Ridge Issues

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Taft ◽  
Hideo Kagami
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Continental Margin ◽  
Outer Edge ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Oceanic Ridge ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea sought to establish a definition of the continental shelf that would accommodate the interests of a number, albeit a minority, of coastal States. This included consideration of various submarine elevations, including ridges, and their relationship to the regime of the continental shelf. For a variety of reasons, submarine and oceanic ridges have proved to be contentious. Indeed, this chapter proved to be the most difficult of all the chapters in this book to obtain a text to which all the authors, scientists, and lawyers could agree. Therefore, rather than produce an anodyne chapter which might have summarized only those areas of agreement, we considered it best to also cover areas where agreement was lacking. This provides the reader with both sides of the argument and the opportunity to reach their own view on the basis of the evidence presented. Some of the contentious areas are . . . i. Whether or not article 76 should be interpreted in such a manner as to preclude a country situated on a ridge from having a continental shelf beyond 200 M. ii. Whether bathymetry (reflecting geomorphology) should be given more or less weight than, or the same weight as geology in any consideration of a continental shelf beyond 200 M, including extension along an oceanic ridge, iii. Whether the fact that article 76 refers to the continental shelf being a natural prolongation of the land territory "to the outer edge of the continental margin" means that it can (or cannot) be applied to an island sitting on top of an oceanic ridge, iv. Whether or not article 76 can be interpreted in such a way as to allow a coastal State to "jump" its claim from the margin onto an adjacent ridge. v. Whether or not article 76 limits the use of ridges so that coastal States do not unreasonably extend their continental shelf regime. . . . Ultimately, for the answers to these questions, the reader will need to look to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Commission), together with the outcome of diplomacy.

Article 76 of the LOSC on the Definition of the Continental Shelf: Questions concerning its Interpretation from a Legal Perspective

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Oude Elferink
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Third ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of

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.

In the Name of Equality: The ‘Bengal Rule’

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Sandrine W. De Herdt
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Outer Edge ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Specific Method ◽  
Sri Lankan ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

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.

scholarly journals Delineation process of the extended continental shelf: an interpretation of article 76, paragraph 6, of UNCLOS

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 873-899
Author(s):  
Francisco Lertora Pinto ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Continental Margin ◽  
The State ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Distance Constraint ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Outer Limit ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea established spe-cific rules for the delineation of the outer limit of the continental shelf in Article 76. This Article contains two formulae and two constraints. Regarding these constraints, the coastal State can apply, whichever is more favorable to its claim, unless the exception established under Article 76 (6), first sentence, applies. This exception establishes that, on submarine ridges, the State can only apply the 350 nautical miles distance constraint. However, Article 76 (6), second sentence, introduces a counter-exception and preserves the State’s right to ap-ply either constraint when the seafloor high is a submarine elevation that is a natural compo-nent of the continental margin

The Operation of the CLCS Facing Disputes: An Examination of the Rules and Practices

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Michael Sheng-ti Gau ◽  
Gang Tang
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

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.

Establishment of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Is Crossing Boundaries Trespassing?

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjørn Kunoy
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Continental Margin ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article examines whether State A may cross a continental shelf boundary in order to utilize a feature of the physical continental margin that is situated within the dominion of State B for the purpose of establishing the outer limits of its continental shelf. Given that a continental shelf boundary delimits, mutatis mutandis, the spatial powers of States, as a land boundary, in conjunction with the international framework as set out in the Law of the Sea Convention, it is concluded that it is not consistent with the Law of the Sea Convention for coastal State A to base its entitlement to the outer continental shelf on a generative feature that is located on a feature of the physical continental margin that is situated within the dominion of coastal State B.

The Nigerian Territorial Waters Legislation and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Egede
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
West Coast ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Gulf Of Guinea ◽  
The West ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law

AbstractNigeria is a coastal state located strategically on the West Coast of Africa in the Gulf of Guinea. After gaining independence in 1960 it enacted legislation in 1967 on its territorial waters, which has been amended twice, in 1971 and 1998. After participating in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) it became a party to the 1982 Convention on 14 August 1986. This article examines the laws governing the Nigerian territorial waters vis-à-vis the LOSC provisions on the territorial sea with a view to pinpointing how far these laws are in compliance with the relevant provisions of the LOSC.

Sedentary Fisheries and the Convention on the Continental Shelf

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Young
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
The Law ◽  
Living Organisms

The Convention on the Continental Shelf of April 29, 1958—one of the works of the first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea— declares in Article 2(1) that the “coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.” The fourth paragraph of the same article defines these resources as the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.

The Genesis of the ‘Due Regard’ Obligations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Shotaro Hamamoto
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Submarine Cables

Abstract The obligation of the coastal state to have due regard to the rights and duties of other states (Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) Art 56(2)) did not suddenly appear with the LOSC. It was gradually formed corresponding to the increasing recognition of the rights of the coastal state in adjacent maritime zones. The practice prior to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the travaux préparatoires of the LOSC indicate that this obligation requires something more than the negative obligation not to interfere with the exercise by the coastal State of its rights and competences, and that the ‘rights and duties’ to which due regard is to be paid are not limited to those explicitly listed in the LOSC, such as the freedoms of navigation, overflight and of laying of submarine cables and pipelines.

scholarly journals Continental Shelf From The Perspective Of The Law Of The Sea: An Introduction

Warta Geologi ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28
Author(s):  
Mazlan Madon ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Short Note ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Outer Limit ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

The entitlement of a coastal State over the seabed and subsoil in front of its landmass is provided for in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), in particular Article 76 for the continental shelf. This short note in Malay gives a brief introduction to the concept of the “continental shelf” in the context of Article 76. This concept is important as a means by which coastal States may establish the outer limit of their continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles (M) measured from the territorial sea baselines. Once the outer limits have been established, coastal States are then able to exercise with certainty their sovereign rights over the extended continental shelf for the purposes of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil, as provided for by UNCLOS. The establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 M is based on the principle of natural prolongation of land territory in Article 76. Geology also plays an important role in the process of determining the extent of the prolongation in accordance with the provisions of Article 76. For authors and students of this topic in Malay, it is proposed that the synonymous Malay terms for continental shelf – “pelantar benua” and “pentas benua” – be given specific meanings for use in their legal and geological contexts, respectively.

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and its Disturbing Propensity to Legislate

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document