the expense of the coastal state’s right to uphold relevant data which may be
intimately connected to national sovereignty and security considerations. The issue
is so politically complex and delicate that the Commission’s Committee on Confidentiality has been faced with submitting states’ denial of access to classified
documents to some Commission members, let alone making those documents public
to the whole planet. Additionally, it could also be the case to institute a clear and
straightforward procedure before the CLCS whereby affected states could seek
clarification of the reasons for a state’s proposed outer limits, under the risk of a
considerable increase in the workload of the Commission, thereby retarding even
longer the recommendations awaited by over 50 submitting states.
These are but some of the challenges ahead of a body that is inherently limited in
its mandate and strained to its limit with a massive workload, legally complex and
politically sensitive issues under its evaluation, added to a pro bono work scheme of
its members. Other issues raised by CLCS members include: lack of secure means of
online communication among members during and between sessions, so as to
facilitate the work of the Commission; delay of state parties to nominate members
to the Commission in light of a vacancy, thereby cumulating the workload of
remaining members and increasing the chance of lack of quorum for important
decisions; “significant risk for health-related incidents during their CLCS members’
stay in New York, compounded by the fact that the members are placed in a situation
of important responsibility and associated stress”; elevated out-of-pocket costs for
medical expenses while performing Commission duties, due to lack of proper
insurance of Commission’s members and limited funds in the Trust Fund for
members from developing countries; loss of income, benefits or career opportunities
experienced by half of the Commission’s members.
97
That much could be said on the work of the CLCS in the procedure of delineating
outer limits of continental shelves. Nonetheless, the Commission is not mandated to
perform in cases where a maritime border dispute takes place. It is, thus, the case to
assess the relevance of international courts and tribunals in delimiting outer continental shelves under dispute.
that data collection projects would include information other than bathymetric and seismic ones
that’s are strictly necessary to fulfill Art. 76 criteria and, in parallel, identify potential natural
resources in the seabed and subsoil of the floor under their national jurisdiction. Secondly, even
information about ecosystems is collected, such as samples of genetic resources, studies of fauna
and flora density farther away offshore, frailty of marine living species in the continental shelf
within and beyond 200 nm, such info is top-secret, as it contains direct and sensitive state interests.
97 Letter dated 2 April 2018 from the Chair of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
addressed to the President of the twenty-eighth Meeting of States Parties, SPLOS/319,
2 April 2018.
3.3 Delineating: The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
67
intimately connected to national sovereignty and security considerations. The issue
is so politically complex and delicate that the Commission’s Committee on Confidentiality has been faced with submitting states’ denial of access to classified
documents to some Commission members, let alone making those documents public
to the whole planet. Additionally, it could also be the case to institute a clear and
straightforward procedure before the CLCS whereby affected states could seek
clarification of the reasons for a state’s proposed outer limits, under the risk of a
considerable increase in the workload of the Commission, thereby retarding even
longer the recommendations awaited by over 50 submitting states.
These are but some of the challenges ahead of a body that is inherently limited in
its mandate and strained to its limit with a massive workload, legally complex and
politically sensitive issues under its evaluation, added to a pro bono work scheme of
its members. Other issues raised by CLCS members include: lack of secure means of
online communication among members during and between sessions, so as to
facilitate the work of the Commission; delay of state parties to nominate members
to the Commission in light of a vacancy, thereby cumulating the workload of
remaining members and increasing the chance of lack of quorum for important
decisions; “significant risk for health-related incidents during their CLCS members’
stay in New York, compounded by the fact that the members are placed in a situation
of important responsibility and associated stress”; elevated out-of-pocket costs for
medical expenses while performing Commission duties, due to lack of proper
insurance of Commission’s members and limited funds in the Trust Fund for
members from developing countries; loss of income, benefits or career opportunities
experienced by half of the Commission’s members.
97
That much could be said on the work of the CLCS in the procedure of delineating
outer limits of continental shelves. Nonetheless, the Commission is not mandated to
perform in cases where a maritime border dispute takes place. It is, thus, the case to
assess the relevance of international courts and tribunals in delimiting outer continental shelves under dispute.
that data collection projects would include information other than bathymetric and seismic ones
that’s are strictly necessary to fulfill Art. 76 criteria and, in parallel, identify potential natural
resources in the seabed and subsoil of the floor under their national jurisdiction. Secondly, even
information about ecosystems is collected, such as samples of genetic resources, studies of fauna
and flora density farther away offshore, frailty of marine living species in the continental shelf
within and beyond 200 nm, such info is top-secret, as it contains direct and sensitive state interests.
97 Letter dated 2 April 2018 from the Chair of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
addressed to the President of the twenty-eighth Meeting of States Parties, SPLOS/319,
2 April 2018.
3.3 Delineating: The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
67