evaluate complex scientific and technical information, a challenge as it may be, does
not in any degree curb international courts and tribunals’ jurisdiction to adjudicate in
continental shelf delimitation cases.
In the context of continental shelf delimitation, international courts and tribunals
have, thus, basically three roles. First, to settle disputes on delineation and delimitation issues pursuant to the applicable law; second, to guarantee the “holistic
interpretation” of international law, preventing it from the threat of fragmentation;
third, to contribute to substantive law-making.
141 Concerning the record of ITLOS in
particular, it is undeniable the complementary role of the Tribunal in developing
international law.
142 Overall, despite some rightful criticisms to its work, the Tribunal has made justice to that complementary role, thereby developing international
law in the (limited) cases brought before it until now.
3.5 Benefits of Delineating the Outer Limits
of the Continental Shelf
In light of the coastal state’s inherent right over the continental shelf, the procedure
to delineate the portion of the shelf beyond 200 nm assumes a declaratory nature.
The delineation of outer limits does not constitute new boundary lines. Here, the
fundamental principle is that the lines which result from the delineation are taken as
pre-existing, the rights of the coastal state therein not depending on CLCS
recommendations.
143
For that reason, there is no real “expansion” of the continental shelf at the end of
the delineation procedure, since the shelf had been there all along. “To expand”
would imply an increase in size, whereas “to extend” would mean an increase in
distance/length.
144 What is there is the international validation of the precise area of
the seafloor where the coastal state may exercise sovereign rights. At the end of the
day, this is a less relevant semantic question. Perhaps, some scholars would favor the
“extension” over the “expansion” of the continental shelf, given the sovereignty
connotations that an “expansion” may carry, such as the expansion of an empire, a
territory.
Back to the benefits, given the declaratory nature of the delineation procedure, the
CLCS recommendations lack the legal ability to impede coastal states from exercising sovereign rights over their claimed outer continental shelf. Coastal states have a
right to explore their resources before the limits become final and binding, provided
that Art. 76 requirements have been respected, the best way to assess such
141 See Magnússon (2017), p. 277.
142 Lowe (2013), p. 35.
143 Kunoy (2013), p. 5.
144 The authoritative Virginia Commentaries on UNCLOS refer to “extension”, as in Nordquist et al.
(2002), p. 879.
3.5 Benefits of Delineating the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf
77
not in any degree curb international courts and tribunals’ jurisdiction to adjudicate in
continental shelf delimitation cases.
In the context of continental shelf delimitation, international courts and tribunals
have, thus, basically three roles. First, to settle disputes on delineation and delimitation issues pursuant to the applicable law; second, to guarantee the “holistic
interpretation” of international law, preventing it from the threat of fragmentation;
third, to contribute to substantive law-making.
141 Concerning the record of ITLOS in
particular, it is undeniable the complementary role of the Tribunal in developing
international law.
142 Overall, despite some rightful criticisms to its work, the Tribunal has made justice to that complementary role, thereby developing international
law in the (limited) cases brought before it until now.
3.5 Benefits of Delineating the Outer Limits
of the Continental Shelf
In light of the coastal state’s inherent right over the continental shelf, the procedure
to delineate the portion of the shelf beyond 200 nm assumes a declaratory nature.
The delineation of outer limits does not constitute new boundary lines. Here, the
fundamental principle is that the lines which result from the delineation are taken as
pre-existing, the rights of the coastal state therein not depending on CLCS
recommendations.
143
For that reason, there is no real “expansion” of the continental shelf at the end of
the delineation procedure, since the shelf had been there all along. “To expand”
would imply an increase in size, whereas “to extend” would mean an increase in
distance/length.
144 What is there is the international validation of the precise area of
the seafloor where the coastal state may exercise sovereign rights. At the end of the
day, this is a less relevant semantic question. Perhaps, some scholars would favor the
“extension” over the “expansion” of the continental shelf, given the sovereignty
connotations that an “expansion” may carry, such as the expansion of an empire, a
territory.
Back to the benefits, given the declaratory nature of the delineation procedure, the
CLCS recommendations lack the legal ability to impede coastal states from exercising sovereign rights over their claimed outer continental shelf. Coastal states have a
right to explore their resources before the limits become final and binding, provided
that Art. 76 requirements have been respected, the best way to assess such
141 See Magnússon (2017), p. 277.
142 Lowe (2013), p. 35.
143 Kunoy (2013), p. 5.
144 The authoritative Virginia Commentaries on UNCLOS refer to “extension”, as in Nordquist et al.
(2002), p. 879.
3.5 Benefits of Delineating the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf
77