and delimitation of outer continental shelves, therefore, instituting a sort of iron-clad
clause in the treaty.
153
More than 30 years into the adoption of the Convention, provisions regarding the
delineation and delimitation of the outer limits of the continental shelf have enjoyed
tremendous adherence. Given the widespread abeyance to the rules set forward in
Art. 76 UNCLOS, some authors claim that the procedure to delineate the outer
continental shelf has acquired a customary nature, both requisites for custom would
be present, namely reiterated practice and opinion juris.
154 This opinion has not been
consensual, as some authors question the opinion juris element of the practice, based
on the view that states have differing interpretation of Art. 76 concepts and requirements, concerning the definition procedure.
155
There is wide acceptance in international law to the view that the delimitation of
the continental shelf is a unilateral act of the coastal state, but its validity in relation to
other states depends on its consistency with public international law.
156 That calls for
the work of the CLCS in entertaining submissions for outer continental shelf limits
and ITLOS, for settling disputes. Both institutions created by the Convention to aid
and monitor the delineation and delimitation of outer continental shelf lines have
performed satisfactorily thus far. However, the job is far from over, and the road
ahead seems a rather bumpy one.
On the Commission’s trench, the main challenge concerns the massive workload
in front, with most optimistic estimates shooting at 40 more years until the last outer
continental shelf has been delineated. Reasons for that are the gigantesque amount of
data under analysis in every submission, added to the limited number of members of
the Commission, and the far-from-optimal working conditions. Besides, complexities of a technical nature and high costs of gathering high quality data are factors that
will postpone the recommendations of the CLCS and the adoption of the recommendation by coastal states.
On the ITLOS trench, the Tribunal has faced questions regarding its jurisdiction
to delimit and delineate outer continental shelves, apart from speculations as to the
relation between the Tribunal and the CLCS. In its jurisdiction, ITLOS has asserted
jurisdiction to delimit the continental shelf in its entirety, within and beyond 200 nm,
particularly due to the concept of a single continental shelf embodies by Art.
76 UNCLOS. The Tribunal has also carved a distinction between delimitation of
opposing continental shelves beyond 200 nm the delineation of its outer limits.
Besides, the judges have also crafted the notion of “grey area”, in which a State
exerts sovereign rights over the seabed and the other over the superjacent EEZ. On
the relationship between the Tribunal and the Commission, it should be noted that
153 Art. 309 UNCLOS stipulates that “no reservation or exceptions may be made to this Convention
unless expressly permitted by other articles of this Convention”.
154 Rangel (2006), p. 350.
155 Tassin (2013), p. 20.
156 Rangel (2006), p. 347.
80
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS
clause in the treaty.
153
More than 30 years into the adoption of the Convention, provisions regarding the
delineation and delimitation of the outer limits of the continental shelf have enjoyed
tremendous adherence. Given the widespread abeyance to the rules set forward in
Art. 76 UNCLOS, some authors claim that the procedure to delineate the outer
continental shelf has acquired a customary nature, both requisites for custom would
be present, namely reiterated practice and opinion juris.
154 This opinion has not been
consensual, as some authors question the opinion juris element of the practice, based
on the view that states have differing interpretation of Art. 76 concepts and requirements, concerning the definition procedure.
155
There is wide acceptance in international law to the view that the delimitation of
the continental shelf is a unilateral act of the coastal state, but its validity in relation to
other states depends on its consistency with public international law.
156 That calls for
the work of the CLCS in entertaining submissions for outer continental shelf limits
and ITLOS, for settling disputes. Both institutions created by the Convention to aid
and monitor the delineation and delimitation of outer continental shelf lines have
performed satisfactorily thus far. However, the job is far from over, and the road
ahead seems a rather bumpy one.
On the Commission’s trench, the main challenge concerns the massive workload
in front, with most optimistic estimates shooting at 40 more years until the last outer
continental shelf has been delineated. Reasons for that are the gigantesque amount of
data under analysis in every submission, added to the limited number of members of
the Commission, and the far-from-optimal working conditions. Besides, complexities of a technical nature and high costs of gathering high quality data are factors that
will postpone the recommendations of the CLCS and the adoption of the recommendation by coastal states.
On the ITLOS trench, the Tribunal has faced questions regarding its jurisdiction
to delimit and delineate outer continental shelves, apart from speculations as to the
relation between the Tribunal and the CLCS. In its jurisdiction, ITLOS has asserted
jurisdiction to delimit the continental shelf in its entirety, within and beyond 200 nm,
particularly due to the concept of a single continental shelf embodies by Art.
76 UNCLOS. The Tribunal has also carved a distinction between delimitation of
opposing continental shelves beyond 200 nm the delineation of its outer limits.
Besides, the judges have also crafted the notion of “grey area”, in which a State
exerts sovereign rights over the seabed and the other over the superjacent EEZ. On
the relationship between the Tribunal and the Commission, it should be noted that
153 Art. 309 UNCLOS stipulates that “no reservation or exceptions may be made to this Convention
unless expressly permitted by other articles of this Convention”.
154 Rangel (2006), p. 350.
155 Tassin (2013), p. 20.
156 Rangel (2006), p. 347.
80
3 The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Innovations in Art. 76 UNCLOS