For the rest, it escapes the purpose of this work to examine in detail the technicalities
and intricacies of Art. 76, such as the definition of “foot of slope”, “fixed points”, the
selection of the 2500-meter isobath, amongst others.
46
3.3 Delineating: The Commission on the Limits
of the Continental Shelf
One of the institutions brought to life by UNCLOS, the CLCS was given the legal
mandate to entertain requests for extended continental shelves worldwide and to
make recommendations to coastal states on matters related to the establishment of
those limits.
47 The CLCS is, thus, tasked with confronting submissions by national
governments with the formulae and criteria laid down in Art. 76, and issuing
recommendations accepting (partially or entirely), or denying the outer limits
claimed.
48 The institution is a sort of “referee” of Art. 76 application, a role imbued
with an “important stimulus for the peaceful settlement of disputes related to law of
the sea is also provided by the CLCS”.
49 Yet, that role has not always been easy to
fulfill, as the Commission faces large challenges concerning, inter alia, funding,
workload, criticisms on its abidance to the law, lack of transparency, among others
which are inspected below.
46 Several legal and technical publications have addressed those technical provisions, such as
Magnússon (2017), Suarez (2008) and ILA (2002).
47 During the Third Conference, early proposals for a body on the limits of the continental shelf
called for a Continental Shelf Boundary Commission, as in the Canadian Proposal during the 4th
Session of the Conference, in 1976. In line with the position adopted by Canadian negotiators, the
establishment of such a body, to be bound by special procedures, could prove very useful. In fact, it
would be a necessary first step, so as to prevent a multitude of conflicts that could (and did in fact)
emerge from the application of the complex and intricated formulae of Art. 76. In short, because, “it
was difficult to envisage dispute settlement with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the
resources of the sea-bed and subsoil of the continental shelf. The same was true for fisheries
management, except in the case of a coastal State failing to meet its obligations in respect of
conservation or the full utilization of resources”. See A/CONF.62/SR.65 65th Plenary meeting
Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Volume V, para. 10. The first references to a “Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”
were made by Ireland and the Soviet Union, members of the Negotiating Group 6 (NG6), at the
seventh session of the Conference, in 1978. See A/CONF.62/WP.10/Rev.1, 1979. More information on the historical negotiations preceding the establishment of the Commission can be found in
Nordquist et al. (2002), pp. 1003–1014.
48 Note that the CLCS is not an international organization, but rather a treaty-based body created by
UNCLOS, albeit with secretarial aide of the UN. As such, it is not an independent organization and
does not possess legal personality. That the CLCS is not an international organization was also a
conclusion reached by the International Law Association (ILA) in its 2002 Report on the Outer
Continental Shelf, 5.
49 Kwiatkowska (2013), p. 221.
56
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS
and intricacies of Art. 76, such as the definition of “foot of slope”, “fixed points”, the
selection of the 2500-meter isobath, amongst others.
46
3.3 Delineating: The Commission on the Limits
of the Continental Shelf
One of the institutions brought to life by UNCLOS, the CLCS was given the legal
mandate to entertain requests for extended continental shelves worldwide and to
make recommendations to coastal states on matters related to the establishment of
those limits.
47 The CLCS is, thus, tasked with confronting submissions by national
governments with the formulae and criteria laid down in Art. 76, and issuing
recommendations accepting (partially or entirely), or denying the outer limits
claimed.
48 The institution is a sort of “referee” of Art. 76 application, a role imbued
with an “important stimulus for the peaceful settlement of disputes related to law of
the sea is also provided by the CLCS”.
49 Yet, that role has not always been easy to
fulfill, as the Commission faces large challenges concerning, inter alia, funding,
workload, criticisms on its abidance to the law, lack of transparency, among others
which are inspected below.
46 Several legal and technical publications have addressed those technical provisions, such as
Magnússon (2017), Suarez (2008) and ILA (2002).
47 During the Third Conference, early proposals for a body on the limits of the continental shelf
called for a Continental Shelf Boundary Commission, as in the Canadian Proposal during the 4th
Session of the Conference, in 1976. In line with the position adopted by Canadian negotiators, the
establishment of such a body, to be bound by special procedures, could prove very useful. In fact, it
would be a necessary first step, so as to prevent a multitude of conflicts that could (and did in fact)
emerge from the application of the complex and intricated formulae of Art. 76. In short, because, “it
was difficult to envisage dispute settlement with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the
resources of the sea-bed and subsoil of the continental shelf. The same was true for fisheries
management, except in the case of a coastal State failing to meet its obligations in respect of
conservation or the full utilization of resources”. See A/CONF.62/SR.65 65th Plenary meeting
Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Volume V, para. 10. The first references to a “Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”
were made by Ireland and the Soviet Union, members of the Negotiating Group 6 (NG6), at the
seventh session of the Conference, in 1978. See A/CONF.62/WP.10/Rev.1, 1979. More information on the historical negotiations preceding the establishment of the Commission can be found in
Nordquist et al. (2002), pp. 1003–1014.
48 Note that the CLCS is not an international organization, but rather a treaty-based body created by
UNCLOS, albeit with secretarial aide of the UN. As such, it is not an independent organization and
does not possess legal personality. That the CLCS is not an international organization was also a
conclusion reached by the International Law Association (ILA) in its 2002 Report on the Outer
Continental Shelf, 5.
49 Kwiatkowska (2013), p. 221.
56
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS