The Continental Shelf Regime under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Reflections after Thirty Years

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

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.


Author(s):  
Shani Friedman

Abstract This article seeks to contribute to the emerging literature concerning the application of belligerent occupation in maritime zones of the occupied State. It supports the approach that the law of occupation and the law of the sea apply simultaneously in case of occupation of coastal States, offering a new perspective on the jurisdiction of the occupying power to exploit marine resources in the occupied State’s continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. This perspective highlights some issues that have been ignored in the literature thus far to better understand the rights and obligations of the relevant Parties with respect to maritime zones of the occupied State.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-70
Author(s):  
Paula M. Vernet

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.


Author(s):  
Gerald R. Ottenheimer

The uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the imminent Law of the Sea Conference is inevitable in the light of the lack of consensus on many of the most pressing problems of ocean law. Nowhere is this lack of agreement more evident than in the law regulating the world’s fishery resources.During the past few years the attention of international lawyers and experts in related disciplines has been focused on the crucial considerations of continental shelf and ocean bed resources. Yet the legal problems related to international fisheries persist and increase.


Author(s):  
David Anderson

AbstractIn a unanimous decision, the ICJ determined, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the single maritime boundary between the respective EEZs and continental shelves of Romania and Ukraine. The Court clarified its methodology for delimiting the EEZ/continental shelf, following a three-stage process. First, it drew a provisional equidistance line between what it decided were the most appropriate basepoints on the two coasts; secondly, it considered whether this line required adjustment; and finally, it verified that the line did not lead to an inequitable result. The Judgment contains important interpretations of several articles in the Convention, notably Articles 74 and 83.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document