AbstractCreated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply the rules in Article 76 on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from States’ territorial sea baselines, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has on several occasions introduced new requirements for States not supported by Article 76, or impermissibly qualifying the rights Article 76 accords them. This article focuses on several such instances, one to the coastal State’s advantage (though temporally rather than spatially), another neutral (though requiring unnecessary work of States), but the remainder all tending to reduce the area of continental shelves. The net effect has been to deprive States of areas of legal continental shelf to which a reasonable interpretation of Article 76 entitles them, and in one case even of their right to have their submissions examined on their merits, even though, paradoxically, the well-meaning intention behind at least some of the Commission’s pronouncements was to avoid other controversies.
2017 marks the 20th anniversary of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), in coincidence with its 43rd session. This session has been the last before the expiration of the term of office of its current members. Elections were held in June. During this five year period, the CLCS faced great challenges: the workload of the Commission increased dramatically, stays in New York became longer, conditions of work became an issue; the complexity of the Submissions required new interpretations and more time for their consideration; new revised Submissions were made and brought new alterations in the order of Submissions on the list waiting to be analysed. This article provides some views on the work carried out by the CLCS following the election of members of the Commission at the twenty-second Meeting of States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, held in June 2012, up to December 2016, in an attempt to assess the accomplishments and challenges of the last five years.
AbstractThe establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles under Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) is a complex process, which requires a coastal state to dedicate significant resources. To understand the reasons for the inclusion of this complex provision in the LOSC, this article first looks at the origins of Article 76. Subsequently, a number of provisions of Article 76 are considered to illustrate the questions which exist in connection with its application and interpretation. It is concluded that Article 76 fulfills the mandate that had been given to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in respect of the definition of the limits of national jurisdiction, notwithstanding the complexity of the issue and the interests involved. Before the Third Conference started there was no certainty about the extent of the continental shelf. Article 76 provides a procedure to arrive at precisely defined outer limits. Once Article 76 will have been implemented by all the present states parties to the Convention, most of the outer limits of the continental shelf vis-à-vis the Area will be defined in precise terms.
Abstract
This article analyses the challenges that Brazil faces in implementing Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), which imposes a levy with respect to the exploitation of non-living resources on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. First, it presents the developments made by Brazil with reference to Articles 76 and 82 of the LOSC, which are closely associated. Then, legal opinions and the conclusions of the Working Group (created to discuss the implementation of Article 82 in Brazil) are examined. Lastly, the tender protocol and the draft concession agreement for the ongoing bidding round – which includes blocks on the outer continental shelf – are considered. The article argues that the conclusions of the Working Group and core provisions of the relevant documents may compromise the proper implementation of Article 82 and impact the future relationship between Brazil and the International Seabed Authority.
AbstractThis article looks at the question of how the obligation of states parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to submit information on the outer limit of their continental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the regime established by the Antarctic Treaty can be reconciled. Under the latter Treaty states have 'agreed to disagree' about the legal status of Antarctica. The establishment of an outer limit of the continental shelf on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf would pose a threat to this agreement to disagree as it would recognise the existence of coastal states and maritime zones. The article sets out the options of the states involved to deal with this issue. It is concluded that there are a number of approaches which safeguard the rights of coastal states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the agreement to disagree of the Antarctic Treaty.
Abstract
Following a call for equal treatment from the Sri Lankan delegation, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea recognized that the provision on sedimentary thickness in Article 76(4) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would result in inequity for States in the southern part of the Bay of Bengal, as more than half of the margin would be cut off. Accordingly, the Conference adopted a ‘Statement of Understanding Concerning a Specific Method to Be Used in Establishing the Outer Edge of the Continental Margin’ that specifically applies to States in this area. This geographical limitation poses a question of equality: Are other States with a continental shelf with similar characteristics excluded? This article addresses this issue with reference to four States that have referred to the Statement in their submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
Abstract
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) regulates the establishment of the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 miles by a coastal State. Such limits are legitimised when based on the recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) under LOSC Article 76(8). The coastal State must first submit the information for delineating the limits to the CLCS, which will evaluate the information before providing recommendations. The CLCS shall not consider the submission made by any State concerned in a land or maritime dispute unless consent from all disputing parties is given under paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the CLCS Rules of Procedure. This article interprets paragraph 5(a) and examines the subsequent practice of States sending submissions and/or notifying the CLCS of disputes, and the CLCS in handling various submissions involved in these disputes.
The Continental Shelf of Antarctica: Implications of the Requirement to Make a Submission to the CLCS under Article 76 of the LOS Convention