technical negotiations on the limits of the continental shelf which followed, first in
the Seabed Committee and later at UNCLOS III”.
5
The dawn of the outer continental shelf was, thus, the result of a critical
compromise between broad- and narrow-margined states. Together with the creation
of the category of sovereign rights,
6 the adoption of formulae determining the
geographical extension of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm was, beyond
doubt, the second chief accord between states with opposing interests.
7 The rules
for delineating the outer continental shelf, as well as the rights and duties exercisable
thereon stood out as two of the most contentious topics of the III Conference.
Hence, debates and compromises preceded the international agreeance on the
possibility of a coastal state’s continental shelf extending beyond 200 nm.
8 The bulk
of pressure pro-extension stemmed from broad-margin states, which nurtured interests in the potential resources offshore. As such, the crafting of the outer continental
shelf, has been described as a “profound reallocation of resource rights from
international to national jurisdiction”.
9 Currently, more than 30 million km
2 of
potential extended continental shelf areas are subject to submissions to the CLCS.
3 Note verbale of the Permanent Mission of Malta to the United Nations addressed to the SecretaryGeneral to the United Nations, A/6695, 18 August 1967. In the note, Malta requested the inclusion
of a supplementary item in the agenda of the 22nd session of the UNGA.
4 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2574 A, “Question of the reservation for exclusively peaceful purposes of the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and the sub-soil thereof, underlying the
high seas beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction and the use of their resources in the use
of mankind” of 15 December 1969, Vol. I, 169.
5 Nordquist et al. (2002), p. 829.
6 According to Jayakumar, those compromises regarding the continental shelf are but an example of
the “carefully constructed compromises characteristic of the provisions in UNCLOS”. Jayakumar
(2013), p. 5.
7 Art. 76, paragraphs 4 to 6, UNCLOS, on the scientific formulae that determine the size of the
continental margin, as well as the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
8 The political struggles that preceded the phenomenon known as the “rise of coastal states” and the
expansion of coastal state jurisdiction seawards in the second half of the twentieth century are
further analyzed in Chap. 4.
9 Schofield (2012), p. 46.
48
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS