coastal states, whereas the continental shelf does not.
34 Secondly, an internationally
cogent delineation of outer limits is subject to a complex technical procedure, which
is overseen by the CLCS, an eminently technical body. Thirdly, it is the coastal state,
not the Commission, that sets the outer limits. The trick is that the chosen limits will
only be final and binding if identical to the CLCS recommendations.
35
Even though the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf is a
unilateral act (for states are inherently entitled to the natural prolongation of the
land mass seaward), its validity before the international community depends on
international law. Note, thus, that the action required by Art. 76 (7) UNCLOS is one
of delineating, not delimiting. To delineate is a unilateral act done in absence of a
conflict or dispute, whereas to delimit is an act following a dispute as to the trajectory
of a certain line.
36 To delimit is to mark or fix the limits of a borderline, while to
delineate equals the sketching out or tracing a line. In practical terms, a delimitation
presupposes a dispute, an area of “overlapping entitlements”,
37 and shall be
governed by Art. 83 UNCLOS, whereas none is needed in the process of delineating
the outer lines of the continental shelf.
Regarding delineation, Art. 76 UNCLOS sets out a complex methodology, based
on geological and geomorphological criteria, which are very briefly examined in this
item. First, the Convention compels the coastal state to identify the outer edge of
their continental margin, in order to assess the exact length of that geological
feature,
38
“wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured”.
39 In so doing, coastal
states must follow one of the two formulae at hand in the Convention. Firstly, the
“Irish formula”, based on a line delineated with reference to the outermost fixed
points, each point with a thickness of sedimentary rocks of at least 1% of the shortest
distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope (item “i”)—the so-called
34 Art. 76, paragraph 7, UNCLOS, requires the coastal state to “delineate the outer limits of its
continental shelf”, differently from Art. 77, paragraph 3, which states that the rights over the
continental shelf do not depend on any proclamation.
35 A similar classification is to be found in Armas-Pfirter (2010), p. 477.
36 For more on the distinction between delineation and delimitation, see Oystein (2013),
pp. 278–279.
37 Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in
the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) para. 397.
38 The notion of “continental margin”, as in Art. 76, paragraph 3 UNCLOS, was approached in the
previous chapter. It consists of the “submerged prolongation of the landmass of the coastal state”.
39 The intricacy of the issue increases if one takes into account the Statement of Understanding
concerning a Specific Method to be Used in Establishing the Outer Edge of the Continental Margin,
approved upon the closing of the III UN Conference on the Law of the Sea by states sharing the Bay
of Bengal. In particular, the SoU was meant to govern the geographical conditions off the
Southeastern coast of India and the coast of Sri Lanka, due to specific sedimentary circumstances
of the Bay of Bengal. The technicalities of the debate on the determination of the continental in that
particular portion of the ocean floor, albeit elucidating, escapes the main purpose of this chapter. See
Final Act of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, A/CONF.62/121, 27 October
1982, Annex II, Official Records XVII, 138.
54
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS
34 Secondly, an internationally
cogent delineation of outer limits is subject to a complex technical procedure, which
is overseen by the CLCS, an eminently technical body. Thirdly, it is the coastal state,
not the Commission, that sets the outer limits. The trick is that the chosen limits will
only be final and binding if identical to the CLCS recommendations.
35
Even though the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf is a
unilateral act (for states are inherently entitled to the natural prolongation of the
land mass seaward), its validity before the international community depends on
international law. Note, thus, that the action required by Art. 76 (7) UNCLOS is one
of delineating, not delimiting. To delineate is a unilateral act done in absence of a
conflict or dispute, whereas to delimit is an act following a dispute as to the trajectory
of a certain line.
36 To delimit is to mark or fix the limits of a borderline, while to
delineate equals the sketching out or tracing a line. In practical terms, a delimitation
presupposes a dispute, an area of “overlapping entitlements”,
37 and shall be
governed by Art. 83 UNCLOS, whereas none is needed in the process of delineating
the outer lines of the continental shelf.
Regarding delineation, Art. 76 UNCLOS sets out a complex methodology, based
on geological and geomorphological criteria, which are very briefly examined in this
item. First, the Convention compels the coastal state to identify the outer edge of
their continental margin, in order to assess the exact length of that geological
feature,
38
“wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured”.
39 In so doing, coastal
states must follow one of the two formulae at hand in the Convention. Firstly, the
“Irish formula”, based on a line delineated with reference to the outermost fixed
points, each point with a thickness of sedimentary rocks of at least 1% of the shortest
distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope (item “i”)—the so-called
34 Art. 76, paragraph 7, UNCLOS, requires the coastal state to “delineate the outer limits of its
continental shelf”, differently from Art. 77, paragraph 3, which states that the rights over the
continental shelf do not depend on any proclamation.
35 A similar classification is to be found in Armas-Pfirter (2010), p. 477.
36 For more on the distinction between delineation and delimitation, see Oystein (2013),
pp. 278–279.
37 Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in
the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) para. 397.
38 The notion of “continental margin”, as in Art. 76, paragraph 3 UNCLOS, was approached in the
previous chapter. It consists of the “submerged prolongation of the landmass of the coastal state”.
39 The intricacy of the issue increases if one takes into account the Statement of Understanding
concerning a Specific Method to be Used in Establishing the Outer Edge of the Continental Margin,
approved upon the closing of the III UN Conference on the Law of the Sea by states sharing the Bay
of Bengal. In particular, the SoU was meant to govern the geographical conditions off the
Southeastern coast of India and the coast of Sri Lanka, due to specific sedimentary circumstances
of the Bay of Bengal. The technicalities of the debate on the determination of the continental in that
particular portion of the ocean floor, albeit elucidating, escapes the main purpose of this chapter. See
Final Act of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, A/CONF.62/121, 27 October
1982, Annex II, Official Records XVII, 138.
54
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS