A case in point was the Russian submission, which raised three notes from states,
one of which non-party to the Convention: Canada and Denmark and the United
States. For the ILA, “there was no objection to the fact that third States indicated
their views on the submission”.
72 Whether their views will be heard and shape the
work of the CLCS is another question. Another practical case concerned the
Brazilian submission, parts of which were objected by the United States in a note
verbale to the Commission. Nonetheless, the CLCS still analyzed the claim,
instructing the sub-commission charged with the analyzing the Brazilian submission
to disregard the objection, since it was not a dispute between countries with adjacent
or opposite coasts, nor one of unresolved land or maritime dispute.
Finally, the CLCS is not allowed to act upon submissions involving delimitation
matters (or disputes) of the continental shelf between states with adjacent or opposite
coasts.
73 That limitation is reinforced by Art. 9, Annex II UNCLOS, which punctuates that the actions of the CLCS do not in any way affect matters relating to the
delimitation of boundaries between states. Those provisions are further strengthened
by Art. 134 (4), which provides that nothing in Part XI “affects the establishment of
the outer limits of the continental shelf in accordance with Part VI”. Challenges to
the work of the Commission are multiple and shall be discussed in the
following item.
3.3.2 The Commission’s Arduous Way Ahead
3.3.2.1 Interpreting the Convention
As approached above, the Commission is competent to interpret the Convention to
the extent needed for it to fulfill its tasks, that is, the Commission has competence to
interpret UNCLOS.
74 However, such competence goes not without criticism from
coastal states, some of which see the Commission in its main role, that of a technical
nature, responsible exclusively for implementing the Convention. There is and there
will always be a fundamental tension between states and international organizations,
and the relationship between the CLCS and submitting states is no different.
72 Id. 27.
73 In fact, the Commission is far from the status of an international court; it does not act on behalf of
state parties to UNCLOS, neither is it an organ of the Meeting of the State Parties. Analyses of the
CLCS often include terms such as “unique” and “autonomous”, what allows for a qualification of
the Commission as a sui generis body. For a similar conclusion, see McDorman (2013), p. 93. For
some scholars, the Commission is a technical body in a political world. For other, it is a body that
combines technical and legal tasks, including the possibility to interpret UNCLOS, as far as feasible
without distorting neither the mens legis nor the mens legislatoris of the Convention.
74 This view is espoused by the ILA (2004), pp. 5–6.
3.3 Delineating: The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
61
one of which non-party to the Convention: Canada and Denmark and the United
States. For the ILA, “there was no objection to the fact that third States indicated
their views on the submission”.
72 Whether their views will be heard and shape the
work of the CLCS is another question. Another practical case concerned the
Brazilian submission, parts of which were objected by the United States in a note
verbale to the Commission. Nonetheless, the CLCS still analyzed the claim,
instructing the sub-commission charged with the analyzing the Brazilian submission
to disregard the objection, since it was not a dispute between countries with adjacent
or opposite coasts, nor one of unresolved land or maritime dispute.
Finally, the CLCS is not allowed to act upon submissions involving delimitation
matters (or disputes) of the continental shelf between states with adjacent or opposite
coasts.
73 That limitation is reinforced by Art. 9, Annex II UNCLOS, which punctuates that the actions of the CLCS do not in any way affect matters relating to the
delimitation of boundaries between states. Those provisions are further strengthened
by Art. 134 (4), which provides that nothing in Part XI “affects the establishment of
the outer limits of the continental shelf in accordance with Part VI”. Challenges to
the work of the Commission are multiple and shall be discussed in the
following item.
3.3.2 The Commission’s Arduous Way Ahead
3.3.2.1 Interpreting the Convention
As approached above, the Commission is competent to interpret the Convention to
the extent needed for it to fulfill its tasks, that is, the Commission has competence to
interpret UNCLOS.
74 However, such competence goes not without criticism from
coastal states, some of which see the Commission in its main role, that of a technical
nature, responsible exclusively for implementing the Convention. There is and there
will always be a fundamental tension between states and international organizations,
and the relationship between the CLCS and submitting states is no different.
72 Id. 27.
73 In fact, the Commission is far from the status of an international court; it does not act on behalf of
state parties to UNCLOS, neither is it an organ of the Meeting of the State Parties. Analyses of the
CLCS often include terms such as “unique” and “autonomous”, what allows for a qualification of
the Commission as a sui generis body. For a similar conclusion, see McDorman (2013), p. 93. For
some scholars, the Commission is a technical body in a political world. For other, it is a body that
combines technical and legal tasks, including the possibility to interpret UNCLOS, as far as feasible
without distorting neither the mens legis nor the mens legislatoris of the Convention.
74 This view is espoused by the ILA (2004), pp. 5–6.
3.3 Delineating: The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
61