scholarly journals Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and "Disputed Areas": State Practice concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance Johnson ◽  
Alex Oude Elferink
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractArticle 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) requires a coastal State to submit information on the limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). The Commission shall make recommendations to the coastal State on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf. In a case where the coastal State establishes the outer limits on the basis of these recommendations, they are final and binding. However, Article 76(10) provides that the "The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts". The relationship between Article 76 and the delimitation of the continental shelf between neighboring States and other "unresolved land or maritime disputes" has been addressed by the CLCS in its Rules of Procedure. The present article analyzes the significance of Article 76(10) for submissions to the CLCS, looking at the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and the submissions that have been made to the Commission to date.

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.

Is There a Hierarchical Relationship between Natural Prolongation and Distance in the Continental Shelf Delimitation?

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuexia Liao
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Positive Answer ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Hierarchical Relationship ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constraint Approach ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract If a coastal State claims a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) that intrudes into the 200-nm limit of another State, the problem arises as to whether there is a hierarchical relationship between natural prolongation and distance, the two criteria of entitlement to the continental shelf provided by Article 76 of the un Convention on the Law of the Sea. A positive answer would mean that the continental shelf beyond 200 nm cannot encroach upon the 200-nm limit, otherwise there would be an area of overlapping entitlements which calls for maritime delimitation. This article attempts to analyse this problem from the perspectives of Article 76, relevant judicial cases, State practice, and the relationship between the regimes of the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone. It is submitted that the law is not conclusive, though a majority of coastal States tend to adopt a self-constraint approach. In addition, this problem brings further challenges to the law of maritime delimitation.

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

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.

Contemporary Exclusive Fishery Zones or Why Some States Still Claim an EFZ

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-295
Author(s):  
Shalva Kvinikhidze
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Fishing Rights ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Functional Zone ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
State Practice ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article deals with the concept of the Exclusive Fishery Zone (EFZ) which has long existed in the state practice in the law of the sea. It describes the genesis and development of the concept, attempts by coastal states to gain extensive and exclusive control over fishery resources beyond the territorial sea, and the influence of international conferences and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on EFZs. The main aim of this article is to examine current claims to EFZs, describe the legal nature of contemporary EFZs and analyse the motivation of coastal states for still claiming an EFZ and not an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which is a multi-functional zone that includes not only exclusive fishing rights of the coastal state but also other rights, jurisdiction and economic activities.

Not Quite a Sure Thing: The Maritime Areas of Rocks and Low-Tide Elevations Under the UN Law of the Sea Convention

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Lavalle
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Human Habitation ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis article deals with the entitlements to maritime areas of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls "rocks" and the features known as "low-tide elevations". The former are islands that "cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own". Low-tide elevations are features that would be islands were they not submerged at low tide. Islands other than rocks generate the five maritime areas for which the Convention provides, i.e. internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. The two features dealt with, which generate no maritime areas other than the first three, do so either on their own or as supports for straight baselines. The article studies these entitlements, together with the problems they raise, in either mode and in the contexts of both the normal coastal state and the archipelagic state.

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.

Innocent Passage and the 1982 Convention: The Influence of Soviet Law and Policy

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. E. Butler
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Sea Power ◽  
United Nations Convention

On April 28, 1983, the Soviet Union became the first maritime country of consequence and the largest sea power signatory to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to enact legislation implementing the provisions of that instrument regulating the innocent passage of foreign warships. The stature of the Soviet Union within the framework of the Convention and the policy changes embodied in the 1983 legislation confer a special importance on these new Rules, whose text and interpretation will become a standard emulated by other countries. The present article examines the text of the Rules against the background of previous Soviet legislation, the 1982 Convention and its negotiating history, and the application of the Rules.

Submissions to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: The Practice of Developing States in Cases of Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes. Part Two

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 615-679
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Trinidad And Tobago ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
Present Part

Abstract This is the second part of a two-part article surveying state practice regarding Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes under the Rules of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). It reviews basic principles and the interpretation of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the CLCS Rules. As the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award and the 2012 ITLOS Bangladesh v. Myanmar Judgment reaffirmed, the CLCS Recommendations must in no way prejudice existing and prospective boundary delimitations, nor must they prejudice other land or maritime disputes. All practical means of giving effect to such “without prejudice” principles are carefully analysed. Part One covers Latin America and the Wider Caribbean, Northeast and Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. The present Part Two covers South Asia and the Middle East, East Africa-Indian Ocean, South Africa, West Africa and North Africa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document