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.

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.

scholarly journals Adjacency and due regard: The role of coastal States in the BBNJ treaty

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mossop ◽  
Clive Schofield
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

In the negotiations for the new treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), a fundamental question will be the relationship between the regime for areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and areas under coastal State jurisdiction. Adjacency has been raised as a concept that might assist in bridging these areas. It has been suggested that adjacency is a legal principle that could give coastal States additional rights or responsibility in relation to biodiversity in ABNJ proximate to their own national maritime jurisdictions. However, there has never been an accepted principle in the law of the sea that coastal States have priority over other States in ABNJ. We propose that due regard is a more appropriate lens to address this issue and one that would be consistent with existing principles under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). References to adjacent coastal States can be found in the draft text considered by the Intergovernmental Conference. The article analyses challenges arise in defining adjacent States as well as applying due regard to elements of the package. It considers the use of adjacency in the draft texts issued for the third and fourth sessions of the Intergovernmental Conference, as well as proposals made by delegates.

scholarly journals Adjacency and due regard: The role of coastal States in the BBNJ treaty

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mossop ◽  
Clive Schofield
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

In the negotiations for the new treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), a fundamental question will be the relationship between the regime for areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and areas under coastal State jurisdiction. Adjacency has been raised as a concept that might assist in bridging these areas. It has been suggested that adjacency is a legal principle that could give coastal States additional rights or responsibility in relation to biodiversity in ABNJ proximate to their own national maritime jurisdictions. However, there has never been an accepted principle in the law of the sea that coastal States have priority over other States in ABNJ. We propose that due regard is a more appropriate lens to address this issue and one that would be consistent with existing principles under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). References to adjacent coastal States can be found in the draft text considered by the Intergovernmental Conference. The article analyses challenges arise in defining adjacent States as well as applying due regard to elements of the package. It considers the use of adjacency in the draft texts issued for the third and fourth sessions of the Intergovernmental Conference, as well as proposals made by delegates.

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.

The Work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Current Accomplishments and Challenges on the Verge of Its 20th Anniversary

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-70
Author(s):  
Paula M. Vernet
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
20Th Anniversary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Conditions Of Work

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.

United States Interests in the Law of the Sea Convention

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Multilateral Negotiations ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

In 1982 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that succeeded in resolving the most fundamental questions of the law of the sea in accordance with three basic principles: 1.The rules of the law of the sea must fairly balance the respective interests of all states, notably the competing coastal and maritime interests, in a manner that is generally acceptable.2.Multilateral negotiations on the basis of consensus replace unilateral claims of right as the principal means for determining that balance.3.Compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms should be adopted to interpret, apply, and enforce the balance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document